Majority Of Republicans Support Obama On Guns

[mog...@hotmail.com]

On January 8, At 2:21 PM (2 hours ago) Lee wrote:
>
> Obama said gun owners would support his new restrictions. He was right.
>
> A new CNN/ORC survey of 1,000 Americans finds that the
> public supports Obama's plan by a 2-1 ratio: 67 percent
> of respondents favored the executive actions, while
> 32 percent opposed them. Even more striking, a similar
> share of people in gun-owning households -- 63 percent -
> - supported the measures.
>
> Even more striking: 51 percent of Republicans support
> Obama's executive action on guns. When's the last time
> 51 percent of Republicans agreed with Obama on anything?
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/08/obama-said-
> gun-owners-would-support-his-new-restrictions-he-was-right/

But what do their corporate slavemasters think?

[Ed Huntress]

What do YOUR corporate slavemasters think?

--
Ed Huntress

[mog...@hotmail.com]

I sometimes wonder

[Tom Gardner]

I don't see a problem with O's proposals. It's the unquantified parts
that arouse suspicion. How many sales are necessary for a license?

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 12:05:12 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
wrote:

It's not the number of sales; it's the degree to which selling guns
contributes to a person's income. A percentage would be worked out for
that.

Most people -- close to 90% of the country, and more than half of NRA
members -- see "no problem" with Obama's proposals per se. But that
isn't the issue at play. The issue is that the NRA and the hard core
are terrified about losing momentum. Agreeing on any point will damage
the value of Obama and the Democrats as the satanic enemy, and the NRA
needs such an enemy to whip up the donors and to keep the political
threat against incumbants in Congress alive.

The NRA realized this after 1998, when they were in favor of universal
background checks and reaped hellfire from the hard right. They
quickly changed their tune, with the "explanation" that there were too
many holes in the Brady Bill, and that, therefore, they wanted to
leave more holes in it. You can work on the logic of that to your own
satisfaction. <g>

In the end, it's fear of losing the initiative and the momentum.

--
Ed Huntress

[Terry Coombs]

One . Otherwise it will not have the effect he wants , which is a record of
who owns every gun in the USA . Can't take 'em if ya don't know who's got
'em .
See the problem now ?
--
Snag

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 12:11:33 -0600, "Terry Coombs" <snag...@msn.com>
wrote:

No problem. Just one step toward universal background checks -- in
this case, by closing a loophole that allows gun-show dealers to hide
behind the false, but largely unenforceable claim that they aren't
dealers.

One more step, and the NRA will go into full panic mode, for fear of
losing momentum. Hang tight, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

--
Ed Huntress

[jon_banquer]

On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 2:00:16 PM UTC-8, slow eddy wrote:

> What do YOUR corporate slavemasters think?
>
> --

> slow eddy

slow eddy is owned by advertisers. slow eddy is their bitch and he's more than happy to write whatever it is they want in his Pay 4 Play "articles".

[Ed Huntress]

Ha-ha! The voice of envy. <g>

I have nothing to do with advertisers. My job is to write things that
readers find useful or interesting -- around ten times as many as your
entire "membership."

Which is why nobody would pay you to write anything, you hopeless
boob. Too many people know about your lying, fraudulent, four-flushing
history on the Web.

How are your welfare checks doing these days? Have you figured out how
to get direct deposit?

--
Ed Huntress

[Tom Gardner]

On 1/10/2016 1:15 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
> No problem. Just one step toward universal background checks -- in
> this case, by closing a loophole that allows gun-show dealers to hide
> behind the false, but largely unenforceable claim that they aren't
> dealers.
>
> One more step, and the NRA will go into full panic mode, for fear of
> losing momentum. Hang tight, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
>

I have the answer that no one else has proposed:

An one who wants to own a gun must apply for a license for $25 every ten
years. A thorough background check is performed and the guy can buy any
gun just by showing the license. He can have a bunch or none. Somebody
gets caught with a gun and no license or commits a crime with a gun gets
jammed-up but good.

There, problem solved!

[Larry Jaques]

On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 23:30:52 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
wrote:

What part of "Most people don't want the gov't to have a list of gun
owners which could be used for de-gunning folks." don't you
understand, Tawm?

--

You can't use up creativity. The more you use, the more you have.
--Oscar Wilde

[jon_banquer]

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 11:18:50 AM UTC-8, slow eddy, the lying fraud, failed:

[John B.]

On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 23:30:52 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
wrote:

But why not do it the old fashioned way. Anyone can own a gun but if
you murder someone they hang you?

It used to work :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 23:30:52 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
wrote:

That's about what we have in NJ for long guns and ammo. For handguns,
it's individual permits to purchase.

It seems to work. Of the crimes committed with guns in NJ, 82% come
from other (mostly southern) states.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

The part where you can be so misinformed on so many issues. On
everything from gun control to global warming, it almost looks like
you will yourself ignorant, Larry.

64% favor a national gun registry in the latest poll, and this has
been the case in poll after poll, for years.

https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/08/10/two-thirds-back-national-gun-registry/

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:32:07 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Great idea! That would have worked great with Adam Lanza or the
jihadis in San Bernardino.

Many of them these days tend to take a short cut and commit suicide
before they're caught. But you get the same result -- one dead mass
murderer, and 10 or 20 innocent people killed.

I'm sure it will work fine, John...

--
Ed Huntress

[Tom Gardner]

On 1/11/2016 1:53 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> What part of "Most people don't want the gov't to have a list of gun
> owners which could be used for de-gunning folks." don't you
> understand, Tawm?
>
> --

That's just it, license doesn't = gun, but gun = license. Licensed guy
just says "I got no gun." Guns are untraceable, people are untraceable.

[Tom Gardner]

On 1/11/2016 6:32 AM, John B. wrote:
>
> But why not do it the old fashioned way. Anyone can own a gun but if
> you murder someone they hang you?
>
> It used to work :-)
> --
>
> Cheers,
>
> John B.
>

ANY gun crime = hanging! Those fucxers diminish responsible gun owners,
string 'em up!

[Tom Gardner]

Pass laws that make bringing a gun into NJ for the purpose of committing
a crime...a crime!

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:11:06 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>

They exist. Unfortunately, other states (especially Virginia, South
Carolina, and Florida) are making money by selling guns to illegal
dealers, who bring them here to sell. We catch some, but that's pretty
hard to do.

The only way to stop that is with some federal laws that have real
teeth in them.

--
Ed Huntress

[pyotr filipivich]

Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com> on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 23:30:52 -0500 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

computer

> must apply for a license for $25 every ten
>years. A thorough background check is performed and the guy can buy any

computer

> just by showing the license. He can have a bunch or none. Somebody
>gets caught with a

computer

>and no license or commits a crime with a gun gets
>jammed-up but good.

>There, problem solved!

Ends copy cat crimes, human trafficking, reckless rumor mongering,
and damps down on the computer pron, too.


--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?

[Larry Jaques]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:04:29 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
wrote:

Step into this reality from wherever you are and say that again, will
ya?

[Larry Jaques]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:07:34 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
wrote:

I'd limit the "any" to armed robbery/burglary/rape/murder, then add
gang membership to the list of hangable offenses.

[Tom Gardner]

On 1/11/2016 3:28 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> --
>> That's just it, license doesn't = gun, but gun = license. Licensed guy
>> just says "I got no gun." Guns are untraceable, people are untraceable.
>
> Step into this reality from wherever you are and say that again, will
> ya?
>
> --
>
> You can't use up creativity. The more you use, the more you have.
> --Oscar Wilde
>

I can get a license and never buy a gun. A lot of people will get a
license and never get a gun. If I want to buy a gun from a store or a
private individual, I only have to show my license. That way nobody
knows I have that gun, nobody can confiscate it. However if I get
caught with a gun and no license, I get jammed up good.

Better than most ideas.

[Tom Gardner]

On 1/11/2016 3:30 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> ANY gun crime = hanging! Those fucxers diminish responsible gun owners,
>> string 'em up!
>
> I'd limit the "any" to armed robbery/burglary/rape/murder, then add
> gang membership to the list of hangable offenses.
>
> --

OK, but what gun crime didn't you mention?

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:01:38 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
wrote:

The way this works in NJ, you need the "license" (the FOID) to buy a
gun. If you have a gun without a FOID, it better be older than 1968.
If it is, you're OK as long as it was legal in 1968.

Technically, we don't register guns here. I own four handguns that
don't have to be registered, and for which I didn't need a purchase
permit. How that works is more that you want to hear, but suffice to
say that it's an extremely rare circumstance. It involves inheritance.

--
Ed Huntress

[John B.]

One wonders. Of the total firearms in N.J., how many were purchased
outside the state and sold there illegally?
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

You can certainly find reasons to rationalize any situation.

Strange, isn't it, that when I was growing up in N. New England anyone
could buy a gun and even carry it around, and I don't remember any
mass shootings. Perhaps it isn't the guns that are the problem.

Just as during Prohibition, the U.S. attempted to stamp out the "Demon
Rum" and it was the greatest gift to what had previously been
"un-organized" crime.

But to return to the mass killings, I see the same sort of crime being
commented in other countries with cooking knives or swords.

What is your vision? Eliminate the guns and the next mass murder with
a cooking knife you start to preach about the illegal Chef's knives
bought in Virginia and imported illegally into N.J.?

What is next? Eliminate the cooking knives and the bad people turn to
baseball bats? Eureka! Eliminate ball bats and we'll will solve the
problem!

Then someone kicks someone to death and Ups-a-daisy! Eliminate shoes!

When are you going to face reality that it isn't guns that kill
people, it is people that kill people.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 07:16:58 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

Yes, we see lots of that here.

>
>Strange, isn't it, that when I was growing up in N. New England anyone
>could buy a gun and even carry it around, and I don't remember any
>mass shootings. Perhaps it isn't the guns that are the problem.

Perhaps it's the gun culture. Back then, gun culture was about hunting
and target shooting. Now it's about killing people. Note that even
Tom's training activities are not about follow-through when
pass-shooting ducks, or breath control for hitting the 10-ring from a
kneeling position. They're about shooting people.

In 1959, 60% of Americans believed that private citizens should not
have handguns. The figure now is 28%. Roughly half of gun sales are
handguns now and most of the rest are mliitary-style semiautomatic
rifles.

The types of guns being sold reflect a deep-seated paranoia, and the
people who are buying them voice their paranoia every day.

As for mass shootings, those guns that are most popular now are, among
guns that can be bought and sold legally, some of the best, most
efficient mass-killing firearms in history. If you know the history of
military small-arms doctrine as it developed from the early '50s, you
know that these high-capacity, high fire-rate sub-caliber guns (the
.223 or 5.56 NATO is a slight refinement of the .222 Remington Magnum,
which was a mid-powered groundhog gun) are designed specifically to do
that. The semi-auto versions are not as capable, but they have the
right look to show one's attitude and culture, and they come as close
as one can with guns that are readily available. Nutcases of various
types seem to have noticed. Very macho; very intimidating. Very
Soldier of Fortune.

Do you know what that military research indicated? You can summarize
it in one sentence: "Whoever gets the most pieces of lead downrange,
at high velocity and in the shortest time, wins." You can look it up.
There was a famous military white paper written in 1952 that got the
ball rolling, so to speak.

>
>Just as during Prohibition, the U.S. attempted to stamp out the "Demon
>Rum" and it was the greatest gift to what had previously been
>"un-organized" crime.

What does outlawing booze have to do with requiring background checks
by gun sellers?

>
>But to return to the mass killings, I see the same sort of crime being
>commented in other countries with cooking knives or swords.

No you don't. Have you actually checked the numbers? How many skinny
kids have managed to kill 26 people in one building with a knife or a
sword?

>
>What is your vision?

"Vision"? What I see ahead is more craziness and more slaughter. We're
running a little over 10,000 intentional homicides with firearms per
year. I expect it won't change much in my lifetime.

>Eliminate the guns and the next mass murder with
>a cooking knife you start to preach about the illegal Chef's knives
>bought in Virginia and imported illegally into N.J.?

Again, how many mass murders have been committed with cooking knives?

Your comparison is just the other side of nuts, John. There is no
comparison in the numbers. 70% of homicides in the US are committed
with guns. Virtually all of the mass killings are. Take away the gun
homicides, and our remaining homicide rate is 1.6/100k, which is
vittually identical to that of Canada or Belgium; about what you'd
expect for a typical, developed Western country.

There is NO reason to expect, and no history or data to support the
idea that we'd all be knifing and clubbing each other to death, to the
tune of over 10,000 per year, if we had a lot fewer guns. Nothing.
Nada.

>
>What is next? Eliminate the cooking knives and the bad people turn to
>baseball bats? Eureka! Eliminate ball bats and we'll will solve the
>problem!

See above. Check your facts before making up these strawmen.

>
>Then someone kicks someone to death and Ups-a-daisy! Eliminate shoes!
>
>When are you going to face reality that it isn't guns that kill
>people, it is people that kill people.

When are you going to face the reality that more than 2/3 of the
people murdered in this country are murdered by people shooting guns?

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 07:16:58 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

There is no good data on the number of illegal guns in the US, or in
any state. All we know is the data on the number confiscated in
crimes. NJ's 82% out-of-state crime guns is among the highest.

--
Ed Huntress

[Larry Jaques]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:01:38 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
wrote:

>On 1/11/2016 3:28 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> --
>>> That's just it, license doesn't = gun, but gun = license. Licensed guy
>>> just says "I got no gun." Guns are untraceable, people are untraceable.
>>
>> Step into this reality from wherever you are and say that again, will
>> ya?

>I can get a license and never buy a gun. A lot of people will get a
>license and never get a gun. If I want to buy a gun from a store or a
>private individual, I only have to show my license. That way nobody
>knows I have that gun, nobody can confiscate it. However if I get
>caught with a gun and no license, I get jammed up good.
>
>Better than most ideas.

Not really. What if you get a license and then the gov't decides that
they want to take away your guns, but you don't have any? They'll
think you're hiding lots of them and ransack your entire life to get
to the big stash.

No good whatsoever can come from licensing. I'm against it.

[Larry Jaques]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:03:31 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
wrote:

Tons: Illegal possession, brandishing, shooting on the 4th, etc.

[Tom Gardner]

On 1/11/2016 10:57 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>> OK, but what gun crime didn't you mention?
>
> Tons: Illegal possession, brandishing, shooting on the 4th, etc.
>
> --
>

Possession is covered by my idea but I see your point. My idea isn't
perfect but better than what's out there.

[Larry Jaques]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:09:20 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
wrote:

Tawmmykins, your idea is still to license guns. The vast majority of
gun owners are law abiding and are still quite unwilling to allow it.
Rethink it, please, lest you be categorized as a grabber, along with
the rest of the Liberals and Ol' Weird Ed.

[Terry Coombs]

Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:09:20 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/11/2016 10:57 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>
>>>> OK, but what gun crime didn't you mention?
>>>
>>> Tons: Illegal possession, brandishing, shooting on the 4th, etc.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>
>> Possession is covered by my idea but I see your point. My idea isn't
>> perfect but better than what's out there.
>
> Tawmmykins, your idea is still to license guns. The vast majority of
> gun owners are law abiding and are still quite unwilling to allow it.
> Rethink it, please, lest you be categorized as a grabber, along with
> the rest of the Liberals and Ol' Weird Ed.

I have to agree with Larry , Tom . I know you're not a grabber , but you
CANNOT COMPROMISE with these people . Because one compromise leads to
another , until we have no guns at all . And at that point we're no longer
citizens , we're subjects .
--
Snag

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 17:19:07 -0600, "Terry Coombs" <snag...@msn.com>
wrote:

...And that's the combination of mindless paranoia and fear of losing
momentum that I've mentioned in this thread.

Tell us about the "compromises" that have led to your loss of guns. Or
any such compromises, at any time in US history.

Take your time...

--
Ed Huntress

[John B.]

If the government wants your guns they can easily get them. Just pass
a law that possession of an illegal firearm is punishable by, say a
$100,000 fine and/or 10 years in prison for each weapon.

I'm probably overstating the penalties (but after all the U.S. IS a
very affluent society) but essentially that is what a lot of countries
have done and while, of course, there are still some illegal guns in
circulation, there are very few).

Of course, the government probably can't muster sufficient votes to do
that so essentially your nightmare of the "government" helicopters
landing on your front lawn to grab your guns will likely never happen.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[Tom Gardner]

The camel's nose in the tent, I quite agree that the gov. can't be
trusted with any power over gun owners. I wish for an easy answer.

[KGmww⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛qUPbU]

Thom Hartmann Takes Down a Gun Nut!
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zAJHKGY094 *

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 08:56:38 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>

The last time you really had to worry about it was 1968. It didn't
happen then. More recently, the AR ban was not renewed. Then came the
Heller and McDonald decisions, and the extension of concealed carry
throughout most of the states.

The only explanation for attitudes such as Larry's is willful
blindness and an unrealistic paranoia. With over 300 million guns in
the US, with 47% of households having a gun, fear of gun confiscation
is a kind of neurotic, almost freakish reaction to real events. It's
like looking out your window on a clear, sunny day and putting on your
raincoat to mow the lawn.

It does have a function, however: It keeps alive a tribal sense of
persecution. That's the glue that holds gun nutz together. It's the
neurotic reaction that justifies buying more large-caliber handguns
and small-caliber semiautomatic rifles. Unless one is a child,
spending all of that money to feed one's fantasies is not a sign of
good mental health.

The gun culture in the US has become sick with an anti-social illness
that shows no signs of abating. It's lost its grip on reality as it
descends into a tribal soup of fear mixed with bellicosity. It's
adopting the social posture of an apocalyptic cult.

--
Ed Huntress

[Terry Coombs]

a.. National Firearms Act ("NFA") (1934): Taxes the manufacture and
transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as
machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive
ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms.
b.. Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968): Prohibited
interstate trade in handguns, increased the minimum age to 21 for buying
handguns.
c.. Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA") (1968): Focuses primarily on
regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting
interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers
and importers.
d.. Firearm Owners Protection Act ("FOPA") (1986): Revised and partially
repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prohibited the sale to civilians of
automatic firearms manufactured after the date of the law's passage.
Required ATF approval of transfers of automatic firearms.
e.. Undetectable Firearms Act (1988): Effectively criminalizes, with a few
exceptions, the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery,
possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms with less than 3.7 oz of metal
content.
f.. Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990): Prohibits unauthorized individuals
from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or
has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
g.. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993): Requires background
checks on most firearm purchasers, depending on seller and venue.
h.. Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994-2004): Banned semiautomatic assault
weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. The law expired in
2004.
i.. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005): Prevent firearms
manufacturers and licensed dealers from being held liable for negligence
when crimes have been committed with their products.

Every one of these federal actions have had an impact on LEGAL gun
ownership in the USA . If guns were allowed in school zones , for instance ,
perhaps at Sandy Hook fewer children would have died - and the same goes for
many other "helpless target rich zones" ...
Ball's in your court Ed , tell me how ANY of these laws have had a
positive impact on criminal use of firearms . Because theuy don't obey them
any more than they obey other laws . What we need is more enforcement , not
more laws .
--
Snag

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 11:59:02 -0600, "Terry Coombs" <snag...@msn.com>

No, no, no. That's not what you claimed. You said "... one compromise

leads to another , until we have no guns at all ."

There have been plenty of compromises. Tell us which of your guns have
been confiscated.

> If guns were allowed in school zones , for instance ,

>perhaps at Sandy Hook fewer children would have died...

No, because there was no reason for teachers to carry guns. They
wouldn't have had any guns in a middle-class suburban Connecticut
school, "gun-free zone" or not.

>- and the same goes for
>many other "helpless target rich zones" ...
> Ball's in your court Ed , tell me how ANY of these laws have had a
>positive impact on criminal use of firearms .

The Brady law has stopped 2.1 million sales of firearms to felons,
mentally disabled, etc. Over 1 million to convicted felons alone.

> Because theuy don't obey them
>any more than they obey other laws .

Those 2.1 million tried to disobey the law, and failed.

>What we need is more enforcement , not
>more laws .

In the case of private sales, more "enforcement" of what law?

--
Ed Huntress

[FdZCL⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛jUWqj]

Death and guns in the USA: The story in six graphs
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/03/us/gun-deaths-united-states/>

[Tom Gardner]

On 1/13/2016 10:56 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
> The gun culture in the US has become sick with an anti-social illness
> that shows no signs of abating. It's lost its grip on reality as it
> descends into a tribal soup of fear mixed with bellicosity. It's
> adopting the social posture of an apocalyptic cult.
>

Maybe, but like I've told you before, I've never really known a "gun
nut". Even as an instructor, everybody I've processed was not a gun
crazy. And, I think I would be able to tell.

[Tom Gardner]

On 1/13/2016 3:05 PM, FdZCL⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛jUWqj wrote:
>
>
> Death and guns in the USA: The story in six graphs
> <http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/03/us/gun-deaths-united-states/>
>
>
>

It would be more meaningful if it didn't count accidents and suicides.
Besides it doesn't show the stats for people that NEEDED to be shot.

[Larry Jaques]

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 11:59:02 -0600, "Terry Coombs" <snag...@msn.com>

According to the CDC, who reviewed dozens of studies, not even one
could make the claim that it did any good and the CDC report said they
could not report any. The funny part is that most of the studies were
performed by the CDC themselves.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/

I love it when a plan comes together.

I'm also still pissed that they don't segregate gang violence from
other stats, because it is an entirely different thing.

If they had put as much money into catching/curing crazy people as
they have in trying to get guns outlawed, the problem would have been
nearly nonexistent by now.

But I suppose it will take something like a Great Cull to fix things.
Hang onto your hats, folks. TEOTWAWKI is nigh, I believe. Got preps?

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:42:52 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
wrote:

Well, I've known a few, including some I met at anti-gun-control
rallies around 1989 - 1992.

But you don't have to look far. Just read some of the posts here,
especially when there's a leak from a gun NG and it drools into RCM.

I still don't think that the majority of gun owners are part of that
culture, as I've said before, and as evidenced by poll results. A
majority of gun owners favor universal background checks, for example.
There's a lot of intertia to the "old" gun culture, of which I'm a
part.

But the "culture" is the product of those who are noisiest and the
NRA. The trends in gun sales supports the idea that gun sales have
switched from hunting/target rifles and shotguns to concealable
handguns and "tactical" rifles. They're setting the tone.

--
Ed Huntress

[Terry Coombs]

Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> If they had put as much money into catching/curing crazy people as
> they have in trying to get guns outlawed, the problem would have been
> nearly nonexistent by now.
>
> But I suppose it will take something like a Great Cull to fix things.
> Hang onto your hats, folks. TEOTWAWKI is nigh, I believe. Got preps?

Got a hoe and a bow , I can grow my own and hunt . LOTS of berries and
herbs out in the woods too ... and then there's the orchard and the bee
hives and the hens ... plus I have a lot of "basic materials" stored for
times of need . I think we're set .

--
Snag

[John B.]

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 08:56:38 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>

Are you implying that the "Gov" can be trusted with power over
everything BUT gun owners?
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:49:21 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
wrote:

>On 1/13/2016 3:05 PM, FdZCL?? ?????? ? ??????? ??jUWqj wrote:
>>
>>
>> Death and guns in the USA: The story in six graphs
>> <http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/03/us/gun-deaths-united-states/>
>>
>>
>>
>
>It would be more meaningful if it didn't count accidents and suicides.
>Besides it doesn't show the stats for people that NEEDED to be shot.

Disregarding the gun statistics it has always seemed, to me, to be a
little discriminate in pin pointing guns as a major cause of death.
After all automobile "accidents" kill as many, or more, and seem so
readily accepted in the U.S, that unless a large number are
slaughtered in the crash it is hardly mentioned in the news.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 07:39:04 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:49:21 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 1/13/2016 3:05 PM, FdZCL?? ?????? ? ??????? ??jUWqj wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Death and guns in the USA: The story in six graphs
>>> <http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/03/us/gun-deaths-united-states/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It would be more meaningful if it didn't count accidents and suicides.
>>Besides it doesn't show the stats for people that NEEDED to be shot.
>
>Disregarding the gun statistics it has always seemed, to me, to be a
>little discriminate in pin pointing guns as a major cause of death.

When you consider that our murder rate runs around 3 times or more
that of typical advanced Western countries, and that more than 2/3 of
our murders are committed with guns, it seems less "discriminate."

>After all automobile "accidents" kill as many, or more, and seem so
>readily accepted in the U.S, that unless a large number are
>slaughtered in the crash it is hardly mentioned in the news.

Murders are intentional and are committed mostly with guns. Fatal
automobile accidents rarely are intentional. We keep regulating the
hell out of car safety and it's worked quite well to reduce per-capita
and per-mile death rates.

It's the difference between accidents and facilitating intentional
homicides. Most people see them differently. They "discriminate"
between accidents and intentional murders. If you don't, *that's* the
thing that's curious.

--
Ed Huntress

[PxBtk⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛HWxZe]

Why would anyone think any Joe Blow with a gun can enter into "God Mode"
and override the law of the land?

[Terry Coombs]

The feds can't be trusted with anything . Examples:
Holder and Fast-n-Furious
Hitlery and Benghazi
Obammy and "If you like your doctor/insurance ..."
'Nuff said .

--
Snag

[John B.]

So you feel that there is a difference in being killed in an auto
accident and being shot to death?

Now, that IS curious.

--

Cheers,

John B.

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:35:01 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

Ha-ha! John pulls out one of the old gun-nutz chestnuts. <g>

Think this one through, John. If the problem is people, and not guns,
and if it doesn't matter how one dies, then we should stop worrying
about Islamist jihadis in America. They've actually killed very few
people here.

What we really have to defend ourselves against is people driving
Buicks.

Stop them before they kill again. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[John B.]

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 09:00:40 -0500, Ed Huntress

I know that you are attempting a spot of humor (and sarcasm) but the
fact is that you appear be attempting to ignore probably the greatest
cause of accidental death in the U.S.

If you eliminate the firearm suicides, which are difficult to quantify
as no one can estimate how many would "do the deed" without a firearm,
cars kill ~about~ twice as many as guns.... but the battle cry is "get
rid of the guns", not "do something about the deaths on the highway".

You even read posts here saying, "Oh! He gave me a ticket and I was
only doing 10 MPH over the limit". Why not the excuse, "Oh! I only
shot him a little."?
--

Cheers,

John B.

[Tom Gardner]

On 1/11/2016 10:00 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
> Perhaps it's the gun culture. Back then, gun culture was about hunting
> and target shooting. Now it's about killing people. Note that even
> Tom's training activities are not about follow-through when
> pass-shooting ducks, or breath control for hitting the 10-ring from a
> kneeling position. They're about shooting people.

In a way, you're right. However, my group teaches more than anything
else...SITUATIONAL AWARENESS!!! I teach NOT to shoot but to scoot,
shooting is a last resort but you better do it right and if you do, no
matter what, it will ruin your life. And, understand that I teach NRA
"Basic Pistol" that more than fulfills the requirement for a carry
license. We shoot targets, not human outlines. We DO teach
follow-through and breath control. It's unspoken that it's about
shooting humans because it's NOT about shooting humans, it's about
AVOIDING shooting humans and not being a dead victim.

If you get a chance, look up the "Basic Pistol" class and you will gain
better understanding.

[Tom Gardner]

On 1/13/2016 1:24 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
> In the case of private sales, more "enforcement" of what law?
>

Guns at an all-time high, murder at an all-time low. GEE

[Tom Gardner]

On 1/13/2016 4:03 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> If they had put as much money into catching/curing crazy people as
> they have in trying to get guns outlawed, the problem would have been
> nearly nonexistent by now.

Great point! Doesn't fit into the lib agenda though.

[Tom Gardner]

On 1/13/2016 7:59 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
> It's the difference between accidents and facilitating intentional
> homicides. Most people see them differently. They "discriminate"
> between accidents and intentional murders. If you don't, *that's* the
> thing that's curious.
>

Yet murders are at an all-tim low.

[pyotr filipivich]

Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com> on Thu, 14 Jan 2016 20:31:58 -0500 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

>Yet murders are at an all-time low.

except in those place with the strongest gun control restrictions.
I wonder how that could be happening?
--
pyotr filipivich
The question was asked: "Is Hindsight overrated?"
In retrospect, it appears to be.

[Martin Eastburn]

Hum - photograph our every step or turn in towns.
Copy email, passwords, phone numbers, pictures off our phones
more and more this is becoming a oversight dictator that has all
of the power and knows all and those in power can take data and make
a story, if it happened or not. Facts are facts...
Guns, cars, motorcycles, airplanes, money and amounts of money.

Martin

On 1/12/2016 3:24 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:09:20 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/11/2016 10:57 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>
>>>> OK, but what gun crime didn't you mention?
>>>
>>> Tons: Illegal possession, brandishing, shooting on the 4th, etc.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>
>> Possession is covered by my idea but I see your point. My idea isn't
>> perfect but better than what's out there.
>
> Tawmmykins, your idea is still to license guns. The vast majority of
> gun owners are law abiding and are still quite unwilling to allow it.
> Rethink it, please, lest you be categorized as a grabber, along with
> the rest of the Liberals and Ol' Weird Ed.
>

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 20:25:07 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
wrote:

Right. I'm not suggesting that you're encouraging the shooting of
people. <g> But your whole program is ABOUT it. It's the entire issue;
the entire point.

>
>If you get a chance, look up the "Basic Pistol" class and you will gain
>better understanding.

Yeah, I remember it. I looked over the pistol courses back when I was
an NRA-certified rifle instructor.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 20:27:56 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
wrote:

>On 1/13/2016 1:24 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>> In the case of private sales, more "enforcement" of what law?
>>
>
>
>Guns at an all-time high, murder at an all-time low. GEE

The statement that we need better enforcement of the laws we have. In
the case of private sales, enforcement of what law?

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 20:29:49 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
wrote:

Except that Larry is wrong, probably by a factor of 100 or more.
That's in line with his usual scientific knowledge.

What makes you think they can be cured in the first place?

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 07:57:00 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

I'm hardly ignoring it. In fact, I just pointed out where the real
problem is -- people who drive cars.

That is, if you mean what you say, that it doesn't matter how one is
killed. But I don't believe you've thought about what you're saying.

>
>If you eliminate the firearm suicides, which are difficult to quantify
>as no one can estimate how many would "do the deed" without a firearm,
>cars kill ~about~ twice as many as guns.... but the battle cry is "get
>rid of the guns", not "do something about the deaths on the highway".

No. We spend billions on improving safety of cars. We spend almost
nothing on improving safety of guns.

And spending on car safety has been hugely successful. Deaths per
billion highway miles have dropped from 50.6 in 1960 to 10.7 today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year#Motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

Maybe that's why you hear the "battle cry" about guns, rather than
cars. Most people know we have vast programs, both public and private,
to improve car safety. In comparison, we do almost nothing about
safety with guns.

>
>You even read posts here saying, "Oh! He gave me a ticket and I was
>only doing 10 MPH over the limit". Why not the excuse, "Oh! I only
>shot him a little."?

False equivalence. You'd have a more accurate one if you said, "Oh! I
got a ticket, and I only broke that pedestrian's leg in a couple of
places..."

I really don't think that YOU'RE thinking about what you're saying,
John. You're grasping at straws, and your examples and evidence are of
the confirmation-bias variety.

It DOES matter to most of us whether deaths are purely accidental or
intentional. It DOES matter that we spend billions RESTRICTING car
manufacturers on matters of safety, while we pass laws to SHIELD gun
manufacturers from liability even as we, and they, do nothing to
reduce firearms deaths.

Most people recognize it. That's why, for example, close to 90% of the
people in this country think we should have universal background
checks. To allow the private-sale loophole is, to most rational
people, insane.

They're right. The gun culture -- the trend over the past half-century
and the portion that makes most of the noise -- is insane.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 20:31:58 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
wrote:

What does that have to do with the distinction between accidents and
intentional murders? Are you suggesting that we shouldn't worry about
murders, because the rate has dropped?

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 20:20:56 -0800, pyotr filipivich
<ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com> on Thu, 14 Jan 2016 20:31:58 -0500 typed
>in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>>On 1/13/2016 7:59 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>
>>> It's the difference between accidents and facilitating intentional
>>> homicides. Most people see them differently. They "discriminate"
>>> between accidents and intentional murders. If you don't, *that's* the
>>> thing that's curious.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Yet murders are at an all-time low.
>
> except in those place with the strongest gun control restrictions.

Nope. No correlation.

>I wonder how that could be happening?

Because you don't know what you're talking about, perhaps.

--
Ed Huntress

[John B.]

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 01:07:18 -0500, Ed Huntress

And the problem with guns is the people that shoot them :-)

>That is, if you mean what you say, that it doesn't matter how one is
>killed. But I don't believe you've thought about what you're saying.
>

You actually believe that it is important how you die? Disregarding
long term pain, etc.

Is it better that people say, in recollection, Oh Yes. Old Ed, yup he
hit the bridge abutment doing 90 miles an hour. Deader then a mackerel
when the found him, his head ripped off. Or, Yes, old Ed, heck, I
guess he tried to pull his old 12 gauge through the fence by the
barrel, trigger must have caught on the barb wire and blew his head
plumb off.
.
It doesn't seem like much of a difference to me.

But as they say, what ever rows your boat.

So 90% of the U.S. population has done the research, and studied the
problem in its various ramifications, and come to a reasoned
conclusion regarding the question?

I suggest that it just isn't so.

>They're right. The gun culture -- the trend over the past half-century
>and the portion that makes most of the noise -- is insane.

:-) I tend to agree with you, but there is an easy solution.
Universal military service. Do as Singapore does, all males enter
military service for two years after graduation from high school.
After two years of toting them, firing them, cleaning them, having
them inspected, policing the range after shooting them and being very,
very careful not to lose them, there isn't much mystery about them
afterwards.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 18:46:08 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

So, there ya' go, with the conclusion to your own argument. Our
problem is not criminals or jihadis. It's people who drive cars.

Which, of course, will strike you and everyone else as nutz. And the
reason it does is that you've deluded yourself that it doesn't matter
how one is killed. Only it does, and the part of you that realizes
that is creating cognitive dissonance with the part that denies it, so
you can go through the steps of your argument and then scoff at its
logical conclusion.

That's the state of gun logic in America. That could be a manifesto
for our gun culture.

>
>>That is, if you mean what you say, that it doesn't matter how one is
>>killed. But I don't believe you've thought about what you're saying.
>>
>You actually believe that it is important how you die? Disregarding
>long term pain, etc.

Yeah, and it matters even more how other people die. Because a society
that makes no distinction between intentional homicides and accidental
deaths is very sick. It's a cultural thing. Fortunately, practically
no one -- including you -- actually believes what you're suggesting.

By the way, neither of us it likely to die by gunshot or in a car
crash. The statistics are pretty clear about it. But we nevertheless
care a great deal about homicides and car crashes. We have a sense of
tragedy and a special place in our moral judgments for senseless
tragedy. That's typical of people living in a healthy society. And
it's a cultural thing.

>
>Is it better that people say, in recollection, Oh Yes. Old Ed, yup he
>hit the bridge abutment doing 90 miles an hour. Deader then a mackerel
>when the found him, his head ripped off. Or, Yes, old Ed, heck, I
>guess he tried to pull his old 12 gauge through the fence by the
>barrel, trigger must have caught on the barb wire and blew his head
>plumb off.
>.
>It doesn't seem like much of a difference to me.

Yeah, it does. Because, if it didn't, you'd be railing against car
crashes and you'd be much more comfortable with murderous Islamist
jihadis than you are with Buicks.

Your argument is so much hot air, John. BTW, I can't build up much
sympathy for someone who drags a loaded gun through a fence, and I'll
always remember him as a numbnutz and an asshole. d8-)

>
>But as they say, what ever rows your boat.

Try rowing yours with common sense. You're trying to have it both ways
on the guns versus cars issue, and it keeps leading you into a logical
conradiction.

They don't need research. Anyone can see that spending lots of money
and passing laws to create a background check system, and then saying
"never mind" in the case of private sales, is a contradictory idea
created in a loony bin.

>
>I suggest that it just isn't so.

No you don't. You know better, but you're grabbing for straws and this
one came to hand.

>
>>They're right. The gun culture -- the trend over the past half-century
>>and the portion that makes most of the noise -- is insane.
>
> :-) I tend to agree with you, but there is an easy solution.
>Universal military service. Do as Singapore does, all males enter
>military service for two years after graduation from high school.
>After two years of toting them, firing them, cleaning them, having
>them inspected, policing the range after shooting them and being very,
>very careful not to lose them, there isn't much mystery about them
>afterwards.

They do something like that in Switzerland, and then they go out and
kill each other with guns at the highest rate in Europe -- except for
Finland, which has the highest gun-ownership rate in the European
Union.

I'm in favor of such a draft, but it will have nothing to do with
homicide rates.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ned Simmons]

Donald Trump will protect us. This is an image from his next campaign
ad:
http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/images/us_canada_border_traffic.jpg

--
Ned Simmons

[Joseph Gwinn]

On Jan 15, 2016, Ed Huntress wrote
(in article<k2uh9b1oe6etifne5...@4ax.com>):

> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 18:46:08 +0700, John B.<sloc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 01:07:18 -0500, Ed Huntress
> > <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

[snip]

>
> >
> > > They're right. The gun culture -- the trend over the past half-century
> > > and the portion that makes most of the noise -- is insane.
> >
> > > -) I tend to agree with you, but there is an easy solution.
> > Universal military service. Do as Singapore does, all males enter
> > military service for two years after graduation from high school.
> > After two years of toting them, firing them, cleaning them, having
> > them inspected, policing the range after shooting them and being very,
> > very careful not to lose them, there isn't much mystery about them
> > afterwards.
>
> They do something like that in Switzerland, and then they go out and
> kill each other with guns at the highest rate in Europe -- except for
> Finland, which has the highest gun-ownership rate in the European
> Union.

Hmm. From my 11 July 2015 posting in thread "Re: Confederate History -
Dispelling The Myths”:

"USA: 3.5 homicides per 100K people per year, with 88.6 guns per 100
people.

Switzerland: 0.23 homicides per 100K people per year, 45.7 guns per
100 people.

Germany: 0.20 homicides per 100K people per year, 30.3 guns per 100
people.

UK: 0.05 homicides per 100K people per year, 6.6 guns per 100 people.


To summarize, if guns cause homicide, Switzerland should have
45.7*(3.5/88.6)= 1.81 homicides per 100K people per year.

But Switzerland has 0.23/1.81= 12.7% of the predicted rate, call it one
eighth.

Off by a factor of eight. Hmm. It would appear that something
critical is being missed in the above analysis.”

Unlikely that things have changed much in the last six months.

Joe Gwinn

[mog...@hotmail.com]

Highest suicide rates are also in popular gun-owning states like: Tennesee, Missouri and Kansas
-- http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/suicide-20-states-with-highest-rates/7/

[Ed Huntress]

Let's correct that one. The gun homicide rate in Germany is 0.07
(2012). You're looking at a figure from the mid-'90s.

>
>UK: 0.05 homicides per 100K people per year, 6.6 guns per 100 people.
>
>
>To summarize, if guns cause homicide, Switzerland should have
>45.7*(3.5/88.6)= 1.81 homicides per 100K people per year.

First, who said that guns "cause" homicide? Second, where did you get
the idea that the relationships are straight multiples? They're not.
The trendlines are clear, but there are no simple multiples.

>
>But Switzerland has 0.23/1.81= 12.7% of the predicted rate, call it one
>eighth.

And who made that prediction? You?

>
>Off by a factor of eight. Hmm. It would appear that something
>critical is being missed in the above analysis.”

There is. see below.

>
>Unlikely that things have changed much in the last six months.
>
>Joe Gwinn

First, Joe, we ran the correlation coefficient here a year or so ago
and showed that it's quite high. There's no question about the general
relationship between rates of gun ownership and gun homicides between
countries, within a general type of culture. If you're going to throw
in failed states and narco states, you get a different set of
relationships.

Second, you aren't accounting for the MUCH stricter qualifications for
gun *ownership* in Switzerland, and the general strictness of gun laws
there (I lived in Lausanne for almost a year, so that country is one
I've followed and of which I have first-hand experience).

You can make more sense of these relationships if you compare
MacIntoshes to Granny Smiths, rather than figs to strawberries. That's
why I was talking about Europe. The pattern of gun-purchase and
-ownership laws there tend to be more alike than between, say, the US
and the UK. Here, I'd compare us to Canada and maybe to Australia.

--
Ed Huntress

[Larry Jaques]

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:01:49 -0600, "Terry Coombs" <snag...@msn.com>
wrote:

>Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>> If they had put as much money into catching/curing crazy people as
>> they have in trying to get guns outlawed, the problem would have been
>> nearly nonexistent by now.
>>

>> But I suppose it will take something like a Great Cull to fix things.
>> Hang onto your hats, folks. TEOTWAWKI is nigh, I believe. Got preps?
>
> Got a hoe and a bow , I can grow my own and hunt . LOTS of berries and
>herbs out in the woods too ... and then there's the orchard and the bee
>hives and the hens ... plus I have a lot of "basic materials" stored for
>times of need . I think we're set .

Got enough solar/wind power + batteries to keep your house and shop
going once the grid is fried? That may trigger Gunner's Cull.

[Larry Jaques]

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 20:29:49 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
wrote:

Common sense never did. <sigh>

[Larry Jaques]

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 20:31:58 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
wrote:

Why don't Ed and his Leftists discriminate between murders and
suicides, or accidents? They lump it all together to make it seem
worse. Of course, more people die from slips and falls than do from
guns. More die from auto accidents, heart disease, smoking, etc, too.
Thousands of times more, each and every year.

Who are the real "gun nuts"? Methinks it's the anti-gunners.

[Larry Jaques]

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:42:52 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
wrote:

>On 1/13/2016 10:56 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>> The gun culture in the US has become sick with an anti-social illness
>> that shows no signs of abating. It's lost its grip on reality as it
>> descends into a tribal soup of fear mixed with bellicosity. It's
>> adopting the social posture of an apocalyptic cult.
>>
>
>Maybe, but like I've told you before, I've never really known a "gun
>nut". Even as an instructor, everybody I've processed was not a gun
>crazy. And, I think I would be able to tell.

Ol' Weird Ed is just watching too much TV. And that's not action,
it's posturing. On both sides, his and the actors'.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 11:55:40 -0800, Larry Jaques
<lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 20:31:58 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 1/13/2016 7:59 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>
>>> It's the difference between accidents and facilitating intentional
>>> homicides. Most people see them differently. They "discriminate"
>>> between accidents and intentional murders. If you don't, *that's* the
>>> thing that's curious.
>>>
>>Yet murders are at an all-tim low.
>
>Why don't Ed and his Leftists discriminate between murders and
>suicides, or accidents?

Pay attention. The numbers we're using are EXCLUSIVELY for murders.

And you're probably more of a "leftist" than I am, Lightnin'.

>They lump it all together to make it seem
>worse. Of course, more people die from slips and falls than do from
>guns.

No. the numbers are almost the same (30,208 deaths from falls, 2013).

Don't you ever look anything up before spouting off? <sigh...never
mind, I guess that's too much to ask>

>More die from auto accidents, heart disease, smoking, etc, too.
>Thousands of times more, each and every year.

Holy shit. Did they stick you into a fenced-in compound with no
Internet?

>
>Who are the real "gun nuts"? Methinks it's the anti-gunners.

Of course you do. See aboe.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 11:58:13 -0800, Larry Jaques
<lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:42:52 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 1/13/2016 10:56 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>
>>> The gun culture in the US has become sick with an anti-social illness
>>> that shows no signs of abating. It's lost its grip on reality as it
>>> descends into a tribal soup of fear mixed with bellicosity. It's
>>> adopting the social posture of an apocalyptic cult.
>>>
>>
>>Maybe, but like I've told you before, I've never really known a "gun
>>nut". Even as an instructor, everybody I've processed was not a gun
>>crazy. And, I think I would be able to tell.
>
>Ol' Weird Ed is just watching too much TV. And that's not action,
>it's posturing. On both sides, his and the actors'.

You're just spending too much time gazing at your navel. How do you
get your information about the world? Morse Code?

--
Ed Huntress

[pyotr filipivich]

Larry Jaques <lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> on Fri, 15 Jan 2016
11:55:40 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

>On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 20:31:58 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 1/13/2016 7:59 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>
>>> It's the difference between accidents and facilitating intentional
>>> homicides. Most people see them differently. They "discriminate"
>>> between accidents and intentional murders. If you don't, *that's* the
>>> thing that's curious.
>>>
>>Yet murders are at an all-tim low.
>
>Why don't Ed and his Leftists discriminate between murders and
>suicides, or accidents? They lump it all together to make it seem
>worse.

You have to remember that for Ed and the other neo-luddites - it
isn't the human which is the active agent, but the inanimate object.
Thus, a person who commits suicide with a gun, would not have killed
themselves at all, were it not for the mysterious emanations from the
Amulet of Evil which is The Gun.
In otherwords, they already can't discriminate between murder and
executions, so being able to tell the difference between murders and
non-murders is too much of a challenge to their religious belief.

>Who are the real "gun nuts"? Methinks it's the anti-gunners.

Yep. Every time the subject is guns - they go nuts.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:43:59 -0800, pyotr filipivich
<ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Larry Jaques <lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> on Fri, 15 Jan 2016
>11:55:40 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>>On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 20:31:58 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 1/13/2016 7:59 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's the difference between accidents and facilitating intentional
>>>> homicides. Most people see them differently. They "discriminate"
>>>> between accidents and intentional murders. If you don't, *that's* the
>>>> thing that's curious.
>>>>
>>>Yet murders are at an all-tim low.
>>
>>Why don't Ed and his Leftists discriminate between murders and
>>suicides, or accidents? They lump it all together to make it seem
>>worse.
>

> You have to remember that for Ed and the other neo-luddites...


...another ignorant asshole chimes in...

> - it
>isn't the human which is the active agent, but the inanimate object.

Idiot. I made a POINT of the fact that it's the human who is the
active agent.

What do you drive, anyway? What class of automotive killer are you?

>Thus, a person who commits suicide with a gun, would not have killed
>themselves at all, were it not for the mysterious emanations from the
>Amulet of Evil which is The Gun.

'Nothing mysterious about the efficacy of a .38 Spl. bullet. It's
reality, front and center. Or through the ears -- your choice, unless
that wouldn't hit anything in your case.

> In otherwords, they already can't discriminate between murder and
>executions, so being able to tell the difference between murders and
>non-murders is too much of a challenge to their religious belief.

You're talking about John. He's the one who doesn't care how he's
killed, or, apparently, how anyone is killed.

>
>>Who are the real "gun nuts"? Methinks it's the anti-gunners.
>
> Yep. Every time the subject is guns - they go nuts.

Look in the mirror.

>--
>pyotr filipivich
>"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

That's certainly true in your case.

--
Ed Huntress

[Larry Jaques]

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 20:27:56 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
wrote:

>On 1/13/2016 1:24 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>> In the case of private sales, more "enforcement" of what law?
>>
>
>
>Guns at an all-time high, murder at an all-time low. GEE

Ol' Weird Ed doesn't believe that more guns = less crime. <shrug>

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10_us.html
Click the top button for the standard report. Compare how the
unintentional injury deaths WAY outscore the gun deaths.
Unintentional injury deaths 2014: 272086
Homicide: 11534

That's a big difference.

Hey O'W.Ed:
LIFE is 23.6x more dangerous than the most lethal armed Americans.

Tawm, have you killed as many people as I have? I thought so. We're a
lethal duo! (My count is 0, too.) I wonder what OWE's count is.

[Larry Jaques]

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 20:25:07 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
wrote:

>On 1/11/2016 10:00 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps it's the gun culture. Back then, gun culture was about hunting
>> and target shooting. Now it's about killing people. Note that even
>> Tom's training activities are not about follow-through when
>> pass-shooting ducks, or breath control for hitting the 10-ring from a
>> kneeling position. They're about shooting people.
>
>In a way, you're right. However, my group teaches more than anything
>else...SITUATIONAL AWARENESS!!! I teach NOT to shoot but to scoot,
>shooting is a last resort but you better do it right and if you do, no
>matter what, it will ruin your life. And, understand that I teach NRA
>"Basic Pistol" that more than fulfills the requirement for a carry
>license. We shoot targets, not human outlines. We DO teach
>follow-through and breath control. It's unspoken that it's about
>shooting humans because it's NOT about shooting humans, it's about
>AVOIDING shooting humans and not being a dead victim.
>

>If you get a chance, look up the "Basic Pistol" class and you will gain
>better understanding.

You should ask that odd duck OWE where he gets his "facts". <sigh>

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:01:33 -0800, Larry Jaques
<lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 20:27:56 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 1/13/2016 1:24 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>
>>> In the case of private sales, more "enforcement" of what law?
>>>
>>
>>
>>Guns at an all-time high, murder at an all-time low. GEE

Hey, Lightnin': Why were murder rates falling off a cliff for 12 YEARS
before gun sales spiked?

Maybe it had nothing to do with gun sales, eh?

>
>Ol' Weird Ed doesn't believe that more guns = less crime. <shrug>
>
>http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10_us.html
>Click the top button for the standard report. Compare how the
>unintentional injury deaths WAY outscore the gun deaths.
>Unintentional injury deaths 2014: 272086
>Homicide: 11534
>
>That's a big difference.

So what? What does that have to do with anything, Lightnin'?

[Ed Huntress]

How would you know what a "fact" is, Larry? You haven't been near one
in years.

--
Ed Huntress

[Joseph Gwinn]

Where does the 0.07 come from? The rate for Germany is listed as 0.8
per 100K in 2011. It's quite unlikely that the rate in such a large
country dropped by a factor of ten since then.

The US is now listed as 4.7 per 100K in 2012, so the two numbers are of
almost equal age, and so can be compared directly. Switzerland is 0.6
per 100K in 2011.

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate>

Actually, the above is the total homicide rate, including but not
limited to firearm-related murders.

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country#/media/File:GunsPer100_10052015.png>

>> UK: 0.05 homicides per 100K people per year, 6.6 guns per 100 people.
>>
>>
>> To summarize, if guns cause homicide, Switzerland should have
>> 45.7*(3.5/88.6)= 1.81 homicides per 100K people per year.
>
> First, who said that guns "cause" homicide? Second, where did you get
> the idea that the relationships are straight multiples? They're not.
> The trendlines are clear, but there are no simple multiples.

In the original thread from which this came, exactly such a correlation
was implied (by comparing murder rates with gun ownership rates, based
on the unstated false assumption that Europeans are all disarmed) and I
was refuting the assumption and implied correlation.

>> But Switzerland has 0.23/1.81= 12.7% of the predicted rate, call it one
>> eighth.
>
> And who made that prediction? You?

Yep. Classic back-of-the-envelope analysis of plausibility. Did you
get a different answer?

>> Off by a factor of eight. Hmm. It would appear that something
>> critical is being missed in the above analysis.”
>
> There is. see below.
>
>>
>> Unlikely that things have changed much in the last six months.
>>
>> Joe Gwinn
>
> First, Joe, we ran the correlation coefficient here a year or so ago
> and showed that it's quite high. There's no question about the general
> relationship between rates of gun ownership and gun homicides between
> countries, within a general type of culture.

Could you point me to the details of that analysis? I don't recall the
details.

Also, some perspective:

The listed homicide total for the USA is listed as 14,827 in 2012. For
comparison, the traffic-related death rate is 11.6 per 100K in 2012,
which corresponds to a total of 36,166 per year.

Medical errors are three times as dangerous:
<http://www.propublica.org/article/how-many-die-from-medical-mistakes-in-us-hospitals>

Arguably, we should be spending most of our energy on doctors and
automobiles.

> If you're going to throw
> in failed states and narco states, you get a different set of
> relationships.

I never knew that those European states were narco states. Now it can
be told. Well, they do have narco problems, and it's a slippery slope...

> Second, you aren't accounting for the MUCH stricter qualifications for
> gun *ownership* in Switzerland, and the general strictness of gun laws
> there (I lived in Lausanne for almost a year, so that country is one
> I've followed and of which I have first-hand experience).

Well, the qualifications in Switzerland are so strict that only one half
(basically all males) of the population possesses a *real* military
assault rifle (SIG SG550).

I lived in Sweden for a year in the mid 1970s, and have been there many
other times, probably in aggregate at least another year. In Sweden,
all healthy males are conscripted at 18, so essentially all males know
how to handle a gun. They don't have a gun in every house, but a number
of my Swedish friends had firearms through their shooting club. My
recollection is that they had long guns, and that pistols were harder to
get legally (but not impossible), but don't recall the details.

Sweden: 0.7 murders per 100K in 2012, 3 traffic deaths per 100K in 2012,
and 31.6 guns per 100 people. Medicine probably like the US.

> You can make more sense of these relationships if you compare
> MacIntoshes to Granny Smiths, rather than figs to strawberries. That's
> why I was talking about Europe. The pattern of gun-purchase and
> -ownership laws there tend to be more alike than between, say, the US
> and the UK. Here, I'd compare us to Canada and maybe to Australia.

The better argument is that in Europe, the insane are kept in the locked
wards of state hospitals, rather than left to fend for themselves, often
on the streets. And handling an insane family member vastly exceeds the
resources of most families.

Joe Gwinn

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 17:30:45 -0500, Joseph Gwinn

It's the WHO figure. Your figures for other countries agree with it
quite closely:

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/germany

-or-

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/194/rate_of_gun_homicide/69

-and-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#List

Also, Wikipedia quotes a German-language official report that produces
a somewhat lower figure, here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Gun_crime

>
>The US is now listed as 4.7 per 100K in 2012, so the two numbers are of
>almost equal age, and so can be compared directly. Switzerland is 0.6
>per 100K in 2011.
>
>.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate>
>
>Actually, the above is the total homicide rate, including but not
>limited to firearm-related murders.

Here is the gun homicide rate for Switzerland. It's 0.23/100k, not
0.6:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

>
>.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country#/media/File:GunsPer100_10052015.png>
>
>
> >> UK: 0.05 homicides per 100K people per year, 6.6 guns per 100 people.
> >>
> >>
> >> To summarize, if guns cause homicide, Switzerland should have
> >> 45.7*(3.5/88.6)= 1.81 homicides per 100K people per year.
> >
> > First, who said that guns "cause" homicide? Second, where did you get
> > the idea that the relationships are straight multiples? They're not.
> > The trendlines are clear, but there are no simple multiples.
>
>In the original thread from which this came, exactly such a correlation
>was implied (by comparing murder rates with gun ownership rates, based
>on the unstated false assumption that Europeans are all disarmed) and I
>was refuting the assumption and implied correlation.

Well, there is no direct multiplier, although there is a correlation.

>
>
> >> But Switzerland has 0.23/1.81= 12.7% of the predicted rate, call it one
> >> eighth.
> >
> > And who made that prediction? You?
>
>Yep. Classic back-of-the-envelope analysis of plausibility. Did you
>get a different answer?

I didn't assume a straight multiplier. The answer I was looking for
was the overall correlation, which we worked out last year or so in
basically the same argument. It was on the border between "positive"
and "very positive."

>
>
> >> Off by a factor of eight. Hmm. It would appear that something
> >> critical is being missed in the above analysis.”
> >
> > There is. see below.
> >
> >>
> >> Unlikely that things have changed much in the last six months.
> >>
> >> Joe Gwinn
> >
> > First, Joe, we ran the correlation coefficient here a year or so ago
> > and showed that it's quite high. There's no question about the general
> > relationship between rates of gun ownership and gun homicides between
> > countries, within a general type of culture.
>
>Could you point me to the details of that analysis? I don't recall the
>details.

No, I don't keep that stuff.

>
>Also, some perspective:
>
>The listed homicide total for the USA is listed as 14,827 in 2012. For
>comparison, the traffic-related death rate is 11.6 per 100K in 2012,
>which corresponds to a total of 36,166 per year.
>
>Medical errors are three times as dangerous:
><http://www.propublica.org/article/how-many-die-from-medical-mistakes-in-us-hospitals>
>
>Arguably, we should be spending most of our energy on doctors and
>automobiles.

We are. Billions of dollars and many thousands of people. How much are
we spending on gun safety? I already pointed out that we've reduced
automobile deaths per mile by a factor of about 5 since 1960.

>
>
> > If you're going to throw
> > in failed states and narco states, you get a different set of
> > relationships.
>
>I never knew that those European states were narco states. Now it can
>be told. Well, they do have narco problems, and it's a slippery slope...

What are you talking about? Germany and Switzerland, which were your
examples, are neither narco states nor failed states.

Now, throw in Central America and Africa, and you'd have some of both.
And your correlations would swing all over the place. That's what I
was referring to.

>
>
> > Second, you aren't accounting for the MUCH stricter qualifications for
> > gun *ownership* in Switzerland, and the general strictness of gun laws
> > there (I lived in Lausanne for almost a year, so that country is one
> > I've followed and of which I have first-hand experience).
>
>Well, the qualifications in Switzerland are so strict that only one half
>(basically all males) of the population possesses a *real* military
>assault rifle (SIG SG550).

Nowhere near it. The population of Switzerland is 8,230,000. "In some
2001 statistics, it is noted that there are about 420,000 assault
rifles (fully automatic, or "selective fire") stored at private homes,
mostly SIG SG 550 models." (The number actually has gone down since
then.)

That's 5%, not 50%. You're having a decimal-point problem this
evening. <g> You also don't know how that all works. It's not worth
getting into it, but suffice to say that only ACTIVE militiamen of a
certain age range and who live in certain conditions have select-fire
military rifles in their homes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

Every single one is registered and must be presented for inspection
every year, BTW. If you allow it to be stolen, you're going to jail.
If you loan it to someone, you're going to jail.

>
>I lived in Sweden for a year in the mid 1970s, and have been there many
>other times, probably in aggregate at least another year. In Sweden,
>all healthy males are conscripted at 18, so essentially all males know
>how to handle a gun. They don't have a gun in every house, but a number
>of my Swedish friends had firearms through their shooting club. My
>recollection is that they had long guns, and that pistols were harder to
>get legally (but not impossible), but don't recall the details.
>
>Sweden: 0.7 murders per 100K in 2012, 3 traffic deaths per 100K in 2012,
>and 31.6 guns per 100 people. Medicine probably like the US.
>
>
> > You can make more sense of these relationships if you compare
> > MacIntoshes to Granny Smiths, rather than figs to strawberries. That's
> > why I was talking about Europe. The pattern of gun-purchase and
> > -ownership laws there tend to be more alike than between, say, the US
> > and the UK. Here, I'd compare us to Canada and maybe to Australia.
>
>The better argument is that in Europe, the insane are kept in the locked
>wards of state hospitals, rather than left to fend for themselves, often
>on the streets. And handling an insane family member vastly exceeds the
>resources of most families.

It's only an argument if you can support it with specifics. The
percentage of health care expenditures for mental health in Europe is
less than 5% of the total. It the US, it runs around 6%. (Look up
"Mental health policy and practice across Europe." It's a PDF and I
can't easily get you a URL, but it's easy to find.) The US figures
also are easy to find, from the CDC, the NIH, and elsewhere.

So, if you have some evidence that they're doing a better job of it in
Europe, we haven't seen it. In fact, that paper I just mentioned says
they're doing pretty lousy.

--
Ed Huntress

[Tom Gardner]

Who cares? Selfish assholes!

[Tom Gardner]

On 1/15/2016 4:01 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> Tawm, have you killed as many people as I have? I thought so. We're a
> lethal duo! (My count is 0, too.) I wonder what OWE's count is.
>

It's better to be clever than lethal.

[Tom Gardner]

On 1/14/2016 11:59 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 20:29:49 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/13/2016 4:03 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>
>>> If they had put as much money into catching/curing crazy people as
>>> they have in trying to get guns outlawed, the problem would have been
>>> nearly nonexistent by now.
>>
>> Great point! Doesn't fit into the lib agenda though.
>

> Except that Larry is wrong, probably by a factor of 100 or more.
> That's in line with his usual scientific knowledge.
>
> What makes you think they can be cured in the first place?
>

Then exterminate them!

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 22:52:13 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>

wrote:

>On 1/14/2016 11:59 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 20:29:49 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/13/2016 4:03 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If they had put as much money into catching/curing crazy people as
>>>> they have in trying to get guns outlawed, the problem would have been
>>>> nearly nonexistent by now.
>>>
>>> Great point! Doesn't fit into the lib agenda though.
>>
>> Except that Larry is wrong, probably by a factor of 100 or more.
>> That's in line with his usual scientific knowledge.
>>
>> What makes you think they can be cured in the first place?
>>
>
>Then exterminate them!

Well, you've got the means, and now you've got the motivation. d8-)

But check with Larry before you go on a spree and get yourself into
trouble. He may want you to take your guns and go threaten some
elected officials while you still can, before the Republican Congress
makes make it illegal.

--
Ed Huntress

[John B.]

Gee Ed, you sound just like that other bloke, the one that is an
expert on CAD, or maybe it is COM, or whatever. Starts to spout
insults as soon as someone disagrees with him.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 19:17:20 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

Pyotr has been slinging insults at me for around 10 years, because I'm
not one of the right-wing "boyz." He won't initiate anything but he's
always ready to pile on, with comments like "Ed and the other
neo-Luddites," saying it's all "too much for [my] religious belief,"
and other second-rate insults.

He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he's a consistent
second-stringer who will jump in as long as he doesn't feel like he's
all alone in doing so.

For several years I was pretty passive and patient about it, but it
became clear that was their signal to circle around and snarl. I just
don't put up with it any more, John.

--
Ed Huntress

[mog...@hotmail.com]

That describes to a tee the usual suspects of the good old ''me-too'' crowd. Being forever a follower.

> For several years I was pretty passive and patient about it, but it
> became clear that was their signal to circle around and snarl. I just
> don't put up with it any more, John.

Yeah, but engaging that crowd is like mud wrestling with a hog, all of you get covered in shit but the hog enjoys it.

[Tom Gardner]

On 1/15/2016 2:44 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> Got enough solar/wind power + batteries to keep your house and shop
> going once the grid is fried? That may trigger Gunner's Cull.
>
> --
>

When TSHTF, I'm going to Gunner's house! He can put me to work
reloading cartridges.

[Tom Gardner]

On 1/15/2016 11:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>> Then exterminate them!
>
> Well, you've got the means, and now you've got the motivation. d8-)
>
> But check with Larry before you go on a spree and get yourself into
> trouble. He may want you to take your guns and go threaten some
> elected officials while you still can, before the Republican Congress
> makes make it illegal.
>

I prefer "clever" to brute force. Who can't out-think elected officials?

[Ed Huntress]

You can always choose to let them pile on with slander and insults.
That's your choice. But given their history (they don't ever stop;
they just use passivity as a license to take endless pot-shots) I
wouldn't recommend it.

As a whole, they are so lazy or incompetent about checking their
facts, and so sloppy about their "cites," that any reasonable, honest
and intelligent person has no trouble pulling the legs out from under
them whenever they go off on a fact-free rant. But that alone doesn't
matter much. They answer inconvenient facts with insults. In the end,
you had better sling it right back, or they won't let up.

It may take a long time. I figure that Gunner got hammered for around
five years before he realized it was a bad deal. But it's a lot better
than the alternative -- unless you just decide to go away. I happen to
think there are some good reasons not to.

--
Ed Huntress

[mog...@hotmail.com]

You too, huh? I see everybody says that.

[Gunner Asch]

On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 23:30:52 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
wrote:

>On 1/10/2016 1:15 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>> No problem. Just one step toward universal background checks -- in
>> this case, by closing a loophole that allows gun-show dealers to hide
>> behind the false, but largely unenforceable claim that they aren't
>> dealers.
>>
>> One more step, and the NRA will go into full panic mode, for fear of
>> losing momentum. Hang tight, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
>>
>
>I have the answer that no one else has proposed:
>
>An one who wants to own a gun must apply for a license for $25 every ten
>years. A thorough background check is performed and the guy can buy any
>gun just by showing the license. He can have a bunch or none. Somebody
>gets caught with a gun and no license or commits a crime with a gun gets
>jammed-up but good.
>
>There, problem solved!

Absolutely unconstitutional. Sorry.

Gunner