BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?

Subject: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: GUEST,hg
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 03:40 PM

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 03:53 PM

$$$$ talks and the NRA has plenty of it... If it were up to them they'd require that everyone own a gun... Why??? Where do ya'll think they get all that $$$$??? Well, from the gun dealers and manufacturers, that's where...

BTW, there is some historical precedence in that there was a time where men were required to own a gun and keep it in workin' order... Of course that was couple three hundred years ago but, hey???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: GUEST,DonMeixner
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 04:01 PM

I am a gun owner, in fact, I own several. I use to use them for hunting and target shooting. I haven't fire them in years. I keep them because they are mine. I am breaking no laws owning them. And it is my right to do so. If I break certain laws and commit certain crimes I will loose the right to keep them.

Do we need more restrictive gun laws? No. We need to enforce as written the laws we have.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: michaelr
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 04:06 PM

We most definitely need to restrict the availability of handguns. Anyone who disgrees needs their head examined.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 04:22 PM

We need both...

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: gnu
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 04:50 PM

Here in Canada, we have restrictive handgun laws and have had them for over 70 years. And, we also have restrictive gun laws that restrict people from defending themselves in their own homes.

Take yer pick. But, be careful. Home invasion is nasty and it has been on the rise in Canada ever since the new guns laws were legislated in the 80s.

I agree with Don.

Having said that, I shall direct all of you to the umteen past threads. I think I would rather shoot myself than read ANOTHER gun thread in which people who know nothing about guns and gun laws and hunting and sport shooting spout bullshit ad infinitum.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 05:25 PM

Canada's gun laws don't keep the drug gangs here from getting handguns and using them.
Home invasions (western Canada) have some people keeping their guns handy, although they are restricted to rifles and shotguns. They would rather act to protect their family and worry about the law later.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 05:25 PM

In fact, I shot my shotguns off at the beginning of the new year. And, I have a right to do so.

"Fuck the blackbirds", I say. That will teach them not to roost in my horse chestnut tree, caww, caww all day and shit all over my backyard.
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Amergin
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 05:29 PM

"Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?"

I'm trying to figure out why you feel the need for strict gnu laws....

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 05:30 PM

What's the rate of home invasions in Alberta, Q. Don't statistics actaully show that violent crime actually has been going down all over Canada, in all areas, where there are guns in homes or no guns?

What is the evidence that keeping "the guns handy" has had any impact at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: SINSULL
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 05:33 PM

I don't.
New York City has extremely restrictive gun laws and look at how well that works.
By the way I do not own a gun.
Enforce the laws we have. Punish those who break the laws severely.
And...insist that our legislatures take drugs, gangs, and cartels seriously. They all operate unchecked right within our prison systems. Go figure.
SINS

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 06:04 PM

The index of "gun laws in the US" published by the BATF in 1968 listed approximately 38,000 different laws already on the books.

The update published in 1980 listed about 38,684 different laws already on the books.

(Both numbers are the Treasury Dept estimates in the prefaces.)

The majority of those laws are still in effect.

So you think we need another few?

And that will help "something(?)" how?

The 1968 GCA law codified Federal Retrictions, with the result that it took precedence over local regulations that at the time hade limited legal ownership or possession of fully automatic weapons in the US to fewer than about 3,000, mostly held by police and military. With the "rules spelled out" the most recent reasonably accurate census of legally owned full-automatic guns ballooned within ten years to more than 38,000, with the majority now in the hands of "private citizens with enough money" to do the paperwork. (Fortunately, it appears that the majority of the new private owners are too fat and lazy, and too busy stealing from the rest of us by "legal" means, to actually shoot them - even for recreation.)

A similar "explosion" of legal ownership of "super-caliber" guns (do you plan to hunt gophers with a .50 cal or 20 mm modern rifle?) has paralleled the automatic gun registrations, simply because every new law creates new loopholes for the few, but generally restricts only the sane members of the general population of law-abiding citizens.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 06:15 PM

Can you get a handgun in England? Canada? Other places? Yes...if you are willing to pay for it you can get 'most anything anywhere.

Enforce what's on the books,c fer Gawd's sake, and stop playing like this isn't a social issue rooted in our society by our media and our history.

"Those who know history are the real subversives." -- Utah Phillips

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Will Fly
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 06:40 PM

Here's a naive question from one in the UK:

Why do so many US citizens - unlike citizens in Europe - feel the need to own a handgun? Is there significantly more danger of being killed or wounded in the US by a criminal? Is the US inherently so more uncivilised and brutal than Europe that handgun ownership is deemed necessary? I don't get that impression, given the number of kindly and sociable and intelligent correspondents I have in the US. Perhaps I'm wrong. I can understand hunting for game (with rifles) as a sport, but why are handguns so essential?

And - let's be honest - why so many rifles? I have a sister in Tucson. She's been there many years. Three years ago, her son (my nephew), who was in his early thirties and who had been bipolar for most of life, went to the closet in his bedroom, took out a rifle left there by his father and killed himself. The odds are that, with his then state of mind, he would probably have found some means or other to take his life - but the rifle made it just that little bit easier for him.

I sometime wonder if the rifle had not been there he might have been alive today - but I'll never know.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 07:20 PM

packin for your death?

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 07:26 PM

Every criminal I ever heard tell says we need more restrictive gun laws ...
it helps them in the career. More restrictive the better the odds of robbing that house and getting out without a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 07:36 PM

by the way, it is a felony to carry a hand gun without a license, so why are so many criminals and so many handguns on the street? easy answer we don't enforce the zillion laws we already have. So why would even more laws change anything. How about enforcing what we already have first.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: michaelr
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 08:12 PM

How about a ban on sales?

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: gnu
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 08:21 PM

Banning sales of guns to honest citizens is inane. Banning ownership and use of guns by criminals is sane and it has beed decreed but not enforced. There is no way to argue against this logic. It has been said MANY times... ENFORCE THE LAWS. If the laws are enforced, no problem... except for the nuts. If you have a way to exclude nuts from the general populace, please edify the rest of society.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 08:21 PM

"We need to enforce as written the laws we have." said every day in various ways.

Sure... as soon as someone does something illegal or stupid, we can "enforce a law" and arrest them or take away their 'freedom' to possess guns....if we can find them. Kinda hard to explain to their victims and their families why fools and incompetents were allowed to have guns in the first place, though.

There are 'out there' many, many people who have as their basic notion "I don't like being told what to do, and I don't trust ANY government, and I have 'moral rules' about what is 'right' and I will damn well decide for myself who needs to be shot and when!"
And as long as those people haven't done anything specifically illegal...yet, or that we can prove... they are 'allowed' to accumulate firearms of astounding power & variety. But if they go out and shoot an abortion doctor, or a politician they don't like, we'll durn sure take their guns away, and may even prosecute them--and may put them in jail..if they can't afford an expensive lawyer. Yessir... I sure feel better knowing those "laws on the books" are gonna be enforced!

Those "laws on the books" right now 'restrict' certain weapons from being modified in certain ways...but any serious person can easily learn HOW to modify them. Those laws have 'waiting periods' to buy multiple weapons...except in certain states and at certain gun shows.
   Those laws don't explain how to prevent LEGAL weapons from being sold ILLEGALLY to stupid, dangerous people, or how to prevent weapons acquired 'legally' in one state from being moved to a state where they are not legal...but boy, if we find them doing it, we'll sure 'enforce' a law or two!
In most states, it is not even a requirement to take a course in gun safety to legally buy (most) guns....and we read every day about 'accidents' to owners or their families who were NOT planning to do something 'illegal'.

The kid in Arizona yesterday had no criminal record.... he owned that gun legally.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 08:24 PM

Ask ANY police department about "enforcing the laws". They will tell you that it is nearly impossible under the circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Mike in Brunswick
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 08:28 PM

Does "enforce existing laws" include adequate funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which has been demonized as a bunch of "jackbooted thugs" and had its budget cut by gun rights members of Congress?

Also, what about gun shows? Most states place few or no restrictions on unlicensed private sellers who can sell to whoever they want with no background investigation required. The guns involved in these transactions often cross state lines to be used for criminal activity in states with more restrictive laws.

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 08:35 PM

I'm sorry ...all you folks who own guns and keep them in a safe & responsible manner-- but "enforce existing laws" is simply shorthand for "don't do ANYTHING that will interfere with MY current situation", no matter how the current laws enable violence to proliferate.

I wish it were not this way....and I DO realize there are too many guns already out there to change much.... and I do NOT see your 'freedoms' likely to be altered any time soon. I just hope you don't become a victim of the very situation you advocate.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 08:36 PM

Not true, I can go right now into any city, see the gangs on the street and many are carrying. I can spot it a mile away. Maybe cause I am trained to don't know but I suspect all the police can also. Now they have the law that requires them to produce your license. Hence no laws are enforced. you could take a team of police, raid a street corner and put away 50 people on weapons charges ... it isn't done, ever .. you could follow them home and get them individually, nope never done. We simply don't enforce them .. I agree tighten up insane gun show laws, which is insanity -if you are talking about changing those laws I am with ya for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: gnu
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 08:51 PM

Bill D... I'm sorry ...all you folks who own guns and keep them in a safe & responsible manner-- but "enforce existing laws" is simply shorthand for "don't do ANYTHING that will interfere with MY current situation",

Sorry, Bill... that is bullshit. I live within the law and the laws in Canada are strict when it comes to guns. They suck when it comes to criminals. I can spend more time in jail if a criminal steals a gun from me and commits a crime with that gun... no shit, Bill.

It has nothing to do with me. It has to do with the FACT that criminals are getting away with MURDER because the exisiting laws are not being enforced. Period. Plain and simple. If you are keen, go after the politicians and make them enforce the laws on the books.

Again, this has been done to death on many other threads so... gnightgnu... have fun with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 08:57 PM

I'm a gun owner, but I find the popularity among civilians of weapons intended for military or police use to be very disturbing. Civilians do not need handguns with 20 round capacities. Such weapons are not meant for defense against home invaders. They're meant for combat and police situations where avoiding the need to stop and reload can be the difference between life and death. In civilian hands, they do nothing but multiply the damage when some idiot goes on a rampage. If the guy in Arizona had used a 5-shot revolver he'd never have gotten off 31 shots. And any homeowner who thinks he needs anything more than that 5-shot revolver to protect his home needs to spend more time at the firing range learning to aim, not more money for a higher capacity gun so he can spray bullets indiscriminately.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: saulgoldie
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 09:04 PM

"New York City has extremely restrictive gun laws and look at how well that works."

NYC discovered that a significant number of their guns came from a handful of shops in Virginia. They set up their own sting operations at said guns shops and confirmed this. Virginia said, "Stop interfering in our affairs." and put an end to the stings. Is that really NYC's fault?

If drug laws were more civilized, mental health care available for all, and the economy more fair and evenly distributed, gun crimes would diminish significantly.


Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 09:05 PM

From UK , where holding even a small bore shot gun or a .22 rifle is Not easy , I can NOT understand why possesion of an Automatic Weapon of ANY kind is permitted outside the Armed Forces or Police !!

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 09:17 PM

read this

"If the guy in Arizona had used a 5-shot revolver he'd never have gotten off 31 shots."
right! He'd ONLY have shot the congresswoman, and her aide...and perhaps the judge...and the 9 year old girl. That would have been MUCH better...

gnu... you tell me how to recognize a criminal before he shoots someone! Every generation will produce new criminals...that has been true for thousands of years. We can't reasonably control tendencies toward bad behavior...but we COULD, if we cared to, control many of the ways they inflict violence. I can at least, dodge and outrun many forms of violence.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: GUEST,DonMeixner
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 09:34 PM

The end result of much suggested here is I who have broken no laws would become at least a pariah and at most a criminal because I own a gun or two that I have never used against another human being in any fashion.

But it is heartening to notice that about 1/2 of the forum is for personal rights as stated in the constitution. Some people are sure it is clearly stated and some see the 2nd amendment as ambiguous. I am a country kid from upstate New York. I'll hang onto my shot guns thanks. Maybe I'll start hunting again as is my right. I suppose that eventually they will be taken away by a bunch of well intended social experimenters. This will happen because it is easier than learning the constitution and what it means.

D

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 09:51 PM

Pretty much everyone here is right. No legit gun owner should be compromised in his or her right to own and legally carry. Obey the Constitution and our states laws. Likewise, things like gun shows and this insane go to another state and a gun show and bring back weapons is nuts also. Both sides are correct here. Legit restriction is fine, but it has to be done within the rights of the honest gun owner also. New restrictions on legal ownership or carry will do nothing at all. Enforce those laws we have now and we will see a difference. No criminal is allowed to carry a weapon. Every officer has the right to stop, search and arrest anyone carrying without permit. It is a felony in most (not all) states.. we need to do that also I also know some states have much less or no restrictions ... that is up to their representatives to do something or not. The federal government leaves it up to the states to decide. Interesting enough I read the states with the most lacks rules have the lowest crime rate. I don't know how true that is, gotta look it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 09:51 PM

Let's get real here for one minute...

Handguns are designed to kill people... The US has the most number of handguns owned by any country in the history of mankind... The US has the highest homicide (not genocide) rate of any country in the history of mankind...

Summation??? I don't care if we have 30 gazillion laws on the books... They ain't workin'... Maybe we need about half a dozen sensible laws???

1. No guns for loonies... Hey, Bubba, real sorry they threw you in Eastern State Hospital but...

2. No guns for folks buying them at gun shows without the same background checks as everyone else...

3. No bundling purchases... That means you can't go into Bill's Guns and order up 200 AK 47s...

4. No guns carried around as if you were Wyatt Erpp... Leave 'um at home, Bubba... No one wants to see yer sorry ass walkin' around the the local Pizza Hut with yer stenkin' ass hangin' out the back of yer Walmarkz jeans and a gun strapped around that 60 inch middle of yers...

5. Registration of all firearms and...

...6. No nu ownership without first having passed a certified firearms safety course...

There... Six laws take care of purdy much all of it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 09:52 PM

No, I doubt very much any "social experimenters" will take away your shotguns, Don. It would take votes, and for the foreseeable future, you have the votes. Yes, you can hunt... it will not even worry me.

As to the Constitution, it is a bit ambiguous. But even if we could call up the framers and ask them what they meant, and IF they agreed with you, I'd sure be interested in what they'd say if we explained to them how the country & the world has changed in 250 years.
Both the need for a "militia" in the 1789 sense, and the type and power of weapons has changed. The Constitution needs amending to account for changes in the world....but not even you sane, honest gun owners will vote for allowing any changes.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 10:10 PM

...and Bobert makes a whole lot of sense. That would be about the best we could do seeing as how there are "30 gazillion' guns hidden away out there.

I would add one more law about manufacture and possession of various types of ammo....

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: michaelr
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 10:14 PM

"The Constitution needs amending to account for changes in the world".

EXACTLY. The 2nd Amendment allows for gun ownership in the context of "a well-regulated militia". It does not guarantee every trigger-happy cowboy the right to blaze away willy-nilly.

The idea the founding fathers had was to make it possible for free men to oppose a tyrannical government, should one arise. Well, it can be said that one has indeed arisen.

But today's government cannot possibly opposed by force anymore, because it undoubtedly has vastly superior firepower. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment is an anachronism and needs to be repealed in toto.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 10:58 PM

Not everyone that owns and carries a gun is a nut, nor are they rednecks, nor are they simple minded either. Most of us are pretty smart and pretty careful and respectful people who choose not to be a victim of a violent crime ..nothing more. Yes the laws need changed in many areas, yes the laws we do have that make sense are not enforced but you cannot change the mind of a homicidal criminal to not do these things by removing the ability of people to protect themselves. Carrying a handgun saved my life and those I was with, both times I never needed to fire a shot. One other time when I was attacked and did not have a firearm, I had to disarm him by hand and did stop him but I would rather not take that chance again thank you. If he had a gun and not a knife, I would be dead in that instance. Some people refuse to be victims and until this wild west society we live in changes, I will not stand down

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 09:42 AM

Now, C'mon, gang- the Great State of Arizona - where any disturbed lunatic like the one that shot Giffords can walk in off the street and purchase a semi-automatic handgun, 30 round magazine & unlimited supply of ammo - is just protecting our Second Ammendment rights. And they're proud of it, as they should be.

Tjhey deserve our support and thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Will Fly
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 09:49 AM

Some people refuse to be victims and until this wild west society we live in changes, I will not stand down.

Dan - and others - why is the US a "wild west society"? By your account, it seems like every civilised person in the US can't go about their normal business without running the risk of being attacked in the streets or in their home. And therefore, goes the logic, everyone must be armed in just in case it happens to them. So - does everyone in the US carry a gun all the time to be safe? If you don't, what are the chances of you being mugged/attacked/injured/killed?

What kind of society can that be - and how can it be changed?

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 10:19 AM

Greg, some states do not make any sense in how they control handguns. I agree with you, that specific states laws disturb me. However in NY we have the tightest restrictive gun laws, and our violent crime rate is far higher. Nothing makes sense.

Will, I can only wish that the street gangs, drug addicts and criminals in this country were not as it is today. Something very defective in our country and society today. Back in our fathers day, it was as easy as getting a drivers license for anyone who wished a carry permit. Yet the crime rate and murder rates, well you just didn't hear it happening. Maybe it did and today we have more large scale news coverage but I think the society has changed. Not for the good either.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 10:28 AM

Excellent first link.


The money behind the extreme right media has a motive far beyond the second ammendment.

The handfull of families that own the few banks left standing asked their think tanks about what would happen if they seized all the money in the country. The paper said that there would be significant blow back but new police powers, agencies and crowd control technology would take care of threats from mobs. Those acting alone would pose a significant threat.
If the public sentiment was steered to distrust and revile the goverment, its regulations and the left leaning politicians that call for restrictions of the finance community, the main thrust of the blowback would be away from the banks and aimed at the current administration and supporters.

Somtimes a gun is just a gun. Today the gun issue is bent to preserve Wall St power as the rest of the little people are divided and neutralized. Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book of power. Certainly you know the Medici family

.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 10:36 AM

Despite all their murders the Medicis still get good press.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 10:44 AM

EXACTLY. The 2nd Amendment allows for gun ownership in the context of "a well-regulated militia". It does not guarantee every trigger-happy cowboy the right to blaze away willy-nilly.

I agree with your interpretation, but unfortunately the Extreme Court (and the gun lobby) doesn't. I believe I remember that that ruling was by 5 to 4, so it could be reversed. But, given the age of the right wing Justices and the continuing political pressures, as well as the stare decisis principle, I don't look for that ruling being reversed any time soon.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 10:51 AM

Donuel alleged:

The handfull of families that own the few banks left standing asked their think tanks about what would happen if they seized all the money in the country. The paper said that there would be significant blow back but new police powers, agencies and crowd control technology would take care of threats from mobs. Those acting alone would pose a significant threat.
If the public sentiment was steered to distrust and revile the goverment, its regulations and the left leaning politicians that call for restrictions of the finance community, the main thrust of the blowback would be away from the banks and aimed at the current administration and supporters.

Some sort of citation, please? Sounds like speculative paranoid fantasy to me.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 11:35 AM

by the way, carrying a vintage pocket watch is a hell of a lot more fun than slugging around with a firearm. I carried my firearm about 3 times in the last 6 years and only when I had to work in the seeder side of the city :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 11:50 AM

However in NY we have the tightest restrictive gun laws, and our violent crime rate is far higher.

I know, Oldster- I'm a NYS resident myself; a hunter & target shooter & own rifles, pistols, shotguns & various antique black powder firearms, both cartridge & mussle-loading. Was also an NRA Life Member, but quit same time Geo. Bush the First did, after the NRA gor crimilally stupid.

Problem is the jackass states - as mentioned above, VA as an example - where the NY thugs - or those that SUPPLY the NY thuigh can get firearms no questions asked.

If ALL the states had regs like New York's, I think you'd find there'd be a dramatic drop in the crime rate -after a while, that is, since the guns on the street NOW would have to be removed & that would take a while.

AND I agree about the pocket watch - can't remember the last time I felt compelled to carry, other than when going to the range.

Best,

Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 11:59 AM

Since guns are so easily available in almost any state, if one is willing to skirt the rules, it just might be that violence & crime has only a limited relation to local laws, and more relation to the local culture.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 12:53 PM

IF JUDGE SCALIA HAD HIS WAY

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 01:07 PM

an originalist would have to allow guns to the people and not infringe upon this right in any way whatsoever. Well regulated militias would be allowed only for the security of a free state.

If the security of the free state of Pennsylvania was not threatened by Iraq, they could not be allowed to send the National Guard to Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 01:24 PM

NRA Greg, don't get me started, their agenda went off base with me also a long time ago. At one time when I was growing up they were about the sportsman. Now, they are part of the problem for sure. I went to one gun show and saw the AK-47's with a 5 buck booklet next to them reading "how to convert your AK-47 into a full auto" For the love of God, insanity

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 01:53 PM

Few banks left standing- nonsense!
There are 9400 separately controlled banks and lending institutions in (2010) the U. S.

140 failed or were taken over by the FDIC in 2009.

Government figures quoted in Wikipedia.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 02:52 PM

Good ol' Blog-O-Pedia! Must be true.....

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 03:40 PM

"If the guy in Arizona had used a 5-shot revolver he'd never have gotten off 31 shots."
right! He'd ONLY have shot the congresswoman, and her aide...and perhaps the judge...and the 9 year old girl. That would have been MUCH better...

No, it wouldn't have been MUCH better. But the fact that he was able to fire off 20 rounds as fast as he could pull the trigger and guickly reload using a prefilled magazine undeniably made it MUCH worse. There is no "better" when someone uses a gun against another person, only degrees of "worse".

The only way to stop anything bad from happening courtesy of guns is to ban 'em all, and that is NOT going to happen. If you think it CAN happen, I'll join you in your living room on Easter Sunday morning and we'll both wait for the Easter Bunny to come hopping through the door. But I think banning weapons for which there is absolutely no logical reason or justification for civilian ownership is a reasonable step that would prevent the WORST of the bad things that happen when guns get pulled.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 04:43 PM

Hey Bee would you been happier if the guy threw a home made pipe bomb instead? How is that going to change anything? Just wondering and do you think the criminal is going to lay his down because of the ban? Isn't crack cocaine ban? I guess we still have no cocaine problem in this country ...

doesn't make sense

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 04:54 PM

The problem with semi-automatics is that unless you are high skilled after the first round is fired it's a crap shoot... A 9mm has quite a recoil and when fired very quickly, as in as fast as one can pull the trigger, the rest of the shots go where they want... This is true especially in the hands of someone in a real life scenario where the adrenalin is pumpin'... This would be a good handgun to regulate...

But I can go buy one just about any time I want to in Richmond, Va. during one of their one-a-month, arm-a-thon gun shows where all you need is cash...

Actually, I'd like to see all semi-automatics regulated... That means registration (no exceptions) and gun safety certificates required to purchase one...

Fir mom and pop afraid of the bad guys comin' in their house there are plenty of much safer guns than semi-automatics...Especially 9mm which is a purdy danged bigass slug...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 05:05 PM

Best home defense weapon is a 12 ga. shotgun anyway - not a handgun.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 05:06 PM

Semi auto's like I have require a lot of training. You bet everything you said Bobster is correct in regard to ownership. I can tack nails with any of mine but hell I trained police and military how to use them. A wheel gun is safer for sure. However when a nut case start firing any weapon into a crowd it doesn't matter really.   In my state, all handguns are registered. You cannot own a handgun of any type unless you have a permit and it is not easy to get and is expensive. I think the best thing to get many of them off the street is to change that gun show law. It is always blocked by the NRA and I tell you what, no hunter will have his rights hurt if they have to wait the required time to buy their deer rifle or shotgun .. You are so right about your state, it is the supplier to most all of the criminals via gun show.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 04:17 PM

olddude asks..(rhetorically, I presume)

"·.would you been happier if the guy threw a home made pipe bomb instead? How is that going to change anything?"

Well, *I* would be happier if a nut HAD to learn how to make a bomb and throw it accurately, than just to buy an off-the-rack Glock with extra magazines! A lot fewer would try!....and a lot of them would never manage it. Pipe bombs require buying straight gunpowder or even more harder to find stuff, and assembling it just right...

Sorry Dan, but that is a 'straw man' argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 04:30 PM

Not really Bill, but I do hear your comment and take it with merit. You are correct that gun laws need to be revise in certain areas, uniform via federal government i think. Some state it is really easy. Some states it is really hard .. Some uniform codes would be a welcome thing, like getting rid of gun shows and the like loopholes. No ban will ever work .. like I said in the other thread they had that for 25 years in Washington DC and the rate still goes up.

The internet has been a windfall for the nut jobs. They can learn how to make plastique in their bathroom with house hold chemical .. it is all insanity actually my friend. Maybe if we get back to teaching our kids about morality and the preciousness of human life, maybe we will progress. I can only pray

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 04:46 PM

What I like Bill and maybe we are saying the same thing in different ways. Here is what I would love to see
1)federal conceal carry standards that take the "go to this state it is easy" out of the equation

2) get rid of gun show loopholes so people don't go to Bob's state and bring back an arsenal into NY like my state sees

3) private sales of shotguns and rifles etc, make it so the private citizen has to get the police background check first. right now there is no law anywhere to prevent a private citizen from selling to a felon. The felon knows he cannot legally own but no responsibility is place on the seller to check first.

These steps make sense to me

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 05:16 PM

Unfortunately, one of those areas than would take a constitutional amendment to get uniform laws across the country.

In Canada, rifles and shotguns show up at auctions, but the auctioneer must demand an approved license with police check before handing the gun over. Handguns that show up in estates (unless licensed target types) must be turned over to the police, and it is not easy to re-register the target guns.
Rifles and shotguns must be registered (national registry) but there is much opposition, at least in western Canada, and some hunters refuse to register.

The drug gangs here in Canada all have handguns, brought across the border with little difficulty.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 05:29 PM

I would happily approve of changes in laws about sales of firearms like olddude suggests. Many guns used in crimes in Wash DC have been traced to sales in the Virginia gun shows Bobert mentions.

I would also REALLY hope for ownership to be limited to those people who pass a carefully controlled course and detailed background check...including school records and mental health evaluations. I know several people who I know have 'carry' permits who I would never worry about... but it isn't the trained, sane ones we usually worry about.

I say 'usually'...for some reason, I remember the name Howard Unrauh, who was an army veteran and supposedly 'safe'.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 05:39 PM

To paraphrase Pat Paulsen, "Guns don't kill people. Bullets do."

A good friend of mine once said to me, "So, now we have to register our guns (I'm in Canada). What is the government going to do that I don't like?"

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: gnu
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 05:54 PM

olddude, and others, are speaking good sense.

It occured to me that many may read my posts as anti-gun laws in the altogether. Far from the truth.

But, here in Canuckistan, one law has got to go. The idea that you cannot defend your property, yourself and your family with a gun is just messed up. It invites crime into the homes of the defenseless. And there have been far too many such crimes since the idiotic laws regarding safe and secure storage were put into place. They preclude self defense for a lot of people where such needn't be imposed but such defense has become obviously necessary.

Otherwise defenseless people have paid DEARLY. Friends of mine have been brutally murdered with knives, swords, mauls... sick shit man. And all because of the storage laws which do not allow self defense by law abiding people... even those who do not own guns. Read that again... even those who DO NOT OWN GUNS. Think it through. You might be the next victim. It's a ridiculous law and it has cost people their lives. Good laws are good. Idiotic laws are bad.

Again, if I don't answer posts addressed to me on this thread/issue it's because it's been done a hundred times before on other threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 06:47 PM

""In my state, all handguns are registered. You cannot own a handgun of any type unless you have a permit and it is not easy to get and is expensive.""

With respect Dan, shouldn't that read "In my state, all handguns are registered. You cannot own a handgun of any type unless you have a permit and it is not easy to get and is expensive, or unless you are a drug dealer, bank robber, or serial killer"?

There are two separate matters here, surely.

1. Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns.

2. Banning all handguns which confer more firepower than would ever be needed to send a burglar running for the hills would seem to be a better idea than any total ban.

I live in the UK where, thank God, handguns are neither allowed, nor needed, in private possession. The situation in the States is different, and I wouldn't presume to judge it on the basis of UK experience.

I have an absolute loathing of any device designed specifically for killing human beings, but circumstances alter cases, and unless the criminals' guns can be taken away first, a total ban would IMHO play right into their hands.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 06:52 PM

Jeez ol dude, jus how many crmnals you know anyhow?

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: michaelr
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 06:55 PM

From here:

"TUCSON, Ariz. – Jared Loughner had trouble with the law, was rejected by the Army after flunking a drug test and was considered so mentally unstable that he was banned from his college campus, where officials considered him a threat to other students and faculty.

But the 22-year-old had no trouble buying the Glock semiautomatic pistol that authorities say he used in the Tucson rampage Saturday that left six dead and 14 injured, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Loughner's personal history did not disqualify him under federal rules, and Arizona doesn't regulate gun sales. His criminal charges were ultimately dismissed, the Army information was private and Pima Community College isn't saying whether it shared its concerns about Loughner with anyone besides his parents.

Loughner cleared a federal background check and bought the pistol at a big-box sports store near his home on Nov. 30 — two months after he was suspended by the college. He customized the weapon with an extended ammunition clip that would have been illegal six years earlier."

Arizona doesn't regulate gun sales. In fact there is a bill pending in the state legislature now that would allow teachers and students to carry firearms in class.

Am I the only one who thinks this is completely insane?

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 06:56 PM

Don
I was former law enforcement , hence all but 1 of my encounters .. you are right ,, it should read that way

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 07:00 PM

I have an absolute loathing of any device designed specifically for killing human beings...

Like the Armed Forces, for instance?

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 07:25 PM

I can't type, I can't spell, dang these fingers ...

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 07:57 PM

As a matter of interest... I looked up how to get statistics, and found The Center for Disease Control, which allows you to select areas...

I asked for:

10 Leading Causes of Violence-Related Injury Deaths, United States
1999 - 2007, All Races, Both Sexes...ages from 18-85
The top two were:
1)Suicide
Firearm
148,193

2)Homicide
Firearm
97,768

That's for 8 years...and it is only DEATHS..not gunshot wounds which were not fatal.

Total, 245,971... divided by 8...30,745 per year...divided by 365 = about 84 per day, most of which are only 'local statistics'.

Leave out suicides..(though family & friends might wish that a gun had not been handy).. and it's 'only' about 1/3 the total..maybe 25-30 per day.

Mass homicides are only a temporary spike in daily statistics. I wonder what the NRA thinks of those figures?

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 08:06 PM

Bill
my understand is those stats are pretty darn close to being right. Now if we separated out those that are legally owned and those that are illegal the stats drop .. Kinda like drug deaths, if the look at just pot and then cocaine, the numbers change. Don't know anyone who died from pot but there maybe dunno .. but cocaine .. staggering. They will produce stats that say xyz% of death from illegal drugs .. and lump pot into the equasion. In short, there are a heck of a lot of people that shouldn't be allow to carry a crayon never the less a firearm.

I do so like the way NY does it. Most NRA reps will call me a communist

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 08:20 PM

Suicides, 2004
U. S. 9-12/100,000
Canada- 9-12/100,000
Australia- 9-12/100,000
Russia- 33/100,000
France- 15-18/100,000
Brasil- 6-9/100,000
Mexico- 6-9/100,000

Doesn't matter the weapon, people do the job if they wish.
I may be somewhat off on these figures, the colors on the Wiki map are hard to separate.

Homocides, 2004
U. S. 5.5/100,000
UK- 1.8/100,000 approx.
You look up the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 09:27 PM

bobster, a 9mm is a pretty tame caliber in the grand scope of things. You maybe be thinking the old .45. The government and police force went to the .40 cal which is a 10mm. Slightly smaller than the .45 but much harder hitting than the 9mm. When engaged, too many after hit shots were fired by the bad guy when the 9mm was use. With the .40 much less the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: michaelr
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 09:42 PM

Guess I am the only one.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 09:42 PM

33 bullets in a clip is a toy. How about 293 bullets in the clip!?

If the 33'e are banned be sure not to mention the 298s

33 clips followed by a 298 clip at the end

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 09:48 PM

I am a former member of a NRA shoot team, Ol'ster... I gotta 22/410 over under with a 18 inch barrel, open sights and can hold a 10 shot pattern at 100 feet with the .22 at right at 4 inches... Open sights!!! Now I understand that Rap can hold it to 2 inches but the point is that a 9mm semi-automatic ain't all that accurate in the hands of someone who has not put in alot of practice, like me, is a crap shoot... I fired 10 rounds rapidly with one at 100 feet and hit the target...

But taht really ain't the issue here... The real issue is that those of us who feel that we need stronger gun regs, which BTW most cops and former cops are 100% behind, just don't have the resources to go up against the NRA... When God runs short of money He gets a loan from them... They have so much money its unreal!!!

That is the issue here... Give me 1/2 of what they have to wage a a campaign and I'll guarantee you that I could turn public opinion around so fast that Repubs would be fighting each other to introduce sane gun control policy...

It's all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 10:07 PM

Self protection

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 10:07 PM

michealr

If you were completly insane you could not buy a gun in NY, but come on down to Virginia Carolina SC AR or TX, we don't know how to spell insane down here, at least we don't let it get in the way of gun sales. Insane or not guns can be fun but have about the same risk of something going wrong as driving a Ford Fiesta with an open gas tank in the back seat and a vandegraf generator in the front.



but seriously folks

The gun lobby has never been defeated. They did take one hit when assault weapons were temporarily suspended, but they are back now.
You know of course you can legally buy anti aircraft and surface to air armaments.

I knew a DC cop who got thrown off the force for killing too many underage black kids and made a living from selling hard ball ammo to African civil war generals.

If a republican voted for any restrictive gun legislation he would be called a RINO and would be gone. Even Dick Cheney voted FOR cop killer bullets and undetectable plastic ceramic guns made by Glock.

I don't know about this month but this last year has shown America the first ammo shortage crises since the Revolutionary war.


We can try but in themeantime I think I'll search for all the songs about guns and the blues...

Insane's just another word for nothing left to lose
Nothing, I mean nothing honey if it ain't free, no no
Yeah feeling sane was easy Lord when he sang the blues
You know feeling good was good enough for me
Good enough for me and my Bobby McGee.

From Kentucky coal mine to the California sun
Yeah Bobby shared the secrets of my soul
Through all kinds of weather, through everything we done
Yeah Bobby baby kept me from the cold world
One day a near Selina Lord, cleaned his glock19
He looked in the barrel, and found one in the chamber
But I'd trade all of my tomorrows for one single yesterday
Now I'm holdin' Bobby's body next to mine

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Mike in Brunswick
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 10:15 PM

From Mother Jones Magazine

What if 31 Shots Had Been Only 10?

— By Josh Harkinson
| Tue Jan. 11, 2011 3:00 AM PST

The Tucson shooter's killing frenzy finally came to an end on Saturday after he allegedly emptied his semiautomatic Glock handgun of its 31 bullets. According to witness reports, as he was changing the clip, a wounded woman tried to grab the gun from him. His next shot jammed before two men wrestled him to the ground.

Before 2004, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired, the shooter never would have been able to get off so many shots before pausing to reload. The ban, enacted in 1994 in the wake of mass killings in San Francisco and Waco, limited gun magazines to a maximum of ten rounds. Assuming that the shooter would've achieved the same hit ratio with the smaller clip, he would have shot six people and maybe killed one or two instead of shooting 20 and killing half a dozen.

"If he was restricted to a 10-round magazine, lives could have been saved," says Daniel Vice, a senior attorney with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. According to a 2004 study (PDF) by the University of Pennsylvania's Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, "attacks with semiautomatics—including assault weapons and other semiautomatics equipped with large capacity magazines—result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more wounds inflicted per victim than to attacks with other firearms."

The Brady Campaign is supporting a new bill by Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) that would renew the Assault Weapons Ban, a Democratic priority that the Obama administration had essentially abandoned.

Of course, a renewed ban will do little to get rid of the thousands of high-capacity clips already in circulation. While seven states and the District of Columbia ban clips of the sort Jared Loughner allegedly used, they're widely available in Arizona gun stores and enthusiastically marketed by gun makers. As the Glock website puts it: "Compact and subcompact GLOCK pistol model magazines can be loaded with a convincing number of rounds."

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 10:20 PM

How much money would it take to buy an effective gun law?

You gotta be talkin more than a presidential election.

Start with penny drives by 9 year olds in their schools
Then go to 10 year olds
Then get the police to join the drive
Then get organizations like Salvation Army, Mega Churchs
Then do a money drive with high schools
Start a pay it forward campaign after a nationally notable shooting
Get TV personalities to start a drive, Hell Lawrence ODonnel got millions for his plea to buy Desks.

Islolate those who will not join the drive and show all the shootings in his town etc.

IF MONEY is the only issue, it can be done.




on the dark side...

What if the NRA started losing their leases, property, credibility, members. What if we found the NRA supplying our enemies or terrorists ? Even if it were three degrees of seperation, a number of such links would go a long way.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 10:22 PM

Ed m give me a minute and I'll show you what I can do with that machine gun that will turn heads.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 10:38 PM

Hmmmm??? A lot somehow didn't take on my last post...

The point I was making is that out of 10 shots I hit the target 2 times... Where the other shots went is unknown in relation to the target...

BTW, that was the erased part of my above post in regards to the 9mm semi-automatic... In other words??? In the hands of folks who know very little, which 2-outta-10-shots-in-the-target-me does not qualify for my own decent skills, I would think that we really don't need to have these guns... They are extremely difficult to use safely in the average un-practiced Joe's (me) hands and they can kill way too many people way too fast...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 10:47 PM

Bobster
my experience as an instructor both with special forces and with the Sheriff office, dang few people can shoot really well with a handgun. After a zillion rounds the Seal guys can shoot and I mean shoot but too many police officers don't put the time in. They shoot enough to qualify each year to stay on the job but not enough for combat. That actually is a real problem. In a situation like just happened a cop needs to be able to drop the bad guy without hitting an innocent .. My feeling, don't carry if you can't really shoot. The FBI guys can shoot, CIA can shoot all of special forces but you are right, it is like anything, it is all about training. many people won't do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 10:58 PM

We one the exact same page, Ol-ster...

That's just another reason to get these guns outta everyone's hand other than cops... Make it $5000 and 6 months fir owning one without being certified to use it and havin' it registered (ballistic fingerprints on file) and I'd guarantee you that we'd start to get these (and similar handguns) outta circulation and I'd bet that would save between 10,000 and 15,000 lives a year here in the US...

That ain't chump change when it comes to lives...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 12:05 PM

and so it goes..

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 12:35 PM

LOL, yup Bill that pretty much sums it up LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 12:41 PM

Re. gun laws - http://walkaboutsverse.webs.com/#100

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 12:41 PM

hey Bill
for xmas next year, can I buy you one of these

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 12:43 PM

recommend the .338 lapua with a ghillie suit

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 12:48 PM

Dan... No, send it to this teacher instead

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 12:50 PM

God we are a messed up society aren't we. At least the .338 is a great gun for elk hunting or sheep. But good grief... a bargain price at 3K. I would rather have a great Martin guitar myself. My doc buddie has one, took a moose with it ... and probably the side of the mountain also.

8.60x70mm (.338 Lapua)

The .338 is fairly new to the sniper community, but it does bear the distinction as being the first and only caliber designed specifically for sniping. While this round was actually developed back in 1983, it wasn't until the last few years that it has gained in popularity. The caliber was designed to arrive at 1000 meters with enough energy to penetrate 5 layers of military body armor and still make the kill. The effective range of this caliber is about 1 mile (1600meters) and in the right shooting conditions, it could come very close to the 2000 meter mark, provided you have the right rifle/ammo/optics/shooter/spotter combination. Realistically, 1200 meters is well within the average sniper. This caliber is designed primarily as a military extreme range anti-personnel round, there really is no Law Enforcement applications, unless you need a super penetrating round for either armored vehicles, or for barricaded suspects. There is not a lot of rifles chambered for the .338, but the list is growing with the likes of Sako, AI, and others producing .338 sniping rifles. Ammo is another problem, match ammo is sometimes difficult to find, but it is becomming more available as time passes. We all know the legal liability of using hand loads, so that is out of the question. Another concern is the recoil of this caliber, even with a good muzzle brake, its brisk. So don't try a rifle without one. Be sure to practice the fundamentals of shooting to try and prevent a flinch from developing.

Recommendations: For military extreme long-range anti-personnel purposes, the .338 Lapua is king. Even the .50BMG falls short (Do to accuracy problems with current ammo). This caliber is not recommended for Law Enforcement.

Military Applications

I have chosen the Lapua factory load with a 250gr FMJ-BT at 3000fps (Wow!). This load has some awsome down range ballistics.

.338 Lapua 250gr FMJ-BT (LockBase) at 3000fps

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 12:54 PM

I suppose these are all legal

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 12:57 PM

Concerned? Why would I be concerned?

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 01:01 PM

Just why USAians need guns is beyond me - something lacking somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 01:02 PM

Bill
watch what you say about my cousins LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 01:04 PM

Naw, those kids needed a bit more firepower. Where is the .338 sniper rifle ... those parents are neglecting their kids buying toys geeze...


LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 01:06 PM

This woman is a county commissioner in Washington County, PA...

http://www.irey.com/issues.php

She says.."Freedom isn't free. Our country has a long and dignified history of personal responsibility and accountability. For generations, our ancestors have lived in a country where they were free, and able, and expected to defend themselves, their families, and their homes. I believe that it is important that we maintain these rights for ourselves, and for generations to come."

This is the image she uses to illustrate her point

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 01:07 PM

(These kids have 'better' toys, hmmm.?)

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 01:09 PM

I do hope they converted those AR's to full auto for the kids. You can't have fun shooting up the neighborhood if ya gotta keep pulling the trigger. It costs 8 bucks in parts to do so by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 01:12 PM

Although I have to admit my arsenal is pretty darn good. But that is because relatives keep dying and leaving them to me. I am proud to say mine are all deer rifles and shotguns for hunting. Except of course my personal handguns. I hunt with a handgun or did since I don't hunt anymore. So yes handguns can be used for hunting ... but that takes a lot of skill to do so ... most people wouldn't do that

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 01:14 PM

yeah....and if you can afford a bit more

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 01:29 PM

Look...here is my dilemma..

There are too many crazy people who get can ahold of guns.. we ought to regulate it somehow--
   BUT there are already too many crazy, paranoid people who already HAVE guns, who will see **any** attempt at regulation as proof that their 'rights' are being attacked, so they will USE those guns on 'someone' they feel is to blame...

How DO we regulate 'sensibly' when crazy people want NO regulation?

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 01:40 PM

I think even us gun toting sane people agree with you on that one

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 02:45 PM

Diana is awesome Bill, geeze guy ... In PA we are born with a firearm. Got one of the lowest crime rates in the entire US ... She is a cutie also ... but having old Newt with her, she loses my vote .. that is if I still lived in PA ...

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 04:31 PM

So on BBC news tonight we have it straight from the Mare's mouth!

Gun totin' Sarah Palin says the Media are to blame for the hatred that gets Democrat congressmen shot in supermarket car parks.

Crap, Sarah. You encouraged this kind of action, and your supporters intimidate others by takin' Old Betsy" to election meetings and polling booths!! It was only a matter of time!!

Memo to the Media:- Stop reporting what Sarah says, or the blood of her political opponents will be on your hands.


Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Fossil
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 04:33 PM

Oh boy. One lead post from a Guest - obviously a troll - posting nothing but the URL of some extremist article, no explanation, no comment, no nothing and off go the Mudcatters!

100-plus posts - lots of them quite vitriolic - in a couple of days. Haven't you all got better threads to read than this obvious stirrer?

And, Joeclones, what happened to the quotes ban close quotes on anonymous Guests opening threads? The fct tht ths thrd ttl is pretty much illegible doesn't help either. More moderation needed in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 05:04 PM

naw fossil, we live to argue with each other, it is fun. None of us have a life LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 05:23 PM

not anonymous, Fossil... many of us know exactly who 'hg' is....Joe Offer is able to tell in various ways.

'hg' has chosen to not 'sign in' for various reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 07:30 PM

""I have an absolute loathing of any device designed specifically for killing human beings...

Like the Armed Forces, for instance?""

Strangely no Greg F, for the reason I gave below.

1. The armed Forces aren't devices, they are men.

2. Circumstances DO alter cases, and a standing army is, and always has been, a necessity for any country wishing to keep its borders secure.

So NO! I don't loathe the armed forces. I do however loathe the cynical bastards who send them to war on the pretext of defence, when the real reason is a desire for more than their share of the World's resources.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: kendall
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 08:00 PM

Hand guns are designed to kill people. True but the owner is not OBLIGATED to kill anyone.
Automobiles are not designed to kill people but a lot more are killed by cars than with guns.

To you UK folks who say you don't understand; this is a wild country, always has been. It's part of our history, but it is not nearly as bad as you seem to think. I'm 76, I have traveled all over America and I've never been threatened. I have never had the Flu either, but I get a shot each year.

A Police officer stopped a guy for some infraction, and he noticed a pistol on the passengers seat. He asked the driver if he was armed and the man said he had a concealed .45, a double barrel shotgun under the seat and a .38 in the glove box. He also had a license to carry concealed.
The Cop asked, "What are you afraid of?" man said, "Not a god damn thing."

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: kendall
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 08:03 PM

I find it interesting that anyone can buy a 30 round clip, but if you own a repeating shot gun you must have a plug in it to restrict it to 3 shots if you go hunting for Migratory birds.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 08:04 PM

Kendall
Priceless ...

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 08:48 PM

How DO we regulate 'sensibly' when crazy people want NO regulation?

You give up on the idea of regulation by law as a solution, that's what you do.

Any attempt at legislating guns away in the US would lead to near civil war and thousands dead at the hands of the gun fetishists.

What the US needs is a shift in cultural values. To a point where the general perception of people who invest in the means to kill others is that they're fucked in the head and are to be shunned at all costs. Which is the way most of the world sees people who want to have guns.

Only once the nation has got to that point does it make sense to legislate to control the marginalized minority that still needs steel and cordite dildos to satisfy their pornographic death fantasies.

So how does the US get there? Popular disgust. The reaction to the recent terrorist killing is a good start.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 09:23 PM

Maybe only criminals (current and future) and gang members should have to register their guns? And, only make it voluntary, since there is a danger that it may inconvenience these folksa or crimp their gansta style?

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 11:15 PM

Blaming guns for killing people is like blaming Rosie O'Donnell's fork, for her being so fat!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 11:39 PM

yes, but without the guns it is harder to kill people, and without the fork, it is harder to get fat.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 11:47 PM

All you gotta' do is want to eat or kill, and you'll find a way.
Common sense does not lay in the will of inanimate objects....with all due respects.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 12:17 AM

More American children die from guns than from cancer

Where is their telethon?

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 08:59 AM

Everybody has to eat. Nobody needs to kill.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 10:58 AM

If the answer is to enforce laws already on the books, why have Republicans in the Senate spent the last 5 years ensuring that there is no Director of ATF?

http://pr.thinkprogress.org/

The NRA has effectively replaced the ATF as the agency that determines US gun policy.

Can't wait until the fast food industry replaces FDA.

Maybe the tobacco industry should take over HHS.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 11:13 AM

Jack, we have created so many enemies in our history that to expect us to go unarmed and vulnerable is just not realistic. No country would ever dare to invade the USA because there are far more guns in the civilian population that in the military.
Furthermore, owning a gun is not being a fetishist.I resent that broad label.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Wesley S
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 11:39 AM

Fron MSN :

Glock Pistol Sales Surge in Aftermath of Arizona Shootings
January 12, 2011 12:01 AM ET
By Michael Riley

Greg Wolff, the owner of two Arizona gun shops, told his manager to get ready for a stampede of new customers after a Glock-wielding gunman killed six people at a Tucson shopping center on Jan. 8.

Wolff was right. Instead of hurting sales, the massacre had the $499 semi-automatic pistols -- popular with police, sport shooters and gangsters -- flying out the doors of his Glockmeister stores in Mesa and Phoenix.

"We're at double our volume over what we usually do," Wolff said two days after the shooting spree that also left 14 wounded, including Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who remains in critical condition.

A national debate over weaknesses in state and federal gun laws stirred by the shooting has stoked fears among gun buyers that stiffer restrictions may be coming from Congress, gun dealers say. The result is that a deadly demonstration of the weapon's effectiveness has also fired up sales of handguns in Arizona and other states, according to federal law enforcement data.

"When something like this happens people get worried that the government is going to ban stuff," Wolff said.

Arizona gun dealers say that among the biggest sellers in the past few days is the Glock 19 made by privately held Glock GmbH, based in Deutsch-Wagram, Austria, the model used in the shootings.

Sales Jump

One-day sales of handguns in Arizona jumped 60 percent to 263 on Jan. 10 compared with 164 the corresponding Monday a year ago, the second-biggest increase of any state in the country, according to Federal Bureau of Investigation data.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 11:54 AM

Kendall is absolutely correcto mundo! Not all the world sees us through the rose-colored glasses, that the 'far left' is so inclined to do...as they live on handouts, and overpaid government jobs!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 05:12 PM

`. . . the 'far left' is so inclined to do...as they live on handouts, and overpaid government jobs!`

I`m glad you got THAT weight off your chest.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 05:18 PM

Sorry. That was me.

To note: according to Wiki, there are three times as many guns in the US as Canada--on a per capita basis. At one time I had a 30-06, .308, .22 Vostok, .22 single-shot Cooey (sp), .303 British, .303 American, and a 30-30 Winchester lever action. I have NO idea where they are now. I never did shoot anyone. Got some food from them, though. And that`s what they were meant for s`far`s I`m concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 05:24 PM

I have a shillelagh ... and I've never hit anyone with it.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 05:32 PM

GUEST,number 6: "I have a shillelagh ... and I've never hit anyone with it."

I played a piece in concert, recently, that kicked the shit out of them...and ALL at once, too!!..and I never had to 're-load'!

Here's to ya' biLL!!!....Cheers!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 07:48 PM

Over 9 in 10 people are now saying that the name of the KILL OBAMAcare bill should be changed. Folks even want the assault rifle ban brought back.
The righties are complaining that the insane rabid dog liberals are foaming at the mouth to take away their guns.

No matter how much liberals tone it down, the right wing base will still feel like they are the victims in the crosshairs and that lefty loonies are trying to gun down their most treasured possesion and sacred cONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT (which at the time was a blunderbus or flintlock rifle).

Before librals jump the gun and shoot themselves in the foot they should stare down the barrel of reality. American phraseology is loadied with gun metaphors. Today Mary Malkin smirkingly wrote that Obama made a double barrel effort at the memorial last night.
The right will tease liberals to death by squeezing the trigger on every gun related saying from here to eternity.

Even straight shooters like Peter Jennings are afraid that a war on gun sayings will backfire. On the other hand if liberals run from right wing political snipers they will just die tired. IT will be hard to put the smoke back in the gun at this point so the smart thing to do would be to step back and aim at a different target.

Instead of going off half cocked, liberals should enforce the laws on the books such as being shot and killed by a gun. As the police say, you have to wait until its too late if you want protection from a gun toting whacko.

The big guns in Congress will probably start carrying pistols. I bet they won't even bother to conceal them. It will become what the flag pin became under Bush jr. It will be the measure and display of being a REAL AMERICAN. They will say a gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone. Of course once the draw their waepons on the floor of Congress they could ewaily be taken out by the Seargent at Arms.

So before liberals shoot from the hip and let this issue blow up in their face they should think of a campaign they can win. Sarah Palin has defined bearing arms as the right to vote. It looks like liberals are gonna hafta bear more arms at the ballot box.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 08:14 PM

By the way if anyone thinks that Palin's definition of "the right to bear arms" is the 'right to vote' is a bit odd or even warped, you need to put it in perspective.
Sarah has recently sought to arm bears in regards to mama grizzlies.
With the right kind and enough drugs along with a great deal of time for relection, her definition of the right to bear arms is merely voting, will begin to make a bit more sense. At least until the shrill light of a hangover morning burns your eyes.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 08:21 PM

It just occured to me that the last time men carried pistols on the floor of COngress was specificly Sumner, immediately before the Civil War.

My how history repeats.

for this to happen again they would have to lift the ban on guns on federal institutions, which would probably be vetoed.

Subject: ED thank you for the machine gun
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 08:26 PM

Ed thanks for the machine gun.

I made a picture as to how I put it to good use...

I call it the BeckMobile

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 08:35 PM

This Thurs to Sunday at the TImmonium fair grounds there is a gun fair primarily for machine guns. You can buy trade or sell your guns at the fair without background checks.

The commercial for this event runs twice an hour on the Ruxh LImbaugh show. The ad has a cutely reparte' between a private and ol Sarge. Come to the fair, its a dream come true!

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 08:39 PM

Recount - when election results are too close to call between candidates of the same party.

Re Election - when an incumbant wins.

Reload - When a Liberal beats a Tea Party candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 08:45 PM

We get your point Donuel ... now go find something constructive to do ... maybe go and do the dishes, pay a bill or fold the laundry or something ... please.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 08:50 PM

6 Why don't you go learn how to write, or draw or sing a tune properly.
Until then you aren't worth the 23 cents to send you a message.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 09:39 PM

What??..Are you grasping at straws for something you left unturned to bitch about???
Donuel, i thought you were a more serious musician, to be involved with whining about THEIR choice of weapons....Why do that, when you have an orchestra in front of you??..Shit, you can blow them away, with just some slick arrangements and some well practiced chops!!

Calm down!..This country has a bazillion guns, and no one has been coming after you, have they???

PLAY!!..We can win this!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 02:07 AM

That was a very nice rhetorical question.
but I'll answer it any way...
My best friend was murdered with a shot gun. I knew a classical violinist who commited suicide with a gun.
I was only shot at once in the railyards at night. I think he was shooting high anyway.

CAUTION: Writing in all gun metaphors is strangely addictive.

Music comes and goes but today I did buy an E string for my 5 string electric cello that I will use to play Cat Stevens tunes. Actually the clerk bought the string for me since all I had was plastic.






PS Its fine to say "SHUT UP!" but nobody but nobody tells me to fold no damn laundry...them is fightin wurds

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 01:26 PM

It pays to teach them young

http://usera.imagecave.com/donuel/Palin-Primer.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 10:12 PM

Donuel: "Music comes and goes but today I did buy an E string for my 5 string electric cello that I will use to play Cat Stevens tunes. Actually the clerk bought the string for me since all I had was plastic."

That, my dear brother, was the best news, I've heard(or read) on here, in a long time!

Which Cat Stevens song?..'Lisa, Lisa'? I know there's a cello in that one, I used to do it..but, that was a while ago. I don't do vocals, anymore..but I write them for other voices.

Hey, (just thought of this, to add)...when you play again, get free of the agitation of all this political double-speak. What you can do, is well above those con artists, that we have lent our ears to.
Send them your heart....

...and warmest regards,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: number 6
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 11:01 PM

That is great news regarding the E-string .... never heard of anything like that before .... salutes to that store clerk.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 11:15 PM

My dad was a Constitutional law professor. Some of that passion rubbed off. Adams, Jefferson, Madison...Barak Obama all COnstituional lawyers. Mom was an artist ergo I have always done political pictures to please them in some small way.

When it comes to toning it down I have one thought tonight.

STAY Gruntled
When guys are Disgruntled, shit hits the fan.




When it comes to Cat Stevens I play them all by ear. I have to lay down the bass line on an old Korg and play to that. If I made some sort of foot pedals for the bass line it would be better but the Korg can add a touch of percussion as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 01:00 PM

I think that Congressional differences should be settled by giving both groups automatic weapons and requiring them to shoot it out from fifty paces sheltered only by the flimsiest of wooden tables. Either that or axes.

Sorry for the drift from the drift from the drift from the . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 01:10 PM

The last word

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: kendall
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 02:01 PM

Because we always wait until some crazy bastard kills before we put him away.
How many are killed by drunk drivers?And how many of those drunks have a rap sheet of dozens of convictions? Are they not just as dead as the gun shot victims?
If a person is killed while crossing the street it never makes the papers outside the town where it happened, but if a plane crashes killing 100 people it is on the national news. Are they deader than the man?

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 03:17 PM

The post by Donuel is devalued by false figures.
(99000 lone gunmen have not killed 2-30 children each since 2001).

2001-2004, 32000 people total killed by handguns and 8000 by other types of guns (rough figures from graph of homicides, Wikipedia).
Roughly 20,000 killed by other means.

In 2002, 3012 children including teens were killed by guns (National Center for Health), figures from National Educational Association.
90,000 were killed between 1979 and 2001, or roughly 4500 a year.
(The number of teens killed in the drug trade is not indicated).

I am for responsible gun sale, licensing and testing, including mental evaluation-
but nonsensical statistics can make a point look ridiculous; they do not support the argument.

Sensible narcotics laws also are needed to lessen the killing.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 03:25 PM

I saw a post in FaceBook on this, and tried to insert some reason and logic... and all I got was more "We already have plenty of gun laws...all we need is more 'enforcement' and treatment of the mentally ill."

As long as people cannot see the problem with that line..(which always sounds more like a rote slogan mouthed by those who WANT guns and don't want to confront the actual situation)...they will continue to hold to the belief that "if *I* behave properly, the fact that many thousands of other behave badly is irrelevant."

Many items and actions in this country are regulated...alcohol, drugs, motor vehicles and how they are operated, processed food, children's toys, building construction, electrical codes, prize fights, design of power tools, pesticides,....the list is endless.... all done because we cannot trust everyone to take proper care if things were NOT regulated. And those things are NEEDED.
Yet, it is easy to obtain guns (and often a SUPER gun with special ammo)....which are NOT needed by the average person....

It is a sad situation when factual distortion by the NRA has more influence than sane arguments by knowledgeable people, pleadings by law enforcement and victims of crimes and statistics which SHOW the problem. Most of the rest of the WORLD looks at us in disbelief as we accumulate more & more weapons per capita, and continue to suffer these tragedies.