BS: Guns in America

Subject: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 16 Apr 18 - 06:43 AM

There is a gun sickness here in America. Like so many others, I have written letters, signed petitions and contributed money but the people, in our country, who make the laws are owned by the people who make the guns. Please check out this YouTube video:
    https://youtu.be/dxstFRT2djE
and consider passing it on.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 03:01 PM

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/05/read-understand-rational-support-gun-rights/

"An unaddressed question thus far is, aggression by whom and independence from whom? On the surface there are two answers: criminals who seek plunder, rape, or murder; and the state itself. At essence, however, there is but one answer: the gun provides a last line of resistance against any initiator of force, whether the context be that of simple crime, an ineffective state allowing marauders a wide berth, or the state metastasizing into the gravest threat to personal wellbeing.

For millions of Americans, the right to a gun is the right to live independently, and now a mass movement is threatening to dismantle it. Gun controllers’ ostensible aim is to live in a safe society, but from the perspective of the gun advocate the measures being proposed would make individuals dependent on and at the mercy of the state for safety and thus rob them of the fundamental right to preserve their own lives.

What gun controllers want is safety. What gun owners and gun-rights advocates want is to be at the mercy of no one else. To not be mistaken as a proponent of anarchy, I must stress that I consider the state a vital institution for employing retaliatory force. But the state is not omnipresent. A personal weapon fills the void in emergency situations of defense until the arrival of authorized state force, thus preserving independence while respecting that of others."

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 03:07 PM

The conclusion to the article, which seems right on target. IMO, until BOTH sides listen to the other side and address the concerns expressed in a reasonable fashion, there will be no resolution of the concerns of EITHER side.

"s flat-out bigotry—that is, “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.” "



"The safety versus independence gulf is pronounced in this context, but is demonstrated in many others, too, as Jonathan Haidt describes in “The Righteous Mind,” which lays out six moral foundations. These include a care/harm foundation and a liberty/oppression foundation, the two contrasting principles around which I believe this debate hinges. This paradigm offers great insight into the differing perspective for persons on either side.

The gulf between the gun control view and the gun qua tool of independence view is wide and deep—perhaps even unbridgeable—and only when we recognize this will we realize why calls for “commonsense” gun reform yield only acrimony."

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 03:26 PM

There is a psychopathology somewhere here to my POV.

I kinda like mercy. Who do armed Nazis need mercy from, Snowflakes, FBI, Santa?

I seem to have lived 'independently' so far..
except for the schools, roads, institutional and private food supply, utilities, health care, music, the arts etc..

Guns are the answer if you want a cure for all racism and religious bigotry, just get rid of all the different people. - Ah there is the underlying sickness in many gun arguments.

Yesterday a conscientious student overslept and took a city bus instead of the school bus. oops wrong bus, so he gets off and asks for directions to his school - but is shot at by a protective homeowner.

Scared too? Need a gun? Would you like my RPG?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 03:27 PM

First off, thank you for fixing my link.
The issue of gun ownership, gun safety, societal safety and the obligation we have to each other in society comes down to this. It is sad that so many think they need a personal weapon to protect themselves from perceived danger in our society. Weather or not you believe this perception is correct, it does not seem necessary (to me) to own weapons that can kill dozens and dozens of people in under a minute. That does not seem like self protection. That seems, to me, like something very dangerous and very unnecessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 03:34 PM

ooooo big words bruce.

I prefer to keep it simple and real.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 03:39 PM

Donual,

If you HAVE an RPG, YOU are in violation of the law, and a felon. RPG are considered weapons of mass destruction, just as pipe-bombs and grenades.


When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

You remain one of those with "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own"



As for " if you want a cure for all racism and religious bigotry, just get rid of all the different people"

Isn't THAT what YOU are in the process of doing? ANYONE who differs with YOUR opinions is evil, wrong, Nazi, and should be removed. When do you start the ovens up? No room for ANY discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 03:49 PM

I will protect you.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 03:56 PM

I am the Constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 04:07 PM

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/03/gun-control-reduce-murder-lets-run-numbers-across-world/

http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/16/we-cant-have-a-debate-about-guns-if-liberals-keep-lying-about-them/

If you cared about reducing the killing RATHER than reducing the guns, you would be working to prevent teenagers from driving, drinking alcohol, having abortions, using drugs, and being hit by lightning.

ALL of which kill more than rifles do in a given year.

Since you do NOT do so, you obviously want to keep others from having guns, rather than save lives.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/03/20/any-study-of-gun-violence-should-include-how-guns-save-lives/#1d21758e5edc


Try reading what others think about things BEFORE you call us Nazis and dismiss our concerns.



http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/354618-the-simple-truth-is-that-guns-help-not-hurt-millions-of-americans

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 04:26 PM

Yikes. People get so angry so quickly. How about some calm discussion
There is a gun sickness here in America. Let’s talk specifically about assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines. Here in America, we have confused and distorted the right defined by the Second Amendment to the Constitution –
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.
This speaks to a state organized and regulated militia for public defense not to private individuals or groups of individuals arming themselves for their own purposes.
The second amendment was never intended to provide a highly dangerous permission for private citizens to own weapons that can kill large numbers of people in very short periods of time.
Regardless of my or your understanding of the Second Amendment, we do currently regulate the ownership of dangerous weapons. Private citizens are not allowed to purchase, sell or own hand grenades. Why? Because they are so dangerous that the safety of all of us overrides the individual right to own one.
In a public setting such as a school, a sick, cowardly individual could in about ten seconds use a hand grenade to kill dozens of innocent people, but we are relatively safe from such an occurrence because hand grenades are illegal and very hard to get.   
In a public setting such as a school, a sick, cowardly individual could in about 10 to 15 seconds use a semi-automatic weapon such as an AR-15 to kill dozens of innocent people. We are not very safe from this possibility. Such weapons are legal for private ownership and very easy to get.
Like so many others, I have written letters, signed petitions and contributed money but the people, in our country, who make the laws are owned by the people who make the guns.
How about prohibiting private citizens from buying, selling or owning assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines?
This is a life and death matter and we can do something to save lives. Many may choose to deflect or ignore this reasonable idea. But when the next awful thing happens what will you say to yourselves and what will you say to our children?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 05:23 PM

was that the youtube the guy wanted put up there?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 05:34 PM

Yes. Thank you Big Al

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 05:39 PM

Sean it all sounds reasonable to me.

This decade saw
300,000 men women and children killed at this intersection but city hall finds it to expensive to put up a stop light.

I hope the kids will
install a red light
   one brand new day
as the old fade away.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: keberoxu
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 07:15 PM

The leader of one of the Baltic States --
and yes, this is a post-Soviet leader --

once said,
"If I had a choice between a bomb and this book,
I prefer this book."

What book was it?
Hint:
The book's author died recently, of natural causes,
and there was nothing that had to be pried out of his cold dead hands,
particularly no gun.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 08:52 PM

I give up keberoxu
Fill in the blanks
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 11:22 PM

Naw I prefer my 30-06 for target shooting i cannot hit anything with a book I keep missing

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 17 Apr 18 - 11:27 PM

Besides I cannot throw a book very far but once I did nail a pesky house fly

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 06:52 AM

Old Dude. I find it interesting we use the same name for this site (Sean Fear is Irish for Old Man). Where do you stand on private citizens owning assault weapons and why?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 07:28 AM

...now a mass movement is threatening to dismantle it nonsense. Nobody, but nobody, is trying to take away people's right to bear arms. That is gun-totin' propaganda.

What some are trying to do is limit the arms you can purchase. Or sell.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 08:23 AM

They got guns in America (Whoa - oh -no)
They got guns in America (Whoa - oh -no)
Ev'rybody listen to your children shout:
"No, no, no not in our name, no, no, no, no, no,no, no!"

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 08:29 AM

1. Define assault weapon. ( serious request- does it have to be black with a handle on top?)

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/13/the-assault-weapons-ban-is-a-stupid-idea-pushed-by-stupid-people/

"This speaks to a state organized and regulated militia for public defense not to private individuals or groups of individuals arming themselves for their own purposes"

Not what the Supreme Court has said- Yes, that could be change, but so could Roe vs. Wade. Want to see which change would get more public support?

" high capacity ammunition magazines"

Let me see- In NY, that is more than seven rounds. They are already prohibited there.

In MD, anything over 10 rounds cannot be made, transferred, or sold.

Yet the Internet has the code to make 30 round AR-15 magazines with ANY 3d printer, and a bit of wire.


Hell, it takes 2 pipes, a nail, a piece of 2x4 and tape to make a shotgun. (We made a million or so to drop on France in WW II)

And a M97 trench gun will out shoot an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine in killing large numbers in a crowd. ( 9-11 30 cal pellets per round, 6+1 in the chamber rounds = 63 to 77 projectiles- Why do you think we used them rather than automatic weapons to clear trenches in WW I?)


"Nobody, but nobody, is trying to take away people's right to bear arms."

https://fee.org/articles/gun-control-advocates-are-finally-admitting-what-they-really-want/

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/02/left-will-finally-admit-want-repeal-second-amendment/


How about looking at the real problems that cause shootings, rather than attack those who legally and safely have guns?

http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/26/march-lives-blames-everyone-except-failed-protect-parkland/

As for the NRA controlling anything,
http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/19/want-gun-control-stop-calling-nra-terrorist-organization/

Maybe we should stop Federal funding of Planned Parenthood- how many do they kill with abortions each year??? AND they spend more than the NRA on lobbying.


At least admit you would NOT allow the rest of the Bill Of Rights to be interpreted as you have the 2nd amendment.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/20/lets-model-speech-control-on-gun-control/

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 09:02 AM

ok Beardedbruce
A fair amount of information and concerns in your post.
To simplify, if we could agree on a working definition of "assault weapon" and on "high capacity ammunition magazine" would you acknowledge to need to prohibit private citizen ownership of weapons and ammunition clips that enable an individual to kill large numbers (to be defined) of people in a short period (to be defined)of time?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 09:16 AM

re assault weapons- I have no problem with the present ban on assault RIFLES, and feel it should be maintained. THEY are fully automatic, and have been limited since 1934. ( as hve sawed off shotguns and such)

If the definition is that it scares people, just remember that the PRIMARY purpose of having a weapon in self defense is to scare the intruder away. ANYONE who, in breaking into a home, hears the sound of a shell being chambered in a pump shotgun, even if they are armed, will rethink whether his decision was a good one.

As for high capacity magazines, tell me HOW you will prevent them from being available- should we confiscate all 3-d printers?

As I stated, the M97 ( 1897) trench gun is far more effective in killing large numbers of people than the AR-15. But it is basically the same as the shotguns used for bird hunting and skeet. And it was NEVER controlled as an "assault weapon".

How about we prohibit private ownership or use of any vehicle with more than 75 horsepower? Who needs more than that, and it would reduce automotive fatalities.

There are too many unknowns in your comment to agree to it without discussion.

Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 09:43 AM

Bruce
There are reasonable limits on much of what we do in society. There are speed limits on highways, inspections on vehicles, licenses to drive, etc. just to touch on one of your examples. There are lots of weapons that can inflict lots of harm. Do you think private citizens should be able to own guns or rifles that can inflict as much harm as a hand grenade in the roughly the same amount of time. I am not being argumentative or antagonistic in asking this question. I am truly trying to understand a point of view which seems so different from my own.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 09:53 AM

ANY shotgun would be covered under your criteria.

Duck hunters would be a little upset.

Many of the present cases of firearm misuse is ALREADY criminal and prohibited. UNTIL the present laws are ENFORCED, I fail to see that ANY new laws will have an effect on reducing deaths- though they will have an effect of LAW-ABIDING people having access to guns.This would lead to a GREATER death rate, as the presence of legal guns is known to reduce the use of illegal ones.

Let us say that you confiscate 250,000,000 million guns ( in the US) from those who obey the laws and use them for legal purposes.

Now you have 50,000,000 guns out there in criminal hands ( those who already ARE PROHIBITED FROM POSSESSING GUNS) with no-one to prevent them fro doing whatever they like, to whomever they like.

Of course, in the UK, the present problem is knives.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/13/britains-knife-control-bad-parody-gun-control/


And again, since it is easy to MAKE a firearm, or knife, how does removing them from law-abiding people reduce the murders? Tell me how, PLEASE.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 09:58 AM

IMO, the problem is NOT that there are too many guns in private hands, but that the social climate gives more rights to those who violate the law than to those who follow it.

How does making MORE laws that are not enforced solve anything?

Lets just send in the Ferguson Police force into black homes to confiscate the guns that might be there, OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 10:09 AM

"   Guns are strictly regulated in the United Kingdom and the rising homicide rate in London is directly attributable to a rise in knife-related crimes, with stabbings claiming at least 31 lives to date in 2018. By contrast, New York—which has a population roughly the same size as London—has seen a steady decline in violent crime.

    There were 15 murders committed in London in February and another 22 in March, while New York saw 14 murders in February and 21 in March, according to murder rate statistics provided…by London’s Metropolitan Police and the New York Police Department.

But this is not a parody. It’s a real news report, which goes on to describe Britain’s existing knife control laws.

    In Britain, it is currently illegal to carry a knife longer than three inches in public ‘without good reason’ and illegally carrying a knife can be punished with up to four years in prison and an ‘unlimited fine.’ Self-defense is not listed among the examples of ‘good reasons to carry a knife.’"


MORE MURDERS than in NYC!

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 10:20 AM

Bruce and others no matter what your point of view. I asked a clear, specific question. "Do you think private citizens should be able to own guns or rifles that can inflict as much harm as a hand grenade in the roughly the same amount of time." We can easily overwhelm each other with tangential statistics. I would be interested in hearing a YES or NO from folks and a concise,simple WHY you hold that point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 10:25 AM

I don't really have a problem with upsetting duck hunters, or almost any other hunters for that matter. Killing animals, somehow, should not be recreation, even if you do eat the meat.

Killing animals because there is no other way for you to get food, I have no issue with.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 10:32 AM

OK, YES,

I think that law-abiding citizens should be able to own non-fully automatic weapons even if they do have bayonet mounts, pistol grips, or stacking swivels (THAT being what the previous banned "assault weapon" had that made it illegal). If the criminal has access to a semi-automatic rifle, I would want the person defending herself against that criminal to have the same access.

"that can inflict as much harm as a hand grenade in the roughly the same amount of time." is not much- the standard defense against grenades is for ONE person to throw himself on it and save everyone else. A car driven recklessly is far more dangerous than a grenade, even ignoring the many-TNT stick equivalent explosive in the tank.




Now, do YOU think that people should be able to kill their children because they are inconvenient? At what age is this right no longer valid?

YES OR NO.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 10:35 AM

Sean Fear and others no matter what your point of view. I asked a clear, specific question. "Now, do YOU think that people should be able to kill their children because they are inconvenient? At what age is this right no longer valid? "

We can easily overwhelm each other with tangential statistics. I would be interested in hearing a YES or NO from folks and a concise,simple WHY you hold that point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 10:47 AM

Bruce - thanks for your answer. I will respond to it and then answer your off topic question
Criminals and sick angry people are able to get these highly dangerous weapons BECAUSE they are so readily available in our society.

As to your question - No. I think no one should be able to kill a child for any reason. Human life is a gift we need to protect.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 10:52 AM

In Britain, it is currently illegal to carry a knife longer than three inches in public ‘without good reason’ and illegally carrying a knife can be punished with up to four years in prison and an ‘unlimited fine.’ Self-defense is not listed among the examples of ‘good reasons to carry a knife.’"
Slight clarification: It is the length of the blade which is limited.
Here:

Basic laws on knives

It’s illegal to:
•sell a knife to anyone under 18, unless it has a folding blade 3 inches long (7.62 cm) or less
•carry a knife in public without good reason, unless it has a folding blade with a cutting edge 3 inches long or less
•carry, buy or sell any type of banned knife
•use any knife in a threatening way (even a legal knife)

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 10:53 AM

But the present law is that ANY child can be disposed of until it is of a certain age. ( see Roe vs. Wade)
"Based on available state-level data, approximately 893,000 abortions took place in the United States in 2016—down from approximately 914,000 abortions in 2015.
In 2014, an estimated 926,240 abortions took place in the United States—down from 1.06 million in 2011, 1.21 million abortions in 2008, 1.2 million in 2005, 1.29 million in 2002, 1.31 million in 2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2011, nearly 53 million legal abortions occurred in the U.S (AGI).
In 2014, approximately 19% of U.S. pregnancies (excluding spontaneous miscarriages) ended in abortion.1
According to the United Nations' 2013 report, only nine countries in the world have a higher reported abortion rate than the United States. They are: Bulgaria, Cuba, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Romania, Russia, Sweden, and Ukraine.*

*Though the UN lists China's official abortion rate at 19.2, China's actual abortion rate is likely much higher. According to China's 2010 census, there were approximately 310 million women of reproductive age in the country. An estimated 13-23 million abortions happen annually in China, resulting in an adjusted abortion rate of 41.9-74.2. The abortion rate is the number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44.
In 2014, the highest percentage of pregnancies were aborted in the District of Columbia (38%), New York (33%), and New Jersey (30%). The lowest percentage of pregnancies were aborted in Utah (5%), South Dakota (4%), and Wyoming (<2%). (AGI abortion data + CDC birth data).
In 2014, approximately 37% of all pregnancies in New York City (excluding spontaneous miscarriages) ended in abortion (CDC)."


So, far more lives at risk- ready to overturn Roe v. Wade?

"Criminals and sick angry people are able to get these highly dangerous weapons BECAUSE they are so readily available in our society. "

I disagree. The PRESENT laws say that they cannot get them. Are you stating that the LAW IS NOT EFFECTIVE?

Quick! Pass a bunch MORE laws that we can ignore!

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 11:03 AM

Present gun laws allow for millions and millions of highly dangerous weapons to flood our society. People with all sorts of antisocial agendas can and do legally purchase weapons that can and do kill large numbers of innocent people. This happens and has been happening regularly for years. I believe we should legislate rational limits to the type of weapons private citizens can own, just as we regulate and limit other sorts of dangers within our society.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 11:04 AM

Thank you, Nigel.


"It’s illegal to: use any knife in a threatening way"
So the murders in London were done in a non-threatening way?????



Sort of like the US "It is illegal to shoot people."

I would be in favor of EFFECTIVE, REALISTIC laws to control CRIMINAL access to firearms. When you propose that, try looking for support here from those who place the desire to remove guns from law-abiding citizens above the desire to save lives.


http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/21/4-major-problems-with-gun-control-arguments/

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 11:11 AM

"It’s illegal to: use any knife in a threatening way"
So the murders in London were done in a non-threatening way?????

No, that means that using a knife to threaten someone, even if you don't follow through on the threat, brings it under the heading of "knife-crime". The penalties there may be harsher than for 'assault'.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 11:13 AM

Bruce - IF criminals were effectively deprived access to highly dangerous firearms that can kill large numbers of people in short periods of time, would you still want to own such a weapon?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 11:20 AM

"Present gun laws allow for millions and millions of highly dangerous weapons to flood our society."

Of the 350,000,000 estimated guns presently in the US, HOW MANY are used illegally, and why are the laws against that use NOT enforced?



" People with all sorts of antisocial agendas can and do legally purchase weapons that can and do kill large numbers of innocent people."

I disagree- in almost all cases, there is a violation of the law, and the person SHOULD NOT have had access to firearms. But should the failure of the police and government agencies ( that are the ones who will "protect" you when only the criminals have guns) mean that law-abiding citizens must have their rights removed? If they cannot stop the criminals from getting guns, how can I expect them to protect me and my family? They have stated that they are NOT responsible for ensuring citizen's safety.

-------
Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

In the Warren case the injured parties sued the District of Columbia under its own laws for failing to protect them. Most often such cases are brought in state (or, in the case of Warren, D.C.) courts for violation of state statutes, because federal law pertaining to these matters is even more onerous. But when someone does sue under federal law, it is nearly always for violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (often inaccurately referred to as "the civil rights act"). Section 1983 claims are brought against government officials for allegedly violating the injured parties' federal statutory or Constitutional rights.

The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. [6] Frequently these cases are based on an alleged "special relationship" between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had "specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger," [7] but failed to remove him from his father's custody.

The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship," concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf." [8]
-------


"This happens and has been happening regularly for years. "

The number of cases where "assault rifles( your term)" kill people is orders of magnitude less than the number killed by misuse of automobiles- so why not restrict cars and alcohol and save more lives ? ( See Prohibition for how effective that is- a pity that History is no longer required for a "liberal" education)
And it is more likely that a student will be killed by a lightning strike than by a semi-automatic rifle of any sort.




"I believe we should legislate rational limits to the type of weapons private citizens can own, just as we regulate and limit other sorts of dangers within our society. "

I agree- but we differ on what are rational and EFFECTIVE limits.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 11:34 AM

Bruce
Comparing automobiles and guns is a red herring and honestly not helpful to a clear discussion on guns.
Unfortunately I am now called away from my chat with you. I appreciate your willingness to share your thoughts. I will think about what you have written. I hope you will think about what I have written.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 11:36 AM

Sean I hate the ar rifles they are miserable to hunt with and just as bad for target. They are great for war and that’s it. I could care less if they all got thrown in the abyss

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 01:30 PM

Also miserable for home defense why would anyone want it. If you think it would protect you home, it would go through your walls and your neighbors also. Only good for war

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 01:40 PM

Sorry, olddude. The AAR-15 and it's clones is a fine varmint gun-

"In the last decades, many companies have started developing varmint rifles and the most popular rounds so far are the .222 Remington and the .218 Bee. However, the newer rounds that offer a higher velocity have started replacing these two classics. The most common calibers used in a varmint hunting rifle are the .223 Remington, the .22-250, the .220 Swift and the .25-06. For an air rifle varmint, even calibers smaller than .22 are capable of doing a good job. The .17 Remington and various other .17 caliber (4.5 mm) wildcats have a vocal following, and the new .204 Ruger is well suited to varminting, and may be the first in a new line of .20 caliber (5mm) rounds"



As for target shooting, they lack rangebut NO military firearm are even below average for target shooting- they like to hit what they aim at.

but the .223 cartridge is NOT one that will put a bullet through a wall. In country, they would be deflected by leaves and such- strictly line of sight. One would have to go to .30 or .45 to go through wallboard without deflection, and the proper frangible bullet will prevent that even at those calibers.


BTW, got a 4992B for the sweep second hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 01:50 PM

"Comparing automobiles and guns is a red herring and honestly not helpful to a clear discussion on guns. "

IF the object is to remove guns, than I would agree. I was under the impression that the object is to save lives. In which case to focus ONLY on guns is not helpful to a clear discussion. ( always look for the tall pole)

So is the intent to remove guns from law abiding citizens, or reduce the number of children ( and others) killed by accident and illegal actions?

WHICH IS IT?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Jeri
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 02:00 PM

Cars are necessary for many people.
Guns aren't.
The primar use of a car is transportation.
For a gun, it's to kill.

Stupid, desperate comparison.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 02:04 PM

A bolt action 223 with a scope for ground hogs yes an ar no not really very good at all

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 02:06 PM

Jeri,
So is the intent to remove guns from law abiding citizens, or reduce the number of children ( and others) killed by accident and illegal actions?

There is NO valid reason to have automobiles with more than about a 75 HP engine.

Cars are not needed if you take cabs or buses.
Guns are needed if the police do NOT live in your house.

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]


Your dismissal of other's concerns is what is Stupid, and desperate

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 02:09 PM

Olddude,

An AR-15 clone with a scope is as good as a bolt action. For the limited range the cartridge allows, they are almost identical in performance.

Not as pretty, though, I will give you.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 02:15 PM

Disagree my friend Barrels are to short and the optics are limited and the weight is too light for long range varmit hunting. At the range most of those guys can only do 200 yards with three inch groups. I do under that at 500 yards with a 243 Winchester

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 02:18 PM

Best varmit gun made 22/250 bolt action my choice

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 02:19 PM

If you can do even 300 yds with a .223 (even bolt action), my hat is off to you. My preference is 22LR, Win 52B with Redfield Olympic iron sights. But I know many who use AR derivatives, and they are happy with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 02:24 PM

I do a lot of long range shooting and reload my own special rounds
You are right I have a lot of friends who love them and that’s ok with me

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 03:37 PM

I just don’t have any use for one or really see a use

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 10:18 AM

Yeah, a lot of people miss the fact that guns only have one purpose, while most other things that can kill you are being used INcorrectly.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 11:06 AM

Going to try for a moose again this year. Last year only one I saw but was not sure it was a legal size so just let him pass. Moose meat is the best ever

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 11:09 AM

Bruce no don’t own a 223. I shoot a 243 it’s not as fast but bigger and a good deer gun

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 11:10 AM

Sorry, Mrrzy,

The ONLY purpose of a gun is to propel a bullet into a target. OR intimidate someone FROM action - which is what the police do all the time. They have lethal force available IN ORDER to STOP CRIMINALS. The THREAT presented by a firearm will often PREVENT the use of one.


"* Firearms save lives as well take lives.

If one imagines that guns in civilian hands are used solely as murder weapons, it makes sense to ban or strictly regulate them.

But millions of Americans legally carry a firearm every day, and most cite self-defense as their primary reason. The overwhelming majority of the time, those guns are never drawn in anger. But innocent civilians can and do sometimes use their guns in self-defense. Any discussion of firearms policy must acknowledge the lives saved by legal use of guns as well as the lives lost by criminal use."


The CHOICE of target is the operator's- So perhaps you will offer laws that KEEP CRIMINALS from getting guns, instead of keeping ONLY law-abiding citizens seeking self defense from doing so. What has been offered up does NOT keep criminals from getting firearms, but DOES prevent law-abiding citizens from having self-defense available.


Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/03/20/any-study-of-gun-violence-should-include-how-guns-save-lives/#7e20c50e5edc


https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/29/gun-control-isnt-the-answer-we-already-know-how-to-stop-the-violence-commentary.html?__source=ya

http://observer.com/2016/03/must-pack-heat-the-case-for-mandating-gun-ownership/






A lot of people miss the fact that ALL drugs are poisons. Just have to give a high enough dose. Look at the number of fatal overdoses each year: Can we remove them from our society? Just because there are benefits from their use is obviously NOT good enough to justify the danger presented by them, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 01:17 PM

Bruce
The continual deflection of the dangers of guns in our country onto other issues such as cars or drugs is simply an avoidance tactic. We have a genuine problem with the numbers and types of guns with in our culture and smoke-screening behind other issues does not change that.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 01:47 PM

"We have a genuine problem with the numbers and types of guns with in our culture"

I do NOT see that the case has been made to support this. THAT is a fundamental difference that you do not address.

Were I to say that" We have a genuine problem with the Liberal tolerance of crime in our culture and smoke-screening behind other issues does not change that." and THEREFORE we should make being Liberal illegal, you MIGHT not agree with it. But I do not insist that YOU HAVE to agree with such a conclusion, as YOU just have of me

But it seems you are stating that you wish to prevent law-abiding citizens form getting weapons, NOT that you want to reduce the numbers of people killed.



Ain't gonna happen. How do you keep people WHO ARE PRESENTLY PROHIBITED from possessing firearms form getting them? Much less the ones who legally CAN own them?


https://www.americanweaponscomponents.com/build-a-glock/

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 01:49 PM

We have a genuine problem with the numbers and types of killings in our culture and smoke-screening behind other issues such as gun control, and making laws that do not address the problem, and have been proven not to work does not change that.

THAT I can agree with.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 02:43 PM

" IF criminals were effectively deprived access to highly dangerous firearms that can kill large numbers of people in short periods of time, would you still want to own such a weapon? "


Tell me how you would do that- they are ALREADY prohibited from access to firearms OF ANY KIND. Yet they seem to have all that they want.

So what dream world would you have, where the criminals obey your laws?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 03:03 PM

People who commit the awful acts we have been discussing can and regularly do get highly dangerous weapons from people who have obtained them legally. I live in Virginia and can purchase with ease any number of weapons capable of mass killing. Virginia is a steady pipeline to the illegal trade of guns in NYC. Also remember, most weapons used in mass shootings in the USA have been obtained legally. Because these weapons are so readily available it makes it easy for the bad guys you worry about to get them.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 03:18 PM

" can and regularly do get highly dangerous weapons from people who have obtained them legally"

AND THAT IS ALREADY A CRIME.


"Because these weapons are so readily available it makes it easy for the bad guys you worry about to get them."

NOT LEGALLY.

So, you state that the criminals get the weapons by violating the law. HOW DO ADDITIONAL LAWS stop them?


If we confiscate 250,000,000 there will still be 50,000,000 to 100,000,000 of them out there.

https://www.americanweaponscomponents.com/product-category/build-a-glock/complete-80-glock-kits/

And this is NOT controlled by ANY laws- it is not even a "firearm" by the BATF definition. (neither was the bump-stock, according to the Obama administration)



It looks to me like you want to pass new laws. LAWS only control those who obey them. YOU are saying that law-abiding citizens should not have them- AND NOT KEEPING THE CRIMINALS from getting them.



We have a genuine problem with the numbers and types of killings in our culture and smoke-screening behind other issues such as gun control, and making laws that do not address the problem, and have been proven not to work does not change that.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 03:26 PM

" I live in Virginia and can purchase with ease any number of weapons capable of mass killing."

Yes, and if YOU do kill anyone, YOU are committing a CRIME.
If you sell or give them to someone else , YOU are committing a CRIME.

You are saying that you as an individual have no responsibility for your actions, so you would prohibit those who legally can have and use those forearms from having them.

Why not pass a law making it illegal to KILL PEOPLE?


Same effect.


Of course, it ALREADY IS. How well does the law work when you don't bother to enforce it?

Show me the enforcement OF EXISTING LAWS before you demand additional one.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 03:45 PM

Your logic appears to be that

"Some people violate the law and use illegal X to commit terrible crimes.
If we get rid of the legal X, there will be less crime:
Nobody should have X."


I disagree with the logic you offer- Consider- If we castrate all the non-sex offenders, will that have any effect on the rate of sex crimes?
And is the cost worth it?

As I have said, several times,

Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point.

I have pointed out info that supports the fact that citizens legally HAVING guns can serve to reduce the killings. IMO, prohibiting legal gun ownership will result in a LARGER NUMBER of killings by illegal guns. Nothing you have presented has addressed this. Nor have you addressed how you can SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the number of guns available. I am sure the people of Fergusson will be thrilled to turn over all their weapons to the police. That was what the Jim Crow laws tried to do, and they did not succeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 04:48 PM

Bruce
Your responses are so filled with anger and fear and you over-respond to hide certain basic facts.
The weapons we are discussing kill many people quickly
They are easy to get
They are usually obtained legally before they commit the illegal killings.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 05:04 PM

truth is alive but on life support.

One of the few truths bruce alludes to is that this year did see for the first time more people dying from opioids than from the bullets from guns.
but as Sean says, that is still deadly apples and oranges.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 02:09 AM

"Your responses are so filled with anger and fear that you over-respond to hide certain basic facts."

People like B.B. are called 'Gun-Nuts' for a good reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 08:08 AM

BW if by Gun-Nut you mean overly enthusiastic like sports-nut or foodie-nut you are probably right. If you mean crazy or dangerous you are probably wrong. While Bruce and I clearly see the issue of guns in America very differently neither of us has written disparagingly or disrespectfully towards each other.
In the past 20-25 years we have been culturally desensitized to behaving and speaking poor;y towards each other ("Reality" TV. political campaigns, Fox News, just to name a few). We have got to find ways to air and hopefully resolve our differences thoughtfully and respectfully. Otherwise we will remain entrenched in camps and divided by fear and anger.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 08:21 AM

Sean Fear,

YOU seem to want to avoid my question:

Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point.

Until you address that, I fail to see that you are interested in discussion. You seem to insist that others agree with your points, without making a case that others accept. And you do not seem to address any points that do not support your view, even when provided supporting material.

I did answer YOUR question: 18 Apr 18 - 10:32 AM

I am waiting to hear an example of what law YOU think would effectively accomplish your intent- and how it would be enforced.

You want me to agree to what you have not put forward in a clear manner. I understand there is a problem-

We have a genuine problem with the numbers and types of killings in our culture and smoke-screening behind other issues such as gun control, and making laws that do not address the problem, and have been proven not to work does not change that.


"They are usually obtained legally before they commit the illegal killings. "

I do not agree that you have proven this. It may be true- but you ignore all the cases where guns legally obtained save lives.

Drugs kill thousands. So, since they are legally obtained, and used illegally, they should be removed from our society.
After all, "Drugs are usually obtained legally before they kill people by illegal use. "





Backwoodsman,

Perhaps we can discuss the topic, and not make personal attacks on those you disagree with. Is your reason for supporting gun control so shallow, and based on unmentionable reasons?



Donual,

" few truths"

Please let me know what I have stated that is NOT truth. We can argue about it, but at least you should let me know what you disagree with, so I can present support- even if you do not for your opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 08:30 AM

Sean Fear,

Thank you ( re 20 Apr 18 - 08:08 AM)

The gulf between the gun control view and the gun qua tool of independence view is wide and deep—perhaps even unbridgeable—and only when we recognize this will we realize why calls for “commonsense” gun reform yield only acrimony.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 09:42 AM

Please address:

What gun controllers want is safety. What gun owners and gun-rights advocates want is to be at the mercy of no one else. To not be mistaken as a proponent of anarchy, I must stress that I consider the state a vital institution for employing retaliatory force. But the state is not omnipresent. A personal weapon fills the void in emergency situations of defense until the arrival of authorized state force, thus preserving independence while respecting that of others.

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 10:12 AM

The purpose of a gun is not to prevent others from using one, it is to propel bullets into targets, but not the paper ones. There is no need for bullets to be propelled unless it is to penetrate flesh. That is, to kill or maim or mangle or hurt or damage or yes kill. You could shoot feathers if the point was to hit paper targets, so nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 10:35 AM

Mrrzy,


You make a statement of your opinion. I disagree with your statement.

And no, you cannot shoot feathers.

And you do not address the purpose of deterrence.


"The purpose of a gun is not to prevent others from using one, it is to propel bullets into targets, but not the paper ones."

So you would convict all police of murder?


And you do not address my question:
Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 10:39 AM

While other elements in our culture do take lives (cars, drugs,etc)their primary purpose is other than taking lives and they are proportionally more beneficial than destructive. Cars and drugs are much more regulated and monitored than are guns. The primary purpose of the guns I am concerned about is to shoot a high number of rounds in a short period of time. This is not for hunting or target practice. It is for killing and theses weapons do kill men, women and children over and over again.

I would like to remove these weapons from our society. I would like to see clear and strictly enforced legislation that prevents the buying selling and owning of these weapons by private citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 10:46 AM

Here are the PRESENT laws on firearms in my state. Please tell me what you would add to them, and what you think it would accomplish, and WHY you think it would be effective.


https://www.atf.gov/docs/undefined/firearmsstatutesandcodes-marylandpdf/download

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 10:52 AM

I would like to see all murders prevented, and there be no accidental deaths. OK? But I ask,

Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point.

WHAT would you propose AS A NEW LAW?

"The primary purpose of the guns I am concerned about is to shoot a high number of rounds in a short period of time. This is not for hunting or target practice. It is for killing and theses weapons do kill men, women and children over and over again."

You make a statement without any justification. YOUR opinion that that is the primary purpose, ignoring the known deterrence effect of such a weapon BY IT'S PRESENCE , is IMO a biased viewpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 10:56 AM

"I would like to remove these weapons from our society."

I would like to remove these criminals ( the ones who USE weapons of any sort to kill) from our society.

Does that give me the right to take away the rights of ALL citizens?

What gun controllers want is safety. What gun owners and gun-rights advocates want is to be at the mercy of no one else. To not be mistaken as a proponent of anarchy, I must stress that I consider the state a vital institution for employing retaliatory force. But the state is not omnipresent. A personal weapon fills the void in emergency situations of defense until the arrival of authorized state force, thus preserving independence while respecting that of others.

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 10:58 AM

Sean Fear,

LOOK at the present laws, and tell me what you would want added. And why you think it would help reduce killings.


https://www.atf.gov/docs/undefined/firearmsstatutesandcodes-marylandpdf/download

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 11:01 AM

My goal is to reduce senseless deaths like the killing of our children in their schools BY limiting the ownership of some types of fire arms. The two are directly connected

Owning such a weapon as a deterrent would only deter someone from attacking the owner IF the owner had sufficiently publicized his/her ownership so that all would be attackers knew about it and were sufficiently intimidated.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 11:13 AM

"My goal is to reduce senseless deaths like the killing of our children in their schools BY limiting the ownership of some types of fire arms. The two are directly connected"


I do not agree.
1. MY ownership of firearms does not cause senseless deaths: In fact, deaths may be prevent by legal ownership of them.
2. Limiting the ownership of those firearms ( as is already the case) WOULD NOT reduce the deaths.

The reduction of deaths would be FAR greater by addressing those factors you want to ignore, such as underage drinking, illegal drug use, and teen driving. Lightning, too.

The POSSIBILITY that there would be a firearm present serves as a deterrent. The KNOWN FACT that law abiding citizens DO NOT have firearms serves to encourage crime.

Have you read the CURRENT MD LAWS yet? WHAT would you add?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 11:23 AM

Bruce
lets take the case of your ownership of one of these weapons we have been discussing and use your analogy of a car or drug comparison. If you own a car you must notify your DMV when you sell it or ever give it to someone else. If you have a prescription drug you can not sell it or give it away at all.
You can, however, sell or give your gun to anyone you like, who can do the same, on down the line. "Bad guys" can and easily do obtain guns this way. So using your analogy are you comfortable with legislation that registers and licenses all gun owners (ala cars) and strictly monitors or prevents private sale of guns (ala drugs)?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 11:33 AM

"You can, however, sell or give your gun to anyone you like, who can do the same, on down the line."

NO, you cannot. IT IS NOT LEGAL.

I CAN sell my car to anyone I like, and it is the BUYER'S responsibility to register it. If they scrap it for parts, there is NO requirement for any notice to anyone.

On the other hand, I have been hit by someone who was not licensed to drive in the US, had no insurance, and totaled my car. So what did the law do for me?

READ THE DAMN LAWS!!!!


YOU CANNOT LEGALLY make, transfer, buy, or purchase large capacity magazines, or the weapons YOU are talking about in MD.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 11:41 AM

"strictly monitors or prevents private sale of guns (ala drugs)?"

And how effective will that be?

"Her two oldest sons, Nick and Jack, were celebrating at high school graduation parties the night before. The boys came home about 12:30 a.m. and checked in with their mom, who had been waiting up.

The next morning, as Savage was picking up laundry in Jack's room, she noticed that he wasn't stirring as she tried to wake him.
"He was unresponsive. I called 911, and I remember hollering for Nick, for him to come up, and how he never came."
Nick, her eldest son, was downstairs sleeping in the basement with friends.
The first responders arrived and tried to resuscitate Jack, and then Savage noticed one of them going downstairs to the basement.
"I had no idea at that point what they were doing in our basement. And then I remember one of them coming up and asking for a coroner. That's the last thing that I remember that day." "


DEAD kids- and the law you say will help with guns IS ALREADY in place with drugs, right?

WHY do you think the laws you propose ( which I am waiting to hear about) will do any better?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 11:42 AM

Ah but that's Maryland not every where.

and your car and mine does have to be registered by someone. and you had to register your car when you bought it, and you must have a license to drive your car and you must pass regular safety inspections for your car ... shall I go one?
So,are you comfortable with national legislation that registers and licenses all gun owners and strictly monitors or prevents private sale of guns?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 11:58 AM

"and your car and mine does have to be registered by someone"

NO, ONLY if it is LEGALLY being titled. Farms and such can have all they want with no registration AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT GO ON THE ROAD.

" and you had to register your car when you bought it,"

NO, again

" and you must have a license to drive your car "

As the person who hit me did NOT? LAWS again- lack of enforcement is the problem NOT a lack of laws.

"and you must pass regular safety inspections for your car ... "

Again, only to keep LEGAL registration.

shall I go on?


YOU have not answered MY question, so YOU owe me one first.

Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point.

WHAT would you propose AS A NEW LAW?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 12:11 PM

yes we are talking about what is currently legal - all the registration and monitoring as described about cars is required by law. There is no such comparable legislation re guns.

I did answer your question re new legislation (see above)
" I would like to see clear and strictly enforced legislation that prevents the buying selling and owning of these weapons by private citizens."

failing that I would like to take your car based suggestion and register, license and regularly monitor private ownership of these weapons.

Also Bruce, you have not acknowledged or addressed my contention that deterrence only works if your widely advertise your gun ownership and the potential home invader see that weapon as a deterrent.

Unfortunately I am off to lunch now but will check back later

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 12:26 PM

"Also Bruce, you have not acknowledged or addressed my contention that deterrence only works..."


But I did:
"The POSSIBILITY that there would be a firearm present serves as a deterrent. The KNOWN FACT that law abiding citizens DO NOT have firearms serves to encourage crime."


https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/georgia-town-mandating-gun-ownership-has-had-only-one-murder-past-six-years


" I would like to see clear and strictly enforced legislation that prevents the buying selling and owning of these weapons by private citizens."

So, it would appear ( correct me if I am wrong) that your goal is to limit the ownership of firearms, rather than to reduce deaths.

You have not, to my satisfaction, tied one to the other save by unsupported statement, where I have presented support of my opinion that limiting firearm ownership would increase illegal killing.


I think that lives are more important than political correctness .

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 12:29 PM

"yes we are talking about what is currently legal - all the registration and monitoring as described about cars is required by law"

It is currently illegal to KILL people with guns, too. SO, the point that YOU must make is that your proposed laws would have a net positive effect on the murder rate- and you have not yet done so.

Your wishes ( and mine) do NOT translate into enough to change the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 12:31 PM

There is a anti-gun sickness here in America. Like so many others, I have written letters, signed petitions and contributed money but the people, in our country, who make the laws are owned by the people who refuse to hold criminals responsible for their actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 12:38 PM

BB - to attempt discussion with a paranoid, terrified, gun-obsessed individual is pointless. But here's my position - I certainly don't expect you, paranoid and terrified as you clearly are, to understand or accept it - but when I see statistics indicating <100 shooting deaths per annum in my country vs. 13,000 per annum in the US, and when I read, for instance, your fear-driven rhetoric, I'm very strongly persuaded that we have got it right, and the US has it very badly wrong indeed.

I live in a country with very strong gun-ownership regulations. In order to own a gun, you have to show a genuine need for a gun, and giving 'self-defence', or 'protection of my property', or 'to challenge the government if it gets a bit uppity' as reasons will ensure that you will not Be granted a firearms licence.

If you satisfy the authorities that (a) you have a genuine need for a gun, and (b) that you are a suitable person to be granted a permit to possess a gun, you are subject to regulations regarding storage of the weapon and ammunition, and these are inspected periodically by the police. A licence also has to be renewed periodically, and the checks and balances must also be complied with at renewal-time.

Many types of gun are banned here. Certainly, automatic and semi-automatic 'military-style' are illegal, as are hand-guns, ownership of which was banned when our government took strong and immediate action after our one and only school-massacre over twenty years ago.

It is illegal to carry a firearm in public, except in certain instances, and carrying one in public, whether loaded or not, is likely to result in the person carrying it being subject to prosecution.

Our police are unarmed, except for an expanding baton and a CS Spray. A small number of police officers carry Taser devices, and a smaller number still are trained and armed as members of specialist Armed Response Units.

Because it is so difficult to obtain a gun in the UK, and because it's very unlikely that a criminal would be confronted by a police officer armed with a gun, and because the penalty for carrying an offensive weapon (including not only guns, but knives, box-cutters, etc.) in the commission of any crime is an automatic doubling of the sentence for that crime, individuals involved in criminal activities very seldom carry those weapons. By 'very seldom', I mean 'hardly ever'.

So, we in the UK have a relaxed attitude - we don't feel the 'need' for guns because so few people actually possess guns, and those that do possess them are subject to strong regulation and control. Criminals seldom carry guns because they don't feel the need to, our police being unarmed, our populace being generally unarmed, and the law stacked against them should they be apprehended.

Yes, we have crime just as you do in the US, but we don't have the death penalty - either as applied by the courts nor by, for instance, a guy who shits his boxers and decides to blow away the young punk he finds in his living room stealing the TV. Our laws regarding 'self-defence' or 'protection of property' as a defence are based on 'proportionate force' - it's not considered 'proportionate' to kill someone for stealing your possessions.

The average Joe here neither 'needs' nor wants a gun. I'm 71 years old, and I've never seen a gun except in the hands of a farmer, a gun-club member, members of the armed forces, or members of the police Armed Response Units. People here don't have guns to wave around, and people who are shot by 'The Bad Guys' are usually also 'The Bad Guys' - drug-gang-members settling scores.

And before you drag up the issue of knives, yes we have had a comparatively small number of stabbings - maybe 100 since New Year. It won't reach the number of shootings in the US. Our government will take action on this short-term problem. And it's very difficult, probably impossible, to go on a rampage and kill 30 or 40 people at close range with a knife.

UK Firearms Regulations

Carrying a Firearm in Public

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 01:01 PM

BW,

I am glad you like the laws that you are living under.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/13/britains-knife-control-bad-parody-gun-control/


http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/03/gun-control-reduce-murder-lets-run-numbers-across-world/

IMO, additional laws will not reduce the illegal killings. ACTUAL ENFORCEMENT of existing laws would be a good step in the right direction, BEFORE passing additional laws.

Did YOU look at the present MD laws? It would be easier for me to get a semi-automatic rifle in England than it would be here.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 01:08 PM

" None of the gun control discussion takes into account the countless alternative ways someone like Roof, a killer who clearly does not care about legal consequences, could have gotten his hands on a gun if he was motivated.

If your contention is that we have to do something, and that the something you propose does nothing to actually prevent mass shootings, then you’re just using a tragedy for a broader political agenda. "

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/19/so-what-do-liberals-want-to-do-about-guns/

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 01:17 PM

"To those on the gun control view, this sounds like utter paranoia. Violent crime is committed at lower rates than it was during the latter half of the twentieth century and our government, although imperfect, is not authoritarian. “Why is a gun necessary?” we frequently hear.

A reasonable answer is that a reliable, effective gun is akin to an insurance policy. Am I going to be the beneficiary of my monthly renter’s insurance premiums? I hope not. But I rest easily knowing that I can draw upon my policy if disaster strikes. In this sense, gun ownership can be viewed as an expression of personal risk philosophy. Just as we needn’t all buy insurance in a uniform way, we can each evaluate whether a gun can serve as a personal safety policy.

Interestingly, the statistics often don’t tell the story the gun controllers think they do. As mentioned earlier, advocates for tighter laws frequently highlight the murder rate discrepancy between the United States and our international counterparts, as if to show that our cultural fixation only harms us.

But in doing so, they ignore that within America there is neither a correlation between gun ownership and gun murders across varying state laws, nor between the strictness of gun laws and gun murders. Might it be that the statistics suggest it isn’t gun advocates who have an irrational fear, but the gun controllers themselves?"

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 01:30 PM

So, explain please...

1) shooting deaths per annum - UK <100, US 13,000

2) school shootings since 1970 - UK = 1, US = 450

You really are so much safer with all those guns aren't you? Yeah, right!!

You 'need' guns because you have them, and because you're brainwashed by a powerful firearms industry and the NRA. We, on the other hand, know bullshit when we hear it.

And then perhaps you'd be good enough to answer the points I made in my previous post. Why do you gun-nuts refuse to acknowledge the experience of, for instance, Australia, Germany, the UK, etc, all of whom have numbers of shootings which are minuscule in comparison to the Rootin'-Tootin' Gun-Mad US.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 01:37 PM

You didn't bother to read my posts- from one of the articles:

The countries that have been most successful at limiting private, legal gun ownership are 1. Ethiopia, 2. Eritrea, 3. Haiti, 4. North Korea, and 5. Rwanda. Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Haiti all have higher murder rates than that of the United States. North Korea and Rwanda have slightly lower murder rates (4.4 and 4.5 per 100,000 respectively versus the United States at 4.88).

Let’s look at the countries with the highest concentrations of gun ownership (excluding Yemen and Iraq as active war zones). Guns per murder in those countries are,

    United States at 20,967,
    Uruguay at 3,777,
    Norway at 55,893,
    France at 19,747,
    Austria at 59,608,
    Germany at 35,647,
    Switzerland at 35,435,
    New Zealand at 24,835, and
    Greece at 26,471.

Norway is a particularly interesting example. It has 10 times the gun ownership rate of the United Kingdom, but only half the murder rate.

When one excludes Iraq and Yemen, not one of the countries on the list of the 10 highest rates of gun ownership also appears on the list of the top ten highest murder rates. In fact, the countries with the highest murder rates have markedly low gun ownership rates.

    El Savador (108.64 murders per 100,000/5800 guns per 100,000)
    Honduras (63.75/6200)
    Venezuela (57.15/10,700)
    Jamaica (43.21/8,100)
    Lesotho (38/2,700)
    Belize (34.4/10,000)
    South Africa (34.27/12,700)
    Guatemala (31.21/13,100)
    Trinidad (30.88/1,600)
    Bahamas (29.81/5,300)

It really doesn’t matter how you slice this data. The conclusion is inescapable: High concentrations of private, legal gun ownership do not correlate positively to increased murders. Indeed, you can look at almost any slice of data and conclude the opposite: Higher private ownership of guns can be strongly correlated to lower murder rates.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 02:11 PM

Before U.S. governments makes anything illegal, it should be demonstrated that gun restrictions will have the desired effect. The perverse effect of increasing murder rates by reducing private gun ownership has been demonstrated in numerous studies. Places like Chicago, Washington DC, and New York have repeatedly experienced unintended consequences of aggressive gun control laws.

When marchers scream to ban guns, they’re pushing to make America more like El Salvador (1 murder for every 52 guns), Ethiopia (1 per 53), Honduras (1 per 88). All of these countries have succeeded in limiting gun ownership even if they can’t keep their citizens safe. The numbers are clear: murders are less common when the victim might be armed.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 03:02 PM

Ah Bruce
We would all be much safer if these terrible weapons were not so readily available in our society. All of us, including those who think they need these weapons to make them safe.

I have said all I can on this matter. As I have started this discussion i leave to you the last word between us.

I wish you well and hope you will never feel the need to use your weapon

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 03:19 PM

"We would all be much safer if these terrible weapons were not so readily available in our society."

I disagree, but wish you well.


" hope you will never feel the need to use your weapon "

I have no such weapon- they are illegal in MD.

" a reliable, effective gun is akin to an insurance policy. Am I going to be the beneficiary of my monthly renter’s insurance premiums? I hope not. But I rest easily knowing that I can draw upon my policy if disaster strikes."

When the woman down the street was being beaten outside, naked, on the street, by her boyfriend, all we could do was call the police and wait 10 minutes- by which time he had finished and dragged her back inside. Police knocked, and were told everything was ok.


Perhaps you will offer laws that KEEP CRIMINALS from getting guns, instead of keeping ONLY law-abiding citizens seeking self defense from doing so. What has been offered up does NOT keep criminals from getting firearms, but DOES prevent law-abiding citizens from having self-defense available.


Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]




I will end this with the following: When you are in a situation where the mere fact of YOU being armed might have saved someone, I hope you remember supporting being disarmed, and disarming those who might have helped you.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 08:16 AM

Backwoodsman, The questions of why we hold diverse opinions might possibly be foundational and not pointless. For an example the loss of a loved one by criminal behavior can be most destructive . How one heals from such a loss is crucial in forming long lasting opinions.

Two choices after such a tragic loss is blame oneself (the ego rejects this) or blame others (most common)

Why we feel the way we do is possibly an important factor in learning about the gun debate. It is to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Apr 18 - 01:23 PM

re assault weapons- I have no problem with the present ban on assault RIFLES, and feel it should be maintained. THEY are fully automatic, and have been limited since 1934. (as have sawed off shotguns and such)

In saying that, Bruce, you accept that it is right to interpret your Second Amendment in a way that allows for intelligent regulation of some kind of arms, and to see that as a fair reflection of the intentions of those who framed it. ( that is consistent with the ruling of the Supreme that the Second Amendment "did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

So your argument that the Second Amendments rules out doing that falls. What remains is identifying what kinds of arms should properly be outlawed by regulation, and how this should be done. Not an argument about principle, but about political decision.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Apr 18 - 01:25 PM

That ruling was in 1939, in the case of the United States versus a Miller.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 22 Apr 18 - 08:40 PM

Like I said I hate the things too easy to modify into fully auto by bad guys I wouldn’t care if they tossed them all into the sea myself but other sportsman can disagree with me

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Jeri
Date: 22 Apr 18 - 09:20 PM

Bruce, did anybody go outside an confront the guy, or was everybody hiding?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Apr 18 - 02:23 AM

I profess to be a pacifist, but I enlisted in the Army and I enjoy shooting guns and I'm good at it, and I'm fascinated by military technology. This subjects me to a lot of self-loathing, but what can I do? Oh, and I was a government investigator for 25 years or so.

Much as I'm fascinated by the workings of guns, I don't think I've fired one or touched one since 1973, when I left the Army. But I have to admit that for me, guns are really cool.

But it bothers me that I live in an area where people think guns are essential for protection, and I've done just fine since 1973 without a gun. I'm surrounded by too many people who think they need multiple guns to protect themselves from Government. Their fear of government and their gun purchases were multiplied a hundredfold when the Government was headed by a black man. I thought that frenzy would die down when Trump was elected and these people no longer had something to fear - but they're still buying guns.

I tend to make critical comments about the Gun Culture in the local newspaper, and sometimes I wonder if I'm crazy to do that.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 23 Apr 18 - 10:54 AM

Yea joe even my range shooting friends get all ticked off at me when I say I wouldn’t own any type of ar it’s like blasphemy. I hunt I shoot targets what more do I want ugh

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Apr 18 - 11:10 AM

Jeri,

There were three of us who confronted the "gentleman" He was in his own yard, was about 15 years younger and 5 inches taller than me, and claimed it was "culturally acceptable" for him in his ( former) country to beat his wife in public. We informed him it was NOT acceptable here, and that he should stop. With a garden machete about 10 feet away, next to the house, none of us felt comfortable after he mentioned we should stay out of his yard. We called the police- by the time they got there, he had dragged her inside. When the police knocked, they were told "everything was ok."
Given that no weapon ( just a leather belt; the machete was implied, but use was not stated ) was being used, the police declined further action.


What would you have done?





McGrath,

"So your argument that the Second Amendments rules out doing that falls. "

I think you have not read my posts here.

I HAVE argued that the laws being proposed

1. Do not remove guns from criminals
2. Do not prevent criminals from getting guns
3. Would result in a net increase in killings,
4. Prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves when the government has stated "( D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying) that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." "

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Apr 18 - 12:45 PM

If I misread your posts, Bruce, I did not intend to, but I do not think I have. I wasn't addressing the k8nds of issues you indicate in that last post.

I was pointing out what seemed an inconsistency since It appeared that on the one hand you were holding the Second Amendment as undeservingly excluding government from imposing regulations on arms, and on the other hand accepting that in certain cases it did have the power and right to impose regulations.

The question as to what actual regulation structure can be justified is a different question, and obviously an important one. But the claim that the Second Amendment is an absolute barrier to all regulation is a barrier to discussing that question. It needs to be recognised that it has been settled long ago that it does not.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Apr 18 - 01:43 PM

"holding the Second Amendment as undeservingly excluding government from imposing regulations on arms, "

Where have I made such a claim? Please go back and read my posts of 17 Apr 3PM. Do you see ANY reference to the 2nd Amendment there, or in my later pots?

It would be foolish IMO to apply excessive limits to the 2nd amendment unless one was willing to have the arguments applied to the other parts of the Bill of Rights, but that there is SOME limit to all of those rights is already recognized by SCUS rulings. NO freedom is absolute.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Apr 18 - 03:48 PM

OK, I DID post this:

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 08:29 AM

1. Define assault weapon. ( serious request- does it have to be black with a handle on top?)

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/13/the-assault-weapons-ban-is-a-stupid-idea-pushed-by-stupid-people/

"This speaks to a state organized and regulated militia for public defense not to private individuals or groups of individuals arming themselves for their own purposes"

Not what the Supreme Court has said- Yes, that could be change, but so could Roe vs. Wade. Want to see which change would get more public support?

" high capacity ammunition magazines"

Let me see- In NY, that is more than seven rounds. They are already prohibited there.

In MD, anything over 10 rounds cannot be made, transferred, or sold.

Yet the Internet has the code to make 30 round AR-15 magazines with ANY 3d printer, and a bit of wire.


Hell, it takes 2 pipes, a nail, a piece of 2x4 and tape to make a shotgun. (We made a million or so to drop on France in WW II)

And a M97 trench gun will out shoot an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine in killing large numbers in a crowd. ( 9-11 30 cal pellets per round, 6+1 in the chamber rounds = 63 to 77 projectiles- Why do you think we used them rather than automatic weapons to clear trenches in WW I?)


"Nobody, but nobody, is trying to take away people's right to bear arms."

https://fee.org/articles/gun-control-advocates-are-finally-admitting-what-they-really-want/

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/02/left-will-finally-admit-want-repeal-second-amendment/


How about looking at the real problems that cause shootings, rather than attack those who legally and safely have guns?

http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/26/march-lives-blames-everyone-except-failed-protect-parkland/

As for the NRA controlling anything,
http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/19/want-gun-control-stop-calling-nra-terrorist-organization/

Maybe we should stop Federal funding of Planned Parenthood- how many do they kill with abortions each year??? AND they spend more than the NRA on lobbying.


At least admit you would NOT allow the rest of the Bill Of Rights to be interpreted as you have the 2nd amendment.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/20/lets-model-speech-control-on-gun-control/





Did you bother to read the clicky for the last point?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Apr 18 - 05:33 PM

In answer to question 1) So you would convict all police of murder? Um, no, since almost no cops fire their guns or kill people, plus cops are not civilians, so why would you even imagine that the same rules apply.

In answer to point A that you can't shoot feathers, well duh. That's why I picked that example.

In answer to question 2) Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point. Who asked this question? I didn't.

And what that I said was opinion?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 06:55 AM

"No freedom is absolute"

Absolutely true. My impression is that there are a lot of opponents of gun control who do not believe that is true. I apologise to Bruce for suggesting that he might have been one of those.

I think it would be better if arguments about such things should focus on what is right, rather than what is consistent with a manmade document cobbled together by disputatious upoliticians a couple of centuries ago, and which can in principle always be altered if necessary, though that may be difficult in practice.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 07:58 AM

"I think it would be better if arguments about such things should focus on what is right, rather than what is consistent with a manmade document cobbled together by disputatious upoliticians a couple of centuries ago, and which can in principle always be altered if necessary, though that may be difficult in practice."

As I have attempted to do. I have brought up the points that , to me, indicate the present laws being proposed will NOT have the desired effect, and will in fact increase the number of illegal killings. Those who disagree with me have not yet argued that I have errors in my statements.


Mrrzy,

"n answer to question 1) So you would convict all police of murder? Um, no, since almost no cops fire their guns or kill people, plus cops are not civilians, so why would you even imagine that the same rules apply."

If the ONLY purpose is to kill, then police who have guns are just waiting to kill people.



"In answer to point A that you can't shoot feathers, well duh. That's why I picked that example."

You don't make sense- if TARGET SHOOTING is a valid sport ( see Olympics et al) and feathers cannot be shot out of guns, then YOU premise is stupid.

YOUR POST:
-------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Mrrzy - PM
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 10:12 AM

The purpose of a gun is not to prevent others from using one, it is to propel bullets into targets, but not the paper ones. There is no need for bullets to be propelled unless it is to penetrate flesh. That is, to kill or maim or mangle or hurt or damage or yes kill. You could shoot feathers if the point was to hit paper targets, so nonsense.
--------------------------------------------------------------




"In answer to question 2) Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point. Who asked this question? I didn't."

I asked that question, and ONLY Sean Fear has had the honesty to give me an answer. The claim is that the proposed laws will reduce illegal killings: I have presented reasons and factual support that they will not, that they will increase illegal killings, and that there are far more deadly things that COULD effectively be reduced if LIVES were of any concern.



"And what that I said was opinion? "
-----------------------------
The purpose of a gun is not to prevent others from using one, it is to propel bullets into targets, but not the paper ones. There is no need for bullets to be propelled unless it is to penetrate flesh.
-----------------------------
Nobody, but nobody, is trying to take away people's right to bear arms. That is gun-totin' propaganda.
-----------------------------

The above statements, made by you, are not factually supported- therefore they are either deliberate lies or opinion. I give you the benefit of the doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 10:21 AM

The only purpose of a gun is to kill and that is why cops so seldom use their guns, silly. Cops carry guns because it is their job to. Again.
What I said about guns making bullets go fast so as to kill is fact, not opinion. Why else would you need a bullet to go fast? You could shoot feaathers if you didn't care about hitting a target and damaging it terribly.
What I said about nobody trying to take everybody's guns away is also the truth. There is no current motion, pun intended, to repeal the 2nd amendment. Limit gun rights, yes; eliminate them, no.
Find a fact that condradicts me.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 11:17 AM

"The only purpose of a gun is to kill "

False statement.

" Cops carry guns because it is their job to."

No, they carry them to have a means to enforce their will on others, either by deadly force OR INTIMIDATION (Threat).

"What I said about guns making bullets go fast so as to kill is fact, not opinion"

They go fast so as to NOT fall down ( as much) due to gravity. Killing is YOUR opinion.


"What I said about nobody trying to take everybody's guns away is also the truth."

Your opinion. MANY of the anti-gun crowd have stated that is their aim. NOBODY means that even one would prove my point.

Have you even bothered to look at the clickies I have posted- there are examples there.

All the facts I have found contradict you.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 11:47 AM

So we're agreed on an important point of principle, Bruce. That's essential for any genuine discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Jeri
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 11:49 AM

OK, Bruce, make guns unable to kill people, and see how many people buy them. (When the argument gets too stupid, ...)

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 11:59 AM

Jeri,

So, you are more interested in preventing law-abiding citizens from having guns than you are in reducing illegal killings?

I have shown that the GUNS can reduce the number of deaths when in legal hands.
I have shown that the EXISTING laws are not enforced, and if so would reduce the number of deaths,
I have shown that the other, GREATER number of deaths from SOLVABLE causes could be easily reduced by far greater numbers than the TOTAL killed by firearms with far less effort.



So your solution is more laws that can not be enforced on the criminals, have the opposite effect that is desired, and spend all the effort on this, rather than save lives?   

Can we discuss "Stupid"?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 12:09 PM

McGrath,

Yes. Too bad so many here are unable to even consider the reasons people do NOT agree with them.

I AM opposed to Bump-stocks- IMO they cross the line, too close to fully automatic operation. But the Obama BATF declared that they were legal, and now how do you get them back under control?

When a law that is EFFECTIVE, ENFORCEABLE, and not prone to political misuse is offered, I would certainly consider supporting it.

When the law is basically " We want everything to be the way we think it should be" WITHOUT consideration of the ACTUAL effects and possibility of enforcement, I cannot take those proposing it as other than anti-gun bigots, who would rather have people die than address actual problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 01:33 PM

However law abiding people may have been, at the point where they turn those guns on other people they have ceased to be law abiding (leaving aside those cases of gun killings where legitimate self defence is involved, which I understand to be a relatively small fraction of gun killings).

I believe that in a high proportion of gun massacres the weapons used had been legally purchased. So is the case in those instances where children have used their parents' gun with tragic result.

How about strict laws that all lethal weapons should be securely stored in a gun cabinet, with room for specific exceptions to that to be permitted for adequate reason, Bruce?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 01:49 PM

"believe that in a high proportion of gun massacres the weapons used had been legally purchased. "

Some, but not most Actually, the majority are not even on the books-

https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/category/parts-and-accessories/parts-by-gun-model/ar-15/complete-build-kits.do

And the 80% receiver required to complete it is $69-100, no restrictions. Now IF YOU COMPLETE IT you are LEGALLY required to do things- but how many of those who make them do that? Another example of a law that has bo positive effect, but made someone feel good about letting criminals have access to illegal weapons.


"How about strict laws that all lethal weapons should be securely stored in a gun cabinet, with room for specific exceptions to that to be permitted for adequate reason, Bruce? "

Tell me the reasons, and I will say if I agree.

In Montgomery County, MD, they passed a law that anyone who had reason could carry a pistol concealed, IF THEY WERE LEGAL FIREARM OWNERS. Pay your fee, get fingerprinted, have a background check, submit the form to the County Police.
Of course, they did NOT mention that the ONLY ones who were given approval were those who were police officers, politicians, or could get the political approval from the politician ( IE, the campaign contributors.) A business many who regularly carried large sums ( $20-50 K to the bank for deposit, say) were NOT issued such permits, nor could they get police escorts to the bank. This was back in the 1980's.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 01:53 PM

I looked an indication of how often gun killings involved justified self defence. I found this piece from the LA Times which indicates it is a relatively tiny proportion, 269 in 2012, out of a total of nearly 30,000 gun deaths. And even that figure of 269 "justifiable killings" in that year 2012 would have included highly questionable cases such as that of Trayvon Martin, shot in February that year.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 01:54 PM

And the problem of hand-made weapons is NEVER addressed- as I said, it takes two pieces of pipe, a piece of 2x4, a nail, and some duct tape to make a single shot shotgun- and that will get you whatever the person you shoot ( guard, police officer, whoever) had available.



But it is far easier to get it "under the table ( ILLEGALLY) through the black market. No prosecutions, you know- they have political friends that keep them open.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 01:59 PM

1. LA Time has a bias-

The number killed by "gun deaths" includes suicides- the greater part of that 30,000. The PRESENCE of firearms often prevents shootings.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/03/20/any-study-of-gun-violence-should-include-how-guns-save-lives/#167d218a5edc

Did you read that? Or do you ONLY read the articles that you agree with?


About a million abortions in 2012- how many of THEM were justified for medical reasons? Restricting which would save more lives?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 02:04 PM

As I have said, why would any restrictions on legal firearm owners reduce the illegal killings?
350,000,000 firearms - 30,000 deaths, INCLUDING accidents, suicides, and those "justified" killings as well as the illegal ones. Get rid of the 300,000,000 legal ones, and the number of deaths would INCREASE.

And there has been NO discussion of how to collect those 50,000,000 being held illegally. You want to have the Fergusson Police going through houses looking for illegal weapons? How many killings would that cause?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 02:11 PM

Re abortions- I would want the SAME restrictions as being placed on gun owners- Over 21, background checks, mental health records, court orders, et al. In matters of life and death, why ONLY pick on one small group? Shouldn't life and death criteria laws apply to all equally? Drivers, voters, jury duty, access to drugs... ALL are making choices that can kill- so they should be limited as well.


But then, how well has that worked, in the last 100 years?

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 02:22 PM

Saying that there should be a law is NOT the same as coming up with an effective one. NO-ONE here has made any kind of proposal that has a chance of having any positive effect.

They passed a law making it illegal to kill people- so there should be no illegal killings according to the "Mudcat Logic"


BTW,

https://www.budk.com/ProductDetail.aspx?itemno=52%20PO2331


This is what the 3-d printer can give you, but you can get it already run off with NO restrictions.


Note this is illegal in some states ( including MD)- TO COMPLETE. ANYONE can order the 80% through the mail with no violation of the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 03:22 PM

I can't see how the fact that with a few DIY skills it'd be easy enough to cobble up some kind of gun is not too relevant. The same applies to bombs, but that doesn’t imply they might as well be on sale at your local gun store or supermarket.

Actually it'd probably be easier to make a bomb that could kill a trainload of people than to put together the simplest kind of firearm. I doubt if the suicide bombers in London back in 2007 could have made anything in the firearms much more lethal than a peashooter.

Abortion is an issue that I don't think really fits in here, Bruce. You seem to imply an automatic alignment between those who tend to be hostile to guns and those who feel happy about abortion, and the reverse, and that's not a safe assumption. I imagine my views about abortion are not too unlike yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 03:25 PM

A gun only deters when it is not being used. Duh. And Jeri, well put.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 03:33 PM

If the reasons people use guns illegally is NOT addressed, they will continue to kill, with or without the specific guns that are being banned. Since it is trivial to ( illegally) make an AR-15, and a high capacity magazine ( both illegal here in MD- So I guess we have to crime?) how does preventing legal law abiding citizens from having them serve to reduce killings? ( and it doe NOT, but that seems another topic not to be discussed here.)

Mrrzy,

You do not address my post- And the purpose of deterrence is still fulfilled by POSSESSION by law abiding citizens, which seems to be what you are saying should be prevented.

If discussion of REASONABLE, EFFECTIVE laws is stupid, then we have a bigger problem here than a few tens of kids being killed by guns THAT ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL!

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 03:34 PM

( both illegal here in MD- So I guess we have NO crime?)

Sorry for the typo

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 03:54 PM

"to put together the simplest kind of firearm. "

My earlier post:
And the problem of hand-made weapons is NEVER addressed- as I said, it takes two pieces of pipe, a piece of 2x4, a nail, and some duct tape to make a single shot shotgun- and that will get you whatever the person you shoot ( guard, police officer, whoever) had available.


And making them illegal gets them out of the market HOW? As I said, they are prohibited in MD. But if one wishes they can be ordered in parts, none regulated ( nor regulatable IMO) and the receiver ( illegally) completed. Passing new laws does what to make this harder or MORE illegal?
I have not opposed background checks and the FFL system. so the "supermarket" is a shitty comment.


But if I wanted a 20 round magazine, I would already be violating the law, so why shouldn't I go fully automatic, or use grenades? You make EVERYONE a criminal, and who will obey the laws you really want to have ( Like not killing people because of the color of their skin?)

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 04:07 PM

Bombs are much easier to make.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 04:18 PM

But take materials that are a little harder to get in quantity. pipes, 2x4 and nails are easy- as is ducktape ( 2 rolls $6.99) Maybe 15 minutes work.


25 12 gauge 00 buckshot are $12.99 by mail.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 04:34 PM

Well it might be the rules about these things are tighter in the US than they are here. But the essential ingredients for a lethal bomb can be stuff that are remarkably easy to buy in the UK. I won't list them. You never know who's reading.

And I didn't need to do any research to find that stuff out. There've been too many loose tongued newspaper reports over the years.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 24 Apr 18 - 07:42 PM

Thank you for not posting how in America we have enough of the craziest

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Jack Campin
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 05:14 AM

Some figures on the trend in mass school shootings:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180419131025.htm

OK, school shootings are pretty trivial as a risk to life (handguns are much more significant) but this sort of statistic does make the gun-nuts look even nuttier.

In fact the number of people killed by guns in the US is hardly significant at all. The real damage is to the people who own the guns - they're an instrument of political indoctrination.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 07:18 AM

I never said target-shooting was a valid sport. I never said people should not own guns. I have addressed your post. All I have said, repeatedly, is that guns are for killing (which is why they could deter) and not to pretend otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 08:04 AM

And I disagree with YOUR opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Jack Campin
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 08:19 AM

guns are for killing

That's not their main purpose at all. Their function in contemporary America is to instil hatred and fear in their owners, turning them into suckers for ideologues who validate hatred and fear.

Own a gun and you spend a large fraction of your life thinking about who you might kill with it, how and why. Your own infant children become deadly enemies who you have to fend off with locks and hiding places. And ultimately none of this helps since the person you're most likely to kill with it is yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 08:28 AM

The hatred and fear that I see is on the part of those who value their anti-gun stance above human life. They would rather have more illegal killings than admit that guns are NOT the problem.

Lack of enforcement of the existing laws and Liberal attitudes that do not provide for that enforcement ARE the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 11:09 AM

OK genius, explain to us how someone without a gun can shoot someone else. Of course guns are the problem, except in the tiny, brainwashed minds of gun-nutcases.

The hatred and fear that those of us with a fully-operating, un-indoctrinated brain see is on the part of those who value their pro-gun stance above human life.

You didn't answer my earlier question, Professor - You simply bombard us with a great deal of skewed 'logic' and 'evidence' supporting the away-with-the-fairies theories that the pro-gun propagandists have implanted in your brain but, as is always the case when gun-nuts try to 'prove' their argument, whilst proposing categorically their theory (and that's all it is - a theory, unproven) that fewer guns would result in even more shooting-casualties, you carefully sidestep the hard evidence of the actual, real-life experience of other countries where strict gun-controls and a reduction in the number of guns in circulation has produced precisely the opposite effect, and resulted in considerably fewer deaths.

So, I'll ask you again, Professor -

(1) if, as you propose, fewer guns in circulation and strict controls would result in more shooting-deaths, please explain why the UK, with strict gun-controls, has <100 shooting-deaths per annum (<1 per 650k head of population), yet the US has 30,000 per annum (1 per 12k head of population) - a death-rate in the US which is 54 times greater than in the UK.

(2) if, as you propose, fewer guns in circulation and strict controls would result in more shooting-deaths, please explain why, following the UK's first school-massacre in 1996 and the resulting immediate action by the UK government to strengthen firearm regulations and reduce the number of handguns (the type of firearm used in the attack) in circulation, there have been no further shootings of that kind here whilst, in the US over the same period, there have been 450.

Two straight questions. Two straight answers please. No links to skewed-logic on fear-mongering pro-gun sites, no cut-and-pastes, no bullshit - just your own words please, backed up by actual verifiable facts rather than NRA and gun-nut horse-puckey.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 11:23 AM

"OK genius, explain to us how someone without a gun can shoot someone else."

OJ,SFB,explain to us how someone without a car can drive over someone else.


You miss the point.

Explain how someone can defend herself from someone larger and stronger when the attacker doesn't wait for the police to arrive?

Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."


"away-with-the-fairies theories" are what YOU have presented: WHEN DO CRIMINALS OBEY THE LAW???


1- see my clicky- and learn some statistics:

The countries that have been most successful at limiting private, legal gun ownership are 1. Ethiopia, 2. Eritrea, 3. Haiti, 4. North Korea, and 5. Rwanda. Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Haiti all have higher murder rates than that of the United States. North Korea and Rwanda have slightly lower murder rates (4.4 and 4.5 per 100,000 respectively versus the United States at 4.88).

Let’s look at the countries with the highest concentrations of gun ownership (excluding Yemen and Iraq as active war zones). Guns per murder in those countries are,

    United States at 20,967,
    Uruguay at 3,777,
    Norway at 55,893,
    France at 19,747,
    Austria at 59,608,
    Germany at 35,647,
    Switzerland at 35,435,
    New Zealand at 24,835, and
    Greece at 26,471.

Norway is a particularly interesting example. It has 10 times the gun ownership rate of the United Kingdom, but only half the murder rate.

When one excludes Iraq and Yemen, not one of the countries on the list of the 10 highest rates of gun ownership also appears on the list of the top ten highest murder rates. In fact, the countries with the highest murder rates have markedly low gun ownership rates.

    El Savador (108.64 murders per 100,000/5800 guns per 100,000)
    Honduras (63.75/6200)
    Venezuela (57.15/10,700)
    Jamaica (43.21/8,100)
    Lesotho (38/2,700)
    Belize (34.4/10,000)
    South Africa (34.27/12,700)
    Guatemala (31.21/13,100)
    Trinidad (30.88/1,600)
    Bahamas (29.81/5,300)

It really doesn’t matter how you slice this data. The conclusion is inescapable: High concentrations of private, legal gun ownership do not correlate positively to increased murders. Indeed, you can look at almost any slice of data and conclude the opposite: Higher private ownership of guns can be strongly correlated to lower murder rates.


2. And how many crimes, such as knifings and other murders, have been PREVENTED in the UK by the presence of guns?   ZERO- so take that into account.

Which facts that I have posted do you think are false, and why?

**I** have provided my supporting facts- YOU have not shown any to be false.



And NO-ONE has posted anything that says they want to reduce illegal killings EXCEPT ME- The ONLY posts have been to restrict LEGAL LAW_ABIDING CITIZENS from having access to some ( or all) firearms.




To repeat:Norway is a particularly interesting example. It has 10 times the gun ownership rate of the United Kingdom, but only half the murder rate.

So the UK is obviously filled with murderous killers ( 20 times as many murders per gun owned.)

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 11:37 AM

BTW, we are not talking about the UK here- we are talking about the US, with 350,000,000 guns already out there, and effectively unlimited numbers of potential guns that can be made with a 3-d printer.


If you think the police can go through peoples' homes looking for guns, you have never read the US constitution. A warrant for each location is required, specifying the evidence that a cause for such search exists.

And there would be riots and thousands killed.


When one excludes Iraq and Yemen, not one of the countries on the list of the 10 highest rates of gun ownership also appears on the list of the top ten highest murder rates. In fact, the countries with the highest murder rates have markedly low gun ownership rates.

    El Savador (108.64 murders per 100,000/5800 guns per 100,000)
    Honduras (63.75/6200)
    Venezuela (57.15/10,700)
    Jamaica (43.21/8,100)
    Lesotho (38/2,700)
    Belize (34.4/10,000)
    South Africa (34.27/12,700)
    Guatemala (31.21/13,100)
    Trinidad (30.88/1,600)
    Bahamas (29.81/5,300)

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 11:44 AM

"The Washington Post has determined that since the Columbine High shooting in 1999, 131 children, educators and other people have been killed (and another 254 injured) in assaults at schools. Oddly — but not surprisingly? — the Post doesn’t break down the number: lumping “educators and other people” into the count makes it larger.

Now, 131 is not a large number in a country of 350 million people; even so, inserting “only” before it would be considered callous; and of course people have also been injured in the attacks as well as killed. Nevertheless, as perhaps a few students educated in America’s public school system (which is run by and for the teachers unions), may be able determine, 131 is a far smaller number than 572; (Yale snowflake alert!) 572 is the average number of children (not including educators and other people) who are killed each year in automobile accidents, raising the question: Why isn’t 17-year-old Brianna Lee skipping school to demand safer driving in America?"

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 12:17 PM

Now, how about actual verifiable facts rather than anti-gun-nut horse-puckey from those here that disagree with me? Is it too much to get YOU to provide what has been demanded of me?


If you cared about reducing the killing RATHER than reducing the guns, you would be working to prevent teenagers from driving, drinking alcohol, having abortions, using drugs, and being hit by lightning.

ALL of which kill more than rifles do in a given year.




present law is that ANY child can be disposed of until it is of a certain age. ( see Roe vs. Wade)
"Based on available state-level data, approximately 893,000 abortions took place in the United States in 2016—down from approximately 914,000 abortions in 2015.
In 2014, an estimated 926,240 abortions took place in the United States—down from 1.06 million in 2011, 1.21 million abortions in 2008, 1.2 million in 2005, 1.29 million in 2002, 1.31 million in 2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2011, nearly 53 million legal abortions occurred in the U.S (AGI).
In 2014, approximately 19% of U.S. pregnancies (excluding spontaneous miscarriages) ended in abortion.1
According to the United Nations' 2013 report, only nine countries in the world have a higher reported abortion rate than the United States. They are: Bulgaria, Cuba, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Romania, Russia, Sweden, and Ukraine.*

*Though the UN lists China's official abortion rate at 19.2, China's actual abortion rate is likely much higher. According to China's 2010 census, there were approximately 310 million women of reproductive age in the country. An estimated 13-23 million abortions happen annually in China, resulting in an adjusted abortion rate of 41.9-74.2. The abortion rate is the number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44.
In 2014, the highest percentage of pregnancies were aborted in the District of Columbia (38%), New York (33%), and New Jersey (30%). The lowest percentage of pregnancies were aborted in Utah (5%), South Dakota (4%), and Wyoming (<2%). (AGI abortion data + CDC birth data).
In 2014, approximately 37% of all pregnancies in New York City (excluding spontaneous miscarriages) ended in abortion (CDC)."


So, far more lives at risk- ready to overturn Roe v. Wade?


But if your intent is to REMOVE GUNS FROM LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS, a few million dead each year don't matter at all- it doesn't address what YOU want.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 12:31 PM

Sigh.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 12:40 PM

Sorry if I do not go along with your anti-gun propaganda, but as someone with a fully-operating, un-indoctrinated brain I have looked at the numbers, and see that the laws being proposed do not accomplish the intent stated by those proposing them.

I have to look at what reasons there are for disarming the legal citizens, while leaving the guns in criminal hands alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Jack Campin
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 01:05 PM

Another Darwin Award winner

Count me out of all the crocodile tears. That toddler would have grown up to be another gun-toting bigot like her mother.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 02:34 PM

Jack is fine with dead babies, as long as there is a possibility they might have disagreed with him.



From 1973 through 2011, nearly 53 million legal abortions occurred in the U.S

572 is the average number of children (not including educators and other people) who are killed each year in automobile accidents
Number of Lightning Deaths in the United States, 1990 to 2003             United States Total 756

The Washington Post has determined that since the Columbine High shooting in 1999, 131 children, educators and other people have been killed (and another 254 injured) in assaults at schools

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 03:39 PM

McGrath,

" You seem to imply an automatic alignment between those who tend to be hostile to guns and those who feel happy about abortion, and the reverse, and that's not a safe assumption. I imagine my views about abortion are not too unlike yours. "

Hence my question as to the intent of those on this thread:
Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point.

Nor have I seen any effort by any here to show that , given the points I have presented with NO factual argument against ( I don't like what you say is NOT a valid point), I need to reconsider my opinion.



I have noticed "That toddler would have grown up to be another gun-toting bigot like her mother" and "except in the tiny, brainwashed minds of gun-nutcases." being presented by the anti-gun folks.



"After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."
(This was DC, where gun ownership was prohibited until a recent court decision.)

Tell me more about how safe we will be when you take all the guns from LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 03:58 PM

I have carried a firearm since I was 21 legally never had to fire it but did need to draw it twice to thwart an attack on others. Unless someone is extraordinarily trained it is not a good idea. However if one is vetted and trained it’s just one more cop out there and that’s fine with me. We talked before how some states are too easy for Carr we need federal standards and better revisions to the existing laws to keep them from crazies or bad guys. However every good law is negated by guns shows or ghost kits making them ineffective. I wish the Powers to be would consult those in the know before doing knee jerk do nothing laws

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 04:05 PM

"I wish the Powers to be would consult those in the know before doing knee jerk do nothing laws "

Which is EXACTLY what I have stated- The laws being pushed do not address the problem, nor will they produce the results that the anti-gun people seem to ( or say that they) want.

Gun shows are NOT the problem, if the present FFL laws are followed. If you have a method of removing "Ghost kits" without the wholesale restriction of 3-d printers, more power to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 04:59 PM

As I expected, no answers to the two simple questions I put, just more obfuscation and Whataboutery - the tactics of the brainwashed.

I'll try one last time, although I don't expect The Professor to give the straight answer I asked for, because that would blow a big hole in his brainwashed argument :-

(1) if, as you propose, fewer guns in circulation and strict controls would result in more shooting-deaths, please explain why the UK, with strict gun-controls, has <100 shooting-deaths per annum (<1 per 650k head of population), yet the US has 30,000 per annum (1 per 12k head of population) - a death-rate in the US which is 54 times greater than in the UK.

(2) if, as you propose, fewer guns in circulation and strict controls would result in more shooting-deaths, please explain why, following the UK's first school-massacre in 1996 and the resulting immediate action by the UK government to strengthen firearm regulations and reduce the number of handguns (the type of firearm used in the attack) in circulation, there have been no further shootings of that kind here whilst, in the US over the same period, there have been 450.

Two straight questions. Two straight answers please. No links to skewed-logic on fear-mongering pro-gun sites, no cut-and-pastes, no bullshit - just your own words please, backed up by actual verifiable facts rather than NRA and gun-nut horse-puckey.

Now, Professor, answer the damn questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 05:00 PM

Plastic in a 3d printer will never hold up. You run the risk of the slide inside your face

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 05:01 PM

Frame of a glock is not plastic, it’s a composite stronger than steel

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 05:21 PM

Woman of my dreams US champion
https://youtu.be/XPXIZa8Kevw

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 25 Apr 18 - 06:01 PM

https://youtu.be/64jdRiXfqfw

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 18 - 08:06 AM

"As I expected, no answers to the two simple questions I put, just more obfuscation and Whataboutery"

Seems like proving you wrong just gets me ignored. Why bother replying to anything you say if you ignore what I post?

--------
The countries that have been most successful at limiting private, legal gun ownership are 1. Ethiopia, 2. Eritrea, 3. Haiti, 4. North Korea, and 5. Rwanda. Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Haiti all have higher murder rates than that of the United States. North Korea and Rwanda have slightly lower murder rates (4.4 and 4.5 per 100,000 respectively versus the United States at 4.88).

Let’s look at the countries with the highest concentrations of gun ownership (excluding Yemen and Iraq as active war zones). Guns per murder in those countries are,

    United States at 20,967,
    Uruguay at 3,777,
    Norway at 55,893,
    France at 19,747,
    Austria at 59,608,
    Germany at 35,647,
    Switzerland at 35,435,
    New Zealand at 24,835, and
    Greece at 26,471.

Norway is a particularly interesting example. It has 10 times the gun ownership rate of the United Kingdom, but only half the murder rate.

When one excludes Iraq and Yemen, not one of the countries on the list of the 10 highest rates of gun ownership also appears on the list of the top ten highest murder rates. In fact, the countries with the highest murder rates have markedly low gun ownership rates.

    El Savador (108.64 murders per 100,000/5800 guns per 100,000)
    Honduras (63.75/6200)
    Venezuela (57.15/10,700)
    Jamaica (43.21/8,100)
    Lesotho (38/2,700)
    Belize (34.4/10,000)
    South Africa (34.27/12,700)
    Guatemala (31.21/13,100)
    Trinidad (30.88/1,600)
    Bahamas (29.81/5,300)

It really doesn’t matter how you slice this data. The conclusion is inescapable: High concentrations of private, legal gun ownership do not correlate positively to increased murders. Indeed, you can look at almost any slice of data and conclude the opposite: Higher private ownership of guns can be strongly correlated to lower murder rates. ------------


To repeat:Norway is a particularly interesting example. It has 10 times the gun ownership rate of the United Kingdom, but only half the murder rate.

So the UK is obviously filled with murderous killers ( 20 times as many murders per gun owned.) It is now up to you to explain this- are UK citizens really such lawless murderers?

The POINT is that
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The conclusion is inescapable: High concentrations of private, legal gun ownership do not correlate positively to increased murders. Indeed, you can look at almost any slice of data and conclude the opposite: Higher private ownership of guns can be strongly correlated to lower murder rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


"if, as you propose, fewer guns in circulation and strict controls would result in more shooting-deaths, please explain why the UK, with strict gun-controls, has <100 shooting-deaths per annum (<1 per 650k head of population), yet the US has 30,000 per annum (1 per 12k head of population) - a death-rate in the US which is 54 times greater than in the UK. "

1. The UK is filled with murderers who like to get blood on their hands by using knives?
2. The UK is NOT the US, and has a more homogeneous culture. The increasing murder rate there may be due to the culture becoming more mixed. Is that what you want to say? You prefer having a WASP only society? Mixing of ANY cultures, even racially similar ones, is a cause of societal friction.


FACT: Norway disproves your point- unless there is some reason that with 1/10 the guns, the UK has twice the murder rate of Norway. yet you do not consider other reasons for the US, so I will NOT allow you to claim other reasons for the UK.

The UK is just filled with a bunch of bloody murderers.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 18 - 08:13 AM

'Plastic in a 3d printer will never hold up. You run the risk of the slide inside your face "

And present generation 3-d printers are restricted to plastic how?

Epoxy/resin of various types is the preferred material- it will "only" last a few hundred rounds fired, but that should satisfy the mass shooter- the proposed laws are restricting the magazines ( which CAN be made of plastic) to 10 rounds or less, remember?

After you shoot the one person in the school with that, you can take his gun and use it. And NONE of the restrictions proposed have restricted police or security guard weapon types- there are specific exemptions to allow possession and use of even fully automatic weapons by police- so they will ALWAYS be available to the dedicated terrorist/mass shooter.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 18 - 08:20 AM

A REASONABLE piece of gun legislation.

http://legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail?LegislationId=26339

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 18 - 08:26 AM

Yeah, lets restrict firearms to police and ex-police. They will always protect us from anyone with an illegal gun...



https://www.yahoo.com/gma/suspect-arrested-golden-state-killer-case-sources-165903122--abc-news-topstories.html


"After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."
(This was DC, where gun ownership was prohibited until a recent court decision.)

Tell me more about how safe we will be when you take all the guns from LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 18 - 09:05 AM

And we KNOW we can trust the police to protect us....

https://nypost.com/2018/04/25/cop-charged-with-murdering-bride-to-be-will-argue-self-defense/

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in Americaft
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Apr 18 - 10:09 AM

If you have a method of removing "Ghost kits" without the wholesale restriction of 3-d printers, more power to you.

That does seem to imply that enabling this technology now is premature, and maybe needs to be restricted. There is nothing inevitable about the introduction of a new technology into society. So far as I understand there's nothing in your constitution about a right to bear 3D printers...

Perhaps some technical solution could reduce this risk, so that any attempt to make an illegal weapon alerted the authorities, and the equipment would cease to function. In the meantime we can do without them, as we have till now. As you said, Bruce, and I agreed with you, liberty has its limits.
.................
Clearly there isn't going to be an overall ban on guns in the US in this age of society at least. Arguing about it either way is a bit irrelevant, and diverts people from addressing what you need to address. Far better to talk about things that could be done and whether they should be done, and how. To get them done.

There are plenty of ideas that sound very sensible - however it appears that the NRA is strongly opposing most of them, presenting sensible ideas as the thin end of the wedge". And also that in doing so it may not acting in accordance with what most gun owners actually wish. The first thing your sensible gun owners surely need to do is to take over the NRA.

I don't know about the USA, but where I live the organisations for drivers don’t campaign to abolish speed limits and driving tests and seat belts and annual checks on the safety of our vehicles. If they did members would seek to change that, where they didn’t transfer to other organisations with sensible people in charge.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 18 - 10:19 AM

"COCONUT CREEK, Fla. (AP) — The Latest on the commission investigating the Florida high school massacre (all times local):

1:45 p.m.

A father whose daughter died in the Florida high school massacre said an investigative commission will discover the deaths could have been avoided it weren't for egregious errors made by law enforcement and school officials.

Andrew Pollack is one of three victims' fathers appointed to the 16-member commission investigating the Feb. 14 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that left 17 dead, including his 18-year-old daughter, Meadow. The commission held its first meeting Tuesday, hearing from a Broward Sheriff's Office detective who laid out the gunman's actions during the shootings.

Pollack told reporters that the commission would unearth "how much incompetency there was that led to my daughter and the other 16 victims being murdered."

He pointed to the FBI, whose officials have acknowledged they failed to follow up on a warning call about Cruz. In addition, the sheriff's office said Tuesday that deputies had 18 contacts with Cruz before the shooting, but that he never did anything he could be arrested for.

___

11:15 a.m.

A commission investigating the Florida high school massacre has learned that faulty classroom designs and police radio and 911 systems contributed to the chaos and possibly to some of the 17 deaths.

The Broward Sheriff's Office told the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission at its first meeting Tuesday that teachers couldn't lock their classroom doors from the inside as they tried to lock down their students Feb. 14. They had to open their doors and use a key to lock them from the outside.

The doors also had small windows, allowing the gunman to fire into the locked classrooms.

Broward sheriff's radios were not on the same channel as Coral Springs police, the two primary agencies that responded. Attempts to merge the radio channels failed, preventing the two departments from sharing information. Coral Springs and Broward are also on separate 911 systems. Calls were coming into both."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-multiple-failures-played-part-school-massacre-151914544.html

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 18 - 10:31 AM

Not a member of the NRA, never have been.

BUT:
As for the NRA
http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/19/want-gun-control-stop-calling-nra-terrorist-organization/

Try reading something other than the anti-gun propaganda.



"where I live the organisations for drivers don’t campaign to abolish speed limits and driving tests and seat belts and annual checks on the safety of our vehicles. "

IF there was public outcry to limit the power of automobiles to 6 horse power ( a stagecoach only had 4 horses - certainly no need for more than that.) there might well be a hue and cry from those organizations. That is what the limits on guns being proposed look like.


I am IN FAVOR of background checks.
I am in favor of removing guns from people who are a danger- PROVIDED there is an appeal process to prevent it from becoming a political means to disarm one's opponents- say, Blacks or Moslims, or Jews.

Yet I am accused of " more obfuscation and Whataboutery" when I ask the simple question:

Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point.

Nor have I seen any effort by any here to show that , given the points I have presented with NO factual argument against ( "I don't like what you say" is NOT a valid point), I need to reconsider my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 18 - 10:36 AM

"technical solution could reduce this risk, so that any attempt to make an illegal weapon alerted the authorities, and the equipment would cease to function"

No way to do so.

The 80% completed receivers are the example of that. BY LAW, they are NOT firearms, and cannot be controlled. At SOME point in the manufacturing process, they become controlled items- Just stop ONE step short and finish it up by hand.

I think that the criminals who would make illegal firearms are as smart ( or smarter) than the ones proposing the laws about them

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Apr 18 - 11:11 AM

BY LAW, they are NOT firearms, and cannot be controlled. At SOME point in the manufacturing process, they become controlled items- Just stop ONE step short and finish it up by hand.

How does it work that because something isn’t a firearm it can't be controlled? If stopping one step short isn't enough, stop two steps short. There are always going to be some people who can hack their way round anything, but not too many.
............
Anti-gun propaganda? Well, where I live we've a culture which is decidedly suspicious of guns,so if I take in our mainstream broadcast or print media it all probably would count as that. So here’s a specimen challenging the notion n that the NRA is other than hostile to sensible reforms, including some you indicate you'd like to see, Bruce - From The Guardian

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 18 - 11:55 AM

McGrath,

How would you tell if someone is making a pipe or a gun-barrel?


You are right- I do consider this to be anti-gun propaganda.
"SOURCE: Mayors Against Illegal Guns"

1. Concealed carry reciprocity
As is being pushed BY THE ANTI-GUN GROUPS in regards to other gun legislation,, there is a need for nation-wide rules, so that one is not in jeopardy of committing a felony by crossing a state line as one is at this time. THAT is why the NRA is pushing this: How would YOU like it if each city you went to had different rules as to who could drive there?
2. Private gun sales loophole
There are NO unlicensed gun sellers. If one sells guns as a business, (ie, to make money) one is either a licensed FFL or an illegal straw-purchaser. All the proposed and existing laws have exemptions for in-family transfers- BUT the present rules ALSO require the background check of both the buyer AND recipient for new purchase of guns for a family member
3. Terror watch list
The NRA has strongly opposed legislation to prohibit the sale of guns to people on the federal government's terrorist watch list. Under current law, a suspected terrorist can be put on the no-fly list and be kept off a plane, but can't be prevented from buying a gun.
There being NO appeal process , and not way to even find out if one is on the list. There are known errors in the list. What if some future administration put all Moslims, or Jews, or redheads on that list?
4. Stand-your-ground laws
Shouldn’t the same laws apply nation-wide?
5. Guns on campuses
If one believes the facts, that having armed people deters shootings ( as shown by statistics) it would be saying “We want our kids in college to be more likely to be shot “ to NOT encourage these laws.
6. Guns in schools
See above
NOTE that ONLY those who LEGALLY can CARRY guns are legal to carry guns- seems like a non-sequitur, but that is the fact. We let GUARDS carry guns in prisons, too- Got a problem with that?
7. Guns in the workplace
For several years the NRA has pushed legislation prohibiting businesses and employers from banning guns in locked cars in parking lots. It has been successful in several states, including Florida and Utah, and is currently pushing for passage in Tennessee. Indiana and North Dakota have enacted laws allowing employees to sue if they are asked about gun possession at work.
And this is a problem HOW?
8. Guns in bars and restaurants
See 5
9. Tracing guns used in shootings
In 2004, a Republican congressman from Kansas, Todd Tiahrt, a long-time ally of the NRA, added an amendment to bill regarding the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives (ATF). Until that point, data had been kept on the history of guns used in murders and shootings, which allowed police and policymakers to trace them back to corrupt dealerships and other holes in the system. The rule change, known as the Tiahrt amendment, made this data much harder to acquire.
How did it make them harder to acquire? “guns used in murders and shootings, which allowed police and policymakers to trace them back to corrupt dealerships and other holes in the system.” ARE NOT removed from the records EXCEPT BY COURT ORDER.
It also forced the justice department to destroy within 24 hours the records of any gun buyer whose background check was approved. The overall impact of the amendments was to make it much harder for police to clamp down on illegally distributed guns.
The CONCERN is that the government would be developing a database of LEGALLY obtained weapons ( NOT THOSE PURCHASED BY CRIMINALS) that could be used ( as done in other countries ) to then change the law and confiscate them.
10. Revoking licences from corrupt dealers
The NRA has made several attempts to usher through Congress an "ATF reform bill" that would make it much harder – some say virtually impossible – to revoke the gun-selling licenses of crooked dealers. If the bill passed – and the NRA is expected to try again soon – the ATF would have to prove the dealer's state of mind, in terms of his or her premeditated intention to break the law.

I believe that this is an mis-interpretation of the proposed bill- The one I recall protected dealers that sold guns legally, to legal buyers, with approved background checks. If the Government tells a dealer that the person has the right to buy a gun, should the dealer get to decided otherwise? What if he doesn’t want to sell to Blacks, or Jews, or Moslims? Are you OK with that?



I hope I have addressed your questions. You may well disagree with my opinions, but to dismiss my comments out of hand as so many here do, believing in the tyranny of the majority, is unreasonable. I thank you for at least having a conversation about it, rather than a lecture about how I have to agree with you because you say so.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 18 - 12:10 PM

Any person who wishes to purchase, rent, or transfer a regulated firearm must complete a MSP 77R Application and Affidavit to purchse a regulated firearm. This includes individuals acquiring a regulated firearm through a firearm dealer, secondary sale/private sale, gift, or a person who wishes to voluntarily register a regulated firearm shall complete a Maryland State Police Application and Affidavit to Purchase a Regulated Firearm (MSP 77R).


If you are considering the purchase of a firearm and are unsure if the firearm is banned, contact the Maryland Regulated Firearms Dealer you are utilizing for your purchase. Maryland regulated firearms dealers are best suited to answer questions about the various types of firearms available. If your regulated firea?rms dealer is unable to provide assistance, contact the firearms manufacturer to obtain additional information about the weapon.

Some examples of the questions to ask are listed below:

1) Is this weapon semi-automatic? If not, it is not banned and you do not need to continue.

2) If this is a rifle, is it centerfire? If not, then it is not banned and you do not need to continue.

3) Is this weapon considered to be a copy of a banned weapon? If so, then it is banned and may not be purchased, sold, or transferred.

4) If this is a semi-automatic centerfire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine, does it have any two of the following: a folding stock; a grenade launcher or flare launcher; or a flash suppressor; If so, then it is banned and may not be purchased, sold, or transferred.

5) If this is a rifle, does it have a fixed magazine that holds more than 10 rounds? If so, then it is banned and may not be purchased, sold, or transferred.

6) If this is a rifle, what is the overall length of the weapon? If the stock is fully extended and there are no removable additions to the barrel, is the weapon less than 29 inches? If so, then it is banned and may not be purchased, sold, or transferred.

7) If this is a semi-automatic shotgun, does the weapon have a revolving cylinder? If so, then it is banned and may not be purchased, sold, or transferred.

8) If this is a semi-automatic shotgun, does the weapon have a folding stock? If so, then it is banned and may not be purchased, sold, or transferred. ?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 18 - 12:13 PM

A licensee or other person may not sell, rent, or transfer a
regulated firearm to a firearm applicant whose firearm application is placed on hold because of an open
disposition of criminal proceedings against the firearm applicant or disapproved, u
nless the hold or
disapproval has been subsequently withdrawn by the Secretary or overruled by a court in accordance
with § 5
-
127 of this subtitle.
(d) Penalty.
--
A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject
to imprisonment not exceeding 3 years or a fine
not exceeding $ 5,000 or both.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Apr 18 - 12:35 PM

"The U.K. is filled with murderers who like to get blood on their hands by using knives"

"The UK is just filled with a bunch of bloody murderers."

And there, in two short sentences, you demonstrate both your foolishness and your ignorance of the world outside the US. You really do need to read a little wider than the gutter press.

Murder rates per annum per 100,000 inhabitants - US 4.88, UK 0.92

Educate yourself

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 18 - 12:50 PM

"The UK is just filled with a bunch of bloody murderers."
with 1/10 the guns, the UK has twice the murder rate of Norway.

So your ignorance is greater.



Guns per murder in those countries are,

    United States at 20,967,
    Uruguay at 3,777,
    Norway at 55,893,
    France at 19,747,
    Austria at 59,608,
    Germany at 35,647,
    Switzerland at 35,435,
    New Zealand at 24,835, and
    Greece at 26,471.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 18 - 12:51 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------
The conclusion is inescapable: High concentrations of private, legal gun ownership do not correlate positively to increased murders. Indeed, you can look at almost any slice of data and conclude the opposite: Higher private ownership of guns can be strongly correlated to lower murder rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 18 - 12:58 PM

"The data also exposes some myths I have heard about gun control. For example, I’ve heard activists tout Australia, which supposedly banned all guns. Australia has advanced a number of gun control measures over the years. Nevertheless, according to the data, Australia has a rate of private ownership of guns of 13,100 per 100,000 and a murder rate of .98.

Australia has almost twice as many guns per capita as the United Kingdom, for example, and a comparable murder rate. New Zealand has almost twice as many guns per capita as Australia but a lower crime rate.

Countries with both a low rate of private gun ownership and a low murder rate exist, but they are clearly data outliers. These include the Netherlands (3,900 guns per 100,000, for a murder rate of .61) the United Kingdom (6,200 guns per 100,000, for a murder rate of .92), Japan, and Portugal. Places like Norway, Austria, Switzerland, and Germany overwhelm those examples because they all have high rates of gun ownership and enviable crime rates."

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 18 - 12:59 PM

Nevertheless, it’s worth considering why so many countries that have relatively successful programs of limiting private lawful ownership of guns are so dangerous and why countries with such high rates of private gun ownership are relatively safe. Even in a place like the United Kingdom, where the gun control seems to be effective (with a low murder rate of .92 per 100,000), it’s arguable that the UK’s peer countries such as Germany and Austria have had more success controlling crime in spite of allowing greater freedom of gun ownership.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 18 - 02:10 PM

murders per 100,000       guns per 100,000)
    Guatemala    ( 31.21                   / 13,100)
    South Africa ( 34.27                   / 12,700)
    Venezuela    ( 57.15                   / 10,700)
    Belize       ( 34.4                     / 10,000)
    Jamaica      ( 43.21                   / 8,100)
    UK          ( 0.92                     / 6,200)
    Honduras    ( 63.75                   / 6,200)
    El Savador   (108.64                   / 5,800)
    Bahamas      ( 29.81                   / 5,300)
    Lesotho      ( 38                      / 2,700)
    Trinidad    ( 30.88                   / 1,600)


By YOUR logic, ALL of these countries SHOULD have low murder rates than the US.

The countries that have been most successful at limiting private, legal gun ownership are 1. Ethiopia, 2. Eritrea, 3. Haiti, 4. North Korea, and 5. Rwanda. Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Haiti all have higher murder rates than that of the United States. North Korea and Rwanda have slightly lower murder rates (4.4 and 4.5 per 100,000 respectively versus the United States at 4.88).

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Apr 18 - 02:17 PM

Actually the logical conclusion from those statistics you quote is that the problem isn’t so much guns as it is Americans. Or rather USA Americans, since Canadians have quite a lot of guns, and less gun killings.

Which of course is a much bigger problem. But if it is the fact that there is something in American culture that makes Americans especially prone to using guns to kill themselves and other people, compared to others in comparable countries, the case for reducing their access to such weapons is amplified rather than reduced. There,s something the the saying "it,s not just guns that kill" - but perhaps that should continue "it's American people with guns".

However there isn't going to be a ban on guns in the USA, and everyone knows it. It's a convenient Aunt Sally used by those who would hold off reasonable restrictions, especially those running the NRA and their lobby, who claim to see such restrictions as the thin end of the wedge for a total ban, and may even be sincere in that belief.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 18 - 02:39 PM

" the case for reducing their access to such weapons is amplified rather than reduced."

I do not see that: IMO, the social climate, NOT the guns, is at fault.
As the figures above indicate, when the number of legal guns is reduced most effectively, the result is usually a high murder rate. When there are MORE legal guns, in general the murder rate is reduced.

The PROBLEM is ILLEGAL guns- which none of the proposed laws CAN deal with, not that they attempt to.



Obviously, anyone who disagrees with the "correct" side is either insincere or of evil intent, while those who support the "correct" side are well intentioned and sincere.

Just have to know what side you are on...

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Apr 18 - 10:57 AM

You call yourself a patriot? You have been emotionally suckered by Anti American forces. Mainly Russia , who uses the NRA, with their cooperation, to use destabilizing destructive tactics to harm America and Americans.

I realize this is like discovering your father was a serial rapist killer. As you move through the 5 stages beginning with denial, you will eventually learn the truth. https://www.npr.org/2018/03/01/590076949/depth-of-russian-politicians-cultivation-of-nra-ties-revealed

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Apr 18 - 12:38 PM

As I said in my first post, and the subsequent exchanges bore out the truth, it's pointless trying to discuss with a Gun-Loony like Fuzz-Face. They simply poo-poo anything and everything that doesn't suit their crackpot, propagandised, paranoid agenda.

Save your energy, Don, and leave the crazy, brainwashed bastards to their fear and paranoia, and their stupid bang-bangs.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Apr 18 - 03:01 PM

Surely the social climate is very much a reflection of a gun culture that doesn’t exist in the same way in other countries, and that is intimately tied up with the availability of guns.

Some kinds of freedoms don't seem to work in some societies sometimes, so you relinquish them.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Apr 18 - 12:47 PM

Kevin, I understand there's a culture-difference between the US and the UK, but what frustrates me - and drives my occasional perhaps OTT outbursts - is the way the US guys simply refuse point blank to accept, or even consider, that there is a clearly and undeniably demonstrable link between the availability of guns, gun-ownership regulation, and relative ratios of shooting deaths and injuries.

How difficult can it be to understand simple facts like:-

1) If you don't have a gun, you can't shoot someone else.

2) In a (comparatively) gun-free society like the UK, guys who come into your home to steal your TV don't come armed with guns, because (a) they know that the homeowner won't confront them with a gun, (b) our police are not routinely armed so they will not confront the burglar with a gun, and (c) the 'Aggravated' laws mean that, if they are caught with an offensive weapon whilst committing a crime, and they are prosecuted, there will be an automatic doubling of the sentence they receive for the original crime.

3) Because there are so few guns in circulation here, we are not conducting our lives in fear of being shot, we don't have the paranoia that someone is waiting around every corner to attack us and, very likely, shoot us. The minimal number of shootings we experience (averaging around 70 per year for the entire country) are mostly suicides or gangs/criminals shooting each other.

Why, when facts which you and I know are perfectly true are presented to them,do they try to introduce stuff about shootings in small Central African or Far Eastern countries which bear no relationship to the First-World countries such as the US, UK, Germany, Australia, etc.?

In 71 years on this planet, I've never seen a gun except in the hands of police armed-response officers, members of the armed forces, farmers, shooting-club members, or 'sport'-shooters. I've never been threatened by anyone with a gun (or any other weapon, for that matter), and I don't know anyone who has.

My wife has a theory that the vast majority of Americans are as mad as hatters. I'm beginning to think she may have a point.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 29 Apr 18 - 01:28 PM

You live in a country that isn’t as big as some of our counties. Guns are the preferred weapons of criminals, however us hunters will disagree with your other assertion. You cannot live in a state like Alaska without a firearm unless you don’t want to leave your house. You are not the top of the food chain there

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 29 Apr 18 - 01:30 PM

Now as far as ar weapons I already said I agree. No good not needed

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Apr 18 - 02:53 PM

Oh, I fully understand those things, oldude - I'm pretty well-travelled, I've spent time in bear-country, I understand what can face the people who live in wild places. I have no problem whatsoever with those who live 'out there' having the means to protect themselves from what the wild can throw at them.

But my point was that 'guns are the preferred weapons of criminals' precisely because you have a virtually unlimited supply of guns, with ineffectual, or un-enforced, regulation. Read my post again - we have strong, effective regulations which are enforced, strong restrictions on who can possess a gun and the kind of gun they can have, and very few people feel any need or desire for a gun. The result is very few guns in circulation amongst even the criminals, and the criminals tend to use them on each other, not on their victims.

You 'need' guns because you have them, they're a part of your culture, a hang-over from the Wild West which still pervades your psyche.

What you truly need over there is some outside-the-box thinking, education that civilised societies do not need to be dominated by the gun, a policy of change to bring about a reversal to the national paranoia that there's a 'bad guy' around every corner waiting to kill you.

But with the NRA and the armaments industry holding such enormous power in the US, and with weak government seemingly in eternal control, much as it saddens me to say it, I don't believe you have a cat in hell's chance of civilising yourselves to the level that has been achieved in the UK, Australia, and many otherFirst World countries.

You're right, the UK is tiny, geographically, in comparison with the US, but we have one-sixth of your population, and we live in a densely-populated Island, but we have governments who are not afraid to take action over gun-crime, and who are prepared to regulate to keep guns off our streets and out of the hands of people who don't need them, or would mis-use them.

We're not living in a perfect land, it's not Utopia, but gun-crime here is a tiny fraction of gun-crime in the US, But the majority of people here neither have, need, or want firearms, and they live safe, happy, unafraid lives without the fear and paranoia that has seemingly become 'The American Disease'.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Apr 18 - 03:05 PM

BTW, I understand the reliance of the gun-loonies on the completely outdated, outmoded and, by the standards of modern warfare, completely meaningless 2nd Amendment - at face-value, it justifies their gun-obsession - but I have to wonder....The 2nd requires the population to maintain its own 'well-regulated militia'. Could a few of the gun owners here who rely on the 2nd as justification tell us the name of the 'well-regulated militia' organisation they belong to, the address of its headquarters, how often they attend for drills, gear-inspection, range-practice etc., and give us a link to the organisation's website?

Thought not.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 29 Apr 18 - 03:35 PM

I have no problem if they outlaw every damn assault weapon made. And you are correct their are way to many crazies with gun access in this country and little to keep them out of their hands

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 29 Apr 18 - 03:43 PM

I understand your point and it’s well taken

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 29 Apr 18 - 03:48 PM

Speaking of Alaska, I brought back 50 lbs of salmon filets. Wish you guys lived closer. My neighbors were lined up waiting lol

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Apr 18 - 04:12 PM

Thanks Dan. For the record, I know your views well, and I have respect for them and you. As for the salmon - if only! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Apr 18 - 07:30 PM

Backwoodsman, FDR himself could not have stated the issues surrounding the mass shooting epidemic more clearly and factually as you have. In fact some of it sounds like something he might say if he were immortal.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Apr 18 - 07:25 AM

Thank you Don, I appreciate your words.

I would add (and this will be my final contribution, as I see no point in trying to give CPR to a deceased equine) that I believe US governments, aided and abetted by the NRA and gun-manufacturers, rule by fear. They want you really, seriously, pants-shittingly scared. They love that there are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation, and that regulations are so feeble and so poorly enforced, because that helps keep the image of 'the bad guys' and 'the mad-dog killers', waiting around every corner to kill you and your families, at the forefront of citizens' minds. They actually like it that considerably more Americans have been killed by their fellow Americans since WW2 than were killed by enemy action during that conflict, because it keeps Americans scared. And scared people are easy to control.

Add to that the fact that you now have a president telling you that Mexicans are pouring over your border to rape your wives and daughters, and that Muslim immigrants are all potential terrorists who are trying to blow you up, and that school-teachers should serve the function of armed guards in schools, and the result is a paranoid, terrified population - a perfect customer-base for, guess who, the gun manufacturers. Well duh!

Don't believe me? Read Ol' Fuzz-Face's fear-filled, paranoid posts on this thread. He's scared shitless.

Until there's a sea change in culture, until the Establishment changes tack, recognises that fear is not a good tool, and starts to educate your people that violence begats only more violence, and until the power of the gun-lobby is faced up to and defeated, you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of reducing the ludicrous number of guns in circulation, nor the appalling number of shooting-deaths and injuries.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Apr 18 - 08:12 AM

"it's pointless trying to discuss with a Gun-Loony like Fuzz-Face. They simply poo-poo anything and everything that doesn't suit their crackpot, propagandised, paranoid agenda."

1. Gun- loony, just as YOU are Anti-Gun Loony. I have an opinion, that I have backed up with what I thing are pertinent support. You may disagree- but IMO YOU are the one who "simply poo-poo anything and everything that doesn't suit their crackpot, propagandised, paranoid agenda.

Far more Americans have been killed by cars than in ALL the wars we have fought- yet we ignore our rail system and encourage long-distance driving. As I have repeatedly asked, with only ONE honest reply from those who disagree with me:

Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Apr 18 - 08:18 AM

Button it, shitty-pants, your terror's showing.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Apr 18 - 09:33 AM

Well, BackDoorsman, I will defer to you on matters of shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 30 Apr 18 - 11:09 AM

No fighting. Bruce my friend, you cannot protect others with a firearm unless you are extraordinarily trained. You are more likely if not to injure your self or another if not. If you are willing to be vetted and do it the right way then have at it. Most don’t and become part of the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Apr 18 - 11:18 AM

Olddude,

I had several years of rifle shooting .22, .30 , revolver and semi-automatic pistol ( .22, .38, .45) multiple range and safty classes, M14, M16 on USAF ranges.

I do NOT think that my opinions are deserving of the abuse that some here pile on me. IF they attack me, I will respond-

SO CURB YOUR DOG!

DON'T complain about the fighting when you watch someone throwing punches without comment, then tell me not to fight.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Apr 18 - 11:46 AM

Did you watch the video of the Toronto cop who didn't shoot the guy who mowed down the crowd of people with the van, even when he made like he had a firearm? The officer just controlled the guy until he could arrest him. Any guesses as to what would have happened in the terrified, paranoid US? I'll tell you, he'd have been surrounded by police officers shitting themselves in fear, and shot multiple times with no questions asked.

My B-i-L was the third officer to arrive on the scene, never drew his weapon.

Y'see, they have lotsa guns in Canada, but they don't have your culture of fear and paranoia.

Franklin D. was right - the only thing you have to fear is fear itself. Divest yourself of your fear, and you won't need your stupid bang-bangs, or the testosterone-fuelled rhetoric of the gun-loonies (although it does give those of us in civilised countries a damn good laugh).

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Apr 18 - 11:49 AM

AGAIN:

Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Apr 18 - 01:06 PM

Let me try to be clearer:

Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the LEGAL ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point.


The laws proposed do NOTHING to reduce the ILLEGAL ownership of weapons.

IMO, and for the reasons I have posted above, the laws being proposed will actually increase the number of illegal killings.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Sean Fear
Date: 30 Apr 18 - 03:25 PM

Well this has been a lively discussion. I simply leave here the link from my original post that began this.

https://youtu.be/dxstFRT2djE

Please look at it, if you have no,t and please pass it on if you find it has merit.
I hope we can find a way to put the guns behind us.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Apr 18 - 03:26 PM

Discussing a slight 'reduction' of gun deaths or putting people's lives into a percentage is becoming too callous and insane an argument to have

especially if

it is your family, your friend, your parents, your relatives or even a stranger by your side who was in the wrong place.

The blood lust involved in perpetuating a defense of ARs, that leaves 2 cubic feet of explosive wounds as opposed to a tiny hand gun bullet hole, is a form of pathology in my opinion. Do you want too see what remains of human flesh and organs?

Sure guns can be fun but in light of what ARs do to your loved ones flesh and bone will never be fun enough to outweigh the horror.

As long as people do not make mistakes you can ask good guys with a gun to cover your ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Apr 18 - 03:42 PM

Donual,

You have missed the entire point of what I have put out here.


1. IMO, the laws being proposed, while sounding wonderful, do NOTHING to reduce the illegal killings, and from what I have posted, the actual number of illegal killings will INCREASE if such laws are put in place.

2. The wounds are NOT explosive- the impact of a .223 rifle round leaves a baseball size wound- a .30 carbine leaves a larger one, and a .45 pistol will blow out an exit crater the size of a basketball. So "hand guns" are no cure for the problem- The cure is to have ENFORCEABLE and EFFECTIVE laws to control ILLEGAL access to ANY weapons. The laws proposed by the students DO NOT DO THAT.


3. "As long as people do not make mistakes you can ask good guys with a gun to cover your ass."

And they DID make mistakes, and how many kids died in that school shooting?


Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." There are many similar cases with results to the same effect.




I will end this with the following: When you are in a situation where the mere fact of YOU being armed might have saved someone, I hope you remember supporting being disarmed, and disarming those who might have helped you.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Apr 18 - 03:54 PM

If you go and live in bear country, you need to adjust to that, recognising that you are the intruder. I've never heard that bears go hunting for humans, so you need to keep out of their way. It's their country.

If you walk in the middle of a road you are liable to get run down. You could of course use a bazooka to stop any cars coming towards you.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Apr 18 - 04:03 PM

No, you could not LEGALLY.

There are laws in place that prevent most private ownership of bazookas.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Apr 18 - 04:28 PM

Donual,

The blood lust involved in perpetuating a defense of gun laws that have been shown to increase the illegal killings is a form of pathology in my opinion.

Your uninformed rants, if influential, would kill more kids and put YOUR family in greater danger of being shot.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Apr 18 - 04:42 PM

Kindly stop speaking of my family getting shot.

You should realize I have a penchant for posting the original or unusual point of view. For those who can not speak as a result of the Los Vegas shooting, church, work, movie or numerous school massacres and survivors, I just wanted to add a voice for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Apr 18 - 06:56 PM

I doubt if they want an increase in the killings, as I believe the proposed laws will do.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Apr 18 - 08:31 PM

That's reassuring about bazookas. Keeping out of the way of speeding cars rather than blasting them with weapons seems a better way of dealing with them anyway. The same goes for bears.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 01 May 18 - 10:56 AM

I agree fully that our gun laws are not inforced as they should be. However that doesn’t mean I approve of kit ghost guns with no checks what so ever or bump stocks or AR weapons. They are weapons of mass destruction and I cannot approve as we have enough gangs guns and crazies. See what I am saying. In NY you get five years in jail for an unregistered hand gun yet areas of our city are swamped with them

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 01 May 18 - 11:00 AM

When I go to the range the only people I ever see with an AR are the twenty somethings. Us hunters and target shooters have zero use for one.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 May 18 - 11:11 AM

"In NY you get five years in jail for an unregistered hand gun yet areas of our city are swamped with them "

Of course- since about 1965, when serious restrictions started in NY, the go-to place to GET illegal weapons has been ... NYC.


So what the F... do more laws that will not be enforced ( except aganst the LEGAL gun owners) do?

Bump stocks WOULD have been illegal, but the OBAMA BATF said they were ok- Now, how do we get them all back under control?

Kit guns are a real problem, just as zip guns were. As long as the CRIMINALS who get guns are ignored in order to restrict the LAW_ABIDING gun owners, there will always be illegal firearms.

I do not like the AR-15 and variants myself- but I think the way the laws are being written too many truly useful weapons are being banned. Im MD, the M1A is forbidden- I know many target shooters who use M1 and M1A and swear by them.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 01 May 18 - 11:15 AM

If you are a murdering rapist bastard who just got out of jail you are not allowed a firearm. However, you can legally buy a kit gun delivered to your door. Why, because as a kit it’s not a gun. Now when you put it together you are breaking the law. In NY the toughest gun laws in the country you can buy a bump stock its legal. It’s illegal to put it on your AR. How does any of that make sense

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 May 18 - 11:19 AM

"Now when you put it together you are breaking the law. "
" It’s illegal to put it on your AR. How does any of that make sense "

YES Finally someone reads my posts!!!!


SO WHAT ARE MORE USELESS LAWS GOING TO DO, other than impact the LAW-ABIDING gun owner?





NOTE TO ANTI-GUN folks:

CRIMINALS do not obey the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 May 18 - 12:27 PM

"This realization led to the question — is it worth it to pass a law, as Florida recently did, banning the sale of bump-stock devices, when people can just make and upload a how-to video of bump firing without the device?

I felt like I had accidentally stumbled onto a secret hiding in plain sight."


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-guns-owners-rights-second-amendment-youtube-videos-firearms-sem

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: olddude
Date: 01 May 18 - 06:44 PM

Answer is yes. Just because some people break them doesn’t mean they will not be enforced which is what I was saying enforce existing laws make other laws that make sense and enforce them also

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Jack Campin
Date: 02 May 18 - 05:40 AM

The gun industry isn't in the least bit worried about their product being banned.

They're scared shitless that people might be too ashamed to buy them any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 May 18 - 06:05 AM

If only that was true, Jack. Sadly, as we see on this thread, Americans aren't ashamed of their stupidity, nor are they prepared to acknowledge the experience of far more civilised countries where strict regulation, strongly enforced, has resulted in rates of shooting-deaths and injuries that are a tiny fraction of those the US experiences.

Never mind, let them carry on with shooting 12,000 of their fellow-citizens every year, murdering their kids in their classrooms, music fans at festivals, unarmed black people who are 'in the wrong area', while the rest of the civilised world laughs at their wilful, testosterone-fuelled lunacy.

If they don't care enough to listen to good advice, why should we worry?

Wasn't it Einstein who said that insanity is 'repeating the same action over and over, and expecting a different result each time'? I think of that every time I hear those crazy bastards telling us that the answer to all those shootings is 'more guns'.

You couldn't make it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 May 18 - 08:28 AM

Wasn't it Einstein who said that insanity is 'repeating the same action over and over, and expecting a different result each time'? I think of that every time I hear those crazy bastards telling us that the answer to all those shootings is 'more laws'.


"murdering their kids in their classrooms, music fans at festivals, unarmed black people who are 'in the wrong area', "

Already laws here against these things.

So more laws will do WHAT to reduce the killings?

Total INSANITY on the part of the anti-gun nuts.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 May 18 - 08:31 AM

There ya go, Jack. No shame. Just stark, raving madness.
And more dead Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 May 18 - 08:35 AM

Backdoorsman,

I KNOW you can read when you bother.


Let me try to be clearer:

Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the LEGAL ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point.


The laws proposed do NOTHING to reduce the ILLEGAL ownership of weapons.

IMO, and for the reasons I have posted above, the laws being proposed will actually increase the number of illegal killings.


If there are more dead Americans, IMO YOU will have more responsibility than I do. I try to prevent it- YOU encourage it.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 02 May 18 - 09:04 AM

More deaths, same arguments about need for gun control, same arguments back from people who put their rights before people's lives, nothing will happen, let me know when you slaughter a few more of your people.

Have a nice day

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 May 18 - 09:09 AM

SPB

Bother to even read MY comments?


"IMO, and for the reasons I have posted above, the laws being proposed will actually increase the number of illegal killings."


Argue THAT point, if you wish, but the anti-gun folks have more blood on their hands.


Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the LEGAL ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 May 18 - 09:12 AM

More deaths, same arguments from anti-gun bigots about need for gun control that will not work, same arguments back from people who put people's lives before political correctness.


Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the LEGAL ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point.

YOU seem to have decided reducing the legal ownership of guns is more important than reducing the illegal killings.

Have a Nice Day, yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 May 18 - 11:46 AM

Olddude,

" make other laws that make sense and enforce them also


Agree completely


BUT you missed the significant point of my post 01 May 18 - 12:27 PM

The video discussed ( made BEFORE bumpstocks were even available ) showed how a STANDARD stocked gun could be made to perform as if it had a bumpstock, just by the method of holding it and firing. So a bumpstock ban would accomplish ... nothing. ( I still think it should be prohibited, but not because it does any good- got to give the anti-gun bigots SOMETHING to quiet them down)

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 May 18 - 11:48 AM

I'm NOT 'anti-gun' - we have guns in the UK, where individuals have demonstrated a genuine need for a gun, been vetted by the police and certified as a suitable person to have a gun, and proved that your weapon and ammunition will be properly stored in an approved manner. Those people are almost all farmers and their workers, game-keepers, and sport-shooters, and the types and numbers of guns they can own are very specific, and restrict them to weapons appropriate to the need that the owners have demonstrated. Self-Defence' or 'To Scare Away The Bad Guys' are not accepted by the authorities as legitimate needs, and stating those as a reason for applying for a gun-licence or certificate would absolutely ensure that the licence or certificate would be refused.

I AM pro-strong, effective, enforceable, and enforced gun-regulation, as described (in a very broad-brush way) above.

Those things are sensible, and they work - the U.K. and Australia, to name but two countries who impose those standards, prove that they work - the evidence is in the rate of shootings per 100k head of population, a tiny fraction of the rate in the US where any and every brain-dead moron can have large numbers of weapons including, in many cases, military-grade weapons that no civilian should be permitted to possess.

We know that the small-dicks, the red-necks, the fearful, and the inadequates who seem to make up a large percentage of the US population aren't going to give up their ballistic comforters - that's a given - so the only possible answer in those circumstances has to be...

a) tighter, and strongly enforced, regulations defining and refining the types of weapons that can be owned, the categories of individuals who may, or may not, own them, and the methods of storage, and...

b) regular, strict supervision of gun-owners and their weaponry.

Otherwise...more dead Yanks.

Now, you still haven't told me - in order to comply with the requirements of The Sacred Second, you are required to be a part of a 'well-regulated militia'. So....

What is the title of the organisation you're a part of?
Where is its headquarters?
What is its website address (so we can all check it out and read its constitution)?
How frequently do members attend for training, drills, weapons and kit inspections, etc?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 May 18 - 12:04 PM

"I AM pro-strong, effective, enforceable, and enforced gun-regulation, "

As am I, as I have stated repeatedly here.


"in order to comply with the requirements of The Sacred Second, you are required to be a part of a 'well-regulated militia'."

Nope. Not a valid statement, by law: In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court did not accept this view, remarking that the English right at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights was "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the Crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms.




1st: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

2nd: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

4th: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Nope. The right of the people refers to ALL citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 May 18 - 12:12 PM

"The question of a collective right versus an individual right was progressively resolved in favor of the individual rights model, beginning with the Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Emerson (2001), along with the Supreme Court's rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago (2010). In Heller, the Supreme Court resolved any remaining circuit splits by ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.[167] Although the Second Amendment is the only Constitutional amendment with a prefatory clause, such linguistic constructions were widely used elsewhere in the late eighteenth century.["

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 May 18 - 02:31 PM

Yeah, I already knew that stuff about 'well-regulated militia', I'm a bit of a joker in real life, and I just dropped it in to poke a bit of fun into the thread.

As you made no comment about the rest of my previous post, I'm guessing you're in agreement with me and you've accepted that actual facts based on the real-world experiences of other countries more civilised than the US, carry more weight than ill-conceived, counter-logical theories, and that in a country like the US, with an unacceptable level of shootings, trying to reduce the number of shooting incidents by increasing the number of guns in circulation is like trying to fight a gasoline fire by pouring more gasoline on it. It's a crackpot concept, put about by greedy charlatans who care more about gun-manufacturers' profits than they do about the lives of their fellow Americans.

Now, my work here is done. I genuinely wish you luck with 'The American Disease', but I fear that, while the gun-loonies hold so much power, it ain't going away any time soon.

Vale.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 May 18 - 02:39 PM

"As you made no comment about the rest of my previous post, I'm guessing you're in agreement with me and you've accepted that actual facts based on the real-world experiences of other countries more civilised than the US, carry more weight than ill-conceived, counter-logical theories, and that in a country like the US, with an unacceptable level of shootings, trying to reduce the number of shooting incidents by increasing the number of guns in circulation is like trying to fight a gasoline fire by pouring more gasoline on it. It's a crackpot concept, put about by greedy charlatans who care more about gun-manufacturers' profits than they do about the lives of their fellow Americans."


As YOU made NO comment about my many posts showing that in the real world, the countries with more private ownership of firearms in general have LOWER rates of illegal killings, I will presume your comment above was meant in jest.


I genuinely wish you luck with 'The Anti-gun delusion', but I fear that, while the anti-gun-loonies hold so much power, it ain't going away any time soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: keberoxu
Date: 03 May 18 - 07:38 PM

What Einstein said, if memory serves,
is that one cannot
prepare for war and for peace at the same time.

The doing things over and over? Dunno, but I think it wasn't Einstein.

I find Mudcatter Sean Fear's posts thought-provoking,
and appreciate his modulated emotional tone.
Especially in his post that discloses that
his residence state of Virginia participates in
the illegal trade, destination New York,
concerning guns and drugs alike.

I have yet to listen to the YouTube video in the OP,
my public computer is too restricted for listening,
but I went so far as to pull up the video and look at it
silently for a minute or so, to see if there was
anything that was offensive to look at or not.

Where forum thread posts are concerned, quality wins over quantity. Nuff said.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: meself
Date: 04 May 18 - 02:43 PM

Trump is speechifying in his inimitable way to the NRA convention right now. He's just said that the rights in the Constitution were given by "God". Would someone please tell him about the War of Independence and the Founding Fathers?

Jeesh - he's just told them it's an "all-time record crowd"... !

Laugh or cry??

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 May 18 - 03:30 PM

Laugh- at you.

"The founders considered rights to be "God-given" or "natural." I believe that we err when we speak of "Constitutional Rights." We should be referring to them as "Constitutionally protected rights." The Constitution does not confer these rights, it only protects them. Some, those mentioned in the Bill of Rights, are expressly protected. Others are protected by the fact that the government is not expressly empowered to violate them."

Subject: RE: BS: Guns in America
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 May 18 - 03:54 PM

https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://search.yahoo.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3506&context=wlu