Saw Stop would have prevented this

Page 7 of 10  
"Doug Winterburn" wrote:

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

"Doug Winterburn" wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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..
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:10:29 -0400, "Mike Marlow"

Well, my computer has been down for several days, but it's back up now. So, let me see if I can find that show I mentioned and then you can respond.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/18/13 8:52 PM, Dave wrote:

Interesting you bring up Sandy Hook. It's been the trumpet call of the left as the catalyst for the entire current gun control legislation. Without Sandy Hook, there would be no current debate. Without Sandy Hook, there would be no push by the Dems to ban "assault style" weapons.
However, this all flies in the face of the actual facts surrounding Sandy Hook. - *Current* background check laws and procedures *worked* by prohibiting the shooter, Adam Lanza, from buying weapons when he tried in the days before the shooting. - The shooter, Adam Lanza, used only registered, stolen handguns in the Sandy Hook shooting and left a rifle in his car. He neither possessed, nor had access to any "assault-style" weapons.
Yet, everyone who's is pushing for stricter gun control laws and gun bans continue to use this fictitious, fabricated narrative that Sandy Hook was perpetrated by a man using unregistered weapons and assault style rifles.
NOT ONE new gun control or gun registration law being proposed today would've changed ANYTHING about Sandy Hook.

Do you think there may have been more to the story *and* the bill and its amendments when FIVE democrats voted against it?

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/obama-gun-control-defeat-shameful-day-for-washington-1.1241389#ixzz2QqH3IKT7

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-takes-senate-task-failed-gun-control-measure/story?id 981374

The only people terrified of gun are those who have never been trained to use them or those who have been brainwashed with the scare tactic fairy-tails of the Left.
--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"-MIKE-" wrote:

BullShit.
I find the recent murder of the Dallas DA, his wife and a deputy DA to be a little bit ironic.
According to the DA's son he kept more than a dozen fully loaded firearms in his home including one on each side and one behind a chair used for watching TV.
The DA had gathered up these firearms and placed them out of sight that evening since they were going to entertain guests that night.
It is coming out that a Justice of the Piece, who the DA and his deputy had convicted the JP of theft of gov't property.
Kind of ironic.
If universal background check had been in place, the JP would have lost his right to possess firearms as a result of becoming a convicted felon, and both these senseless murders would have been avoided.
Sorry, but I have no sympathy for these paranoid gun toting folks; however, the firearms and ammunition manufacturers could not survive without them.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/18/13 10:02 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Yeah, because a bad guy never stole a gun to murder anyone.
--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which is the point I've repeated tried to make. The less guns there are around, the less there are for someone to steal.
The only response that seems to be made these days is that there are so many guns around that it's a waste of time trying to limit them. So, why try? That seems to be the attitude of many people in the US. Giving up is not an attitude that I'd generally attribute to the US as a whole.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/18/13 10:23 PM, Dave wrote:

There is no reason to limit guns. It is also unconstitutional to do so in the US. If we were to ban guns like they do in Chicago, the bad guys can still get them illegally. Chicago has the highest gun murder rate in the country and has the strictest gun control laws. All banning guns does is stop the law abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves.
In areas where more homes and citizens have more guns, there is less crime. There is a simple explanation for that. The bad guys know if they try to rob someone in these areas, there's a good chance they will get their ass shot attempting it.
--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Leon" wrote:

It's either surrender your guns or spend some time in one of your Texas "Graybar Hotels".
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ummmm they can't put you in jail for something they can't find.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/18/2013 10:52 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[...]

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/19/2013 5:08 AM, Doug Miller wrote:

become illegal gun owners before they would surrender their guns.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not taking that bet.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

---------------------------------------------------------------
"Doug Miller" wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:
So your suggesting that if the DA and his deputy had enforced existing Texas law they would still be alive today? ---------------------------------------------------------------- "Doug Miller" wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Rubbish.
I'm not interested in "gun control" other than to get military assault weapons and large capacity clips off the domestic market.
I am interested in strengthening a universal background check.
Ultimately, establishing a gun registration program similar to those in place for motor vehicles should be the ultimate goal.
Nobody is trying to restrict your use of a motor vehicle, and people don't complain about the registration process other than maybe the cost.
Why should firearms be any different?
Lew
Nobody wants your adult Binky".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I obviously did not say that. Nice straw man there, but, sorry, no, I'm not taking the bait.

There are no military assault weapons on the domestic market now. Military weapons are automatic weapons. The so-called "assault weapons" available on the market are semi- automatic -- a distinction which is lost on television news broadcasters, and, apparently, on you also.
And what's so important about large capacity magazines? If large capacity magazines are banned, the bad guys will use more small ones. Tell me, Lew, which holds more ammunition, two 30-round magazines, or six 10-round magazines? Do you have any idea how little time it takes to eject a spent magazine and insert another? What will banning 30- round magazines do, except make people feel good because we've "done something"? Be specific.
One of the unintended consequences of banning large capacity magazines that those ignorant of firearms never imagine is that 7-round and 10-round magazines are a lot easier to conceal than 30-round magazines. (Woodworking analogy here: which is easier to fit in the trunk of your car, four 2-foot 2x4s or one 8-footer?)

So if I decide to sell one of my shotguns to my brother, I need to run a background check on him?

I'm sure every criminal in the country would rush to comply with the registration requirements.

Ownership of firearms is a right protected by the Constitution of the United States. Ownership of automobiles is not.
[gratutitous insult snipped]
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/20/2013 7:20 AM, Doug Miller wrote:

Actually, there are military assault weapons on the domestic market, and it is perfectly legal to own them. You have to pay a $200 federal licensing fee, and they are REALLY expensive, but if you wanted to own, say, a military 50 caliber machine gun, or a full auto M16a, you certainly could, all completely legal. I would ask, since such automatic weapons are actually legal and available for private ownership, how often are they used to commit crimes? My guess is just about never. In other words, despite their legality there is no evidence to support an argument that banning them would make society safer.

carry revolvers and speed loaders. If speed loaders were banned, they could carry 4 loaded revolvers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in

Point taken. I should have said "There are hardly any ... on the domestic market now".

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I watched a television show recently where people were shown how to handle and discharge a firearm. They then were sent out carrying the hand gun thinking it was loaded with real ammunition.
Then when in a classroom setting, someone burst into the room and started shooting people. Every damned one of them forgot their training in the face of presumed REAL danger.
How do you explain that? Even for law enforcement professionals, CONSTANT training and readiness preparation is essential to handle these sudden situations that you want everybody to be armed for.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.