Sacramento, CA � A bill is up for debate at the California state capitol that would mandate gun owners purchase liability insurance.
Sacramento, CA � A bill is up for debate at the California state capitol tha would mandate gun owners purchase liability insurance.
It would cover the damages that occur from the accidental or negligent use o firearms. The bill is authored by Democratic Senator Nancy Skinner, who says models a new law approved this year by the City of San Jose. She says it is same idea as purchasing insurance for a vehicle. Lawmakers in the state of N York are considering a similar law.
It is opposed by gun rights groups, like the Gun Owners of California. The organization argues that no insurance companies will cover the misuse of firearms and that it also infringes on Constitutional rights.
A second gun-related bill, authored by Democrat Marc Levine, would place a n tax on firearm purchases, totaling around 10-percent. It would raise an estimated $118-million that would be allocated for gun violence prevention programs.
... If a sloth were to clap, it will always sound sarcastic.
Re: Re: Gun Insurance
By: Thumper to All on Fri Jun 17 2022 09:59 am
Sacramento, CA � A bill is up for debate at the California state capitol that would mandate gun owners purchase liability insurance.
Okay. If this goes through, will this then permit any gun owner to use maga
I doubt it.
Brian Klauss <-> Ford Prefect
42bytes a Synchronet BBS =========> 42bytes.net
Thumper wrote to All <=-
Sacramento, CA � A bill is up for debate at the California state
capitol that would mandate gun owners purchase liability insurance.
Moondog wrote to Thumper <=-
Sounds like two new schemes to move the prices of firearms further from the hands of regular citizens.
Moondog wrote to Thumper <=-
Sounds like two new schemes to move the prices of firearms further from the hands of regular citizens.
It wouldn't be the first time they tried that.
"We aren't taking away anyone's right. But if you want to own gun-type-X, y have to get a license from the state, which costs prohibitively high and no can afford."
... I'm not a complete idiot - several parts are missing.
A second gun-related bill, authored by Democrat Marc Levine, would place a new
tax on firearm purchases, totaling around 10-percent. It would raise an estimated $118-million that would be allocated for gun violence prevention programs.
And while they are doing it, they keep on telling people it's a state's right, not an individual right.
Illinois already has what they call an FOID (firearms ownership ID) and you can't even touch a gun in a gun shop, let alone buy one. Imagine having to call your insurance company to get rates, then find out they're going to charge extra because you're looking at a Mossberg 500 with a synthetic stock and phosphate finish versus the model with the blued finish and wood hardare.
Your rates will be different based on "scary" features.
Makes me wonder if a registry is also required in order to set
rates based on what you own? Who all has access to the registry?
On 6/17/22 12:20, Moondog wrote:
Makes me wonder if a registry is also required in order to set
rates based on what you own? Who all has access to the registry?
I think it would be a defacto registry even if via the insurance
companies sharing information, then sharing with data harvestors, then
the govt just buys the data from them, like the FBI and other agencies already do.
Probably worse than a registry, because they also have a lot of
correlated data.
--
Michael J. Ryan - [email protected]
Tracker1 wrote to Moondog <=-
Probably worse than a registry, because they also have a lot of
correlated data.
Makes me wonder if a registry is also required in order to set
rates based on what you own? Who all has access to the registry?
I think it would be a defacto registry even if via the insurance
companies sharing information, then sharing with data harvestors, then
the govt just buys the data from them, like the FBI and other agencies already do.
Probably worse than a registry, because they also have a lot of
correlated data.
Makes me wonder if a registry is also required in order to set
rates based on what you own? Who all has access to the registry?
I think it would be a defacto registry even if via the insurance
companies sharing information, then sharing with data harvestors, then
the govt just buys the data from them, like the FBI and other agencies already do.
Probably worse than a registry, because they also have a lot of
correlated data.
You are right, it would all likely be shared with data harvestors. People could use your gun ownership to draw all sorts of profiles up about you.
Someone who frequents an echo on another network would say that this is
part of the choice you have to make and, if you don't want your data known you should not have guns. They also believe that law abiding citizens having guns is what makes law breaking persons use them.
* SLMR 2.1a * 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely small values of 5.
Tracker1 wrote to Moondog <=-
Probably worse than a registry, because they also have a lot of correlated data.
Better, if you need to compile a list of AR-15 owners who make between 45K and 65K, rent an apartment and like furry porn, that is.
... Landru! Guide us!
Someone who frequents an echo on another network would say that this is part of the choice you have to make and, if you don't want your data known you should not have guns. They also believe that law abiding citizens having guns is what makes law breaking persons use them.
That's the same logic that says sprinkler systems and fire extinguishers are installed to tempt arsonists.
Predators do not go after animals they fear.
Someone who frequents an echo on another network would say that this is part of the choice you have to make and, if you don't want your data kn you should not have guns. They also believe that law abiding citizens having guns is what makes law breaking persons use them.
That's the same logic that says sprinkler systems and fire extinguishers a installed to tempt arsonists.
Predators do not go after animals they fear.
Exactly. I may not have worded it exactly right. I think they believe
that law abiding citizens having guns means there are more guns out there for law breaking persons to have access to (while breaking the law). Their belief is that we should be willing to give up our guns, or at least have ours all registered, tracked, and restricted (as to what we can own) so
that criminals cannot get their hands on them. <rollseyes>
I do agree that most law breaking persons are not going to try anything if they think they might get shot. Many of them are not smart, but I don't believe that most of them have a death wish.
* SLMR 2.1a * The number you have dailed...9-1-1...has been changed...
I told them a visible firearm is like a flashlight in a dark room. You can see your enemies, but they can see you have a flashlight. While it should discourage bad actors, it also singles you out as the biggest threat to take out first. Concealed carry keeps everybody guessing. And polite.
Re: Re: Gun Insurance
By: Moondog to Dumas Walker on Sat Jun 25 2022 12:35 pm
I told them a visible firearm is like a flashlight in a dark room. You c see your enemies, but they can see you have a flashlight. While it shoul discourage bad actors, it also singles you out as the biggest threat to t out first. Concealed carry keeps everybody guessing. And polite.
The advantage of open carry is that it normalizes having a gun. If half the a gun but they are all concealed, then the population and politicians may pe owners are a tiny minority (after all, nobody sees them anymore, therefore t exist!)
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
DR. WHAT wrote to THUMPER <=-
@VIA: DMINE
@MSGID: <[email protected]>
@REPLY: <[email protected]>
Thumper wrote to All <=-
Sacramento, CA � A bill is up for debate at the California state
capitol that would mandate gun owners purchase liability insurance.
Sounds like mandatory gun registration to me. (Most places only
require that you register hand guns. Long guns are usually exempt.)
That's the first step toward gun confiscation.
DR. WHAT wrote to THUMPER <=-
@VIA: DMINE
@MSGID: <[email protected]>
@REPLY: <[email protected]>
Thumper wrote to All <=-
Sacramento, CA � A bill is up for debate at the California state capitol that would mandate gun owners purchase liability insurance.
Sounds like mandatory gun registration to me. (Most places only require that you register hand guns. Long guns are usually exempt.)
That's the first step toward gun confiscation.
There is no registration here in Tennessee...
Moondog wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
Exactly. I may not have worded it exactly right. I think they believe
that law abiding citizens having guns means there are more guns out there for law breaking persons to have access to (while breaking the law). Their belief is that we should be willing to give up our guns, or at least have ours all registered, tracked, and restricted (as to what we can own) so
that criminals cannot get their hands on them. <rollseyes>
I do agree that most law breaking persons are not going to try anything if they think they might get shot. Many of them are not smart, but I don't believe that most of them have a death wish.
* SLMR 2.1a * The number you have dailed...9-1-1...has been changed...
It can be a mixed bag. The other day someone was buying handguns for
he and his wife. Hios wife works in a marijuana dispensary and handles large sums of cash, and was asking if open carry might be preferable
over concealed carry, which would take longer to get a permit.
I told them a visible firearm is like a flashlight in a dark room. You can see your enemies, but they can see you have a flashlight. While it should discourage bad actors, it also singles you out as the biggest threat to take out first. Concealed carry keeps everybody guessing.
And polite.
---
= Synchronet = The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
Arelor wrote to Moondog <=-
The advantage of open carry is that it normalizes having a gun. If half the population carries a gun but they are all concealed, then the population and politicians may perceive that gun owners are a tiny minority (after all, nobody sees them anymore, therefore they must not exist!)
Moondog wrote to Arelor <=-
I agree on the concept, but not the execution. If everyone open
carried, the day you're caught alone without it would be the time you become a target. Concealed carry keeps the bad guys guessing. The was
a gas station robbery a few years ago, and one of the customers
standing in line was open carrying. The line was cramped because the
entry way was constricted,and the robber singled him out and got in
line behind him and held a knife to his back. He had a retention
holster, so the robber could not pull it out easily, however the robber threatened him and he relased the retention button. Even if the guy didn't have a knife or other weapon, they were in such enclosed space
that pulling the gun would've been hard without special gun retention
and close in training (which he didn't have.) Some open carry folks
think a gun is a magic talisman that wards away evil. It's knowing how
to safely and efficiently let out the smoke of the talisman that does
the damage.
JIMMY ANDERSON wrote to DR. WHAT <=-[email protected]>
@MSGID: <[email protected]>
DR. WHAT wrote to THUMPER <=-
Thumper wrote to All <=-
Sacramento, CA � A bill is up for debate at the California state
capitol that would mandate gun owners purchase liability insurance.
Sounds like mandatory gun registration to me. (Most places only
require that you register hand guns. Long guns are usually exempt.)
That's the first step toward gun confiscation.
There is no registration here in Tennessee...
Moondog wrote to JIMMY ANDERSON <=-
That is why they try to sneak it in under the context of other laws. During the drafting of the 1934 National Firearms act, a registration
plan was part o f the original language of the bill. This addition was based on how well Germany was doing with their own registration
programs.
Arelor wrote to Moondog <=-
The advantage of open carry is that it normalizes having a gun. If half the population carries a gun but they are all concealed, then the population and politicians may perceive that gun owners are a tiny minority (after all, nobody sees them anymore, therefore they must not exist!)
For me the primary benefit is ease of access and an increase in carry option Carrying concealed usally means you have to adjust at least one piece of clothing to access the firearm, increasing the chance of a snag or a tangle some other obstruction. Also it is more difficult to comfortably carry a fu size pistol so one usually tends to resort to a compact or sub-compact. Nothing wrong with using those for defense, but I prefer the option of using full size SW 645 or 1911 for defense. Hell, where I live I could openly car my 6" GP-100 and nobody would blink an eye except to ask how I like it!
Then again, I DO remember the day I saw a fellow carring a .454 Raging Bull an Uncle Mike's ballistic nylon holster. Having one of those bitches myself and knowing what it's like to shoot, I'd have definitely opted for something different.
... Gone crazy, be back later, please leave message.
Moondog wrote to Arelor <=-
I agree on the concept, but not the execution. If everyone open carried, the day you're caught alone without it would be the time you become a target. Concealed carry keeps the bad guys guessing. The was a gas station robbery a few years ago, and one of the customers standing in line was open carrying. The line was cramped because the entry way was constricted,and the robber singled him out and got in line behind him and held a knife to his back. He had a retention holster, so the robber could not pull it out easily, however the robber threatened him and he relased the retention button. Even if the guy didn't have a knife or other weapon, they were in such enclosed space that pulling the gun would've been hard without special gun retention and close in training (which he didn't have.) Some open carry folks think a gun is a magic talisman that wards away evil. It's knowing how to safely and efficiently let out the smoke of the talisman that does the damage.
I prefer open carry, and I realize that it's not some sort of "talisamn" tha wards off evil. Believe me. When I'm in public, my head is on a swivel an know what everyone around me is up to, and I do not allow myself to be in a compromised position.
As I say... Carry. I don't care how, why, or what. Just carry. If you prefer concealed carry, that's up to you, but I sure as hell expect your bac if I get in a bad situation because I prefer to carry in the open!
... Got my tie caught in the fax... Suddenly I was in L.A.
Moondog wrote to JIMMY ANDERSON <=-
That is why they try to sneak it in under the context of other laws. During the drafting of the 1934 National Firearms act, a registration plan was part o f the original language of the bill. This addition was based on how well Germany was doing with their own registration programs.
Reason enough to make resisting ANY gun registration legislation important. Remember, we are celebrating Independence Day because and ARMED populace refused to disarm themselves. You never know when a SECOND Independence Day may be necessary.
... There are 10 kinds of people. Those who get binary and those who don't.
Of course, I live in Wyoming. In Wyoming one must assume that at least 50% of those around you are carrying, concealed or open. Hmmm... funny thing.. I just realized.... I hear a lot fewer news stories regarding armed robbery here in WY than I did when I lived in NY. Geee...... I wonder why?
Exactly. I may not have worded it exactly right. I think they
believe that law abiding citizens having guns means there are more
guns out there for law breaking persons to have access to
(whilebreaking the law). Their belief is that we should be willing
to give up our guns, or at least have ours all registered, tracked,
and restricted (as to what we can own) so that criminals cannot get
their hands on them. <rollseyes>
It can be a mixed bag. The other day someone was buying handguns for
he and his wife. Hios wife works in a marijuana dispensary and
handles large sums of cash, and was asking if open carry might be
preferable over concealed carry, which would take longer to get a
permit.
I told them a visible firearm is like a flashlight in a dark room.
You can see your enemies, but they can see you have a flashlight.
While it should discourage bad actors, it also singles you out as the biggest threat to take out first. Concealed carry keeps everybody
guessing. And polite.
On 6/24/22 14:10, Dumas Walker wrote:
Exactly. I may not have worded it exactly right. I think they
believe that law abiding citizens having guns means there are more
guns out there for law breaking persons to have access to
(whilebreaking the law). Their belief is that we should be willing
to give up our guns, or at least have ours all registered, tracked,
and restricted (as to what we can own) so that criminals cannot get
their hands on them. <rollseyes>
Realistically, if they *REALLY* wanted to cut down on gun violence,
they'd be trying to outlaw handguns, not rifles (AR-15 etc) to begin
with. The vast majority of gun violence and gun related crimes (armed robbery, etc) is done with a handgun... but those aren't the ones that typically make the headlines and are exceedingly rare.
Note: this is not an endorsement of the idea, just pointing out the ignorance and hypocrisy.
--
Michael J. Ryan - [email protected]
On 6/25/22 09:35, Moondog wrote:
It can be a mixed bag. The other day someone was buying handguns for
he and his wife. Hios wife works in a marijuana dispensary and
handles large sums of cash, and was asking if open carry might be preferable over concealed carry, which would take longer to get a
permit.
I told them a visible firearm is like a flashlight in a dark room.
You can see your enemies, but they can see you have a flashlight.
While it should discourage bad actors, it also singles you out as the biggest threat to take out first. Concealed carry keeps everybody guessing. And polite.
Unfortunately, as long as marijuana is federally illegal, any and all
crimes that may occur at a dispensary would likely involve charges
against anyone carrying firearms, including store personnel. Here in
AZ, security is often outside the building, or in an entry area
technically separate from the store area for this reason.
Firearms + Scheduled drugs == increased federal penalties.
--
Michael J. Ryan - [email protected]
Realistically, if they *REALLY* wanted to cut down on gun violence,
they'd be trying to outlaw handguns, not rifles (AR-15 etc) to begin
with. The vast majority of gun violence and gun related crimes (armed robbery, etc) is done with a handgun... but those aren't the ones that typically make the headlines and are exceedingly rare.
Note: this is not an endorsement of the idea, just pointing out the
ignorance and hypocrisy.
Dumas Walker wrote to TRACKER1 <=-
Realistically, if they *REALLY* wanted to cut down on gun violence,
they'd be trying to outlaw handguns, not rifles (AR-15 etc) to begin
with. The vast majority of gun violence and gun related crimes (armed robbery, etc) is done with a handgun... but those aren't the ones that typically make the headlines and are exceedingly rare.
Note: this is not an endorsement of the idea, just pointing out the ignorance and hypocrisy.
Yes, this is true. There are some cities that probably have a
"mass shootings" worth of people, and then some, shot and killed
each day by handguns.
Yes, this is true. There are some cities that probably have a
"mass shootings" worth of people, and then some, shot and killed
each day by handguns.
Definitely true. Chicago probably tops that list. The city with the strictest gun laws anywhere. What they forget is that criminals don't
obey laws.
Dumas Walker wrote to GAMGEE <=-
Yes, this is true. There are some cities that probably have a
"mass shootings" worth of people, and then some, shot and killed
each day by handguns.
Definitely true. Chicago probably tops that list. The city with the strictest gun laws anywhere. What they forget is that criminals don't
obey laws.
I really don't understand how someone like me can explain that to
someone who seems to be able to follow logic and seems to be
resonably intelligent, yet they won't understand it. IMHO, some
of them just think that guns are scary and we are better off with
less of them, but the "criminals don't obey laws" logic should be
equally as scary.
resonably intelligent, yet they won't understand it. IMHO, some
of them just think that guns are scary and we are better off with
less of them, but the "criminals don't obey laws" logic should be equally as scary.
Yes, it should be just as scary. What I honestly think is that those
who think more gun laws will fix the problem is that they actually are
NOT interested in fixing the real problem. What they are interested
in doing is increasing the amount of control that they can have over
another group of people. It's really very petty and selfish, but that's
the actual truth.
The real problem is mental health, and the fact that so many are not
able to get treatment for their issues.
Gun contol laws are *PROVEN* to be ineffective, and the so called "red
flag" laws that the same people want were *JUST* proven to be equally as useless, right there in Highland Park, Illinois. It was a textbook
example case of complete failure.
Dumas Walker wrote to GAMGEE <=-
resonably intelligent, yet they won't understand it. IMHO, some
of them just think that guns are scary and we are better off with
less of them, but the "criminals don't obey laws" logic should be equally as scary.
Yes, it should be just as scary. What I honestly think is that those
who think more gun laws will fix the problem is that they actually are
NOT interested in fixing the real problem. What they are interested
in doing is increasing the amount of control that they can have over
another group of people. It's really very petty and selfish, but that's
the actual truth.
No doubt, that is certainly true of the politicians who claim
that more laws will fix the problem. I was thinking more in
terms of the voters.
The real problem is mental health, and the fact that so many are not
able to get treatment for their issues.
Yes. I also think there is some disconnect going on with our
society. It used to be, when asked in school what they want to
be when they grow up, younger people would mention some
profession. Supposedly, now they are more likely to want to "be
famous." If a kid who wants to be famous is also one that does
not see much hope in life, being famous by doing something
stupid, whether it be drinking bleach on Tik-Tok or shooting up a
school, somehow seems OK to them.
Gun contol laws are *PROVEN* to be ineffective, and the so called "red
flag" laws that the same people want were *JUST* proven to be equally as useless, right there in Highland Park, Illinois. It was a textbook
example case of complete failure.
There have been several shooters this year that "were on (some
law enforcement agency's) radar" but yet were not seen as enough
of a threat to do anything about until it was too late. A family
member has an issue with a stalker. The stalker, after doing a
drive-by at their house, apparently murdered someone in another
part of town and got caught for that. The family member was
worried about them being released on house arrest to await trial.
I told them to phone in a tip and suggest the shooter was a
member of the January 6 mob as that seems to be the only thing
that these law enforcement groups care about. Otherwise, you are
not enough of a threat.
Dumas Walker wrote to TRACKER1 <=-
Realistically, if they *REALLY* wanted to cut down on gun violence, they'd be trying to outlaw handguns, not rifles (AR-15 etc) to begin with. The vast majority of gun violence and gun related crimes (armed robbery, etc) is done with a handgun... but those aren't the ones that typically make the headlines and are exceedingly rare.
Note: this is not an endorsement of the idea, just pointing out the ignorance and hypocrisy.
Yes, this is true. There are some cities that probably have a
"mass shootings" worth of people, and then some, shot and killed
each day by handguns.
Definitely true. Chicago probably tops that list. The city with the strictest gun laws anywhere. What they forget is that criminals don't
obey laws.
... The world is full of surprises, very few of which are pleasant.
Dumas Walker wrote to GAMGEE <=-
Yes, this is true. There are some cities that probably have a
"mass shootings" worth of people, and then some, shot and killed each day by handguns.
Definitely true. Chicago probably tops that list. The city with the strictest gun laws anywhere. What they forget is that criminals don't obey laws.
I really don't understand how someone like me can explain that to someone who seems to be able to follow logic and seems to be
resonably intelligent, yet they won't understand it. IMHO, some
of them just think that guns are scary and we are better off with
less of them, but the "criminals don't obey laws" logic should be equally as scary.
Yes, it should be just as scary. What I honestly think is that those
who think more gun laws will fix the problem is that they actually are
NOT interested in fixing the real problem. What they are interested
in doing is increasing the amount of control that they can have over
another group of people. It's really very petty and selfish, but that's
the actual truth.
The real problem is mental health, and the fact that so many are not
able to get treatment for their issues.
Gun contol laws are *PROVEN* to be ineffective, and the so called "red
flag" laws that the same people want were *JUST* proven to be equally as useless, right there in Highland Park, Illinois. It was a textbook
example case of complete failure.
... Vote Democrat. It's easier than thinking!
Moondog wrote to Gamgee <=-
The real problem is mental health, and the fact that so many are not
able to get treatment for their issues.
Gun contol laws are *PROVEN* to be ineffective, and the so called "red
flag" laws that the same people want were *JUST* proven to be equally as useless, right there in Highland Park, Illinois. It was a textbook
example case of complete failure.
It goes well beyond mental health. Crazy people are a minority
of shooters when compared to organized crime and gang murders.
What happened to the beliefs that life has value?
Chicago blames northwest Indiana towns such as South Bend for the guns in chicago. Granted, South Bend has it's own troubles, however the streets do not flow with blood like Chicago's mayor would make you belive.
It goes well beyond mental health. Crazy people are a minority
of shooters when compared to organized crime and gang murders.
No argument there. I may have been thinking more along the lines of
"school shooters" when I said that. In that sub-category, I think the crazies dominate.
No argument there. I may have been thinking more along the lines of "school shooters" when I said that. In that sub-category, I think the crazies dominate.
Until the urge to become famous because so prevalent, I think a lot of
these mass shooter kids would have been the ones that committed suicide
when I was high school aged. Now they shoot a bunch of other people first.
Dumas Walker wrote to GAMGEE <=-
It goes well beyond mental health. Crazy people are a minority
of shooters when compared to organized crime and gang murders.
No argument there. I may have been thinking more along the lines of
"school shooters" when I said that. In that sub-category, I think the crazies dominate.
Until the urge to become famous because so prevalent, I think a
lot of these mass shooter kids would have been the ones that
committed suicide when I was high school aged. Now they shoot a
bunch of other people first.
Chicago blames northwest Indiana towns such as South Bend for the guns in chicago. Granted, South Bend has it's own troubles, however the streets d not flow with blood like Chicago's mayor would make you belive.
During a trip through NW Indiana last fall, I saw a whole bunch of
fireworks stores. I only saw one or two gun stores. This was on US 41 and US 12, just outside of Chicago and beyond to Michigan City.
* SLMR 2.1a * "End of quote. Repeat the line." - Biden Words of Wisdom
Re: Re: Gun Insurance
By: Dumas Walker to GAMGEE on Thu Jul 14 2022 04:14 pm
No argument there. I may have been thinking more along the lines of "school shooters" when I said that. In that sub-category, I think the crazies dominate.
Until the urge to become famous because so prevalent, I think a lot of these mass shooter kids would have been the ones that committed suicide when I was high school aged. Now they shoot a bunch of other people firs
If I found my school was ruining my life to the point I wanted to die, then setting the school on fire with everybody who I thought was ruining my life inside would look reasonable. Perpretators of school massacres have this tendency to kill themselves as a final act of victory too: they kill themsel
so society is deprived of the delight of keeping on hurting them.
The fact there is so much school violence should point out the fact that schools are structured as stressful places in which people is broken past th point of no return. I never see anybody talking about this.
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
Dumas Walker wrote to GAMGEE <=-
It goes well beyond mental health. Crazy people are a minority
of shooters when compared to organized crime and gang murders.
No argument there. I may have been thinking more along the lines of "school shooters" when I said that. In that sub-category, I think the crazies dominate.
Until the urge to become famous because so prevalent, I think a
lot of these mass shooter kids would have been the ones that
committed suicide when I was high school aged. Now they shoot a
bunch of other people first.
Yup. :-(
... The future's uncertain, the end is always near.
If I found my school was ruining my life to the point I wanted to die, then setting the school on fire with everybody who I thought was ruining my life inside would look reasonable. Perpretators of school massacres have this tendency to kill themselves as a final act of victory too: they kill themselve
so society is deprived of the delight of keeping on hurting them.
The fact there is so much school violence should point out the fact that schools are structured as stressful places in which people is broken past the point of no return. I never see anybody talking about this.
If I found my school was ruining my life to the point I wanted to die, the setting the school on fire with everybody who I thought was ruining my lif inside would look reasonable. Perpretators of school massacres have this tendency to kill themselves as a final act of victory too: they kill thems
so society is deprived of the delight of keeping on hurting them.
The fact there is so much school violence should point out the fact that schools are structured as stressful places in which people is broken past point of no return. I never see anybody talking about this.
In the case of the Uvalde school shooter, and some others also, they are
not students at the school they shoot up. The Uvalde shooter picked a school with kids several years younger than he in attendance. I am not
even sure he was still in school but, if he was, it would have been a high school where kids close to his age attended.
* SLMR 2.1a * Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?
Dumas Walker wrote to TRACKER1 <=-
@MSGID: <[email protected]>
@REPLY: <[email protected]>
@TZ: c12c
Realistically, if they *REALLY* wanted to cut down on gun violence,
they'd be trying to outlaw handguns, not rifles (AR-15 etc) to begin
with. The vast majority of gun violence and gun related crimes (armed robbery, etc) is done with a handgun... but those aren't the ones that typically make the headlines and are exceedingly rare.
Note: this is not an endorsement of the idea, just pointing out the ignorance and hypocrisy.
Yes, this is true. There are some cities that probably have a "mass shootings" worth of people, and then some, shot and killed each day by handguns.
Dumas Walker wrote to GAMGEE <=-
Yes, this is true. There are some cities that probably have a
"mass shootings" worth of people, and then some, shot and killed
each day by handguns.
Definitely true. Chicago probably tops that list. The city with the strictest gun laws anywhere. What they forget is that criminals don't
obey laws.
I really don't understand how someone like me can explain that to
someone who seems to be able to follow logic and seems to be resonably intelligent, yet they won't understand it. IMHO, some of them just
think that guns are scary and we are better off with less of them, but
the "criminals don't obey laws" logic should be equally as scary.
Gamgee wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
I really don't understand how someone like me can explain that to
someone who seems to be able to follow logic and seems to be
resonably intelligent, yet they won't understand it. IMHO, some
of them just think that guns are scary and we are better off with
less of them, but the "criminals don't obey laws" logic should be
equally as scary.
Yes, it should be just as scary. What I honestly think is that those
who think more gun laws will fix the problem is that they actually are
NOT interested in fixing the real problem. What they are interested
in doing is increasing the amount of control that they can have over another group of people. It's really very petty and selfish, but
that's the actual truth.
He was in high school. From what I read, he was an outcast with a learning di
sability and was picked on and had no friends. He had a frined he used to hang out with until the kid's family moved away. He was in his senior year, and the school would place pictures of the seniors on the light poles in town. Somehow his picture was left out. He received teasing about that as well. Sounds liek the kid had a shitty time in school, but that only explains why he might have snapped, but doesn't excuse it. he proabably picked the elementary school because it was an easy target.
He was in high school. From what I read, he was an outcast with a learning di
sability and was picked on and had no friends. He had a frined he used to hang out with until the kid's family moved away. He was in his senior year,
and the school would place pictures of the seniors on the light poles in town. Somehow his picture was left out. He received teasing about that as
well. Sounds liek the kid had a shitty time in school, but that only explains why he might have snapped, but doesn't excuse it. he proabably picked the elementary school because it was an easy target.
You are right, it does not excuse it. However, if I was one of those kids that picked on him, I would be rethinking my ways right about now.
As you point out in another message, even if some of the kids do rethink their ways, it probably won't have a lasting affect. :(
* SLMR 2.1a * "End of quote. Repeat the line." - Biden Words of Wisdom
---
� Synchronet � CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
Weatherman wrote to Gamgee <=-
I really don't understand how someone like me can explain that to
someone who seems to be able to follow logic and seems to be
resonably intelligent, yet they won't understand it. IMHO, some
of them just think that guns are scary and we are better off with
less of them, but the "criminals don't obey laws" logic should be
equally as scary.
Yes, it should be just as scary. What I honestly think is that those
who think more gun laws will fix the problem is that they actually are
NOT interested in fixing the real problem. What they are interested
in doing is increasing the amount of control that they can have over another group of people. It's really very petty and selfish, but
that's the actual truth.
Those who the true power behind the push for gun control laws
desire one outcome. They are seeking to disarm the American
populace so that they may increase their power and influence over
the general population. The Second Amendment is the protector of
the entire Bill of Rights. Those who would impose severe gun
restrictions upon us are the ones who desire to impose further
limits upon our constitutional rights.
Dumas Walker wrote to TRACKER1 <=-
@MSGID: <[email protected]>
@REPLY: <[email protected]>
@TZ: c12c
Realistically, if they *REALLY* wanted to cut down on gun violence, they'd be trying to outlaw handguns, not rifles (AR-15 etc) to begin with. The vast majority of gun violence and gun related crimes (armed robbery, etc) is done with a handgun... but those aren't the ones that typically make the headlines and are exceedingly rare.
Note: this is not an endorsement of the idea, just pointing out the ignorance and hypocrisy.
Yes, this is true. There are some cities that probably have a "mass shootings" worth of people, and then some, shot and killed each day by handguns.
Suffice it to say more people are killed by handguns each year than by rifle of any time.
Suicides account for more firearms related deaths each year than any other. Rifles of any type are seldom utilized in suicide attempts.
The problem is not the gun. The problem is the cheapening of human life. T cheapening of human life is a direct reflection of the society in which we live.
Regards....
... The best way to accelerate a Mac is at 9.8m/s^2
He was in high school. From what I read, he was an outcast with a learnin sability and was picked on and had no friends. He had a frined he used to hang out with until the kid's family moved away. He was in his senior yea and the school would place pictures of the seniors on the light poles in town. Somehow his picture was left out. He received teasing about that a well. Sounds liek the kid had a shitty time in school, but that only explains why he might have snapped, but doesn't excuse it. he proabably picked the elementary school because it was an easy target.
You are right, it does not excuse it. However, if I was one of those kids that picked on him, I would be rethinking my ways right about now.
As you point out in another message, even if some of the kids do rethink their ways, it probably won't have a lasting affect. :(
* SLMR 2.1a * "End of quote. Repeat the line." - Biden Words of Wisdom
The problem is not the gun. The problem is the cheapening of human life. The
cheapening of human life is a direct reflection of the society in which we live.
The problem is not the gun. The problem is the cheapening of human life. cheapening of human life is a direct reflection of the society in which we live.
Agreed.
* SLMR 2.1a * "Mmmmmmmm.....doughnuts."
A few weeks ago on a Facebook thread I cited an article from about 10 years ag
o a local 8 year old killed his 4 year old brother over the last bowl of cereal left in the box. A commenter said "boys will be boys," as if this was acceptable behavior. Not in my parent's house. Not in my neighborhood would something like that happen.
A few weeks ago on a Facebook thread I cited an article from about 10 year o a local 8 year old killed his 4 year old brother over the last bowl of cereal left in the box. A commenter said "boys will be boys," as if this acceptable behavior. Not in my parent's house. Not in my neighborhood wo something like that happen.
That is a rather callous, desensitized reaction that commenter had, assuming it was not sarcasm. My parents would not have put up with violent, agressive behavior, either.
* SLMR 2.1a * "My eyeballs nearly popped out!"
Belly wrote to JIMMY ANDERSON <=-
Re: Re: Gun Insurance
By: JIMMY ANDERSON to DR. WHAT on Sun Jun 26 2022 01:51 pm
Hi, Jimmy... I think we might know one another in RL.
o
(O)
BeLLy
Dumas Walker wrote to GAMGEE <=-
Yes, this is true. There are some cities that probably have a
"mass shootings" worth of people, and then some, shot and killed
each day by handguns.
Definitely true. Chicago probably tops that list. The city with the strictest gun laws anywhere. What they forget is that criminals don't
obey laws.
I really don't understand how someone like me can explain that to
someone who seems to be able to follow logic and seems to be resonably intelligent, yet they won't understand it. IMHO, some of them just
think that guns are scary and we are better off with less of them, but
the "criminals don't obey laws" logic should be equally as scary.
Moondog wrote to Gamgee <=-
The real problem is mental health, and the fact that so many are not
able to get treatment for their issues.
It goes well beyond mental health. Crazy people are a minority of shooters when compared to organized crime and gang murders. What
happened to the beliefs that life has value?
Arelor wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
The fact there is so much school violence should point out the fact
that schools are structured as stressful places in which people is
broken past the point of no return. I never see anybody talking about this.
Moondog wrote to Arelor <=-
While I hated being treated like crap by bullies, I never had thoughts
of killing anyone. Coming back later in life and making them miserable sounded more fun.
Moondog wrote to Gamgee <=-
Going out in a blaze of "glory" garners way more attention. Leave
behind a note or a manifesto, and it will be on the news regardless how poorly written or illogical it is.
Weatherman wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
Yes, this is true. There are some cities that probably have a "mass shootings" worth of people, and then some, shot and killed each day by handguns.
Suffice it to say more people are killed by handguns each year than by rifles of any time.
Suicides account for more firearms related deaths each year than any other. Rifles of any type are seldom utilized in suicide attempts.
The problem is not the gun. The problem is the cheapening of human
life. The cheapening of human life is a direct reflection of the
society in which we live.
BUT - I had a friend say something to the effect of "I don't like
guns - they were designed to kill - I'd rather there not be
any guns" and I honestly agreed with him! If it would prevent
people from hurting other people? I'd be all for it! But making
MY guns illegal while not removing ALL guns (bad guys, military,
our government, other governments) is not the answer. That just
creates a defenseless target...
Jimmy Anderson wrote to Weatherman <=-
Yes, this is true. There are some cities that probably have a "mass shootings" worth of people, and then some, shot and killed each day by handguns.
Suffice it to say more people are killed by handguns each year than by rifles of any time.
Suicides account for more firearms related deaths each year than any other. Rifles of any type are seldom utilized in suicide attempts.
The problem is not the gun. The problem is the cheapening of human
life. The cheapening of human life is a direct reflection of the
society in which we live.
Agreed! And unless something has changed, more people are killed each
year by 'fist and foot' than guns anyway...
... <A>bort <R>etry <D>o what I mean!!!
Nothing has changed, hand-and-foot still outpaces firearms. And don't forget that the lowly handgun accounts for far more deaths than that scary and deadly-looking AR-15 (or ANY rifle forthat matter).
Nothing has changed, hand-and-foot still outpaces firearms. And don't for that the lowly handgun accounts for far more deaths than that scary and deadly-looking AR-15 (or ANY rifle forthat matter).
I have always suspected that they are going after rifles more lately
because they figured out that their private body guards are more likely to carry a handgun and they don't want to have to give the body guards up.
"They" in this case being celebrities and politicians.
* SLMR 2.1a * WORK HARDER!... Millions on Welfare depend on YOU!
DUMAS WALKER wrote to WEATHERMAN <=-forget
@VIA: CAPCITY2
@MSGID: <[email protected]>
@REPLY: <[email protected]>
Nothing has changed, hand-and-foot still outpaces firearms. And don't
that the lowly handgun accounts for far more deaths than that scary and deadly-looking AR-15 (or ANY rifle forthat matter).
I have always suspected that they are going after rifles more lately because they figured out that their private body guards are more likely
to carry a handgun and they don't want to have to give the body guards
up.
"They" in this case being celebrities and politicians.
DUMAS WALKER wrote to WEATHERMAN <=-
@VIA: CAPCITY2forget
@MSGID: <[email protected]>
@REPLY: <[email protected]>
Nothing has changed, hand-and-foot still outpaces firearms. And don't
that the lowly handgun accounts for far more deaths than that scary and deadly-looking AR-15 (or ANY rifle forthat matter).
I have always suspected that they are going after rifles more lately because they figured out that their private body guards are more likely to carry a handgun and they don't want to have to give the body guards up.
"They" in this case being celebrities and politicians.
Well - that, and they have to start somewhere...
... Deja Tue: A feeling that yesterday was Monday ...
Hey there! Please, how? :-)
Belly wrote to Jimmy Anderson <=-
Re: Re: Gun Insurance
By: Jimmy Anderson to Belly on Thu Jan 05 2023 11:27 am
Hey there! Please, how? :-)
If WTETA means something to you, then probably... It's been so long now that I don't recall what sparked the connection!
If WTETA means something to you, then probably... It's been so long now that I don't recall what sparked the connection!
Yeah - I don't remember the conversation - WTETA to me is West Tennessee Educational Technology Association - I used to be a very active member...
BELLY wrote to JIMMY ANDERSON <=-
If WTETA means something to you, then probably... It's been so long now that I don't recall what sparked the connection!
Yeah - I don't remember the conversation - WTETA to me is West Tennessee Educational Technology Association - I used to be a very active member...
One and the same... Olympic steak house. I remember you playing guitar
at at least one of the picnic meetings.
| Sysop: | Coz |
|---|---|
| Location: | Anoka, MN |
| Users: | 2 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 113:12:26 |
| Calls: | 162 |
| Files: | 5,327 |
| Messages: | 222,477 |