"...voters who can't be controlled, can't be trusted."

k program that was constructed to accept gun from people who were promised anonymity. My guess would that they photographed number plates and faces an d got as many identifications as they could. Public perceptions need to be cultivated, but not to the extent of letting potential criminals get away w ith anything.

So more conjecture, no cite.

Dan

Reply to
dcaster
Loading thread data ...

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 9:29:31 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote: ... Mpm did manage to find a Los Angles gun buy back program that was constructed to accept gun from people who were promised anonymity. My guess would that they photographed number plates and faces and got as many identifications as they could. ...

This may double-post. Browser reloaded midstream. Argh!!

Anyway, I found several more (supposedly) anonymous gun buy-back programs.

Santa Barbara, California:

formatting link

Rochester, New York:

formatting link

The following: Oakland, California San Francisco, California Detroit, Michigan

formatting link

Tampa, Florida:

formatting link

I think I could be at this all night? I didn't see any posts that overtly mentioned one would have to have over their identification in order to get paid. (But of course, they probably wouldn't mention that..)

Reply to
mpm

:

ack program that was constructed to accept gun from people who were promise d anonymity. My guess would that they photographed number plates and faces and got as many identifications as they could. Public perceptions need to b e cultivated, but not to the extent of letting potential criminals get away with anything.

Fat chance of getting a cite for that. Lying to your target audience is sta ndard operating procedure. Admitting that you are lying isn't.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

Dear Mr Doom Thank you for your application to become a member of Britain First. Following Donald J Chump's ringing endorsement of our organisation you will appreciate our need to maintain the high standard of our applicants. May I refer to Rule 94 of our constitution. "Members must at all times propagate the far-right views of Britiain First." Your posts on USENET display both mental deficiency and a staggering level of ignorance. This, along with your stated admiration of Mr Thompson, a reknowned far-right lunatic, makes you an ideal candidate for membership. Welcome aboard and Heil Mosley!

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Reply to
Pomegranate Bastard

So who in this group comes across as angry, paranoid and violent? I'm thinking, but no one comes to mind...

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

Jim Thompson comes pretty close. He has disclosed a plan to shoot his more left-wing neighbours after the US fall apart. If he actually had a gun at home, this might be worrying ...

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

Bill Sloman, perhaps? No, he's more resentful, hateful and disingenuous come to think of it. ;->

--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via  
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Cursitor Doom

No. 2. But you don't have to "heavily arm" them. .25ACPs would be ideal, certainly for children in the 5-10 year age range at any rate.

--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via  
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Cursitor Doom

Cursitor Doom is merely despicably gullible. If he showed any signs of unde rstanding the twaddle he posts links to, he'd be in a more dangerous catego ry, but as it is he's more like krw - visibly brain-damaged, and in need of toleration, though not actually deserving it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

Cursitor Doom doesn't recognise sarcasm, and hasn't quite followed the logi c of extending the gun nuts desire to arm every adult in sight by adding op en carry school children. Quite a few adults shouldn't be trusted with guns , and a rather higher proportion of school-children.

Jonathan Swift's

formatting link

is on the same wavelength - one that Cursitor Doom isn't wired up to receiv e.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydeny
Reply to
bill.sloman

Oh, I wouldn't be so sure of non-reception[1]!

He'll receive and amplify things if - he thinks it will help him get the good books of some posters here - it is a good troll - he sees in on Russia Today

[1] reception != understanding != wisdom
Reply to
Tom Gardner

l,

logic of extending the gun nuts desire to arm every adult in sight by addin g open carry school children. Quite a few adults shouldn't be trusted with guns, and a rather higher proportion of school-children.

ceive.

He got a message, just not the one that the poster intended to send. The mo ral indignation whooshed straight past Cursitor Doom, leaving him free to m editate on the kind of gun that a 5-10 year old child might carry all day.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

Then you'll be able to explain this:

formatting link

"If I could've gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban [on firearms], picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it." --Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Like statements can be found from most of the other Party leaders.

Less than twenty a year, average. Skateboards kill more. The biggest threat is giving teens drivers' licenses--that kills 200x as many teens. Yet there's no talk of banning that, not even a whisper.

They're for an all-powerful central government that takes from workers and gives to their voters who do not work. (Also known as making poverty pay?)

That creates a large pool of dependent people who could, but do not work.

Sounds left, AIUI.

Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

any people have multiple guns. If you do not have some sort of adjustable choke, you need a gun for ducks. A different one for pheasants, and anoth er for quail,doves and snipe. Add another gun for a deer rifle and maybe a lso a slug gun for places where rifles carry too far. You probably want a bigger calliper for Elk and Moose. And maybe a varmint rifle for varmints. And a .22 for target practise. And I have not even gotten into hand guns .

t more people than guns.

kill.

Sure. In self-defense. That's the most fundamental right of all. What's wrong with that? Do people not have a right to defend their own lives?

And in America, the Founders provided for the private right to firearms to keep the nation safe, stable, and free. What's wrong with that?

The purpose of a firearm varies, from hunting to self-defense.

re occurrence.

How many firearm owners use their firearms to murder? I'd say that's a very rare occurrence.

Virtually all killers get to their crime sites in cars. BAN CARS!

ass shootings? What are other developed nations doing? Why is this so preva lent in the USA compared to similar countries? Sheesh it's not rocket scien ce. Any idiot can tell you the solution to preventing mass shootings is to not add more guns to the matter.

Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

Yep. And politicians, historically, kill far more than either.

So what we really need is politician control. Which is why we have guns.

Not for shooting politicians, mind you, but just to remind them that if they tried to go too far without consent, American citizens still have a say too--there would be massive resistance.

And it has worked wonderfully well, saving us from the tribulations that befall most other countries once or twice a century.

Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

Yes, they do have that right, amongst other rights, e.g. the "*life*, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Now, how was the bastard that killed innocent schoolkids acting in self defence?

In the extreme forms advocated by the gun fetishists, and taken advantage by criminals and some mentally disturbed people, it has failed. That's what is wrong.

Reply to
Tom Gardner

Like Canada? Australia? The UK? France? Iceland? Norway? Japan? Other

1st world countries?

I'm sure these governments have had periodic popular uprisings that were put down by an armed government - but somehow it never reached the press!

A conspiracy of silence!

John

Reply to
John Robertson

... Any idiot can tell you the solution to preventing mass shootings is to not add more guns to the matter.

And if we just outlaw spoons, we could solve America's obesity problem!

Reply to
mpm

What does that have to do with someone else's right to self defense?

Except, as James indicated before, this is exceedingly rare. Self defense isn't.

Reply to
krw

rote:

e:

e many people have multiple guns. If you do not have some sort of adjustab le choke, you need a gun for ducks. A different one for pheasants, and an other for quail,doves and snipe. Add another gun for a deer rifle and mayb e also a slug gun for places where rifles carry too far. You probably want a bigger calliper for Elk and Moose. And maybe a varmint rifle for varmin ts. And a .22 for target practise. And I have not even gotten into hand g uns.

lot more people than guns.

s to kill.

Their right to self-defense has to be balanced against a gun control system that keeps guns out of the hands of lunatics.

Every other advanced industrial country limits the number of guns held in h ouseholds to a lower level than the US does, and is pickier about their own ers keeping them locked away. Their murder rates are about five times lower (mostly because they have many fewer gun murders) so it seems that they ha ve got the balance closer to the optimum than the US.

s to

It doesn't work - as indicated by the war between the States.

Krw seems to take the NRA figures for "self-defense" as reliable. They seem to think that every time a gun nut brandishes a gun, that gun has been use d for "self defense". More reliable observers seem to put "self-defense" us e in the same ball-park as gun murders and gun suicides, and it isn't clear that brandishing a gun is all that much more effective than brandishing a base-ball bat (which is lot less likely to get people killed - not that man y people get killed under the justification of self-defense, which is sever al orders of magnitude less frequent than gun murder).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

ElectronDepot website 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.