Gun control still keeping Chicago safe!

[Defiant]

Yup, leftards think it should be a model for the nation. Just
look at their latest success!!!

<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-at-least-8-wounded-in-separate-shootings-on-the-south-north-side-20130430,0,4341847.story>

[Carl]

If there's a point to what you're saying, it sure got by me. I'd bet by
everyone else too. What does this have to do with the position of the Left
from your perspective?

[benj]

The point is quite simple. There is fantasy (leftist dreams of disarmed
nation) and reality (USSR crashed and burned even China giving up on
leftist ideas, mass genocides linked to "gun control" in history, and the
proven ineffectiveness of all the socialist-inspired ideas to prevent
crime by passing gun laws: Gun free zone signs (hows that working out
lately), disarming all potential victims, making an "enemies" list of gun
owners and the rest)

So Chicago is one region of the country where ALL these great crime-
preventing schemes have been put into practice. Washington D.C. is
another. And that even includes midnight basketball. Now all that's left
is to notice how Chicago is a blissful island of crime-free serenity as
is DC. unlike the "wild west in places with no sensible gun laws like
Alaska and Vermont.

[RichL]

"benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:GQYht.9496$wS4....@newsfe30.iad...

> On Mon, 06 May 2013 00:08:17 -0400, Carl wrote:
>
>> Defiant wrote:
>>> Yup, leftards think it should be a model for the nation. Just look at
>>> their latest success!!!
>>>
>>> <http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-at-least-8-
> wounded-in-separate-shootings-on-the-south-north-
> side-20130430,0,4341847.story>
>>>
>> If there's a point to what you're saying, it sure got by me. I'd bet by
>> everyone else too. What does this have to do with the position of the
>> Left from your perspective?
>
> The point is quite simple. There is fantasy (leftist dreams of disarmed
> nation)

You meant right-wing fantasy of pretending that liberals in the US want to
disarm people.
<somebody's gotta provide a transition here>

> and reality (USSR crashed and burned even China giving up on
> leftist ideas

As if mainstream liberals in the US ever wanted to be like the USSR. Get a
brain, dude.

> mass genocides linked to "gun control" in history

Such as? If you're gonna go "Godwin" on us, at least acknowledge that the
only people Hitler wanted to disarm were Jews, and that gun restrictions for
"Aryans" were actually relaxed compared with the law under the Weimar
Republic. OK, next?

> and the proven ineffectiveness of all the socialist-inspired ideas to
> prevent
> crime by passing gun laws: Gun free zone signs (hows that working out
> lately), disarming all potential victims

Nobody's disarming anyone (more disingenuous deflection)

> making an "enemies" list of gun owners and the rest

Really? What "Leftist" in the US did that? Do tell!

> So Chicago is one region of the country where ALL these great crime-
> preventing schemes have been put into practice.

Errrrr, nope.
The *city* attempted to put some of these into practice but that effort was
doomed to failure because it's a simple matter to bring illegal guns into
the city from another jurisdiction (Indiana is right down the road) with lax
gun laws.

> Washington D.C. is another.

Have you checked crime stats in DC lately? Didn't think so.

> Now all that's left
> is to notice how Chicago is a blissful island of crime-free serenity as
> is DC. unlike the "wild west in places with no sensible gun laws like
> Alaska and Vermont.

Yeah, all those urban metropolises in Alaska and Vermont, teeming with
poverty, have done a great job reducing gun deaths. <groan>

[benj]

On Mon, 06 May 2013 22:28:47 -0400, RichL wrote:

> "benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>

>> The point is quite simple. There is fantasy (leftist dreams of disarmed
>> nation)
>
> You meant right-wing fantasy of pretending that liberals in the US want
> to disarm people.
> <somebody's gotta provide a transition here>

Who does gun bans, restrictions, limitations and making various firearms
illegal restrict? Law abiding citizens or criminals. We were told that
"Gun free zone" signs were needed to stop school shootings. How did that
wonderful idea of you and your pals work out? Obviously only law-abiding
gun owners obeyed the signs (stooopid as the signs were). You really need
to grow a brain Rich.

>> and reality (USSR crashed and burned even China giving up on leftist
>> ideas

> As if mainstream liberals in the US ever wanted to be like the USSR.
> Get a brain, dude.

You get a brain and learn some history. Know who Howard Metzenbaum was?
OK play dumb. Changing your names to "progressives" doesn't change your
leftist spots.

>> mass genocides linked to "gun control" in history
>
> Such as? If you're gonna go "Godwin" on us, at least acknowledge that
> the only people Hitler wanted to disarm were Jews, and that gun
> restrictions for "Aryans" were actually relaxed compared with the law
> under the Weimar Republic. OK, next?

Next? You can't sweep your evil deeds and those of your comrades under
the rug that easily! Here's a list:

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

And no, Nazis aren't even the winner. You commies win. (or should I say
former commies now)

>> and the proven ineffectiveness of all the socialist-inspired ideas to
>> prevent crime by passing gun laws: Gun free zone signs (hows that
>> working out lately), disarming all potential victims
>
> Nobody's disarming anyone (more disingenuous deflection)

I get it. If you disarm people one kind of gun at a time, it's not
"disarming"? Who are you trying to fool. Military firearms are the VERY
ones protected by the Second Amendment and these are VERY ones you
commies (er excuse me...progressives) want to ban. You want to substitute
the Nazi "sporting purpose" rule for our Second Amendment. Figures.

>> making an "enemies" list of gun owners and the rest
>
> Really? What "Leftist" in the US did that? Do tell!

Do you support "background checks"? Do you want them done in a way that
makes the purchaser anonymous or as currently done where a computer can
quickly grab all names an make a list. Oh I forgot. If our glorious
leader tells us he's "erased" the data we MUST believe him, because,
well, he's glorious and loved!

>> So Chicago is one region of the country where ALL these great crime-
>> preventing schemes have been put into practice.
>
> Errrrr, nope.
> The *city* attempted to put some of these into practice but that effort
> was doomed to failure because it's a simple matter to bring illegal guns
> into the city from another jurisdiction (Indiana is right down the road)
> with lax gun laws.

Tired old saw. Gun control can't work (There aren't even any gun shops in
Chicago so how can anyone have a gun?) until the ENTIRE WORLD BANS ALL
GUNS (except for all police, government officials, famous people, tax
collectors, homeland security, social security and anyone else telling
the low life people what to do). What is that I hear? Why it's the
strains of the Internationale playing! Comes the revolution, RichL all
these gun owners will find out what happens to anyone guilty of anti-
sovie...er... unAmerican activities!

>> Washington D.C. is another.
>
> Have you checked crime stats in DC lately? Didn't think so.

Are you the most ignorant person on the planet or just the most
disingenuous? I can't decide. Help me out.

Just checked:
Chicago = 15.9 murders per 100,000.
Washington DC. 17.5 murders per 100,000.

Any more smart remarks? Didn't think so.

>> Now all that's left is to notice how Chicago is a blissful island of
>> crime-free serenity as is DC. unlike the "wild west in places with no
>> sensible gun laws like Alaska and Vermont.
>
> Yeah, all those urban metropolises in Alaska and Vermont, teeming with
> poverty, have done a great job reducing gun deaths. <groan>

So is the problem gun ownership or poor minorities? Maybe you should be
promoting Jim Crow and an illegal alien ban instead of going against
imaginary "assault weapons"?

[Claude V. Lucas]

In article <bfOdneE6C9J9-xXM...@supernews.com>,
Dr DickL <rple...@yahoo.com> regurgitated the Dogma:

>"benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>news:GQYht.9496$wS4....@newsfe30.iad...
>> On Mon, 06 May 2013 00:08:17 -0400, Carl wrote:
>>
>>> Defiant wrote:
>>>> Yup, leftards think it should be a model for the nation. Just look at
>>>> their latest success!!!
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-at-least-8-
>> wounded-in-separate-shootings-on-the-south-north-
>> side-20130430,0,4341847.story>
>>>>
>>> If there's a point to what you're saying, it sure got by me. I'd bet by
>>> everyone else too. What does this have to do with the position of the
>>> Left from your perspective?
>>
>> The point is quite simple. There is fantasy (leftist dreams of disarmed
>> nation)
>
>You meant right-wing fantasy of pretending that liberals in the US want to
>disarm people.
><somebody's gotta provide a transition here>

Lie much, Dick?

>
>> and reality (USSR crashed and burned even China giving up on
>> leftist ideas
>
>As if mainstream liberals in the US ever wanted to be like the USSR. Get a
>brain, dude.
>

Lie much, Dick?

>> mass genocides linked to "gun control" in history
>
>Such as? If you're gonna go "Godwin" on us, at least acknowledge that the
>only people Hitler wanted to disarm were Jews, and that gun restrictions for
>"Aryans" were actually relaxed compared with the law under the Weimar
>Republic. OK, next?
>
>> and the proven ineffectiveness of all the socialist-inspired ideas to
>> prevent
>> crime by passing gun laws: Gun free zone signs (hows that working out
>> lately), disarming all potential victims
>
>Nobody's disarming anyone (more disingenuous deflection)
>

Lie much, Dick?

Well, that's not a complete lie.

"Nobody's disarming anyone" is true, but not
for lack of trying by the loser lib-cult.

>> making an "enemies" list of gun owners and the rest
>
>Really? What "Leftist" in the US did that? Do tell!

DYOFR. The truth is out there.

>
>> So Chicago is one region of the country where ALL these great crime-
>> preventing schemes have been put into practice.
>
>Errrrr, nope.
>The *city* attempted to put some of these into practice but that effort was
>doomed to failure because it's a simple matter to bring illegal guns into
>the city from another jurisdiction (Indiana is right down the road) with lax
>gun laws.
>
>> Washington D.C. is another.
>
>Have you checked crime stats in DC lately? Didn't think so.
>
>> Now all that's left
>> is to notice how Chicago is a blissful island of crime-free serenity as
>> is DC. unlike the "wild west in places with no sensible gun laws like
>> Alaska and Vermont.
>
>Yeah, all those urban metropolises in Alaska and Vermont, teeming with
>poverty, have done a great job reducing gun deaths. <groan>
>

Don't forget that outstanding 6% clearance rate
for homicides in Chicago.

I guess the police are more concerned with making
sure that the Democrats keep getting "elected"...

[Carl]

benj wrote:
> On Mon, 06 May 2013 22:28:47 -0400, RichL wrote:
>
>> "benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>>
>>> The point is quite simple. There is fantasy (leftist dreams of
>>> disarmed nation)
>>
>> You meant right-wing fantasy of pretending that liberals in the US
>> want to disarm people.
>> <somebody's gotta provide a transition here>
>
> Who does gun bans, restrictions, limitations and making various

> firearms illegal restrict? Law abiding citizens or criminals. [snipped for
> clarity]
>
Where is it that you think that criminals get their guns from? Do you think
they have their own "Criminal Gun Manufacturing and Importing" network
established? Most criminals get their guns by A. Stealing them from gun
owners (who, by the way rarely if ever report that their guns were stolen).
B. Going to States that have no purchasing requirements and bringing them
back to their home state.

If you eliminated these sources, criminals would have a REALLY hard time
getting guns. Please, don't tell me that the street punks are going to
develop a system for importing them from Eastern Europe, or some such other
absurd argument.

Regulation, bans, and restrictions would at least reduce the number of guns
that can be obtained in those ways. If non-criminal gun sellers and buyers
would be more responsible, perhaps we wouldn't need to be having this
discussion. I'll tell you what. I'll propose an idea to you. Let's hold gun
sellers who DON'T check their buyers out, and gun owners whose guns become
"missing" because they weren't responsibly guarded, responsible in part for
any deaths of people found to be caused by a gun they own or owned, and I'll
agree in principle to have you own as many guns of any type that you wish.
If all gun owners were "responsible", I'd like to see if "only criminals
would have guns". They wouldn't.

As an alternative to holding individuals responsible (because I know you
won't accept that responsibility, Mr. Law-Abiding Citizen), I'll offer a
non-criminal, economic alternative. Let's allow a gun-control state to sue a
non-gun-control state if one of their guns crosses the border and is used in
a crime. Hey, if Florida (for example) wants to allow their citizens to buy
guns at will, they should at least be held responsible for KEEPING THEM IN
FLORIDA. Why should they be allowed to be used to commit a crime in, say,
NY, without repercussions to the state that allowed the sale?

[snip all the distorted and out-of-context historical references].

>Military firearms are the
> VERY ones protected by the Second Amendment
>

If you believe this to be true, then that ownership has to be under the
direction of a "well-regulated militia", the part of which you like to
conveniently overlook. You can't have it both ways. Well, actually, I guess
you DO have it both ways

>
> and these are VERY ones
> you commies (er excuse me...progressives) want to ban.
>

Communism (ie. "commies" as you put it) is an economic system promoting the
equal distribution of wealth. It is not a political one. You're using it as
a synonym for left wing (socially oriented and social-government-regulated)
political leanings. That, however, is Socialism. When you use "commie" that
way, you're mixing your metaphores. Communism seeks to equalize wealth, a
left-wing LEANING, granted, but communism also promotes the need for a
restriction on freedom of speech and free-will in order for the system to
work, a RIGHT-wing leaning (ie. as per the Nazis you referenced earlier and
the autocratic regimes of the old-communist USSR, China, Cuba, and as per
the desire to take away a woman's choice, as examples). You talk as if
you're politically astute. You should get these distinctions straight.
>
[cut the rest for clarity]

[???]

Cause: DRUGS, GANGS and POVERTY. And yes, TOO MANY GUNS.

But the small upward tick is not caused by gun control. See http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/15/1599631/no-chicago-isnt-proof-that-gun-regulation-doesnt-work/?mobile=nc

Note that homicides are roughly HALF of what they were during the crack epidemic.

Also note that Chicago is number 3 by population, but ranks 79th on Neighborhood Scout’s list of the 100 most dangerous places to live in America.

Anxiously waiting your gun nutter twist...

[Carl]

Spender wrote:

> On Mon, 6 May 2013 22:28:47 -0400, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>> news:GQYht.9496$wS4....@newsfe30.iad...
>>>

>>> The point is quite simple. There is fantasy (leftist dreams of
>>> disarmed nation)
>>
>> You meant right-wing fantasy of pretending that liberals in the US
>> want to disarm people.
>

> What would the point of any gun law be if not to disarm people?
>
To regulate WHO can get them (like keeping them out of the hands of the
mentally ill for example), WHERE they can be used (why shouldn't a
gun-control state, who's people DON'T want certain guns in their state, have
to deal with the guns that are coming from non-regulating states?), and to
ensure that gun owners maintain strict responsibilty for their guns.

What does protecting the welfare of those citizens who choose to have their
welare protected by having a gun-restricted state (whether that's
"right-minded" or "wrong-minded" is not the point) have to do with disarming
people? Let the people who want unrestricted access to guns in their state
have it that way. Just keep them in your own state please. Or do you think
that only gun enthusiasts have "rights"?

[Carl]

Why confuse them with statistics and facts when gross generalizations work
best for them? ;-)

[???]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 8:37:52 AM UTC-7, Spender wrote:
> On Mon, 6 May 2013 22:28:47 -0400, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>

> >"benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:GQYht.9496$wS4....@newsfe30.iad...
>
> >>
>

> >> The point is quite simple. There is fantasy (leftist dreams of disarmed
>
> >> nation)
>
> >
>
> >You meant right-wing fantasy of pretending that liberals in the US want to
>
> >disarm people.
>
>
>

> What would the point of any gun law be if not to disarm people?

Paranoid much?

The POINT is to reduce gun violence. Not to scare gun nutters. We can debate the efficacy all day long, but the POINT ought to be clear. Funny how the radical right conveniently ignores the obvious. ...when it serves their purposes, that is.

Gun laws can regulate WHO gets to (legally) purchase, possess and carry guns. Criminal history with a mental issue, even a misdemeanor? You COULD regulate the sale and possession.

You could also require trigger locks when not legally carried on the person. ...or gun safes. You could regulate the sale and storage of ammunition.

Save your breath: "If you make guns illegal, only criminals will own guns." Not technically "gun control," but you can also add mandatory minimums for any crime involving the use of a gun. I'd much sooner support that than 10 yr. minimums for teenagers selling crack.

The radical right constantly tries to paint this as "disarming citizens." But the majority of those polled (liberal AND conservatives) favor more regulation.

The fact of the matter is that the causes of violence go beyond mere ownership (although studies show that you are more likely to be a victim of gun violence if you actually own a gun). I think that there ARE too many guns in the hands to the wrong people. But the U.S. is "blessed" with other factors that could explain why we use our guns more than other places in the world. Even where gun ownership is high. I'm not sure how the gun nutters address THAT issue.

Before you paint me with your wide brush, I'm not a rabid anti-gun person. I do own a gun.

[Claude V. Lucas]

In article <51893c9b$0$19557$607e...@cv.net>,
Carl <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> mournfully bleated:

Feel free to move to Chicago, where illegal firearms
restrictions have disarmed most of the honest people.

It's *your* kind of place...

Also, feel free to attempt to extend your illegal
firearms restrictions to the rest of the country.

There are many anxiously awaiting anything you might
implement.

Don't let them down now.

[Claude V. Lucas]

In article <797fa04a-1354-4e8a...@googlegroups.com>,
??? <lucky...@hotmail.com> gurgled:

>On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 8:37:52 AM UTC-7, Spender wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 May 2013 22:28:47 -0400, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >"benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:GQYht.9496$wS4....@newsfe30.iad...
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> The point is quite simple. There is fantasy (leftist dreams of disarmed
>>
>> >> nation)
>>
>> >
>>
>> >You meant right-wing fantasy of pretending that liberals in the US want to
>>
>> >disarm people.
>>
>>
>>
>> What would the point of any gun law be if not to disarm people?
>
>Paranoid much?
>
>The POINT is to reduce gun violence. Not to scare gun nutters. We can debate the efficacy all
>day long, but the POINT ought to be clear. Funny how the radical right conveniently ignores
>the obvious. ...when it serves their purposes, that is.
>
>Gun laws can regulate WHO gets to (legally) purchase, possess and carry guns. Criminal history
>with a mental issue, even a misdemeanor? You COULD regulate the sale and possession.
>
>You could also require trigger locks when not legally carried on the person. ...or gun safes.
>You could regulate the sale and storage of ammunition.

You can attempt to implement as many regulations as you think you can get away with.

The problem for you seems to be you do not have enough votes to do so.

Be sure to blame NRA...

>
>Save your breath: "If you make guns illegal, only criminals will own guns." Not technically
>"gun control," but you can also add mandatory minimums for any crime involving the use of a
>gun. I'd much sooner support that than 10 yr. minimums for teenagers selling crack.
>
>The radical right constantly tries to paint this as "disarming citizens." But the majority of
>those polled (liberal AND conservatives) favor more regulation.

If polls mattered, then you might have a point.

Standard lib-cult crapola, gen up a "poll" be sure to
ask the "right" folks the "right" questions.

I wonder why "polls" weren't included in the Constitution
as a valid method of determining public policy?

Oh, yeah, there was something about a Republic with representative
government ruled by law rather than by someone's whim of the moment.

>
>The fact of the matter is that the causes of violence go beyond mere ownership (although
>studies show that you are more likely to be a victim of gun violence if you actually own a
>gun). I think that there ARE too many guns in the hands to the wrong people. But the U.S. is
>"blessed" with other factors that could explain why we use our guns more than other places in
>the world. Even where gun ownership is high. I'm not sure how the gun nutters address THAT
>issue.

Check back if you get any good ideas regarding feral human control...

>
>Before you paint me with your wide brush, I'm not a rabid anti-gun person. I do own a gun.

"Rabid" is as rabid regurgitates...

You should find one of those nice "gun turn in" programs and
let the locals melt it down for you...

At least then your bleatings will be a bit less hypocritical.

[Carl]

Spender wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2013 12:48:00 -0400, "Carl"
> <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:

>
>> benj wrote:
>>>
>>> Who does gun bans, restrictions, limitations and making various
>>> firearms illegal restrict? Law abiding citizens or criminals.
>>> [snipped for clarity]
>>>
>> Where is it that you think that criminals get their guns from? Do
>> you think they have their own "Criminal Gun Manufacturing and
>> Importing" network established? Most criminals get their guns by A.
>> Stealing them from gun owners (who, by the way rarely if ever report
>> that their guns were stolen). B. Going to States that have no
>> purchasing requirements and bringing them back to their home state.
>

> I know facts are pesky things, but A and B aren't the top ways that
> criminals get guns. Gun thefts in particular are the least likely
> way for a criminal to acquire a gun.
>
> #1 is straw purchases - a friend with a clean record buys the gun.
>
> #2 is corrupt FFLs - about 60% of crime guns can be traced to about
> 1.5% of licensed dealers.

>
>> If you eliminated these sources, criminals would have a REALLY hard
>> time getting guns.
>

> Since the sources you mentioned aren't in fact the top ways that
> criminals get guns I suppose we can consider the problem to be solved.
>
> Wasn't that easy?
>
Sorry, but, even assuming that those statistics you've tossed out there are
really "facts", I don't see how you did anything but prove my point? The
only difference is that you're saying that the criminals don't buy the guns
directly for themselves. In fact, you're supporting my position for a need
to register who bought the guns and to hold the original owner responsible
for what it's used for. Exactly what I said before.

You've also asserted that not ALL gun dealers sell guns to criminals, but
some do, and that's where the criminals get their guns from.

So, how do your "facts" counter my argument?

You have also failed to explain where the majority of guns used in crime DO
come from. You're arguing with a negative instead of asserting a fact. Tell
me something like "82% of all criminals who used guns in a crime came in via
Canada through a Cechnyan smuggling ring" and you'll be making a point.

Or if you said "Only 0.01% of all guns used in crimes were obtained through
licensed dealers", THAT would be a significant statistic.

My man, there's a reason why criminal attorneys don't generally allow their
clients to take the stand in their own defense and you seem to be an example
of why.

[Carl]

Ignoring Claude's all-over-the-place response to you below, I applaud your
post as a job well done. Well said.

Btw, I too own a gun. A couple of these guys seem to drag this debate
regarding some regulation into the zone of extremism whenever the issue is
raised.

[Carl]

I don't get you. Why, with all of the recent mass deaths accomplished with
guns staring at you in the face, is your head so wrapped around that "right
to bear arms" issue that you can't see past your personal biases that some
regulation is being cried out for? The 2nd amendment doesn't say "anything
goes", does it?

[Claude V. Lucas]

In article <518966b4$0$20214$607e...@cv.net>,
Carl <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> whined:

Well, when the day comes when you can point to any
"recent mass deaths" that were perpetrated by any
firearm on its own without some person holding it
with evil intent then perhaps we would have a reason
to converse.

As long as you continue to fear and blame the
hardware for the acts of evil and/or insane
people there's no common ground, so feel free
to continue your business as usual.

I'll feel free to ignore and/or mock as the mood strikes.

Good luck with your flaccid little crusade.

[RichL]

"benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message

news:Ej2it.21963$VE.1...@newsfe25.iad...

> On Mon, 06 May 2013 22:28:47 -0400, RichL wrote:
>
>> "benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>>
>>> The point is quite simple. There is fantasy (leftist dreams of disarmed
>>> nation)
>>
>> You meant right-wing fantasy of pretending that liberals in the US want
>> to disarm people.
>> <somebody's gotta provide a transition here>
>
> Who does gun bans, restrictions, limitations and making various firearms
> illegal restrict? Law abiding citizens or criminals. We were told that
> "Gun free zone" signs were needed to stop school shootings. How did that
> wonderful idea of you and your pals work out? Obviously only law-abiding
> gun owners obeyed the signs (stooopid as the signs were). You really need
> to grow a brain Rich.
>
>>> and reality (USSR crashed and burned even China giving up on leftist
>>> ideas
>
>> As if mainstream liberals in the US ever wanted to be like the USSR.
>> Get a brain, dude.
>
> You get a brain and learn some history. Know who Howard Metzenbaum was?
> OK play dumb. Changing your names to "progressives" doesn't change your
> leftist spots.

"Get a brain"? This from the guy who thinks the Boston Marathon bombing was
a "false flag"? Not to mention 9/11 and God knows what else.

But I'll play along. I know who Howard Metzenbaum was (a moderately liberal
Senator from Ohio, for those who don't know). I just visited his Wikipedia
page to refresh my memory on what he's most noted for.

OK, I see the Brady bill connection: I suppose that's what's got you
sprouting hemorrhoids. Dammit, why didn't I see that proposing a waiting
period for handgun purchases means THE GUMMINT WANTS TO TAKE ALL YOUR GUNS!

All you and your nutty friends are doing by equating liberalism with
communism is discrediting any semblance of credibility that you might
otherwise have. For us normal folks, this does not compute. Period.

Talk about learning history: I'm wondering whether you think the former Whig
party in the US were commies before communism was ever a gleam in poor ol'
Karl Marx's eye?

You might want to look up the current platform of the Democratic party and
let me know how elements of that platform stack up against Stalin's
policies. I won't hold my breath.

>
>>> mass genocides linked to "gun control" in history
>>
>> Such as? If you're gonna go "Godwin" on us, at least acknowledge that
>> the only people Hitler wanted to disarm were Jews, and that gun
>> restrictions for "Aryans" were actually relaxed compared with the law
>> under the Weimar Republic. OK, next?
>
> Next? You can't sweep your evil deeds and those of your comrades under
> the rug that easily! Here's a list:
>
> http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm
>
> And no, Nazis aren't even the winner. You commies win. (or should I say
> former commies now)

Batshit crazy, dude. Gimme some evidence that liberals in the US supported
ANY of those governments!

For those who didn't click the link, Benj would like us to believe that
liberals in the US are the equivalent of:

- WWI Turkey (on the side of Germany)
- Stalin's USSR
- Nazi Germany
- China (pre- and post-Mao)
- Guatemala
- Uganda
- Cambodia
- Rwanda

In the context of reasonable gun laws, however, he fails to mention the
following modern states that have gun laws that are stricter than those in
the US
- Israel
- Switzerland
- United Kingdom
- France
and a plethora of other, non-"tyrannical" governments.

Selective, anyone?

> Do you support "background checks"?

Why the quotes?

> Do you want them done in a way that
> makes the purchaser anonymous or as currently done where a computer can
> quickly grab all names an make a list. Oh I forgot. If our glorious
> leader tells us he's "erased" the data we MUST believe him, because,
> well, he's glorious and loved!

We are a nation of laws. Maybe that's upsetting to you; it isn't to me --
it and government by the people are the rocks upon which civilization rests.

Yes, I support background checks. The Toomey-Manchin bill would make it a
crime for the government to retain the data associated with the checks.

You of course would assume in your paranoid mind that the government is out
to get you. Representative democracy cannot function with that mindset;
consequently, I must assume that you are opposed to representative
democracy.

>
>>> So Chicago is one region of the country where ALL these great crime-
>>> preventing schemes have been put into practice.
>>
>> Errrrr, nope.
>> The *city* attempted to put some of these into practice but that effort
>> was doomed to failure because it's a simple matter to bring illegal guns
>> into the city from another jurisdiction (Indiana is right down the road)
>> with lax gun laws.
>
> Tired old saw. Gun control can't work (There aren't even any gun shops in
> Chicago so how can anyone have a gun?) until the ENTIRE WORLD BANS ALL
> GUNS (except for all police, government officials, famous people, tax
> collectors, homeland security, social security and anyone else telling
> the low life people what to do). What is that I hear? Why it's the
> strains of the Internationale playing! Comes the revolution, RichL all
> these gun owners will find out what happens to anyone guilty of anti-
> sovie...er... unAmerican activities!

Nutso. It happens to be *true*, which is why locally-based laws are
inherently ineffective. Unless of course you want Chicago to put
checkpoints at all points of entry.

Elephant in the room: why do all other advanced nations have gun death
rates that are dwarfed by ours?

>
>>> Washington D.C. is another.
>>
>> Have you checked crime stats in DC lately? Didn't think so.
>
> Are you the most ignorant person on the planet or just the most
> disingenuous? I can't decide. Help me out.
>
> Just checked:
> Chicago = 15.9 murders per 100,000.
> Washington DC. 17.5 murders per 100,000.

Dipstick. Here's the top 10 list:

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/12/geography-us-gun-violence/4171/

(ya gotta scroll down to see the table). New Orleans is #1 at 69.1 per
100,000. #10 is Philly at 24.3 per 100,000. Neither Chicago nor DC is on
the top 10 list.

So I'm wondering, why do the gunnuts constantly mention Chicago? Could it
be that the President's from there? Nah....

>
> Any more smart remarks? Didn't think so.

I'm winnin'...

>
>>> Now all that's left is to notice how Chicago is a blissful island of
>>> crime-free serenity as is DC. unlike the "wild west in places with no
>>> sensible gun laws like Alaska and Vermont.
>>
>> Yeah, all those urban metropolises in Alaska and Vermont, teeming with
>> poverty, have done a great job reducing gun deaths. <groan>
>
> So is the problem gun ownership or poor minorities? Maybe you should be
> promoting Jim Crow and an illegal alien ban instead of going against
> imaginary "assault weapons"?

Did I say anything about minorities or illegal aliens? You're doing lots of
goalpost shifting, not that I expected anything different.

[RichL]

"Spender" <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote in message
news:gm7io859elpbh17ki...@giganews.com...

> On Mon, 6 May 2013 22:28:47 -0400, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>>news:GQYht.9496$wS4....@newsfe30.iad...
>>>

>>> The point is quite simple. There is fantasy (leftist dreams of disarmed
>>> nation)
>>
>>You meant right-wing fantasy of pretending that liberals in the US want to
>>disarm people.
>

> What would the point of any gun law be if not to disarm people?

To prevent those who shouldn't have guns (e.g., criminals) from getting
them, which is a far cry from the whacky "disarmed nation" fetishes of our
friend Benj.

[nm...@wt.net]

How are you going to use laws to prevent crooks from having
guns, when crooks thumb their noses at the law?
Crooks could care less what background checks they have. The
vast majority of them buy stolen guns on the street, where there
will never be background checks.
And these stolen guns would not have been flagged by any
background check, as they were bought by legal buyers.

If they ran a background check for any legal buyer, anywhere,
the amount of guns controlled by crooks on the street would
change very little. They would still have plenty to choose from.
There are already millions on the street, and if they run dry,
they will just steal more.

You would think the "war on drugs" would have taught you people
something.. :/
Buoy.. All those drug laws really nipped it in the bud, huh..
If anything, it's easier to find drugs now, than it ever was. :|

If you want an even stronger black market for firearms, the
path of the gifted one, is the path you should choose.

[RichL]

"Spender" <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote in message

news:bsbjo893cjqlg3tqp...@giganews.com...

> On Tue, 7 May 2013 18:43:25 -0400, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"Spender" <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote in message
>>news:gm7io859elpbh17ki...@giganews.com...
>>>

>>> What would the point of any gun law be if not to disarm people?
>>
>>To prevent those who shouldn't have guns (e.g., criminals) from getting
>>them, which is a far cry from the whacky "disarmed nation" fetishes of our
>>friend Benj.
>

> If that is really your point then you might want to stop promoting any law
> with the word "ban" in it and prevent any amendments containing bans from
> being added by the usual nutbag democrat suspects.
>
> You could easily get a near universal (exception for family members)
> background check law passed if you muzzled the likes of Dianne Feinstein
> and her ilk.

A not-quite-near universal background check law was defeated in the Senate.
Without Feinstein's vote, it still would have been defeated.

[RichL]

<nm...@wt.net> wrote in message
news:548b5d9c-70a9-4ae9...@googlegroups.com...

> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 5:43:25 PM UTC-5, RichL wrote:
>> "Spender" <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote in message
>>
>> news:gm7io859elpbh17ki...@giganews.com...
>>
>> > On Mon, 6 May 2013 22:28:47 -0400, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>"benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:GQYht.9496$wS4....@newsfe30.iad...
>>
>> >>>
>>
>> >>> The point is quite simple. There is fantasy (leftist dreams of
>> >>> disarmed
>>
>> >>> nation)
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>You meant right-wing fantasy of pretending that liberals in the US want
>> >>to
>>
>> >>disarm people.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > What would the point of any gun law be if not to disarm people?
>>
>>
>>
>> To prevent those who shouldn't have guns (e.g., criminals) from getting
>>
>> them, which is a far cry from the whacky "disarmed nation" fetishes of
>> our
>>
>> friend Benj.
>
> How are you going to use laws to prevent crooks from having
> guns, when crooks thumb their noses at the law?
> Crooks could care less what background checks they have. The
> vast majority of them buy stolen guns on the street, where there
> will never be background checks.

If as you say most of them buy stolen guns, there's a hell of a lot of guns
being stolen. Why are so many "responsible" owners being so irresponsible
about storing their weapons?

[nm...@wt.net]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 10:16:38 PM UTC-5, RichL wrote:

> If as you say most of them buy stolen guns, there's a hell of a lot of guns
>
> being stolen. Why are so many "responsible" owners being so irresponsible
>
> about storing their weapons?

Having someone break into your house and stealing them is not
being irresponsible. Not everyone can afford a fancy closet
safe to keep them in.
You could have them well hidden and out of sight, and still
have the crooks find them.

That's like saying if a burglar rummages through a closet
and finds a hidden set of keys to a car sitting out in the garage,
it was the owners irresponsibility that caused the theft of the car.

[benj]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 15:07:13 -0500, Spender wrote:

> Mostly because of the fact that we do not have controlled borders
> between the states. Likewise, the fact that there are still dry
> counties in the U.S. does not mean we need to ban easily transportable
> alcohol everywhere else.

OF course that IS the argument people use. In fact RichL just used it
here! And prohibitionists used it too. In fact, they actually got RichL's
arguments implemented with respect to easily transportable alcohol. I
wonder how that worked out for them? I guess the real problem was that
alcohol needed to be banned all over the entire WORLD before prohibition
would work in the United States. I hear the UN is working on that idea
with respect to firearms...

[RichL]

<nm...@wt.net> wrote in message
news:d465460a-3ce2-456d...@googlegroups.com...

I didn't say it "caused" it. It just made it easier to happen. Just like
folks who leave a set of car keys under the front door mat. D'oh!

[RichL]

"benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message

news:ogkit.23805$YJ....@newsfe11.iad...

> On Tue, 07 May 2013 15:07:13 -0500, Spender wrote:
>
>> Mostly because of the fact that we do not have controlled borders
>> between the states. Likewise, the fact that there are still dry
>> counties in the U.S. does not mean we need to ban easily transportable
>> alcohol everywhere else.
>
> OF course that IS the argument people use. In fact RichL just used it
> here!

Nope. Criminals having guns is ILLEGAL in every state, every town, every
county in the US. Law-abiding citizens can own guns in every state, every
town, every county in the US. Analogies with prohibition don't apply.

[benj]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 11:29:06 -0700, ??? wrote:

>> What would the point of any gun law be if not to disarm people?
>
> Paranoid much?

Understand the meaning of words much?

> The POINT is to reduce gun violence. Not to scare gun nutters. We can
> debate the efficacy all day long, but the POINT ought to be clear.
> Funny how the radical right conveniently ignores the obvious. ...when
> it serves their purposes, that is.

Funny how the radical left want to disarm all the law abiding citizens
while conveniently ignoring all obvious criminal use of firearms. Did
that wonderful "gun free zone" sign idea eliminate school shootings or
movie theater massacres? (Both were gun free zones) Has the law banning
felons from even TOUCHING a gun, let alone owning one, stopped the
murders in Chicago? Why all the effort on the innocent and none on the
guilty (Left argument: It's not the criminal's fault, it's racism and the
fault of white society)

> Gun laws can regulate WHO gets to (legally) purchase, possess and carry
> guns. Criminal history with a mental issue, even a misdemeanor? You
> COULD regulate the sale and possession.

Just pointed out these laws are already in place and totally ineffective.
Duh. Having trouble thinking lately? Your idea is to set up a government
herd of apparatchiks who will make judgments as to the rights of
citizens: No due process, no defense, no appeals. Just their official
opinion. You know like the current no-fly list and many folks in Gitmo.
How very "left" of you!

> You could also require trigger locks when not legally carried on the
> person. ...or gun safes. You could regulate the sale and storage of
> ammunition.

So your idea is that if you can't ban guns, you make them unreachable in
an emergency to help increase crime? Seems like the radical left has some
OTHER agenda than crime prevention here. Even better like in Canaduh,
make sure guns are always unloaded (even when locked up) and ammo is
locked separately to double the actions to get a firearm ready for self-
defense and then have to actually load it to triple the time needed. So
why do you want to see victims killed and criminals given a better
chance?

> Save your breath: "If you make guns illegal, only criminals will own
> guns." Not technically "gun control," but you can also add mandatory
> minimums for any crime involving the use of a gun. I'd much sooner
> support that than 10 yr. minimums for teenagers selling crack.

So your idea is to take judgment completely out of the court system.
Who are most of the folks in jail? Small time pot smokers serving
"minimum" sentences the judge had no control over. Why not just shoot
anyone who violates a law you really like? Problems solved. (well, except
the "justice" problem)

> The radical right constantly tries to paint this as "disarming
> citizens." But the majority of those polled (liberal AND conservatives)
> favor more regulation.

Polls mean shit. I can give you a poll showing people favor genocide if I
word it right. This is a radical left total straw man of no value.

> The fact of the matter is that the causes of violence go beyond mere
> ownership (although studies show that you are more likely to be a victim
> of gun violence if you actually own a gun). I think that there ARE too
> many guns in the hands to the wrong people. But the U.S. is "blessed"
> with other factors that could explain why we use our guns more than
> other places in the world. Even where gun ownership is high. I'm not
> sure how the gun nutters address THAT issue.

Studies show that you are far more likely to die if you are in a
hospital. And I might mention that numerous studies show that doctors
murder FAR more persons each year that firearm use does. The obvious
answer is to ban all hospitals and medical care, right? Thinking isn't
something you radical lefties do, is it?

And now you make the claim that anyone taking a viewpoint different from
yours is "insane". Well that sure means that whatever they say nobody has
to pay any attention to it, right? Of course YOU on the other hand in
spite of suggesting that crime can be reduced by arming criminals and
disarming their victims are the only sane person here.

> Before you paint me with your wide brush, I'm not a rabid anti-gun
> person. I do own a gun.

Well, great. I'm trying to reduce crime in your neighborhood so we are
having a "buy back" to return all firearms to the government where they
all came from (by them giving you permission to have one for a while).
We'll tell you where to turn it in to get your coupon for free sneakers.
I'm sure you want to do your part to make your neighborhood safe from
crime.

So you and I agree much more than we thought!

You just need to work a bit on what "rights" are. Your "envy of the
world" the USSR didn't need "rights" so you don't either, but just to
understand what "insane" gun owners are thinking you might review the
word.

[Claude V. Lucas]

In article <PYydnVizwIO9XhTM...@supernews.com>,
DickL <rple...@yahoo.com> cried the blues:

A not-quite-near gun registration scheme was defeated in the Senate.

With Feinstein's vote, and with the votes of the other lib-cultists
it still was defeated.

Maybe one day when the lib-l0ons are out of the picture we
can have an actual "background check" that keeps bad people
from easily purchasing guns.

[Carl]

Spender wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2013 16:31:12 -0400, "Carl"
> <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:

>
>> Spender wrote:
>>>
>>> I know facts are pesky things, but A and B aren't the top ways that
>>> criminals get guns. Gun thefts in particular are the least likely
>>> way for a criminal to acquire a gun.
>>>
>>> #1 is straw purchases - a friend with a clean record buys the gun.
>>>
>>> #2 is corrupt FFLs - about 60% of crime guns can be traced to about
>>> 1.5% of licensed dealers.
>>>
>>>> If you eliminated these sources, criminals would have a REALLY hard
>>>> time getting guns.
>>>
>>> Since the sources you mentioned aren't in fact the top ways that
>>> criminals get guns I suppose we can consider the problem to be
>>> solved.
>>>
>>> Wasn't that easy?
>>>
>> Sorry, but, even assuming that those statistics you've tossed out
>> there are really "facts", I don't see how you did anything but prove
>> my point?
>

> The facts are from an ATF agent, as reported by the noted right-wing
> source PBS...
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

>
>> The
>> only difference is that you're saying that the criminals don't buy
>> the guns directly for themselves. In fact, you're supporting my
>> position for a need to register who bought the guns and to hold the
>> original owner responsible for what it's used for. Exactly what I
>> said before.
>

> The law already requires documenting who a gun is sold to. It is
> child's play for the ATF to trace a gun back to the original retail
> purchaser because the law requires all gun manufacturers to document
> the original wholesaler.
>
> Straw purchasers make it a bit more troublesome, but then when the ATF
> tells a person that the gun they sold has been used in a crime they
> usually get the name they are looking for.
>
> The law already holds people responsible if the sale of the gun was
> obviously criminal. But then you can't hold an original seller
> responsible forever. Would you want to be responsible if any car you
> sold was later used to commit a DUI?

>
>> You've also asserted that not ALL gun dealers sell guns to
>> criminals, but some do, and that's where the criminals get their
>> guns from.
>

> The law already prohibits illegal sales.

>
>> So, how do your "facts" counter my argument?
>

> You mean your nonsensical argument backed with "facts" you pulled out
> of your ass? That's easy - try enforcing the many laws that already
> exist.

>
>> You have also failed to explain where the majority of guns used in
>> crime DO come from.
>

> ??? I stated quite clearly where they come from:
>
> #1 is straw purchases
>
> #2 is corrupt FFLs

>
>> You're arguing with a negative instead of asserting a fact. Tell
>> me something like "82% of all criminals who used guns in a crime
>> came in via Canada through a Cechnyan smuggling ring" and you'll be
>> making a point.
>>
>> Or if you said "Only 0.01% of all guns used in crimes were obtained
>> through licensed dealers", THAT would be a significant statistic.
>>
>> My man, there's a reason why criminal attorneys don't generally
>> allow their clients to take the stand in their own defense and you
>> seem to be an example of why.
>

> Translation: you were caught red-handed inventing facts and now you
> are squirming.
>
> You flat out lied. Man up and admit it.
>
I can see that reading comprehension was not your strong suit in high
school.

[Carl]

These analogies you guys use belie the fact that of the three (ie. cars,
alcohol, guns) only ONE of them is actually built for the intent of killing.
That's why the analogies you try to draw are straw man arguments.

I keep pointing this out to you. You continually, conveniently ignore it. In
addition, the sale of cars is very closely documented, the sale of alcohol
is very closely regulated. The sale of guns is only loosely regulated, if at
all.

Many good things, designed for beneficial functions, can maim or kill people
through improper use or accident, such as the electricity in your house. But
just because occasionally someone accidentally electrocutes themselves, we
don't ban electricity (although its installation is pretty closely regulated
by the way). It wasn't the purpose of the electricity to kill.

Guns are made for killing things. That's what they do. It's the only purpose
they serve. And yet they are the least regulated thing of the three in your
chosen analogies. There's something of an irony in there.

[Claude V. Lucas]

In article <518a8aca$0$25604$607e...@cv.net>,
Carl <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> snivelled:

Too bad for you that you'll never do anything other than cry about it...

[RichL]

"Spender" <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote in message

news:pvuko89d766mvdb2p...@giganews.com...

> On Tue, 7 May 2013 23:16:38 -0400, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>><nm...@wt.net> wrote in message
>>news:548b5d9c-70a9-4ae9...@googlegroups.com...
>>>

>>> How are you going to use laws to prevent crooks from having
>>> guns, when crooks thumb their noses at the law?
>>> Crooks could care less what background checks they have. The
>>> vast majority of them buy stolen guns on the street, where there
>>> will never be background checks.
>>
>>If as you say most of them buy stolen guns, there's a hell of a lot of
>>guns
>>being stolen. Why are so many "responsible" owners being so irresponsible
>>about storing their weapons?
>

> You two are arguing over a what is largely a myth. According to the ATF,
> stolen guns account for only about 10%-15% of guns used in crimes.

10-15% of all guns used in crimes is still a hell of a lot of guns.

[nm...@wt.net]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 11:25:44 AM UTC-5, Spender wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2013 23:16:38 -0400, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>

> ><nm...@wt.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:548b5d9c-70a9-4ae9...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >>
>

> >> How are you going to use laws to prevent crooks from having
>
> >> guns, when crooks thumb their noses at the law?
>
> >> Crooks could care less what background checks they have. The
>
> >> vast majority of them buy stolen guns on the street, where there
>
> >> will never be background checks.
>
> >
>
> >If as you say most of them buy stolen guns, there's a hell of a lot of guns
>
> >being stolen. Why are so many "responsible" owners being so irresponsible
>
> >about storing their weapons?
>
>
>

> You two are arguing over a what is largely a myth. According to the ATF,
>
> stolen guns account for only about 10%-15% of guns used in crimes.

That's according to the ATF though.. An agency I really don't trust
too much, being as they are gun runners themselves..
And they could have an agenda, considering who their bosses are.

I think the real number is at least 30-40 %. I'm sure a large
number do come from straw buyers, many who are girlfriends or
legal relatives of the crooks, but I think the number coming from
crooked FFL's are fairly low in the overall scheme of things.
They have a lot to lose if caught.

I've talked to cops that claim that almost every gun they run
across when investigating crimes, ends up being a stolen gun.

The ATF source claims that many do not go with stolen guns
because they have to wait for them. I don't buy that. Most
crooks that deal with guns have a pre-stolen supply sitting
around. They don't have to go rob a house if a crook wants a
gun. They sell him one they stole eight months before.

Regardless of the ratios, there is one thing for sure.
No one will ever be able to stop a crook from acquiring a
firearm. Ever.
Lets take the event that pretty much kicked this crap storm
into high gear.. How did he get his guns? He stole them.

[Defiant]

On Wed, 08 May 2013 13:16:47 -0400, Carl got busted:

Translation: "I'm busted, so I'll try a lame-ass deflection."

[Carl]

Why don't you explain, point-by-point where and how I've been "busted"? His
responses make no sense and fails to address anything I've said and you
think I'VE been "busted"? If anything, HIS post was a "deflection" since it
didn't address the issues.

I think you're just trying to be a glib smart-ass and didn't even read the
posts. So, you're just siding with your political ally without assessing the
facts. This seems to be typical Conservative partisanship. Perhaps we should
call your reading comprehension skills into question too. If you failed to
read it at all, that's even worse. Poor reading comprehension may be caused
by a disability and can be forgiven. Failing to read the material at all is
just laziness and sloth, maybe even stupidity, and is inexcusable.

My response wasn't a "deflection". I'm just not interested in going 'round
and 'round on a topic with anyone who doesn't, or can't properly address
what was written. I think you're of the about the same caliber as your
colleague (note the clever "gun" metaphor).

When you respond to this post with another glib, smartass comment (which you
will) instead of anything of substance (which you don't know how to), I'll
blow you off as well. No "deflection" intended, just a realization that I'm
talking to air.

[Carl]

Clever answer. Cut me to the core. Right on topic too. Did you spend a
couple of hours thinking that up on your own or did you get help?

[Carl]

Spender wrote:

> On Wed, 8 May 2013 13:28:58 -0400, "Carl"
> <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>
>> These analogies you guys use belie the fact that of the three (ie.
>> cars, alcohol, guns) only ONE of them is actually built for the
>> intent of killing.
>

> Who are you intending to kill with your gun?
>
I dunno Spender. Why don't you ask these guys?

"...guns still remain the most common murder weapon in the United States,
the report noted. Between 1993 and 2011, more than two out of three murders
in the U.S. were carried out with guns, the Bureau of Justice Statistics
found."

The citation for this came from an article that one of your very own cohorts
posted, who was too stupid to read his own citation and never realized it
worked against his cause. He probably just liked the title of the article
which seemed on the face of it to support his cause. The actual facts in it
were irrelevant to him.

You can read the whole article here. I did, but I know you have trouble with
reading comprehension, so if you want me to help you line-by-line, just ask
and I'll be glad to.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gun-crimes-pew-report-20130507,0,3022693.story

Please, please don't waste your time responding glibly to this post of mine
unless you've read everything first and had someone make sure you understood
it all. Otherwise I'll just have to "deflect" you again.

[Carl]

Spender wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2013 11:29:06 -0700 (PDT), "???"
> <lucky...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 8:37:52 AM UTC-7, Spender wrote:
>>>
>>> What would the point of any gun law be if not to disarm people?
>>

>> Paranoid much?
>
> Non-sequitur.
>
How is it that? When you believe there's a big conspiracy to "get you" (or
your guns) that is called PARANOIA. His remark makes a point. But then
again, we have that little reading comprehension skill flaw in you that acts
up, don't we?

>
>> Gun laws can regulate WHO gets to (legally) purchase, possess and
>> carry guns. Criminal history with a mental issue, even a
>> misdemeanor? You COULD regulate the sale and possession.
>

> The law already *does* regulate who can buy a gun.
>
WHERE is that happening? What "law" are you referring to? In certain states,
pistols require permit applications. In many states, you can walk into any
store and buy a gun. At gun shows, that's more the rule than the exception.
Other than some states requiring permits for pistols, what regulation do you
know of that we don't?

>
>> Not technically "gun control," but you can also >>add
>> mandatory minimums for any crime involving the >>use of a gun. I'd
>> much sooner support that than 10 yr. minimums for teenagers selling
>> crack.
>

> Those laws already exists. There is a federal law mandating a five
> year additional sentence for using a gun in the commission of a
> felony. There is also a fifteen year mandatory minimum sentence for
> a triple felon in possession of a firearm.
>
> Such charges are almost always dropped in a plea bargain.
>
So, if they're almost always dropped, what good do they serve? Also, you're
talking about laws that punish people AFTER they've already victimized
someone. How does that help the victim? We want to reduce the number of
victims. Punishing perpertrators, especially using laws that are often
unevenly applied, does not help the victims.

>
>> The radical right constantly tries to paint this as "disarming
>> citizens." But the majority of those polled (liberal AND
>> conservatives) favor more regulation.
>

> Source?

>
>> The fact of the matter is that the causes of violence go beyond mere
>> ownership (although studies show that you are more likely to be a
>> victim of gun violence if you actually own a gun).
>

To my knowledge, this is a statistical FACT and needs to be addressed.
Understand the stat Spender: OWNING a gun statistically makes you MORE
LIKELY to become the victim of gun violence.

>
I think that
>> there ARE too many guns in the hands to the wrong people. But the
>> U.S. is "blessed" with other factors that could explain why we use
>> our guns more than other places in the world. Even where gun
>> ownership is high. I'm not sure how the gun nutters address THAT
>> issue.
>

> That actually *is* one of the issues that "gun-nutters" address.
> Gun-banners typically ignore it.
>
It's not ignored by "gun-banners". They just ask of gun-supporters like
yourself to come up with solutions to the problem, not use the fact as a
rally cry for your cause. If Americans are more likely to use their guns in
crimes than our European (or other) brethren, then a different set of rules
must be employed in America. You can't just shrug your shoulders and say
"It's not the fault of guns, it's the fault of who Americans are" and turn
your back to the problem.

In fact, gun-supporters throw more roadblocks in front of attempts to
control the problem than suggestions about how they would do it.



.

[Carl]

So, since you've rejected all of these left-wing ideas to reduce the problem
of gun violence, what ideas do you PROPOSE that can be implemented
realistically? The problem with people like yourself is that you seem to
never offer an idea of how to resolve the problem but prefer instead to
complain about the ones that are presented by others.

How does that work in your little world?

[Carl]

There's that straw man analogy of guns to cars again.

That IS how criminals get guns. Without the preponderance of irresponsible
gun ownership, criminals could not get guns (or at minimum it would a LOT
harder). Part of the idea of gun regulation is to limit irresponsible gun
ownership.

Allow me to say this one more time: possessing guns requires a GREAT deal
more responsibility than possessing cars. (notice that I purposely used the
word "possessing" to avoid the pitfall of arguing about their actual use, so
please don't go there). Hospitals and pharamcies are held to a far greater
level of responsibility for their controlled substance possession than they
are for non-controlled drugs. If you like metaphors so much, you need to
think of guns that way. Guns are like Valiums and Oxycontins, protected
behind the counter. Cars are like aspirins, over the counter. Both can kill
you if used improperly, but it's a whole lot more unlikely with the
aspirins.

[Carl]

Spender wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2013 16:37:52 -0400, "Carl"
> <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>
>> Btw, I too own a gun. A couple of these guys seem to drag this debate
>> regarding some regulation into the zone of extremism whenever the
>> issue is raised.
>
> Who are you planning to kill?
>
It's a leftover from when I was a teenager and thought guns were "cool". I
owned several then and was an avid NRA member being a naive teenager and not
even thinking that they were a political lobbying organization. This one gun
just got lost in a closet. The others are gone. Those guns killed many
things, thank heavens not people.

Are you a teenager by the way? Perhaps that's the problem here.

[Claude V. Lucas]

In article <518bc4c8$0$20193$607e...@cv.net>,
Carl <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> continued the ignominious bleatings:

Yes, I can.

>
>In fact, gun-supporters throw more roadblocks in front of attempts to
>control the problem than suggestions about how they would do it.
>
>

Can I get a "Boo Hoo", or maybe another "Wwwaaaahhhhh"?

[Carl]

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. That's a typical Spender response. He's
quick to pull the trigger but seems to fail to put any thought into what
he's saying before he speaks. I'm a-shakin' my head at that response. Wow.

[Carl]

While I'll concede you may be right, I think it's sad that you're giving up
that ground so easily.

So, agreed that your point is possibly (and practically likely) true, would
you say that we can stop as many crooks from acquiring a firearm? ie. can we
reduce the number of crooks who can find ways to acquire them? Wouldn't it
be beneficial if we could?

[Claude V. Lucas]

In article <518bc597$0$20198$607e...@cv.net>,
Carl <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> again ignored history andwrote:

We start by ignoring those such as yourself who confuse their
emotional caterwauling with any sort of reasonable discussion.

There have been proposals to deal with people who should
not be armed. Too bad you've been too busy yelling at
clouds with your fingers in your ears to actually see
any of them as they floated by the ivory tower...

In any case, I strongly encourage you to keep it up.

The all pervasive cluelessness of the lib-cultists
is one of the few rays of sunshine in an otherwise
gloomy future...

I almost hate to do it, but here's another helpful hint ( or 6 )

<http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/dear-democratic-gun-control-lobby-how-to-get-better/>

Not all leftists are as clueless as you are...

If I actually thought you might pay any attention to this guy,
I'd be more hesitant about posting it, but I'm fairly sure
you'll just blow it off with more sad bleatings, as usual...

Good Luck with your Crusade

[Carl]

Claude V. Lucas wrote:
> In article <518966b4$0$20214$607e...@cv.net>,
> Carl <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> whined:
>
>> Claude V. Lucas wrote:
>>> In article <51893c9b$0$19557$607e...@cv.net>,
>>> Carl <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> mournfully bleated:
>>>
>>>> ??? wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, May 4, 2013 12:49:15 PM UTC-7, Defiant wrote:
>>>>>> Yup, leftards think it should be a model for the nation. Just
>>>>>>
>>>>>> look at their latest success!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>> <http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-at-least-8-wounded-in-separate-shootings-on-the-south-north-side-20130430,0,4341847.story>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cause: DRUGS, GANGS and POVERTY. And yes, TOO MANY GUNS.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the small upward tick is not caused by gun control. See
>>>>>
>>>>
>> http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/15/1599631/no-chicago-isnt-proof-that-gun-regulation-doesnt-work/?mobile=nc
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that homicides are roughly HALF of what they were during the
>>>>> crack epidemic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also note that Chicago is number 3 by population, but ranks 79th
>>>>> on Neighborhood Scout's list of the 100 most dangerous places to
>>>>> live in America.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anxiously waiting your gun nutter twist...
>>>>>
>>>> Why confuse them with statistics and facts when gross
>>>> generalizations work best for them? ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Feel free to move to Chicago, where illegal firearms
>>> restrictions have disarmed most of the honest people.
>>>
>>> It's *your* kind of place...
>>>
>>> Also, feel free to attempt to extend your illegal
>>> firearms restrictions to the rest of the country.
>>>
>>> There are many anxiously awaiting anything you might
>>> implement.
>>>
>>> Don't let them down now.
>>>
>> I don't get you. Why, with all of the recent mass deaths
>> accomplished with guns staring at you in the face, is your head so
>> wrapped around that "right to bear arms" issue that you can't see
>> past your personal biases that some regulation is being cried out
>> for? The 2nd amendment doesn't say "anything goes", does it?
>>
>>
>
> Well, when the day comes when you can point to any
> "recent mass deaths" that were perpetrated by any
> firearm on its own without some person holding it
> with evil intent then perhaps we would have a reason
> to converse.
>
> As long as you continue to fear and blame the
> hardware for the acts of evil and/or insane
> people there's no common ground, so feel free
> to continue your business as usual.
>
> I'll feel free to ignore and/or mock as the mood strikes.
>
> Good luck with your flaccid little crusade.
>
Well then, if that's your position, that it's not the gun, but the people,
then let's give every citizen a small attache-case nuclear weapon (for the
general defense of the country of course) just in case we're invaded. After
all, the nuclear device can't hurt us.

I won't need luck with "my crusade", of which, btw, I'm not a crusader,
simply a debater in a thread in which I see illogical people promoting
irresponsible arguments. Gun control will eventually prevail. It might just
take as long as it took to gain a semblance of civil rights for minority
people and tolerance of gay people. But it's destined to happen. YOU need to
get over it. I can tell that you're concerned that you're "losing". Because
you know you will.

[Claude V. Lucas]

In article <518bceb4$0$20206$607e...@cv.net>,
Carl <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> thundered:

Like I keep saying, f that works for you, then have at it...

The "let's give every citizen a small attache-case nuclear weapon"
is a nice touch. It allows the reasonable to percieve your overall
absurdity and has that lib-cult appeal to the gimmes as well.

After all, who wouldn't like their own free thermonuclear device...

[Bruce Morgen]

Wherein Claude make yet another
confession that he has nothin',
as usual.

[Claude V. Lucas]

In article <ndono8hvua0bjfelu...@4ax.com>,
Bruce "Pee Wee" Morgen <edi...@juno.com> guessed wrongly, yet again:

As usual, I have "nothing", which is exactly the way I like it.

I have "nothing" in the area of further illegal and idiotic
restrictions on firearms promoted by those long on emotion
and short on facts to worry about.

Don't let that stop you from crying the blues, though.

It's music to my ears, so to speak...

[Claude V. Lucas]

In article <59qno8dr830ig2vkq...@giganews.com>,
Spender <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 9 May 2013 11:52:21 -0400, "Carl" <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net>
>wrote:

>
>>benj wrote:
>>>
>>> You just need to work a bit on what "rights" are. Your "envy of the
>>> world" the USSR didn't need "rights" so you don't either, but just to
>>> understand what "insane" gun owners are thinking you might review the
>>> word.
>>>
>>So, since you've rejected all of these left-wing ideas to reduce the problem
>>of gun violence, what ideas do you PROPOSE that can be implemented
>>realistically? The problem with people like yourself is that you seem to
>>never offer an idea of how to resolve the problem but prefer instead to
>>complain about the ones that are presented by others.
>

>How about enforcing the laws already on the books? How about clearing the
>prisons of all the non-violent drug offenders so there is room to lock up
>violent felons who are the most likely to use guns criminally?

How about disbanding DEA and reassigning all the armed
operators to different agencies dealing with the violent
and the feral as well?

[Carl]

Spender wrote:

> On Thu, 9 May 2013 11:16:30 -0400, "Carl"
> <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>
>> Spender wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 May 2013 13:28:58 -0400, "Carl"
>>> <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> These analogies you guys use belie the fact that of the three (ie.
>>>> cars, alcohol, guns) only ONE of them is actually built for the
>>>> intent of killing.
>>>
>>> Who are you intending to kill with your gun?
>>>
>> I dunno Spender. Why don't you ask these guys?
>

> Because you are the owner of that particular gun - a device for which
> you claim the express purpose is to kill. The phrase "your gun"
> should have tipped you off to the question being about "your gun".

>
> Who are you intending to kill with your gun?
>

>> "...guns still remain the most common murder weapon in the United
>> States, the report noted. Between 1993 and 2011, more than two out
>> of three murders in the U.S. were carried out with guns, the Bureau
>> of Justice Statistics found."
>

> The very same report noted a 39% decrease in the number of firearm
> homicides from 1993-2011, despite there being 50 million more guns in
> America since 1993 and despite an enormously wider enacting of
> concealed carry laws not to mention a SCOTUS ruling which prohibits
> the banning of handguns.

>
>> Please, please don't waste your time responding glibly to this post
>> of mine unless you've read everything first and had someone make
>> sure you understood it all. Otherwise I'll just have to "deflect"
>> you again.
>

> This from Carl, a man who can't comprehend a simple nine word
> question.
>
> Who are you intending to kill with your gun, Carl?
>
> Oops, that's ten words now... I apologize for arbitrarily raising the
> difficulty.
>
Yes, perhaps a 39% decrease in firearm homicides, but still guns accounted
for almost 70% of all of the homicides. How is it that you're missing that?

A responsible analysis of those figures would tell you that, for whatever
reasons, ALL homicides declined across the board. It doesn't matter that the
NUMBER of firearm homicides declined if the PERCENTAGE of the homicides
caused by guns remained the same or increased.

Feeling the need to re-state in another way what I've already said: to say
that there was a 39% decrease in firearm homicides during a particular
period is meaningless taken out of the context of everything else that
occurred during that period.

What if, for example, you found that the TOTAL number of homicides during
that same period declined by 45%? But gun homicides only declined by 39%?
Effectively then, gun homicides actually INCREASED by 5%. Get this or no?

If you need a concrete example of how these statistics interract, just ask
and I'll try to come up with one for you.

Your challenge regarding my gun doesn't really deserve a response because
it's childish, but I'll offer one to you.

No one, not I or anyone else, said that gun owners actively "intend" to kill
anyone with their guns. All I've ever said is that the SOLE PURPOSE OF GUNS
IS TO KILL. Go back and re-read my posts and see if you find anything else.
You won't.

I also expressly never said "KILL PEOPLE" so asking me "WHO I INTEND to
kill" is, as usual with you, reading into my posts something which is not
there. My purposely ambiguously stated position could mean wild animals
(deer, bear) or your neighbor's dog that barks all night, or the
hypothetical burgler that's going to break into your home. However, much of
the time, those that get killed, aside from in active animal hunting, are
the gun owner's children, spouse, or their neighbor's kid.

[Carl]

Spender wrote:

> On Thu, 9 May 2013 12:14:00 -0400, "Carl"
> <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>
>> Spender wrote:
>>> On Tue, 7 May 2013 16:37:52 -0400, "Carl"
>>> <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Btw, I too own a gun. A couple of these guys seem to drag this
>>>> debate regarding some regulation into the zone of extremism
>>>> whenever the issue is raised.
>>>
>>> Who are you planning to kill?
>>>
>> It's a leftover from when I was a teenager and thought guns were
>> "cool".
>

> So why do you still keep a device for which you claim the express
> purpose is killing? Who do you intend to kill?

>
>> I
>> owned several then and was an avid NRA member being a naive teenager
>> and not even thinking that they were a political lobbying
>> organization.
>

> That's not naivet�, it's stupidity. How on earth can anybody able to
> read not know that the NRA is a political lobbyist?

>
>> This one gun
>> just got lost in a closet. The others are gone. Those guns killed
>> many things, thank heavens not people.
>

> Thanks heavens? You mean countless human beings escaped being
> murdered by *your* guns only by the grace of God?
>
> Maybe so. You did just admit that you are dumb and irresponsible
> enough to have "lost" a gun in a closet.

>
>> Are you a teenager by the way? Perhaps that's the problem here.
>

> No, I'm not a teenager. But what does my age have to do with you
> being reluctant to provide a simple answer to a question?
>
Post is moronic, ergo response requires "deflection".

[Carl]

I've never yet seen this guy offer up anything of substance. He apparently
thinks these childish elementary schoolyard taunts are clever.

He's good for a laugh or two.

[Claude V. Lucas]

In article <518c057d$0$25625$607e...@cv.net>,
Carl <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> minced:

Laugh on.

I'm laughing too.

He who laughs last, and all that...

[Carl]

Spender wrote:

> On Thu, 9 May 2013 11:48:53 -0400, "Carl"
> <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>
>> Spender wrote:
>>> On Tue, 7 May 2013 11:29:06 -0700 (PDT), "???"
>>> <lucky...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 8:37:52 AM UTC-7, Spender wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What would the point of any gun law be if not to disarm people?
>>>>
>>>> Paranoid much?
>>>
>>> Non-sequitur.
>>>
>> How is it that? When you believe there's a big conspiracy to "get
>> you" (or your guns) that is called PARANOIA.
>

> Paranoia is the delusional belief in unfounded conspiracies of
> persecution. Democrats consistently attempting to ban guns is not an
> unfounded conspiracy, it is a demonstrable fact.

>
>>>> Gun laws can regulate WHO gets to (legally) purchase, possess and
>>>> carry guns. Criminal history with a mental issue, even a
>>>> misdemeanor? You COULD regulate the sale and possession.
>>>
>>> The law already *does* regulate who can buy a gun.
>>>
>> WHERE is that happening? What "law" are you referring to? In certain
>> states, pistols require permit applications. In many states, you can
>> walk into any store and buy a gun. At gun shows, that's more the
>> rule than the exception. Other than some states requiring permits
>> for pistols, what regulation do you know of that we don't?
>

> Have you ever heard of the Brady Bill? NICS? Background checks
> required for all retail sales of guns?
>
> And again you add on clearly false information by claming that
> unregulated gun sales are the rule at gun shows. The majority of
> vendors at gun shows (that is vendors who sell guns rather than
> unregulated accessories) are federal firearms licensees and they are
> required to run all applications through NICS.
>
> Unregulated sales at gun shows are the exception. And as many people
> have proven to you countless times, those unregulated sales at gun
> shows account for only a tiny percentage of guns used in crimes.

>
>>> Those laws already exists. There is a federal law mandating a five
>>> year additional sentence for using a gun in the commission of a
>>> felony. There is also a fifteen year mandatory minimum sentence for
>>> a triple felon in possession of a firearm.
>>>
>>> Such charges are almost always dropped in a plea bargain.
>>>
>> So, if they're almost always dropped, what good do they serve?
>

> Good question, Nancy... Why don't you give that a little more thought
> before seeking to create yet more laws?
>
As is often the case, your presentation is only partly correct. I suggest
you read a source material such as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States.
FFL's are not the problem, but what occurs at gun shows is. By the way, the
ATF reports that as few as 50% of the sellers at gun shows are FFL's.
Really, read the citation I bothered to give you.

As for the law issue above, I have actually said in other posts right in
this thread that my (and others') direction is NOT towards more punitive
action laws, which are too late to help the victims anyway. I have been
clear in stating that I am here promoting the stricter regulation of the
sale of firearms, particularly semi-automatic and above, and pistols, as
well as over-sized clips.

It is YOU (and your pals) who keep spinning these discussion in a direction
that suits your need, not in the direction in which we pro-regulation people
are trying to go. You're not listening. You're arguing defensively. And thus
comes my opinion of you that you're not a skilled reading comprehender. Try
reading what's written, without adding your personal interpretation into the
mix. You'll be amazed to find that the story will sound different than the
one floating around in your own head.

For example: 1. I state that guns are generally not regulated. 2. You retort
that there's already a "law" on the books mandating prison time for a felon
caught with a gun. But, you add, these charges are usually dropped. 3. I
reply by asking you what good that law is then if the charges are usually
dropped. 4. You respond by asking me then what good would it do to make more
laws, bringing us right back to #2 and skipping over #1.

Follow nos. 1 thru 4 above. You've succeeded in taking us around in a huge
circle. I wasn't talking about criminal laws for use after a crime. I am
talking about regulating guns to make it harder for the crime to occur in
the first place. But you bring it around to your argument that there are
already laws for felons, which I never denied, then argue that the law is
not used, then ask me what good making more laws is anyway.

The frickin' discussion with you is like falling down the rabbit hole and
trying to reason with the Mad Hatter. You're like a
multiple-personality-disordered person who is arguing with themself, but
placing me in as one of the characters in your own pre-scripted play.

I have to admit, it's pretty maddening talking to you.

[Bruce Morgen]

If moving goalposts was an
Olympic event, Spender would
undoubtedly be a medal
contender.

[Lord Valve]

Confucius say:

"He who laughs last has most ammo and best equipment."

[Claude V. Lucas]

In article <518C17F2...@ix.netcom.com>,

One needs little more than a rubber band and
some paperclips to deal with this bunch...

[Claude V. Lucas]

In article <518c0cdd$0$20200$607e...@cv.net>,
Carl <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wondered:

Like many of the non-addled, Spender seems to have trouble
with that whole "we already have a bunch of laws against that
activity, but we don't enforce those. We want a few more laws
against the same activity to not enforce FOR THE CHILDREN"
thing that you are peddling...

I can see why you might be frustrated with the repeated
"no sale" that you seem to be getting from the lucid.

[RichL]

"Spender" <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote in message

news:tnpno8h860mp43510...@giganews.com...

> On Thu, 9 May 2013 11:48:53 -0400, "Carl" <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Spender wrote:
>>> On Tue, 7 May 2013 11:29:06 -0700 (PDT), "???"
>>> <lucky...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 8:37:52 AM UTC-7, Spender wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What would the point of any gun law be if not to disarm people?
>>>>
>>>> Paranoid much?
>>>
>>> Non-sequitur.
>>>
>>How is it that? When you believe there's a big conspiracy to "get you" (or
>>your guns) that is called PARANOIA.
>
> Paranoia is the delusional belief in unfounded conspiracies of
> persecution. Democrats consistently attempting to ban guns is not an
> unfounded conspiracy, it is a demonstrable fact.

There's no doubt that *some* Democrats have consistently attempted to ban
*some* guns. That's a far cry from the claim that Democrats want to disarm
the population so they can implement their own tyrannical version of
Marxism.

[RichL]

"Carl" <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:518bceb4$0$20206$607e...@cv.net...

The entire "guns don't kill people, people kill people" falls apart in these
cases:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423161907.htm

Yeah, if we only got those five-year-old "killers" off the streets and into
prisons where they belong, everything would be hunky-dory.

Oh, and there's this:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/11/guns-child-deaths-more-than-cancer/2073259/

"In 2010, 15,576 children and teenagers were injured by firearms - three
times more than the number of U.S. soldiers injured in the war in
Afghanistan, according to the defense fund.

Nationally, guns still kill twice as many children and young people than
cancer, five times as many than heart disease and 15 times more than
infection, according to the New England Journal of Medicine"

I guess that's just "collateral damage" in the war to protect America from
hypothetical future "tyranny".

[Defiant]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 16:19:32 -0400, Carl wrote:


> Yes, perhaps a 39% decrease in firearm homicides, but still guns accounted
> for almost 70% of all of the homicides. How is it that you're missing that?

So, your "logic" is that guns cause people to kill, and if guns were banned,
people would no longer be compelled to kill one another. You know, you may
be on to something here. After all, people never killed one another prior to
the invention of the firearm.....

Oh, wait........

[Defiant]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 12:31:22 -0400, Carl wrote:

> I won't need luck with "my crusade", of which, btw, I'm not a crusader,
> simply a debater in a thread in which I see illogical people promoting
> irresponsible arguments. Gun control will eventually prevail. It might just
> take as long as it took to gain a semblance of civil rights for minority
> people and tolerance of gay people. But it's destined to happen. YOU need to
> get over it. I can tell that you're concerned that you're "losing". Because
> you know you will.

Wish in one hand, shit in the other. See which one fills up first.

[Defiant]

DickL would have us believe the majority of these cases are five year olds. The
article says differently:

"At the same time, 50 percent of shooting victims required intensive care. And,
13 percent died compared to 1.7 percent of children hurt in non-firearm incidents.
The majority of those shot were *adolescent* males whose injuries were often
self-inflicted."

Adolescent. Five year old. Totally the same thing in the mind of leftards.

>
> Oh, and there's this:
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/11/guns-child-deaths-more-than-cancer/2073259/
>
> "In 2010, 15,576 children and teenagers were injured by firearms - three
> times more than the number of U.S. soldiers injured in the war in
> Afghanistan, according to the defense fund.

According to this article: "Accidental firearms injuries have been on the decline nationwide.
In 2001, 5,091 children ages 19 and under were injured by a firearm. Those numbers steadily
decreased through 2009, when 3,587 children under 19 were reported injured by a firearm,

according to the defense fund."

Interesting that, legally, one is considered an adult when they turn 18. However, in libland,
one isn't an adult until they turn 20. Makes the statistics much more juicy, you see. They talk
about the Us soldiers injured and killed in Afghanistan, many of whom are 18 or 19. Why aren't
they "children"?

BTW, since you libtards are good at parsing shit, how about you parse up how many of those
"children" were shot while involved in illegal/gang activities? you won't, because it doesn't
fit your bullshit narrative.

Once again, DickL swings and strikes out.

[Carl]

You should change your pseudonym from "Defiant" to "Defensive". Maybe even
"Densest". Either of the last two would suit your online character better.

[Carl]

:-) Very good....

[Carl]

Another person with reading comprehension issues.

[Carl]

Why make sense when it's so much easier to generalize and hyperbolize (is
that a word?)? ;-)

[Carl]

Spender wrote:
> On Thu, 9 May 2013 12:10:46 -0400, "Carl"
> <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>
>> nm...@wt.net wrote:
>>>
>>> That's like saying if a burglar rummages through a closet
>>> and finds a hidden set of keys to a car sitting out in the garage,
>>> it was the owners irresponsibility that caused the theft of the car.
>>>
>> There's that straw man analogy of guns to cars again.
>>
>> That IS how criminals get guns.
>
> It is in fact the least likely way that a criminal will get a gun.
> Why one earth should they bother committing a felony to steal a gun
> when they can just walk into a gun store and have their bitch-du-jour
> buy them one?
>
>> Without the preponderance of irresponsible
>> gun ownership, criminals could not get guns (or at minimum it would
>> a LOT harder).
>
> Preponderance? Yet again you are defending the idea that most crime
> guns are stolen when you know it is not true.
>
>> Part of the idea of gun regulation is to limit irresponsible gun
>> ownership.
>
> Maybe they should start with assholes who lose their guns in closets.
>
>> Allow me to say this one more time: possessing guns requires a GREAT
>> deal more responsibility than possessing cars.
>
> Says the man who gave the impression that he simply forgot about
> having one in his closet...
>
> When is it ever going to sunk in to your thick skull that *legal* gun
> owners are not the problem?
>
"Legal" gun owners are PART of the problem. They sell, trade or have stolen
their "legal" guns putting them out there for those illegal ones to get
them. That's exactly what we've said.

My "gun" has been owned by me since I was 15 years old, and well before gun
violence was at the level it is now. As a matter of fact, gun violence was
relatively unheard of then.

That it ended up in the back of a closet doesn't make it "lost" in the way
that you're trying to convey. But I think that even you know that, though
with that apparent mentality, one can't be sure.

[RichL]

"Carl" <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in message

news:518d73af$0$25605$607e...@cv.net...

I've used "Deficient" in the past, though upon reflection, "Dunderhead" may
be more accurate.

[RichL]

"Spender" <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote in message

news:tfbro8hv4i4vlghck...@giganews.com...

> The gun accident rate amongst children is also at historic lows. You're
> just making shit up again and getting hysterical about it.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/11/guns-child-deaths-more-than-cancer/2073259/

[RichL]

"Spender" <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote in message

news:f2ero893ig17l1i5a...@giganews.com...

> On Thu, 9 May 2013 23:08:34 -0400, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>The entire "guns don't kill people, people kill people" falls apart in
>>these
>>cases:
>>
>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423161907.htm
>>
>>Yeah, if we only got those five-year-old "killers" off the streets and
>>into
>>prisons where they belong, everything would be hunky-dory.
>

> From the article: "Are we as a society willing to accept that 14 or more
> children shot each year is an acceptable number?"
>
> Well yes, Rich, we are.

That's 14 in the Denver area alone. I don't find that acceptable.

> Especially given that far more children are
> killed by swimming pools, bathtubs, household chemicals, etc. Oh, and
> cars... let's not forget that.

And off he goes...ignoring that active measures are taken to attempt to
reduce deaths caused by these factors, without the hyperbolic "principled"
opposition of ideologues (excluding a small number of bikers who consider
being required to wear helmets "infringement" of their rights).

OK, I'll take swimming pools for $1000, Alex:

http://www6.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/frs-safe/resources/laws/pools.asp

That's all the regs I've got to follow if I want to put up a swimming pool
in my own yard.

>
>>Oh, and there's this:
>>
>>http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/11/guns-child-deaths-more-than-cancer/2073259/
>>
>>"In 2010, 15,576 children and teenagers were injured by firearms - three
>>times more than the number of U.S. soldiers injured in the war in
>>Afghanistan, according to the defense fund.
>>
>>Nationally, guns still kill twice as many children and young people than
>>cancer, five times as many than heart disease and 15 times more than
>>infection, according to the New England Journal of Medicine"
>>
>>I guess that's just "collateral damage" in the war to protect America from
>>hypothetical future "tyranny".
>

> As usual you need to include "children" ages of 14-19 to make your
> statistics pan out, while ignoring that "children" ages 14-19 constitute
> the bulk of gangbangers.

Ah, so "children" between 14 and 19 years old are expendable? Wonderful.
And I love the fact that you so readily dismiss gangbangers having access to
guns. Straw-purchase and background checks are pretty pointless if you have
no objection to them gaining access to guns. I guess I should be happy
though, since you've made my point that keeping guns out of the hands of
those who shouldn't have them is pretty low on your priority list.

And I guess that the innocent folks who get caught up in gang wars are
expendable as well. "Collateral damage".

[Les Cargill]

Well, yeah - childhood cancer is very rare. So is gun death.

--
Les Cargill

[RichL]

"Les Cargill" <lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:kmkekp$t3n$2...@dont-email.me...

Yet we spend tons of money to try to prevent childhood cancer.

[Les Cargill]

Spender wrote:

> On Thu, 9 May 2013 22:59:55 -0400, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Spender" <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote in message
>> news:tnpno8h860mp43510...@giganews.com...
>>>

>>> Paranoia is the delusional belief in unfounded conspiracies of
>>> persecution. Democrats consistently attempting to ban guns is not an
>>> unfounded conspiracy, it is a demonstrable fact.
>>
>> There's no doubt that *some* Democrats have consistently attempted to ban
>> *some* guns. That's a far cry from the claim that Democrats want to disarm
>> the population so they can implement their own tyrannical version of
>> Marxism.
>

> Personally I don't care *why* democrats want to ban guns. It is clear
> that they do want to ban them.
>

I think that the assassination of Robert Kennedy scarred the entire
nation. Was there even a gun control movement before that?

I watched "JFK" again recently - it cemented my belief that the
assassinations in the '60s led to the paranoia/conspiracy/alien
encounter thing.

There's even a conspiracy theory about Nixon being taken down:
<http://www.booktv.org/Watch/11243/The+Forty+Years+War+The+Rise+and+Fall+of+the+Neocons+from+Nixon+to+Obama.aspx>

--
Les Cargill

[Defiant]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 18:26:39 -0400, Carl folded like a crappy poker hand:

And he resorts to an ad hominem attack. Standard response when leftards lose.
Thanks for playing...