Saw Stop would have prevented this

[Swingman]

Better yet, require training and license parents ...

[Doug Winterburn]

Perhaps if you lived as close to the Mexican border as I (and millions of other legal US citizens) do, you might re-assess the need for self defense - no matter what our current homeland security head says about border security. I'm 90 miles north of the border, and I see signs 3 miles from my house warning me not to venture into the desert because of human and drug smuggling. This is supposed to be public land! We have had running gun battles between coyotes vying for each others smuggled illegals kill innocent travelers on Interstate 10. We have had ranchers killed on their own property by drug smugglers. I'd be negligent without a personal firearm to protect my family and myself!

And to add to that, my sister (now deceased) lived in Custer, WA. She was a horse person and enjoyed riding near her home close to the Canadian border. She gave it up as she had too may close calls with drug smugglers bringing that crap from Canada into the US.

[Dave]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:54:38 -0500, -MIKE-

And your replay is feeble. Automobiles, baseball bats, hammers, whatever else everyday item you want to present, usually have other uses and originated with a different purpose.

Perhaps you should read this.

Firearms originated with just one purpose. The first maker of a gun didn't just think one day, "Hmmm, think I'll make gun for target shooting". Instead he thought, "I'll make a gun to kill some animal or go kill someone in a fight".

In any event, when all other argument fails, people in the US fall back on the second amendment. That was several hundred years ago. Society was considerably different then. I'd suggest that the second amendment is out of date in today's society.

But, I understand the want to keep it. It's like anything else. Someone gave you something and you're damned if anybody is going to take it away from you. Guess you're going to have to find some other method to handle your gun crimes.

[Dave]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:05:57 -0700, Doug Winterburn

Well, you maybe right. I don't experience that kind of stress where I live. I do live in a crowded city in an apartment building that has its own level of stress or possible danger if you prefer.

And, I will admit one other thing. If guns were legal and easily obtained I'd own one now. A little over thirty years ago, I used to do quite a bit of target shooting and owned a half dozen rifles and hand guns. But, those day are long gone and unlikely to return.

[Leon]

Oh good golly Lew. Do you really thing that an ex law person that is capable of murder is going to give up his guns? Think Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. When there is a will to hide and kill there will always be a way.

I really don't think they are looking for sympathy, it is their right to do so should they choose to do so.

Actually many gun manufacturers build many other things besides guns.

[Leon]

Regardless of how this discussion ends up lets not be mad at one another. And my mentioning your gun laws and Canadians still being killed by guns was absolutely not intended to be below the belt. I continue to maintain that regardless of how strict gun laws are the innocent law biding people are the most likely to be killed by a gun. It would be like trying to out law bad weather.

Now concerning your show, I would not be at all surprised if it was filmed in California but NOT IN TEXAS! :-)

[Dave]

Yes, but if the show was made in California you'd more likely die of stress related cancer from the lead in the hand gun bullets.

[Leon]

Yeah! I have been reluctant to say it but I firmly believe that the biggest problem with our society in the U.S. is that in most cases both parents work and are not available for their kids. Too busy trying to stay up with the Jones and not paying enough to what really matters, our children.

[Lew Hodgett]

-------------------------------------------------- Dave wrote:

------------------------------------------------------ "Doug W> Perhaps if you lived as close to the Mexican border as I (and

---------------------------------------------------- Some things are abundantly obvious.

The war on drugs has been an expensive and total failure.

If you want to take over the USA, having an armed citizenry is not much of a deterrent.

You don't need firearms to conduct cyber war, hell, you don't even have to be in the USA.

You don't need firearms to contaminate the nation's water supply.

You don't need firearms to totally disrupt the transportation systems.

The list goes on, but you get the idea.

The days of the Lone Ranger are history.

I don't have a good idea to completely solve the "drug problem"; however, taking the profit out of the "drug problem", is a good starting point.

It is abundantly clear that the firearms and ammunition manufacturers are playing the public like a fiddle.

Time to wake up.

Off the box.

Lew

[Leon]

Now you are talking! LOL

[Leon]

All these problems have popped up and especially in California because your local government knows what is best for you and has you believe it..

[Lew Hodgett]

--------------------------------------------- It's either surrender your guns or spend some time in one of your Texas "Graybar Hotels".

Lew

[Leon]

Ummmm they can't put you in jail for something they can't find.

[-MIKE-]

Then look up knives. And WTF does the original purpose of something have to do with its ability to kill. Aren't the lives takes the reason everyone wants to band guns?

When the 1st Amendment was written all we have was a printing press and it took a month for new to get across the country. We now have the internet and instant press across the world. Should we limit the 1st Amendment because of that.

It's an inalienable right, as understood by the authors of the constitution. The only one who gave it to us was our creator.

But why am I arguing with a Canadian?

[Dave]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:05:17 -0500, -MIKE-

Knives have a considerable amount of use other than killing people. As do your hammers and many other objects that have been used to kill people.

Guns are pretty much a single use item.

I didn't mention other amendments. You keep trying to inject other variables into this discussion.

Your creator? You mean your father? Surely, you can't be talking about God? Did God give you something? Wow, you're a lucky guy.

A man or men gave it to you. Men are not perfect and times are different now than 300 years ago.

Oh well, I guess that's a good a reason as any to end this discussion. But, since God gave you the 2nd Amendment, perhaps he can also give you a sense of humour?

:)

[Doug Miller]

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:5170b3ae$0$64431$c3e8da3$ [e-mail]:

[...]

Nonsense. That has nothing at all to do with "universal background check". Convicted felons

*already* lose the right to possess firearms.

Proponents of gun control, such as yourself, insist that if we pass laws prohibiting the possession of illegal guns, then nobody will have any illegal guns.

I'll believe that, as soon as you can show me that laws prohibiting the posssession of illegal drugs have ensured that nobody has any illegal drugs.

[Doug Miller]

-MIKE- wrote in news:kkqf5t$jij$ [e-mail]:

[...]

This is untrue.

There are very nearly as many deaths due to firearms in the U.S. as due to automobiles (roughly 31000 vs 34000, respectively, in 2011).

Over 60% of the firearm deaths are suicides, about 2% are accidents, around

25-30% are murders, and roughly 5% each non-murder homicide (e.g. self-defense) and "undetermined intent".

[Leon]

And as an example of crap that slides through is the new gun control law thar requires AZ law enforcement to quit destroying guns that were voluntarily turned in an start reselling them. How in the world does that control guns.

[Doug Winterburn]

Those buying the turned in guns from law enforcement must pass a background check. The state would like to recover the money it paid out for the turned in guns. The result is those guns are now in the hands of law abiding citizens and the state isn't losing money to accomplish that. Also, many of those turned in guns are non-functional and end up being destroyed anyway.

[Doug Miller]

Doug Winterburn wrote in news:5171465b$0$44662$c3e8da3 $ [e-mail]:

[...]

Isn't that the truth. A community group here in Indianapolis sponsored a gun buy-back last summer. I got two crisp new fifty-dollar bills for a .22 revolver that could not be cocked, and a

20-ga break action shotgun with fixed sights that were off by two feet at ten yards. Many of the other guns I saw being turned in were obviously very old and rusty -- and nearly all of them were long guns.

I don't think it accomplished very much except to make the leaders of that community group feel good about themselves.