Re: "Blanks" kill actors

["Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

Shaun Eli wrote:
> Jim,
>
I never said to limit your access to firearms, as long as you don't
have a criminal record or a restraining order against you, and can pass
a reasonable test.
>
> >That must refer to newspapers and media  never publishing
> ANYTHING about people who prevent injury, save lives,
> or property, because they legally used a firearm.
>
> And those today who DON"T teach their kids and take
> precautions with their firearms ..... and are the cause of
> a disaster.  Why is it THEY are not punished by the law
> instead of trying to pass gun banning laws and unenforceable
> trigger lock laws and restrict law abiding citizens access to guns?


>
> They are punished.  Do you think when a kid takes dad's unlocked gun
> and shoots his friend that dad DOESN'T get punished?


Absolutely NOT.

He should be imprisioned just the same as any accesory to a murder.

>
>
>
>> Well, lemmie tell ya. You're absolutely wrong. If you're really
>> interested I'll post a dozen or so. All you have to
>> do is look in the right places and it's there. There's been a
>> number of studies done through the years and it's indicated that
>> it's at least in the hundreds of thousand times a year, minimum.

> HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS?  Come on.  The New York Times (spare me your
> 'liberal media' argument) probably reports on every homicide that takes
> place in NYC (a couple a day, on average).  Do you think they
> deliberately avoid publishing an article if a guy shoots a bad guy?

Yes, I do

> Do you think the NY POST would ignore that?

Yes, I sure do.


> It rarely happens.  Sure, you could find examples.  Over the course of
> a year, maybe dozens.  Even cops rarely shoot bad guys (and not only
> on-duty, most of them are armed 24/7 and rarely use their guns).

Well, you are wrong. Were this another group, I might just take the
time to do a little research for you and show you what's taken place in
the last few weeks or so, but I'm sure this is getting boring for most
of the others here, that are already aware that what I'm saying true.

> If it were so prevalent, don't you think that your all-powerful
> lobbying group the NRA would be running ads citing some of these?

Well, first of all it isn't MY all powerful lobbying group but it sure
is powerful. With several million supporters, they've got to be doing
something right. Secondly, they DO publish a list, which I one time
verified myself, as being quite accurate. They always list the source
of the newspaper so I found a site with links to newspapers across the
nation and except for those that required a fee to research their site,
all the articles that were referenced where there. There are also a
couple of studies and books that have been written some of which say it
happens millions of times a year. Taking the middle of the road, I'd
guess that hundreds of thousands would more likely be verifiable,
>
>
> > Versus all the
> >times kids find guns improperly stored (I just heard of a study that
> >said that one in three households with a gun have it loaded and NOT
> >locked away) and shoot their friends.

Can you tell me what kind of law or training or course that you might
suggest that would actually "force" someone to keep their firearm
safely stored? It's a WEAPON!  If an owner doesn't have the sense to
put it safely away and keep it from kids, do you think you can pass a
law that will make them do it? Can you create a training course that
will make them do it? Can you make them smart enough to realize they
could be harmed or someone else could be harmed if they don't take
proper precautions? Regardless of what you tell someone, if they don't
want to do it they wont. And therefore when you ask me if the father
who causes his child or anyone to be harmed or killed with his
improperly kept weapon, should be punished, I say he should ...... just
like any other criminal. You want to pass a law that'll make people put
their guns away???? Pass one that says if someone is killed or injured
by a weapon that you improperly stored, you're going to jail for 25
years.
>
>
>> You'd have to show me which gun banning group did that study and
>> provide their sources ( which are never revealed)  Can you just imagine
>>
>> someone taking a survey and asking a gun owner if they locked up their
>> gun. Even if they didn't ..... who who would say so? That's just like
>> trying to pass a law that makes it mandatory to store all firearms
>> locked up or with trigger guards. Who the hell is ever going to enforce
>> it? In other words, if they didn't have the sense to keep their guns
>> away from children without there being a law, they wouldn't do it ....
>> if there WAS a law.  A trigger lock law is sensless.
>
> Why do you assume it was a gun-control group?  I don't remember who did
> the study, but it was reported on the radio within the past couple of
> weeks, I think CBS News but I'm not sure.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. "Somewhere", "someone" heard
"something" that "they think" was said by "someone" that said ....

>
> By the way, I don't know about the effectiveness of a trigger lock
> law.  But you could apply the same reasoning to seat belt laws-
> except that with seat belt laws, a LOT more people are buckling up.

Yes, I've thought about that too. Although "I'd" not use a trigger
lock, at this point in my life, I perhaps would have when my children
where here. I suppose there would be some who would. However, I tend to
think that those who would not .... would always include ALL of those
who would store their weapons unsafely anyway.

>
>  > This happens several times a year in NYC alone.
>
>> I sincerely doubt that and again would ask you for your source and
>> their source of that statistic. I don't remember if the The Dept of
>> Justice statistics go into that detail, but as most of the gun banners
>> information, it's likely a made up story. Show me the source of the
>> information and from where it was derived and then it has credibility.
>> Otherwise it's mear propaganda.
>
> I think what I referred to as happening several times a year is a kid
> taking a gun and accidentally shooting a friend.  I read the same type
> of news story probably every other month.  It happens A LOT in NYC.  Go
> to NYTimes.com and type the words child and gun into the search box and
> see what shows up.

I don't deny that it occurs, but just for the moment, try to ignore the
tragedy of it and tell me what deterrent there is to stop it from
happening? Would you suggest that a father on crack will be remorseful
any longer than it takes him to get his next fix? I'd suggest that he
have 25 years to decide if he did the right thing or not.

>
> Let me say this again.  The same scenario is reported several times a
> year in NYC alone-- a kid finds a gun, accidentally shoots his friend.
> Legal gun? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  To the dead kid's parents, it
> doesn't matter.  The gun should not have been where the kid could get
> it.

Exactly right. Who's at fault? What laws, tests or courses could have
prevented it? What's the deterrent? Who get's punished for it?

>
> And probably once or twice a year it's reported that a little kid finds
> a gun in the house and takes it to school, not really knowing what it
> is.

DITTO

>
> By the way, "Gun banners?"  How about people who believe in gun control
> without believing in outlawing guns?  Or is everybody who wants to do
> anything to legislate anything to do with guns suddenly in your
> cross-hairs as evil?

After years and years of seeing the the errosion of the Second
Amendment and the results of not being a cynical and questioning
skeptic of anything that is derogatory to the private ownership of a
firearm, EMPHATICALLY YES.
Evil, no, they certainly don't think that what they are doing is evil,
they think that idealistically if there were NO guns at all, wouldn't
the world be a wonderful place. And that just ain't gonna happen. What
could their goal be if not to put so many restrictions on gun ownership
that it completely negates the purpose of having one? If you had been
following this for as many years as I have, you'd see the path and the
nuances and subtlety of the antigun supporters. Take this assault rifle
ban that was enacted during Clintons office. Strictly a "feelgood" law.
There was no reason to pass the law. The firearms that were included
were not assault rifles ..... they "looked" like assault rifles, is
all. There were only a misicule of crimes that had been committed with
them, if I remember right, .01 percent of all gun crimes included some
sort of firearm that was or looked like an assault rifle. During the
ban, no increase of crimes with the weapon occured, even though there
are thousands of them out there and available on the black market. I
could understand banning a completely automatic weapon, but not a
firearm that has no more capability than a hunting rifle but "looks"
like an assault rifle. Fortunately it has recently been allowed to
expire. The point is, that each and every NEW law, restriction,
limitation to gun ownership can eventually be the line that was crossed
that leads to complete banning of gun ownership. Since there's a
propensity to equate gun ownership with fanatics and insurgents, as
propagated by the media, it's not too far fetched to think that all
it's going to take is one event to occur that will throw the majority
of the populace towards recinding the ownership of firearms,
completely. Or, at least making it SO restricted that it will amount to
the same thing. Holding the tide back as early as possible and as much
as possible seems to me, to make good sense. Evey chink in the armor is
one step closer to complete elimination of the right to self
protection. It will be a govenment of the government, and the people be
damned.


>
> By law abiding citizens ..... or the bad guys? Gun restrictions effect
> the law abiding citizens. Enforce the laws that are presently on the
> books and gun crimes will drop to fantastically and unbeliveable lows.
>
> Sure, police and prosecutors are deliberately avoiding enforcing the
> existing laws because of... oh, why do you think they're doing that?
> To make things worse so they can take away your gun?

It's not with any forethought about it's affect on gun ownership. It's
just a fact that the courts are (used to be) easier on criminals
commiting gun crimes if a "Deal" was made. The result was ....... no
deterrent to commit a gun crime. The more gun crimes, the more outcry
against the existance of guns. Just cause and effect. No conspiracy.
There were a number of cities about 10 years ago, that strated a "tough
on gun crimes" policy. There was objection but, in those cities, the
gun crimes dropped in a matter of a couple of years. Since then, the
trend has been growing and the result are exactly what has been
predicted. Gun crimes are the lowest that they been in decades.

>
>
> Oh and by the way, my guns are loaded and accessible at all times.
> With no children in the house any longer, trigger locks and gun
> cases only hamper access. Keep in mind that over the summer months, in
> my area ( within 20/30 miles) , there were about a half a dozen home
> invasions.
>
> That's your choice.  But you ARE more likely to be shot with your own
> gun than you are to kill one of those invaders.  Or do you dispute that
> most murders are committed by a member of the household?

I don't really know. I'd have to check to see if the Dept of Justice
statistics contained that information. But then it would have to break
it down to economic, educational, area, ...... etc and so on. Which I
doubt it would do. But, as for me personally ....... there's only me
and my wife of 46 years and she'd kill me if I shot her.