A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY

Dave <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 13:27:25 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>Difference is that legalization will lower the price, thus
>>making these outcomes less likely, and less drastic.
>
> Drug addiction has a direct effect on the brain an behaviour. Do
> you actually believe that an initially lower cost will change
> that. All it will do is to create more drug addicts and more
> problems for society. And, you're fooling yourself if you think
> a lower cost will lessen anything. Just like cigarettes, a black
> market will grow feed the increased need for drugs.
>
>>>Drug addiction destroys homes, lives and people.
>>No argument there at all.
>
> So why on earth would you advocate free market drugs. Do you
> think for even one minute that destroyed homes, lives and people
> won't have a cost effect on the population?

It's having that cost *now* -- exacerbated by the illegality.
>
>>Are you able to have a rational discussion without personally
>>insulting those who disagree with you?
>
> Not when I see such absolutely ridiculous statements to the
> effect of legalizing drugs.

Then you need to grow up.
>
> Are you actually going to sit there and tell me that crystal
> meth users are going to act rationally if crystal meth becomes
> legal.

Where on earth did you get that notion?
>
>
>>Drug prohibition, like alcohol prohibition, does not and cannot
>>work: in a free market, if there is a demand for a product or
>>service, someone will provide a supply. The ONLY way to stop the
>>drug problem is to address the demand side, by regarding it as a
>>public health problem instead of a criminal justice problem.
>
> Maybe not, but legalizing drugs as a means to control it is
> absolutely absurd. Find another method to control the drug
> market.

Legalize them, tax them, use the tax revenues to fund treatment
programs.
>
> Again, I say that drug addiction has a direct effect on brains
> and behaviour. The horrendous increase in drug addicts due to
> easy access would only result in social catastrophe.

And the status quo has *not* had that result? What color is the
sky on your planet?

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 13:27:25 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>Difference is that legalization will lower the price, thus making these outcomes less likely,
>and less drastic.

Drug addiction has a direct effect on the brain an behaviour. Do you
actually believe that an initially lower cost will change that. All it
will do is to create more drug addicts and more problems for society.
And, you're fooling yourself if you think a lower cost will lessen
anything. Just like cigarettes, a black market will grow feed the
increased need for drugs.

>>Drug addiction destroys homes, lives and people.
>No argument there at all.

So why on earth would you advocate free market drugs. Do you think for
even one minute that destroyed homes, lives and people won't have a
cost effect on the population?

>Are you able to have a rational discussion without personally insulting those who disagree
>with you?

Not when I see such absolutely ridiculous statements to the effect of
legalizing drugs.

Are you actually going to sit there and tell me that crystal meth
users are going to act rationally if crystal meth becomes legal.


>Drug prohibition, like alcohol prohibition, does not and cannot work: in a free market, if there
>is a demand for a product or service, someone will provide a supply. The ONLY way to
>stop the drug problem is to address the demand side, by regarding it as a public health
>problem instead of a criminal justice problem.

Maybe not, but legalizing drugs as a means to control it is absolutely
absurd. Find another method to control the drug market.

Again, I say that drug addiction has a direct effect on brains and
behaviour. The horrendous increase in drug addicts due to easy access
would only result in social catastrophe.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 10:30:08 -0500, "John Grossbohlin"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> Wearing full body armor, riding in an armored vehicle, and surrounding
>> yourself with highly trained armed guards is no guarantee that you will
>> not be shot.
>
>That is for sure... Ronald Reagan was probably the most protected man in
>America when he was shot...
>
>Not much can stop a goal oriented attacker... and with the option of weapons
>substitution, a worldwide total elimination of guns wouldn't stop them
>either.

That's absolutely true. And throwing good money after bad in trying
to protect from the unprotectable is downright assinine.



>This reality leaves people feeling somewhat helpless so doing something,
>regardless of how ill conceived that something may be, is deemed to be
>better than doing nothing. A thoughtful society with thoughtful leaders
>would see the folly of this...

I liked this column: http://tinyurl.com/bu9fadb
Louis Woodhill
The Sandy Hook Horror Begs Us To Have The Courage To Do Nothing

I just realized that I hadn't finished reading this one, but it, too
started out good. http://tinyurl.com/cgqbghy
Dan McLaughlin
Gun Control, Gun Rights, Gun Politics and Newtown: Part I of II
(I haven't found part II yet.)

>But there is also a public opinion reality
>about which a sociologist associate of mine is fond of quoting his
>grandmother, "The masses is asses."

Har! Good one.


>One would hope that our elected officials are not asses... but that too is
>often folly so "something" will be done. Here is an example of what will be
>coming up for debate:
>
>http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

I certainly hope her karma catches up to her while we can still watch
it.

--
Inside every older person is a younger person wondering WTF happened.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 00:21:42 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:14:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Han <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Gang killings very often involve innocent bystanders. These aren't sniper-
>> >> like, but wild shooyouts from passing cars, rooftops, or just plain on
>> >> crowded streets.
>> >
>> >Too true. The solution to that problem, though, isn't to ban firearms (since the criminals will
>> >have them anyway) -- it's to dry up the funding source for the street gangs, by legalizing drugs.
>> >Seriously.
>> Legalizing drugs may make a small dent in their funding. Legalize
>> prostitution and you will dry up another SIGNIFICANT source of gang
>> revenue - if by legalizing it you can guarantee that NOBODY will be
>> fighting over the profits/control of the trade.
>> Legalizing tobacco has not eliminated the trade in illicit (untaxed)
>> tobacco,
>
>Only because the taxes on tobacco have been raised to a ludicrous level
>in a stupid and misguided effort at a back-door ban.
>
>> and the criminal element involvement in it's production,
>> impoortation, and distribution.
>
>So how significant is this involvement by a "criminal element"? Please
>state your source.
>
>> Same can be said for booze. Still lots of bootlegging going on, and
>> smuggling/sale of untaxed liquor. Remove the profits from drugs and
>> the criminal element / gangs will just find something more attractive
>> to make their money on - and continue killing over it.
>
>"Lots"? I'd like to see your source on that.
>
Millions of dollars of "untaxed liquor" is produced in the
Kentukee/Tennesee /Virginia/North Carolina backwoods every year. And
the numbers are going up, not down, dispite law enforcement efforts.

Real big business in places like Rocky Mount. ANd that does not even
start to touch the extent of it. Thousands of gallons of liquor are
smuggled into the USA (and Canada) every year, but compared to the
untaxed cigarette business, it is small potatoes.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 10:30:08 -0500, "John Grossbohlin"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> Wearing full body armor, riding in an armored vehicle, and surrounding
>> yourself with highly trained armed guards is no guarantee that you will
>> not be shot.
>
>That is for sure... Ronald Reagan was probably the most protected man in
>America when he was shot...
>
>Not much can stop a goal oriented attacker... and with the option of weapons
>substitution, a worldwide total elimination of guns wouldn't stop them
>either.
>
>This reality leaves people feeling somewhat helpless so doing something,
>regardless of how ill conceived that something may be, is deemed to be
>better than doing nothing. A thoughtful society with thoughtful leaders
>would see the folly of this... But there is also a public opinion reality
>about which a sociologist associate of mine is fond of quoting his
>grandmother, "The masses is asses."

If that is true - that the "masses is asses" what does that say about
the large segment of American society that believes guns reduce
crime?????

A sabre cuts both ways.
>
>One would hope that our elected officials are not asses... but that too is
>often folly so "something" will be done. Here is an example of what will be
>coming up for debate:
>
>http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
>
>Of particular interest is this section:
> a.. Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National
>Firearms Act, to include:
> a.. Background check of owner and any transferee;
> b.. Type and serial number of the firearm;
> c.. Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
> d.. Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that
>possession would not violate State or local law; and
> e.. Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.
>What this means is that currently owned semi-automatic firearms classified
>as "assault weapons" under this law would need to be registered (read
>licensed and potentially taxed) under the same procedures as fully-automatic
>firearms. The NFA currently calls for a $200 transfer tax for full auto
>weapons... plus approval of local law enforcement. I have associates in
>non-NY states who own Class III weapons and the biggest stumbling block they
>report is the local law enforcement. They don't have to justify a denial...
>John
>

[email protected] wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 00:21:42 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>[email protected] says...
>>>
>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:14:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Han <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> >news:[email protected]:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Gang killings very often involve innocent bystanders.
>>> >> These aren't sniper- like, but wild shooyouts from passing
>>> >> cars, rooftops, or just plain on crowded streets.
>>> >
>>> >Too true. The solution to that problem, though, isn't to ban
>>> >firearms (since the criminals will have them anyway) -- it's
>>> >to dry up the funding source for the street gangs, by
>>> >legalizing drugs. Seriously.
>>> Legalizing drugs may make a small dent in their funding.
>>> Legalize
>>> prostitution and you will dry up another SIGNIFICANT source of
>>> gang revenue - if by legalizing it you can guarantee that
>>> NOBODY will be fighting over the profits/control of the trade.
>>> Legalizing tobacco has not eliminated the trade in illicit
>>> (untaxed) tobacco,
>>
>>Only because the taxes on tobacco have been raised to a
>>ludicrous level in a stupid and misguided effort at a back-door
>>ban.
>>
>>> and the criminal element involvement in it's production,
>>> impoortation, and distribution.
>>
>>So how significant is this involvement by a "criminal element"?
>>Please state your source.
>>
>>> Same can be said for booze. Still lots of bootlegging going
>>> on, and smuggling/sale of untaxed liquor. Remove the profits
>>> from drugs and the criminal element / gangs will just find
>>> something more attractive to make their money on - and
>>> continue killing over it.
>>
>>"Lots"? I'd like to see your source on that.
>>
> Millions of dollars of "untaxed liquor" is produced in the
> Kentukee/Tennesee /Virginia/North Carolina backwoods every year.
> And the numbers are going up, not down, dispite law enforcement
> efforts.

I said I'd like to see your source for that. Not more unsupported
assertions.

So -- got a source for that one too?
>
> Real big business in places like Rocky Mount. ANd that does not
> even start to touch the extent of it. Thousands of gallons of
> liquor are smuggled into the USA (and Canada) every year, but
> compared to the untaxed cigarette business, it is small
> potatoes.

Again -- what is your source for all this?

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:12:35 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 12/27/2012 06:00 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>> (Where did that come from, anyway?)
>
>I don't recall. I keep trying to find that cite, but it eludes me.
>I stipulate that I was low. I'll even stipulate to the CDC numbers -
>though I think it is bogus to include justifiable homicide,
>accidents, and suicide in an discussion surrounding gun control.
>
>But in any case, the larger issue remains. There are other human
>activities that are as- or more dangerous than guns but they do
>not begin to inflame the nanny libs anywhere near as much. It's
>irritating because I fail to see why those of us uninvolved in crime
>should pay the price for criminals because ObamaCo cannot think
>crisply...
I will agree there are things that kill more people in the USA than
guns do - but all of them have another reason for existing. Guns are
made for one reason - and one reason only. To kill. OK, you say they
are used for target practice at gun ranges. Yes they are - but the
PRIMARY reason to use a gun at a range is to improve your aim - to
make the gun more effective..

I'll concede there are people who use guns for sport - competition
shooting - that NEVER see a live target. That does not change the fact
that the gun is DESIGNED for only one use - unlike food, cigarettes,
automobiles, snowmobiles, motorcycles, etc that also end up killing
too many americans.

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 19:58:34 -0800, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Cops should have a lot of close quarters tactical training that
>they're evidently not getting. "It costs too much money." their chiefs
>say. Civilian deaths are a direct result of that decision, and I
>think that's criminal in itself. Call your police chief and ask if he
>thinks your guys in blue are getting enough training, and if not, why
>not.
Check your facts. It is NOT the cheifs who say it costs too much.
It's the tax payers. You want your cops properly trained, stop
bitching about increased taxes. Municipal taxes pay for your local
LEO. State taxes pay for your state police.Federal taxes pay for your
federal law enforcement, and provide transfer payments to your states
and municipalities. Demanding zero tax increases gets you exactly what
you are willing to pay for. Same goes for "controlling" mental illness
and the mentally ill and dangerous.
You need health care that is affordable to take care of these people,
and facilities to safely house those that cannot be controlled, and
the will to do it. ALL cost taxpayer money.
If you are going to incarserate criminals instead of turning them back
onto the street it is going to cost a whole lot more.

Cheaper over-all to eliminate the poverty at the root of much of
American crime. But your two levels of government keep thowing shit
at each other driving the country closer and closer to the cliff -
because they think they are doing what their electoratr demands.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 13:40:31 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 02:29:46 -0500, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 16:42:10 -0800, Larry Jaques
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Guns, illegal aliens, and terrorists are streaming in from CA to the
>>>USA daily. Bet on it. Lots of black market items come up the St.
>>>Lawrence and into both our countries through the Great Lakes.
>>
>>You're full of crap. Some maybe, but certainly not in the numbers your
>>feeble mind apparently likes to imagine.

Numbers? I mentioned no numbers, Uppy. Now who's fantasizing?
No need to answer. I only saw your post because clare quoted you.
You're filtered from me (for obvious reasons) on this end.


>>If you're going to come up with this bullshit, at least post some
>>verifiable stats to back it up.

http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/prrts/trrrsm/index-eng.asp quickie


> Correct. WAY more illegal shit coming north across the border from
>the USA than going south from Canada.

I never said there wasn't. What I said was the border leaked from
your country to ours.



>Pot going south from BC? You bet. But more guns, liquor, and hard
>drugs coming north.. More illegal immigrants coming into Canada
>through the USA than the other direction as well.
>
>Why would anyone come through Canada to get to the states, when they
>can get welfare and health care in Canada that puts the USA to
>shame?????

And you can have 'em! <g>

--
Inside every older person is a younger person wondering WTF happened.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 10:30:08 -0500, "John Grossbohlin"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>
>>> Wearing full body armor, riding in an armored vehicle, and surrounding
>>> yourself with highly trained armed guards is no guarantee that you will
>>> not be shot.
>>
>>That is for sure... Ronald Reagan was probably the most protected man in
>>America when he was shot...
>>
>>Not much can stop a goal oriented attacker... and with the option of
>>weapons
>>substitution, a worldwide total elimination of guns wouldn't stop them
>>either.
>>
>>This reality leaves people feeling somewhat helpless so doing something,
>>regardless of how ill conceived that something may be, is deemed to be
>>better than doing nothing. A thoughtful society with thoughtful leaders
>>would see the folly of this... But there is also a public opinion reality
>>about which a sociologist associate of mine is fond of quoting his
>>grandmother, "The masses is asses."
>
> If that is true - that the "masses is asses" what does that say about
> the large segment of American society that believes guns reduce
> crime?????

Their belief is supported by the ever growing body of academic research...
as well as failed social experiments. See Joyce Malcom's article in the WSJ
for a summary of the failed social experiments. More on this appears in her
book
"Guns and Violence: The English Experience," (Harvard, 2002).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html

If the site asks you to sign in use Yahoo and search on "Joyce Malcom WSJ."
You can usually get to the articles via a search engine.

John

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 10:30:08 -0500, "John Grossbohlin"

> If that is true - that the "masses is asses" what does that say about
> the large segment of American society that believes guns reduce
> crime?????

Here is another shooting a couple days after Newton... one that barely made
the news because the attacker was gunned down by security. It seems that
lives saved aren't as newsworthy...

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Breakup-sparked-theater-shootout-4123414.php

There is positive utility for guns in our society, especially because the
good people outnumber the bad.

John

[email protected] wrote:
>
> If that is true - that the "masses is asses" what does that say about
> the large segment of American society that believes guns reduce
> crime?????

Several surveys have shown there are between 1.8 million and 8 million
defensive uses of a firearm each year. So there's a passel of empirical
evidence. Twice over the past 15 years I've had occasion to display my
firearm, both in a Home Depot parking lot. Both involved a scruffy
individual carrying a potential weapon (one a 4' long piece of rebar and the
other a 2x2). When they continued to advance after me saying "Stop, come no
closer!", I pulled my piece. They both backed off, one even offering "Hey,
man, I just wanted to borrow a cigarette (and I intend to light it with this
here pipe)."

I count those experiences and a crime probably thwarted.

>
> A sabre cuts both ways.

Sorry, a sabre only cuts one way. Usually. You're probably thinking of a
sword.

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 22:41:53 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:58:08 -0800, Larry Jaques
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>We haven't and we won't. Every single home in Switzerland has a rifle
>>and handgun and every citizen is trained in their use. What's their
>>gun crime rate? GUNS don't cause crime, they prevent it.
>
>No it is not the GUNS that prevent crime. It is the education and
>training that reduce crime. Those guns are properly stored too.

If you pull out a gun in front of a criminal, they'll flee. This
doesn't take education or training, though most concealed weapons
permit owners have both.


>Yes, the fact that everybody knows every home is armed may act as a
>deterrent to crimes against property - but those guns are NOT carried
>and the general citizenry walking on the streets or driving in their
>cars is NOT armed.

Right, but thosee approached by criminals on the street who show a
weapon are usually not victims. The criminals, generally, wisely
choose not to screw with them. This is called "an unfired gun
preventing a crime" in our country. Do you disagree?

--
You can either hold yourself up to the unrealistic standards of others,
or ignore them and concentrate on being happy with yourself as you are.
-- Jeph Jacques

[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:

> On 27 Dec 2012 19:29:43 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> If your name didn't appear in the paper, you'd better get a weapon,
>>> fast. You've just been made a target.
>>
>>Unless the criminals want to get the guns ...
>
> Good grief, Han. If they want weapons, they'll go downtown and buy
> one on the corner. They WON'T break into a house where people are
> armed to steal one. You're amazing.
>>
>>> I think it was right on "target" to publish the names, addresses,
>>> and photographs of the newspaper employees. Sauce for the gander.
>>
>>I disagree. The circulation desk secretary had no say in the original
>>misdeed. Now she/he is a target. This newspaper is going to go
>>bankrupt within a week.
>
> To bad. The legally registered gun owners did nothing wrong either.
> How is the secretary a target?

This was my misinterpretation of what the blogger was said to have done.
It was "only" higher ups at the paper. Although, why the Rangers sports
guy was mentioned, I don't know.

He (and the others mentioned) are now a target for people angry at the
paper for publishing that map plus personal details of gun permit
holders. They may have to seek other employment if/when the paper folds
...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> That's one of the reasons I want to see the gang killing stats
> separated from the rest. It's the larger majority of homicides. Once
> we can see those clearly, maybe you anti-gun folks will go after the
> idiots in gangs instead of us non criminal gun owners who don't commit
> crimes. Cops and DAs won't like that, though. We're much easier to
> catch and try than the real criminals because we've done nothing
> wrong. That won't always be the case, though. If the gun banners
> come for all our weapons, don't be surprised if the majority of gun
> owning Americans flatly refuse to give them up.

Gang killings very often involve innocent bystanders. These aren't sniper-
like, but wild shooyouts from passing cars, rooftops, or just plain on
crowded streets.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

>
> Gang killings very often involve innocent bystanders. These aren't sniper-
> like, but wild shooyouts from passing cars, rooftops, or just plain on
> crowded streets.

Too true. The solution to that problem, though, isn't to ban firearms (since the criminals will
have them anyway) -- it's to dry up the funding source for the street gangs, by legalizing drugs.
Seriously.

Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Han <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> Gang killings very often involve innocent bystanders. These aren't
>> sniper- like, but wild shooyouts from passing cars, rooftops, or just
>> plain on crowded streets.
>
> Too true. The solution to that problem, though, isn't to ban firearms
> (since the criminals will have them anyway) -- it's to dry up the
> funding source for the street gangs, by legalizing drugs. Seriously.

Fully agree with your last statement.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 27 Dec 2012 19:29:43 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> If your name didn't appear in the paper, you'd better get a weapon,
>> fast. You've just been made a target.
>
>Unless the criminals want to get the guns ...

Good grief, Han. If they want weapons, they'll go downtown and buy
one on the corner. They WON'T break into a house where people are
armed to steal one. You're amazing.
>
>> I think it was right on "target" to publish the names, addresses, and
>> photographs of the newspaper employees. Sauce for the gander.
>
>I disagree. The circulation desk secretary had no say in the original
>misdeed. Now she/he is a target. This newspaper is going to go bankrupt
>within a week.

To bad. The legally registered gun owners did nothing wrong either.
How is the secretary a target?

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 21:56:22 -0800, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Even if your dreams came true and every single legally owned and
>registered EVIL GUN was taken out of our hands and melted down,
>tomorrow would be a red letter day in the life of criminals. You see,
>all their guns would be black market, and the number coming across the
>borders (from Mexico and Canada) would increase 100-fold to keep up
>with their wants and needs. Only NOW, with all the rest of us
>disarmed, they'd do anything and everything they wanted all day long.
>Are you happy now?
>
>By the way, a crazy with a machete could walk into a crowd and take
>down twenty or thirty people about as fast as a criminal with a gun.
>Terrorism is entirely unstoppable, with or without guns in the mix.
Black market guns coming FROM CANADA? - extremely few.

Han wrote:

>
> This was my misinterpretation of what the blogger was said to have
> done. It was "only" higher ups at the paper. Although, why the
> Rangers sports guy was mentioned, I don't know.
>
> He (and the others mentioned) are now a target for people angry at the
> paper for publishing that map plus personal details of gun permit
> holders. They may have to seek other employment if/when the paper
> folds ...

Well... the paper did not think about the reprecutions of their publication
now, did they?

FWIW, I may be wrong but I thought the original blogger only posted map info
on those newspaper employees that were responsible for (contributed to) the
publication of the original gun owner's map. I had understood that others
subsequently extended that map to include all of the newspaper's employees.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 27 Dec 2012 20:17:52 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 27 Dec 2012 13:07:21 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 27 Dec 2012 01:36:30 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I had said (among other things)
>>>>>
>>>>>>> those sales should be officially illegal.
>>>>>
>>>>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Generally, they already are, Han. All those boys on big-city
>>>>>> side- street alleys selling guns to their crazy friends aren't
>>>>>> walking the straight and narrow.
>>>>>
>>>>>Geesh, than that must be true Larry (intentionally sarcastic)
>>>>>Now, where did those firearms come from? In New York City "they"
>>>>>(police/press, whatever) say it is because in some/many states
>>>>>further south along I95 it is perfectly legal to buy a gun for most
>>>>>people, and some just drive up north and sell them, or lose them.
>>>>
>>>> Or they're stolen from law abiding citizens or driven across the
>>>> border. I hear the CIA imports 'em, too, not to mention certain
>>>> folks at the ATF (but they export more).
>>>
>>>Law abiding citizens should be responsible enough to prevent theft.
>>>If, god forbid, a weapon is stolen, that citizen should promptly
>>>inform the aurthorities and his insurance company. If that citizen is
>>>not responsible enough to prevent multiple weapons from being stolen,
>>>his permit should be revoked.
>>
>> I agree that arsenals should be locked, but to protect the owner's
>> property more than anything else. It is also good to keep weapons out
>> of the hands of criminals.
>>
>>
>>>"Driven across border", you mean state
>>>borders, right? That is because in some states it is much easier to
>>>get a ewapon than in others.
>>
>> No, our country borders.
>
>The US has the armaments industry (too much right nearby in CT). I don't
>thin porous borders is the main reason for loose guns.

To criminals, who can't/won't buy legal local guns, import guns are a
lot cheaper and easier to get away with.


>>>Sure the responsibility goes up higher. However, the true shacklers
>>>are the gun lobbyists including the NRA.
>>
>> I totally and absolutely disagree. Gun lobbyists have not increased
>> crime one iota. Gun abolitionists _have_. Note that all massacres
>> seem to happen in the Left's Gun Free Zones.
>
>The loopholes in the assault weapons ban etc were there because of gun
>lobbyists. Gun abolitionists can only increase victims, not criminals.
>I have no idea where all massacres happened. Tucson was not a gun free
>zone, Webster wasn't. Aurora was a private theater in a gun-crazy state.

I recant my "all massacres" and revise it to "most massacres", OK?


>> One major reason that US violent crime has been going down since the
>> '90s is thanks to your Left. They got abortions legalized. The rest
>> is history. Thank you for that. (Unwanted/unloved/unrestrained
>> children turn rancid.) Please note that this is one of the very, very
>> few things I agree about with the Left. ;)
>
>As I said, it started around Giuliani's time, whether or not demographics
>was more important or increased minor crime fighting. Meither can be
>"blamed" on the left.

<g>


>Yes indeed, kids should be loved, but that is difficult to enforce.

It sure should be, especially in deep urban settings, where the child
welfare people are on every block every day, anyway. <sigh>


>Have to go pay attention to kids and grandkids ...

Goodonya, Han.

--
You can either hold yourself up to the unrealistic standards of others,
or ignore them and concentrate on being happy with yourself as you are.
-- Jeph Jacques

On 27 Dec 2012 19:47:12 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 12/27/2012 07:16 AM, Han wrote:
>>> The US has
>>> an enormously larger gun-related death rate than any other civili

>> 3) "Enormously larger" - Better check your math. There are something
>> like 1700 deaths by gun per year in the US. There are 30,000+
>> auto accidents. Why do You And Yours not focus on the single
>> most dangerous thing threatening American lives: Small, light
>> cars driving at expressway speeds. We need laws to make sure
>> everyone is forced to drive 5000 pound SUVs because it "saves
>> lives".
>
>Apples and oranges. Compare gun-related violence here and abroad. that
>is the comparison. As I said, we are trying to do things about
>automobile accidents and negligence. Does that exempt firearms from
>attention?

That's one of the reasons I want to see the gang killing stats
separated from the rest. It's the larger majority of homicides. Once
we can see those clearly, maybe you anti-gun folks will go after the
idiots in gangs instead of us non criminal gun owners who don't commit
crimes. Cops and DAs won't like that, though. We're much easier to
catch and try than the real criminals because we've done nothing
wrong. That won't always be the case, though. If the gun banners
come for all our weapons, don't be surprised if the majority of gun
owning Americans flatly refuse to give them up.



>> Your position is irrational. There are something like 300 million
>> guns in the country and 1700 deaths by criminals, but you want to
>> punish the 99.9999999999999999% of gun owners that are completely
>> responsible.
>
>I am in favor of gun owners being responsible (obviously!). However,
>something needs to be done to prevent repeats of Newtown and Webster.
>While it may make sense for everyone in rural Nebraska who is hours away
>from police and other first responders to have the means of selfdefense,
>I don't think it is a good idea in cities or suburbs. Mrs. Lanza showed
>that. So we are back to where we were. Ideally there would be no idiots
>with high power rifles. How to prevent them from getting them??

Again, why the focus on guns which are used to commit less than two
percent of the crimes? (I correct my earlier figure of 2.8%) So
_many_ different things kill more people every day.


>> The Ant-Gun Movement: Where reason, sanity, and careful thought
>> go to die.
>
>I think you meant to say anti-gun. I meant this discussion to be polite
>and educational. I have certainly learned some things. Unfortunately, I
>still conclude that there is no need for Bushmaster-type rifles and high
>capacity magazines for them.

Perhaps not for yourself...yet. <wink> But if you had a mob coming
down the street, burning houses on their way, you might wish you had a
carbine, a very large stock of ammo, and a shitload of magazines.
(bullet holders) Riots do happen in your neck of the woods, and I
think there might be more on the way.


>> P.S. I think the sanctimonious and self-important gun banners
>> should be consistent in their demands because they want
>> to "Save The Children (tm)":
>>
>> http://www.allmax.com/MILT/
>
>We are waiting for the agency responsible for regulating table saw safety
>to make rulings ... And indeed, stupid people like myself could have
>hurt themselves even more than I did myself, and a Sawstop might have
>prevented some of that.

When it's made illegal to hurt oneself, we'll all own SaurSchtopps,
I'm sure.


P.S: Don't forget to stop by another ban shop here, Han.
Save the Chillens! Ban this dangerous drug! http://www.dhmo.org/

--
You can either hold yourself up to the unrealistic standards of others,
or ignore them and concentrate on being happy with yourself as you are.
-- Jeph Jacques

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 22:41:53 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:58:08 -0800, Larry Jaques
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>We haven't and we won't. Every single home in Switzerland has a rifle
>>and handgun and every citizen is trained in their use. What's their
>>gun crime rate? GUNS don't cause crime, they prevent it.
>
>No it is not the GUNS that prevent crime. It is the education and
>training that reduce crime. Those guns are properly stored too.

Wrong again. Guns stop crime. They stop between one and two million
crimes a year.

>Yes, the fact that everybody knows every home is armed may act as a
>deterrent to crimes against property - but those guns are NOT carried
>and the general citizenry walking on the streets or driving in their
>cars is NOT armed.

Strawman.

In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Guns, illegal aliens, and terrorists are streaming in from CA to the
> USA daily. Bet on it. Lots of black market items come up the St.
> Lawrence and into both our countries through the Great Lakes.

Mostly through Mohawk reserves.

--
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to
read. - Groucho Marx

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...

>> One would hope that our elected officials are not asses... but that too
>> is
>> often folly so "something" will be done. Here is an example of what will
>> be
>> coming up for debate:
>>
>> http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
>>
>> Of particular interest is this section:
>> a.. Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the
>> National
>> Firearms Act, to include:
>> a.. Background check of owner and any transferee;
>> b.. Type and serial number of the firearm;
>> c.. Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
>> d.. Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that
>> possession would not violate State or local law; and
>> e.. Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.
>> What this means is that currently owned semi-automatic firearms
>> classified
>> as "assault weapons" under this law would need to be registered (read
>> licensed and potentially taxed) under the same procedures as
>> fully-automatic
>> firearms. The NFA currently calls for a $200 transfer tax for full auto
>> weapons... plus approval of local law enforcement. I have associates in
>> non-NY states who own Class III weapons and the biggest stumbling block
>> they
>> report is the local law enforcement. They don't have to justify a
>> denial...
>> John
>
> Lets hope that there is still enough common sense in the new Congress to
> tell her to put a sock in it.

Perhaps they need to be reminded that weapons substitution is, and has been
a reality for a long long time...

http://www.giftbasketsfrommichigan.com/blog/michigan-history/remembering-the-may-18-1927-bath-school-bombing/

John

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 07:21:41 -0800, Larry Jaques
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 22:41:53 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:58:08 -0800, Larry Jaques
> >><[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>We haven't and we won't. Every single home in Switzerland has a rifle
> >>>and handgun and every citizen is trained in their use. What's their
> >>>gun crime rate? GUNS don't cause crime, they prevent it.
> >>
> >>No it is not the GUNS that prevent crime. It is the education and
> >>training that reduce crime. Those guns are properly stored too.
> >
> >If you pull out a gun in front of a criminal, they'll flee. This
> >doesn't take education or training, though most concealed weapons
> >permit owners have both.
> >
>
> They will either flee or you (or they) will be dead. If you pull a
> gun, you need to be ready and willing to use it. and DEAD SURE that
> you can defend your use of deadly force in a court of law.

I think that a civilian using a firearm in self defense should be held
to the same standard as a cop who does so. That is to say a board of
his buddies should review the shooting and if they decide that it was
"righteous" then he's off the hook. Either that or every time a cop
shoots somebody let a jury decided whether he was justified.

> >>Yes, the fact that everybody knows every home is armed may act as a
> >>deterrent to crimes against property - but those guns are NOT carried
> >>and the general citizenry walking on the streets or driving in their
> >>cars is NOT armed.
> >
> >Right, but thosee approached by criminals on the street who show a
> >weapon are usually not victims. The criminals, generally, wisely
> >choose not to screw with them. This is called "an unfired gun
> >preventing a crime" in our country. Do you disagree?
>
> There are significant numbers of cases where someone, known to be
> armed (by showing the weapon as a deterrent), is then killed "from
> behind" shortly after. Perticularly in "gang related" shootings - even
> if the guy shot is NOT gang involved.

There are? Please state your source.

> Get into a conflict with a
> gang-banger and count on the showing of a gun as a deterent??? Count
> on being dead shortly. If not immediately, courtesy of one of his
> armed friends. Having a gun is NO guarantee you will not be shot -
> and a pretty good incentive for a criminal targetting you to KILL you
> before you can get him.

Wearing full body armor, riding in an armored vehicle, and surrounding
yourself with highly trained armed guards is no guarantee that you will
not be shot. You claim that being shot is a likely outcome of being
armed and showing a weapon, state your source.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > Wearing full body armor, riding in an armored vehicle, and surrounding
> > yourself with highly trained armed guards is no guarantee that you will
> > not be shot.
>
> That is for sure... Ronald Reagan was probably the most protected man in
> America when he was shot...
>
> Not much can stop a goal oriented attacker... and with the option of weapons
> substitution, a worldwide total elimination of guns wouldn't stop them
> either.
>
> This reality leaves people feeling somewhat helpless so doing something,
> regardless of how ill conceived that something may be, is deemed to be
> better than doing nothing. A thoughtful society with thoughtful leaders
> would see the folly of this... But there is also a public opinion reality
> about which a sociologist associate of mine is fond of quoting his
> grandmother, "The masses is asses."
>
> One would hope that our elected officials are not asses... but that too is
> often folly so "something" will be done. Here is an example of what will be
> coming up for debate:
>
> http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
>
> Of particular interest is this section:
> a.. Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National
> Firearms Act, to include:
> a.. Background check of owner and any transferee;
> b.. Type and serial number of the firearm;
> c.. Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
> d.. Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that
> possession would not violate State or local law; and
> e.. Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.
> What this means is that currently owned semi-automatic firearms classified
> as "assault weapons" under this law would need to be registered (read
> licensed and potentially taxed) under the same procedures as fully-automatic
> firearms. The NFA currently calls for a $200 transfer tax for full auto
> weapons... plus approval of local law enforcement. I have associates in
> non-NY states who own Class III weapons and the biggest stumbling block they
> report is the local law enforcement. They don't have to justify a denial...
> John

Lets hope that there is still enough common sense in the new Congress to
tell her to put a sock in it.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
>
> >> One would hope that our elected officials are not asses... but that too
> >> is
> >> often folly so "something" will be done. Here is an example of what will
> >> be
> >> coming up for debate:
> >>
> >> http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
> >>
> >> Of particular interest is this section:
> >> a.. Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the
> >> National
> >> Firearms Act, to include:
> >> a.. Background check of owner and any transferee;
> >> b.. Type and serial number of the firearm;
> >> c.. Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
> >> d.. Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that
> >> possession would not violate State or local law; and
> >> e.. Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.
> >> What this means is that currently owned semi-automatic firearms
> >> classified
> >> as "assault weapons" under this law would need to be registered (read
> >> licensed and potentially taxed) under the same procedures as
> >> fully-automatic
> >> firearms. The NFA currently calls for a $200 transfer tax for full auto
> >> weapons... plus approval of local law enforcement. I have associates in
> >> non-NY states who own Class III weapons and the biggest stumbling block
> >> they
> >> report is the local law enforcement. They don't have to justify a
> >> denial...
> >> John
> >
> > Lets hope that there is still enough common sense in the new Congress to
> > tell her to put a sock in it.
>
> Perhaps they need to be reminded that weapons substitution is, and has been
> a reality for a long long time...
>
> http://www.giftbasketsfrommichigan.com/blog/michigan-history/remembering-the-may-18-1927-bath-school-bombing/

Thinking about it, I would faver the Feinstein bill if it was modified
in a few ways. First, a clause providing Federal preemption on all NFA
firearms--if you pass the Federal check you are not subject to state or
local bans, second, a clause providing that passing the stringent
Federal background check automatically qualifies one for CCW in all
states, third, that having passed the check once one may purchase an
unlimited quantity of NFA firearms provided that one pays the tax on
each, fourth, a clear statement of the disqualfying criteria that does
not provide room for personal animosity or personal opposition to the
ownership of firearms, and fifth, an oversight organization placed on
top of the ATF that is not answerable to the ATF chain of command but
that does have the power to terminate any ATF employee at any time on
finding of improper action.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Wearing full body armor, riding in an armored vehicle, and surrounding
> yourself with highly trained armed guards is no guarantee that you will
> not be shot.

That is for sure... Ronald Reagan was probably the most protected man in
America when he was shot...

Not much can stop a goal oriented attacker... and with the option of weapons
substitution, a worldwide total elimination of guns wouldn't stop them
either.

This reality leaves people feeling somewhat helpless so doing something,
regardless of how ill conceived that something may be, is deemed to be
better than doing nothing. A thoughtful society with thoughtful leaders
would see the folly of this... But there is also a public opinion reality
about which a sociologist associate of mine is fond of quoting his
grandmother, "The masses is asses."

One would hope that our elected officials are not asses... but that too is
often folly so "something" will be done. Here is an example of what will be
coming up for debate:

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

Of particular interest is this section:
a.. Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National
Firearms Act, to include:
a.. Background check of owner and any transferee;
b.. Type and serial number of the firearm;
c.. Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
d.. Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that
possession would not violate State or local law; and
e.. Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.
What this means is that currently owned semi-automatic firearms classified
as "assault weapons" under this law would need to be registered (read
licensed and potentially taxed) under the same procedures as fully-automatic
firearms. The NFA currently calls for a $200 transfer tax for full auto
weapons... plus approval of local law enforcement. I have associates in
non-NY states who own Class III weapons and the biggest stumbling block they
report is the local law enforcement. They don't have to justify a denial...
John

Dave <[email protected]> wrote in news:a96td85pab7lsmqfpdvprvbika71ulqbij@
4ax.com:

> On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:25:26 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>> Black market guns coming FROM CANADA? - extremely few.
>
> In fact, it's EXACTLY the opposite. A significant amount of guns in
> Canada come from the US.
>

I'm curious -- do you have a cite for that? I thought that Canada had pretty strict controls over
importing firearms.

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:25:26 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> Black market guns coming FROM CANADA? - extremely few.

In fact, it's EXACTLY the opposite. A significant amount of guns in
Canada come from the US.

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:25:41 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>says...
>>
>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:24:50 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >[email protected] writes:
>> >>On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:01:01 -0800, Larry Jaques
>> >><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>I just don't see why folks of the liberal bent fail to understand such
>> >>>as simple concept. You are far from being alone in thinking that. I
>> >>>think part of it is being angry at guns in general rather than the
>> >>>people who are abusing them. Why is that, if I may ask?
>> >>
>> >>People "of the liberal bent" simply cannot understand cost/benefit
>> >>tradeoffs (or dynamics, but that's a separate issue).
>> >
>> > If the shooter in conn. didn't have, or have access to a semi-automatic
>> > military assault weapon, all those kids would still be alive. That is an
>> > undisputable fact.
>>
>> Absolute bullshit. First, define "assault weapon". you can't.
>
>In any case, he did not have access to a "semi-automatic military
>assault weapon". It is unlawful to own an assault weapon in Connecticut
>and all of the firearms used were lawfully owned in Connecticut,
>therefore none of them was an "assault weapon".
>
Clearly his definition varies from the CT legal definition and the
military definition. These aren't the point. The left doesn't care
what the accepted definition of anything is. All words and ideas are
relative so any discussion is like trying to build a building with
silly putty (in every sense). When cornered, they'll simply redefine
themselves out of it (see; Clinton). I want his definition of
"assault weapon" before listening to any more of his bullshit.

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:15:25 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Han wrote:
>
>>
>> I disagree. The circulation desk secretary had no say in the original
>> misdeed. Now she/he is a target. This newspaper is going to go
>> bankrupt within a week.
>
>It should!

It's the only way a lesson will be learned by anyone.

[email protected] wrote:
> On 27 Dec 2012 19:26:23 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 27 Dec 2012 02:02:53 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> That idiot reporter should be hung out to dry ...
>>>
>>> Double for the editor and publisher.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, indeed. This hasn't played out yet. Someone has now done the
>> same thing as the newspaper did for legal gun owners for all the
>> paper's employees. Names, addresses, pictures. I think that went
>> just a bit too far since it probably includes people who had nothing
>> to do with the original stupid deed. Moreover, 2 wrongs don't make
>> a right.
>
> It does punish the newspaper, which will otherwise skate; it teaches a
> lesson. Whether it'll be learned, or not...

Like the newspaper said about their decision to publish the maps... "it's
important - people need to know".

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 07:21:41 -0800, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 22:41:53 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:58:08 -0800, Larry Jaques
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>We haven't and we won't. Every single home in Switzerland has a rifle
>>>and handgun and every citizen is trained in their use. What's their
>>>gun crime rate? GUNS don't cause crime, they prevent it.
>>
>>No it is not the GUNS that prevent crime. It is the education and
>>training that reduce crime. Those guns are properly stored too.
>
>If you pull out a gun in front of a criminal, they'll flee. This
>doesn't take education or training, though most concealed weapons
>permit owners have both.
>

They will either flee or you (or they) will be dead. If you pull a
gun, you need to be ready and willing to use it. and DEAD SURE that
you can defend your use of deadly force in a court of law.
>
>>Yes, the fact that everybody knows every home is armed may act as a
>>deterrent to crimes against property - but those guns are NOT carried
>>and the general citizenry walking on the streets or driving in their
>>cars is NOT armed.
>
>Right, but thosee approached by criminals on the street who show a
>weapon are usually not victims. The criminals, generally, wisely
>choose not to screw with them. This is called "an unfired gun
>preventing a crime" in our country. Do you disagree?

There are significant numbers of cases where someone, known to be
armed (by showing the weapon as a deterrent), is then killed "from
behind" shortly after. Perticularly in "gang related" shootings - even
if the guy shot is NOT gang involved. Get into a conflict with a
gang-banger and count on the showing of a gun as a deterent??? Count
on being dead shortly. If not immediately, courtesy of one of his
armed friends. Having a gun is NO guarantee you will not be shot -
and a pretty good incentive for a criminal targetting you to KILL you
before you can get him.

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 13:55:20 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 12/27/2012 11:20 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>> Incorrect. There are approximately 30,000 deaths by gun per year in the U.S. It varies from
>> year to year, but these are the figures for last year:
>
>You're right - I should have stipulated homicides since I do not
>believe suicide should be classified as a gun "crime". The

With the stats for the gangs in there, I'll bet the non-gang homicide
number is closer to one thousand. Rule out suicide and gang death and
we have a very, very much smaller figure about which ten percent of
the population is (neuroticly) up in arms (so to speak) over. Yes, I
feel that 1,000 deaths are too many, but people are mean. Make gang
membership a crime punishable by death (since it usually is, anyway)
Kill them before they kill us. <shrug>


>person in question will - tragically - find some way or another
>with or without a gun.
>
>> Incorrect. The "single most dangerous thing threatening American lives" is either
>Marlboros, or Big Macs.

Yeah, those...and MDs. http://tinyurl.com/3t9nyr


>OK, fine. But my point stands. The antigunners are attacking a non
>problem by punishing the uninvolved and thereby not affecting
>the actual criminal perpetrators.

Yeah, that's the worst part.

--
You can either hold yourself up to the unrealistic standards of others,
or ignore them and concentrate on being happy with yourself as you are.
-- Jeph Jacques

On 27 Dec 2012 19:26:23 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 27 Dec 2012 02:02:53 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>
>>>That idiot reporter should be hung out to dry ...
>>
>> Double for the editor and publisher.
>>
>
>Yes, indeed. This hasn't played out yet. Someone has now done the same
>thing as the newspaper did for legal gun owners for all the paper's
>employees. Names, addresses, pictures. I think that went just a bit too
>far since it probably includes people who had nothing to do with the
>original stupid deed. Moreover, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

It does punish the newspaper, which will otherwise skate; it teaches a
lesson. Whether it'll be learned, or not...

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:25:26 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 21:56:22 -0800, Larry Jaques
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Even if your dreams came true and every single legally owned and
>>registered EVIL GUN was taken out of our hands and melted down,
>>tomorrow would be a red letter day in the life of criminals. You see,
>>all their guns would be black market, and the number coming across the
>>borders (from Mexico and Canada) would increase 100-fold to keep up
>>with their wants and needs. Only NOW, with all the rest of us
>>disarmed, they'd do anything and everything they wanted all day long.
>>Are you happy now?
>>
>>By the way, a crazy with a machete could walk into a crowd and take
>>down twenty or thirty people about as fast as a criminal with a gun.
>>Terrorism is entirely unstoppable, with or without guns in the mix.
> Black market guns coming FROM CANADA? - extremely few.

Guns, illegal aliens, and terrorists are streaming in from CA to the
USA daily. Bet on it. Lots of black market items come up the St.
Lawrence and into both our countries through the Great Lakes.

--
Inside every older person is a younger person wondering WTF happened.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>

>> >>
>> >> http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
>> >>

> Thinking about it, I would faver the Feinstein bill if it was modified
> in a few ways. First, a clause providing Federal preemption on all NFA
> firearms--if you pass the Federal check you are not subject to state or
> local bans, second, a clause providing that passing the stringent
> Federal background check automatically qualifies one for CCW in all
> states, third, that having passed the check once one may purchase an
> unlimited quantity of NFA firearms provided that one pays the tax on
> each, fourth, a clear statement of the disqualfying criteria that does
> not provide room for personal animosity or personal opposition to the
> ownership of firearms, and fifth, an oversight organization placed on
> top of the ATF that is not answerable to the ATF chain of command but
> that does have the power to terminate any ATF employee at any time on
> finding of improper action.

Christmas was LAST week... but I like your thinking!

John

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:12:18 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Han <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> Mike, just the numbers of the increases in firearm sales upon Obama's
>> elections, and then the Newtown tragedy, make me think that there are too
>> many firearms looking for buyers.
>
>?? Cart before the horse, Han.
>
>It makes *me* think that there are a lot of buyers looking for firearms.
>
>[...]
>>> The problem in most of your claims Han is they are over populated with
>>> what you think. Your opinion. You base your opinions on what makes
>>> you feel good and not a lot on practicality.
>>
>> Mike, this is usenet. I fully realize I am pushing my opinions. In the
>> area of firearms, practicality is a buzzword for lazy law enforcement to
>> cover their asses.
>
>The problem is that you want your opinions enacted into law, without regard to whether such
>laws will actually accomplish anything constructive.
>>
>>>> Someone legally owning a gun, then using it for illegal ends is by
>>>> definition a criminal and responsible for his misdeeds. No one (to
>>>> my knowledge) has said anything about the Lanza home and what will
>>>> happen to it. I would expect that it is an asset to be recovered by
>>>> the next of kin of the victims.
>>>
>>> But - you would have the person who sold the guns in the recent
>>> tragedies, held responsible.
>>
>> Mike, yes, I would. Selling these types of weapons comes with the
>> responsibility to know who you are selling them too. Or are you going to
>> give drug pushers a pass, because it is really the users who are the
>> criminals?
>
>Interesting that you would bring up the drug trade. Let's make another comparison between
>the drug trade and firearms, shall we? There have been laws on the books for about 50
>years now, prohibiting the possession, sale, use, etc. of marijuana, cocaine,
>methamphetamine, etc -- how well are those laws working? What reason is there to believe
>that laws prohibiting the possession, sale, use, etc. of any type of firearm will be any more
>successful?
NO law has any effect if it has no teeth and is not enforced.
Laws in the USA (and many other countries) are innefective because
there is no enforcement - because there is NO public desire to fund
law enforcement to the level required to enforce those laws.

Yes, some, or many, of those laws are flawed and should be revoked -
but even GOOD laws are to a large degree un-enforceable - and often
also unevenly applied with a heavily biased hand.

[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:

> On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:12:18 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Han <[email protected]> wrote in news:XnsA1374F2E780EBikkezelf@
216.151.153.55:
>>
>>> Mike, just the numbers of the increases in firearm sales upon Obama's
>>> elections, and then the Newtown tragedy, make me think that there are too
>>> many firearms looking for buyers.
>>
>>?? Cart before the horse, Han.
>>
>>It makes *me* think that there are a lot of buyers looking for firearms.
>>
>>[...]
>>>> The problem in most of your claims Han is they are over populated with
>>>> what you think. Your opinion. You base your opinions on what makes
>>>> you feel good and not a lot on practicality.
>>>
>>> Mike, this is usenet. I fully realize I am pushing my opinions. In the
>>> area of firearms, practicality is a buzzword for lazy law enforcement to
>>> cover their asses.
>>
>>The problem is that you want your opinions enacted into law, without regard to whether
such
>>laws will actually accomplish anything constructive.
>>>
>>>>> Someone legally owning a gun, then using it for illegal ends is by
>>>>> definition a criminal and responsible for his misdeeds. No one (to
>>>>> my knowledge) has said anything about the Lanza home and what will
>>>>> happen to it. I would expect that it is an asset to be recovered by
>>>>> the next of kin of the victims.
>>>>
>>>> But - you would have the person who sold the guns in the recent
>>>> tragedies, held responsible.
>>>
>>> Mike, yes, I would. Selling these types of weapons comes with the
>>> responsibility to know who you are selling them too. Or are you going to
>>> give drug pushers a pass, because it is really the users who are the
>>> criminals?
>>
>>Interesting that you would bring up the drug trade. Let's make another comparison
between
>>the drug trade and firearms, shall we? There have been laws on the books for about 50
>>years now, prohibiting the possession, sale, use, etc. of marijuana, cocaine,
>>methamphetamine, etc -- how well are those laws working? What reason is there to
believe
>>that laws prohibiting the possession, sale, use, etc. of any type of firearm will be any more
>>successful?
> NO law has any effect if it has no teeth and is not enforced.
> Laws in the USA (and many other countries) are innefective because
> there is no enforcement - because there is NO public desire to fund
> law enforcement to the level required to enforce those laws.

LMAO! "there is no enforcement" of our drug laws? Don't be ridiculous.

You probably should stop commenting on topics you know nothing about -- law
enforcement in the U.S. being one of them.

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:kbkqhp$m2$1@dont-
email.me:

> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> NO law has any effect if it has no teeth and is not enforced.
>> Laws in the USA (and many other countries) are innefective because
>> there is no enforcement - because there is NO public desire to fund
>> law enforcement to the level required to enforce those laws.
>>
>> Yes, some, or many, of those laws are flawed and should be revoked -
>> but even GOOD laws are to a large degree un-enforceable - and often
>> also unevenly applied with a heavily biased hand.
>
> So your proposed solution Clare, is to create more laws and more regulation?
> Somehow that just does not make any sense.
>
That's the knee-jerk response, every time something like this happens, from people whose
opinions are driven by emotions instead of thought. News flash, Clare and Han: it's
*already* illegal to commit murder. If someone is willing to disregard that law, what makes
you think that he's going to obey *whatever* new laws you propose?

This is equivalent to believing that by wishing something, you can make it happen. When
four-year-olds do that, it's cute. When adults do that, it's delusional.

Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/27/us-usa-shooting-empirestate-p
> olice-idUSBRE87Q04X20120827 ALL bystanders wounded by police.

Did you look into the situation details? Of course there was an
investigation whose bullets hit whom. On crowded sidewalk like that it was
impossible not to hurt bystanders. The argument you use is a misuse of
facts. Could the police perhaps have handled the situation differently?
Maybe. However, their duty is to prevent harm to citizens, and here was an
armed guy who had just cold-bloodedly shot to kil a former colleague. In
the officers' opinion they had to get him fast. Then the guy raised a gun
and tried to shoot the police. I am unsure whether or not police are now
being trained to get a guy like that differently, because there was much
critique of their ways at the time, although the police officials were
defending the tactics.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 13:24:28 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 12/27/2012 01:11 PM, basilisk wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 19:37:51 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] (Scott Lurndal) wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> If the shooter in conn. didn't have, or have access to a semi-automatic
>>>> military assault weapon, all those kids would still be alive. That is an
>>>> undisputable fact.
>>>
>>> No, it's not "undisputable fact", it's just uninformed nonsense. Or do you really suppose that
>>> it is impossible to fatally shoot people with weapons such as a revolver, a pump-action
>>> shotgun, or a bolt-action rifle?
>>>
>> In fact the largest school killing in the US was done with a bomb in 1927,
>> there have always been crazies and always will be.
>>
>> basilisk
>>
>...and the largest mass killing of children was done in Waco.

Hmm, I wonder if there were "assault weapons" in use there?

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 16:42:10 -0800, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Guns, illegal aliens, and terrorists are streaming in from CA to the
>USA daily. Bet on it. Lots of black market items come up the St.
>Lawrence and into both our countries through the Great Lakes.

You're full of crap. Some maybe, but certainly not in the numbers your
feeble mind apparently likes to imagine.

If you're going to come up with this bullshit, at least post some
verifiable stats to back it up.

[email protected] wrote:

> NO law has any effect if it has no teeth and is not enforced.
> Laws in the USA (and many other countries) are innefective because
> there is no enforcement - because there is NO public desire to fund
> law enforcement to the level required to enforce those laws.
>
> Yes, some, or many, of those laws are flawed and should be revoked -
> but even GOOD laws are to a large degree un-enforceable - and often
> also unevenly applied with a heavily biased hand.

So your proposed solution Clare, is to create more laws and more regulation?
Somehow that just does not make any sense.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:34:53 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 07:21:41 -0800, Larry Jaques
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 22:41:53 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:58:08 -0800, Larry Jaques
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>We haven't and we won't. Every single home in Switzerland has a rifle
>>>>and handgun and every citizen is trained in their use. What's their
>>>>gun crime rate? GUNS don't cause crime, they prevent it.
>>>
>>>No it is not the GUNS that prevent crime. It is the education and
>>>training that reduce crime. Those guns are properly stored too.
>>
>>If you pull out a gun in front of a criminal, they'll flee. This
>>doesn't take education or training, though most concealed weapons
>>permit owners have both.
>>
>
>They will either flee or you (or they) will be dead. If you pull a
>gun, you need to be ready and willing to use it. and DEAD SURE that
>you can defend your use of deadly force in a court of law.
>>
>>>Yes, the fact that everybody knows every home is armed may act as a
>>>deterrent to crimes against property - but those guns are NOT carried
>>>and the general citizenry walking on the streets or driving in their
>>>cars is NOT armed.
>>
>>Right, but thosee approached by criminals on the street who show a
>>weapon are usually not victims. The criminals, generally, wisely
>>choose not to screw with them. This is called "an unfired gun
>>preventing a crime" in our country. Do you disagree?
>
>There are significant numbers of cases where someone, known to be
>armed (by showing the weapon as a deterrent), is then killed "from
>behind" shortly after. Perticularly in "gang related" shootings - even

Oh, yeah? In what movie? <g> Sheesh...


>if the guy shot is NOT gang involved. Get into a conflict with a
>gang-banger and count on the showing of a gun as a deterent??? Count
>on being dead shortly. If not immediately, courtesy of one of his
>armed friends. Having a gun is NO guarantee you will not be shot -
>and a pretty good incentive for a criminal targetting you to KILL you
>before you can get him.

True, but would you rather be armed during that conflict or completely
disarmed? Any sane person would rather be armed. It gives them a
chance at life. Of course, even an armed sane person would go around
any situation like that if they saw it in time. Avoidance is always
much better than knowingly walking into an ambush.

--
Inside every older person is a younger person wondering WTF happened.

On 28 Dec 2012 12:56:30 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 27 Dec 2012 19:29:43 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> If your name didn't appear in the paper, you'd better get a weapon,
>>>> fast. You've just been made a target.
>>>
>>>Unless the criminals want to get the guns ...
>>
>> Good grief, Han. If they want weapons, they'll go downtown and buy
>> one on the corner. They WON'T break into a house where people are
>> armed to steal one. You're amazing.
>>>
>>>> I think it was right on "target" to publish the names, addresses,
>>>> and photographs of the newspaper employees. Sauce for the gander.
>>>
>>>I disagree. The circulation desk secretary had no say in the original
>>>misdeed. Now she/he is a target. This newspaper is going to go
>>>bankrupt within a week.
>>
>> To bad. The legally registered gun owners did nothing wrong either.
>> How is the secretary a target?
>
>This was my misinterpretation of what the blogger was said to have done.
>It was "only" higher ups at the paper. Although, why the Rangers sports
>guy was mentioned, I don't know.
>
>He (and the others mentioned) are now a target for people angry at the
>paper for publishing that map plus personal details of gun permit
>holders. They may have to seek other employment if/when the paper folds
>...
Too bad. Women hiding from their violent spouses were "outed" too. Do
you really thing every "gun nut" is going to go to each of the
addresses listed and off the residents? There is, however, a finite
chance that some of the abuse victims will die. Your tears are on the
wrong end of this deal.

On 28 Dec 2012 13:00:55 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> That's one of the reasons I want to see the gang killing stats
>> separated from the rest. It's the larger majority of homicides. Once
>> we can see those clearly, maybe you anti-gun folks will go after the
>> idiots in gangs instead of us non criminal gun owners who don't commit
>> crimes. Cops and DAs won't like that, though. We're much easier to
>> catch and try than the real criminals because we've done nothing
>> wrong. That won't always be the case, though. If the gun banners
>> come for all our weapons, don't be surprised if the majority of gun
>> owning Americans flatly refuse to give them up.
>
>Gang killings very often involve innocent bystanders. These aren't sniper-
>like, but wild shooyouts from passing cars, rooftops, or just plain on
>crowded streets.

Change "very often" to "sometimes" and I'm with you. I believe most
gang members are a waste of oxygen and would deal with them severely.
And, like I said, once we separate the real shootings from the gang
shootings in the statistics, you'd see my point a lot more easily.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/27/us-usa-shooting-empirestate-police-idUSBRE87Q04X20120827
ALL bystanders wounded by police. HERE I can see the need for
liability insurance, to cover the misses. Then again, civilian
samaritans much less often miss their targets. If I were Bloomberg,
or most any city mayor/police chief, I'd have every cop with a gun in
triple training sessions for the next year, at least.

--
You can either hold yourself up to the unrealistic standards of others,
or ignore them and concentrate on being happy with yourself as you are.
-- Jeph Jacques

In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 12:32:25 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >On 28 Dec 2012 12:40:34 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:kbi9p2$mqs$1
> >>@dont-email.me:
> >>
> >>> Han wrote:
> >>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>>> news:[email protected]:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Han wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't know the particulars. How did the thieves know of this?
> >>>>>> How did they know that he was going away for that long? If he has
> >>>>>> "many"(?) guns in a large safe, why didn't he have an alarm system?
> >>>>>> Those items come into the judgement of his degree of responsibility
> >>>>>> or lack of it. How soon did he notify the police? Did he have
> >>>>>> liability insurance?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What in the world does him having or not having liability insurance
> >>>>> have to do with it Han?
> >>>>
> >>>> Mike, if I had a firearm, I'd want to be covered for all eventualities
> >>>> associated with it. Since a firearm is probably at least as
> >>>> dangerous as an automobile, a responsible owner would carry liability
> >>>> insurance. I would count it against an individual if he didn't carry
> >>>> that insurance.
> >>>
> >>> I am sorry Han, but that just does not make any sense.
> >>
> >>Is this clearer, Mike? If I had my druthers, it would be required for
> >>gun owners to have liability insurance covering the weapons.
> > I agree one hundred percent. Minimum 2 million dollars liability
> >coverage to be allowed to have a gun on the premises - 5 million to
> >carry.
> >Rifle range (gun club) insurance covers guns never removed from the
> >range (sport/competition).
> >
> >If a gun is stolen and used in a crime, the owner's liability
> >insurance covers the first $2million in damages. If your kid uses the
> >gun and does damage, likewize. Owner responsible for any overages
> >unless the theft is reported to proper authorities within 24 hours.
> >That would make gun owners more likely to make sure their guns were
> >properly secured and stored.
> >
> >The insurance companies would set the premiums based on risk /loss
> >ratios.
>
> You say the above, but what you mean is "I don't like guns and will
> try to make them impossibly expensive to own."
>
> Since insurance of that type will cost treble the price of the gun,
> none will be bought in the future should that happen. But what
> happens when the bad guys (who don't pay attention to the laws) come
> to rob, rape, or burgle you and your neighbors? They'll be the only
> ones with guns.

I'm curious as to what insurance company would offer a liability policy
against illegal use of personal property.

I can't even get homeowners insurance with that kind of coverage!

For legal liability, though, one can purchase a 5 million policy for
$10/year here in Canada. I'm sure they exist in the US as well.

Here, the policies cover LEGAL activities (quoting
http://nfa.ca/nfa-insurance):

"The policy offered by the National Firearms Association covers an
individual or club for $5,000,000.00 in liability coverage.
This is NOT an aggregate amount. It is $5,000,000.00 in Liability
Insurance for any claim.
Each individual, or each individual member of an NFA insured club, is
covered for:
- Legal hunting activities
- Legal bowhunting activities
- Legal range shooting activities
- Legal range archery activities
- Legal fishing activities
- Legal re-enactment activities
Anywhere in the World!

--
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to
read. - Groucho Marx

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 12:32:25 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On 28 Dec 2012 12:40:34 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:kbi9p2$mqs$1
>>@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know the particulars. How did the thieves know of this?
>>>>>> How did they know that he was going away for that long? If he has
>>>>>> "many"(?) guns in a large safe, why didn't he have an alarm system?
>>>>>> Those items come into the judgement of his degree of responsibility
>>>>>> or lack of it. How soon did he notify the police? Did he have
>>>>>> liability insurance?
>>>>>
>>>>> What in the world does him having or not having liability insurance
>>>>> have to do with it Han?
>>>>
>>>> Mike, if I had a firearm, I'd want to be covered for all eventualities
>>>> associated with it. Since a firearm is probably at least as
>>>> dangerous as an automobile, a responsible owner would carry liability
>>>> insurance. I would count it against an individual if he didn't carry
>>>> that insurance.
>>>
>>> I am sorry Han, but that just does not make any sense.
>>
>>Is this clearer, Mike? If I had my druthers, it would be required for
>>gun owners to have liability insurance covering the weapons.
> I agree one hundred percent. Minimum 2 million dollars liability
>coverage to be allowed to have a gun on the premises - 5 million to
>carry.
>Rifle range (gun club) insurance covers guns never removed from the
>range (sport/competition).
>
>If a gun is stolen and used in a crime, the owner's liability
>insurance covers the first $2million in damages. If your kid uses the
>gun and does damage, likewize. Owner responsible for any overages
>unless the theft is reported to proper authorities within 24 hours.
>That would make gun owners more likely to make sure their guns were
>properly secured and stored.
>
>The insurance companies would set the premiums based on risk /loss
>ratios.

You say the above, but what you mean is "I don't like guns and will
try to make them impossibly expensive to own."

Since insurance of that type will cost treble the price of the gun,
none will be bought in the future should that happen. But what
happens when the bad guys (who don't pay attention to the laws) come
to rob, rape, or burgle you and your neighbors? They'll be the only
ones with guns.

--
Inside every older person is a younger person wondering WTF happened.

On 28 Dec 2012 13:18:13 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Too true. The solution to that problem, though, isn't to ban firearms
>> (since the criminals will have them anyway) -- it's to dry up the
>> funding source for the street gangs, by legalizing drugs. Seriously.
>
>Fully agree with your last statement.

Absolutely INANE comments. To legalize drugs is to usher in a whole
new class of drug addicts. Are YOU willing to pay for the extra law
enforcement, medical facilities and prisons to handle all those extra
drug addicts?

And don't even bother trying to compare legalized drugs to legally
purchased alcohol. They're different types of addiction.

Dave <[email protected]> wrote in news:6gfrd8h5tlg1vg08kftuheppb55lmogq9t@
4ax.com:

> On 28 Dec 2012 13:18:13 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Too true. The solution to that problem, though, isn't to ban firearms
>>> (since the criminals will have them anyway) -- it's to dry up the
>>> funding source for the street gangs, by legalizing drugs. Seriously.
>>
>>Fully agree with your last statement.
>
> Absolutely INANE comments. To legalize drugs is to usher in a whole
> new class of drug addicts. Are YOU willing to pay for the extra law
> enforcement, medical facilities and prisons to handle all those extra
> drug addicts?

Talk about inane... why on earth would you think we'd need extra law enforcement to deal
with *fewer* crimes? Nobody would be investigating drug traffickers any more, or drug
users.

And why would you suppose we'd need extra prisons to *stop* imprisoning people for
using or possessing drugs?

Any treatment costs could easily be funded by taxing them, just like we already tax alcohol
and tobacco.

Prohibition of drugs IS NOT WORKING. We've been trying for FORTY YEARS, and the
drug problem is worse than ever.

> And don't even bother trying to compare legalized drugs to legally
> purchased alcohol. They're different types of addiction.

One thing they definitely have in common: prohibition doesn't work, because there's a
demand for them, and in a free market someone will furnish the supply. You'll never
succeed in banning porn, either, for the same reason.

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 12:32:25 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On 28 Dec 2012 12:40:34 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:kbi9p2$mqs$1
>>@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know the particulars. How did the thieves know of this?
>>>>>> How did they know that he was going away for that long? If he has
>>>>>> "many"(?) guns in a large safe, why didn't he have an alarm system?
>>>>>> Those items come into the judgement of his degree of responsibility
>>>>>> or lack of it. How soon did he notify the police? Did he have
>>>>>> liability insurance?
>>>>>
>>>>> What in the world does him having or not having liability insurance
>>>>> have to do with it Han?
>>>>
>>>> Mike, if I had a firearm, I'd want to be covered for all eventualities
>>>> associated with it. Since a firearm is probably at least as
>>>> dangerous as an automobile, a responsible owner would carry liability
>>>> insurance. I would count it against an individual if he didn't carry
>>>> that insurance.
>>>
>>> I am sorry Han, but that just does not make any sense.
>>
>>Is this clearer, Mike? If I had my druthers, it would be required for
>>gun owners to have liability insurance covering the weapons.
> I agree one hundred percent. Minimum 2 million dollars liability
>coverage to be allowed to have a gun on the premises - 5 million to
>carry.
>Rifle range (gun club) insurance covers guns never removed from the
>range (sport/competition).
>
>If a gun is stolen and used in a crime, the owner's liability
>insurance covers the first $2million in damages. If your kid uses the
>gun and does damage, likewize. Owner responsible for any overages
>unless the theft is reported to proper authorities within 24 hours.
>That would make gun owners more likely to make sure their guns were
>properly secured and stored.
>
>The insurance companies would set the premiums based on risk /loss
>ratios.

.ca doesn't get a vote.

In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 08:23:38 -0600, Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, Dave
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 18:54:27 -0600, Dave Balderstone
> >> >Mostly through Mohawk reserves.
> >>
> >> There's native Americans down your way too. I guess our native
> >> Canadians are all bands of criminals while your native Americans are
> >> docile citizens.
> >
> >Down my way?
> >
> >You're north of Saskatoon?
> >
> >>
> >> As usual Balderstone, you're full of crap. Unverifiable crap.
> >
> >This is entirely verifiable. Do a Google search on "Mohawk smuggling".
> >
> >Which media reports do you trust? CBC? NY Times? Montreal Gazette?
> >National Post? Wikipedia? Ottawa Citizen?
> >
> >They are all there in the Google results.
> >
> >I ain't the one full of crap...
> And all the Mohawks are Canadian, eh?? The "mohawk warriors"
> involved in a lot of the "insurrections" up here are identified as
> from the USA (New York) - and ORIGINALLY the mohawk were from what is
> now New York State - they left as United Empire Loyalists - in large
> part.

Why are you changing the subject?

Never mind... that's rhetorical.

--
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to
read. - Groucho Marx

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 22:25:59 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:12:35 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 12/27/2012 06:00 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>> (Where did that come from, anyway?)
>>
>>I don't recall. I keep trying to find that cite, but it eludes me.
>>I stipulate that I was low. I'll even stipulate to the CDC numbers -
>>though I think it is bogus to include justifiable homicide,
>>accidents, and suicide in an discussion surrounding gun control.
>>
>>But in any case, the larger issue remains. There are other human
>>activities that are as- or more dangerous than guns but they do
>>not begin to inflame the nanny libs anywhere near as much. It's
>>irritating because I fail to see why those of us uninvolved in crime
>>should pay the price for criminals because ObamaCo cannot think
>>crisply...
> I will agree there are things that kill more people in the USA than
>guns do - but all of them have another reason for existing. Guns are
>made for one reason - and one reason only. To kill. OK, you say they
>are used for target practice at gun ranges. Yes they are - but the
>PRIMARY reason to use a gun at a range is to improve your aim - to
>make the gun more effective..

Wrong, of course. That's like saying that all saws are meant to cut
wood.

>I'll concede there are people who use guns for sport - competition
>shooting - that NEVER see a live target. That does not change the fact
>that the gun is DESIGNED for only one use - unlike food, cigarettes,
>automobiles, snowmobiles, motorcycles, etc that also end up killing
>too many americans.

You just contradicted yourself. A target gun is *DESIGNED* to shoot
targets. That's it's reason for existing.

On 12/29/2012 07:27 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
> Drug prohibition, like alcohol prohibition, does not and cannot work

I fully agree with this, but there's a big problem legalizing drugs:

We have now reached the fullness of socialism in this nation and that
means that the same people are legally allowed to use any drug they
wish would then turn around and mooch off the public healthcare and
welfare programs. This is no accident. The elites - particularly
(though not exculsively) on the left - want a fully dependent society.
The only way people like Feinstein, Obama, Reid, and the rest of their
malevolent ilk could ever survive in government is with a deeply
dumbed down population sucking at the public teat.

I want all drugs legalized with the following provisos for anyone
consuming recreational chemistry:

- Everything is legal for adults on their own property.

- The use of such substances is not a legal defense, and you
are fully accountable for your actions while under their influence.
i.e., "I was high at the time" is not a legal defense for anything.

- If you traffic these substances to minors, you get a mandatory 10 years
sentence for every year the minor is under the age of majority. Sell
to a 12 year old and you're gone for 60 years.

- The use of such substances makes you forever ineligible for any
Federal welfare or medical care program.

- Insurance companies are free to not insure you or charge you more.

- Government and private sector organizations are free to institute more
strict drug rules when they feel it is in their interest to do so. They
do not need to do so "fairly". If United airlines wants to drug test
their pilots and not their janitors, that's their business.

Alcohol, Tobacco, And Firearms should be convenience store, not
a government agency.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/