OT: Gun Control in Virginia

They're loons! People having little interest in owning guns are the only ones who should be trusted with owning them.

A good friend of mine used to have a number of guns, until he moved to a re tirement community where they don't allow them. Now he has a few non-guns and a lot of other military collectibles. He is also a life member of the NRA. He can't abide by the NRA's position on bump stocks and silencers tho ugh. He is at a quandary as to the restrictions on magazine sizes. He lam ents that it won't be legal to own a collectable rifle and the clip that wa s used with it, like a WWI 1903 Springfield Rifle with a 5 round clip.

I feel his pain, but I won't take his stand against those who wish to prote ct our population against the threat of those who should not have weapons o f mass shootings. There may be a way to compromise, but it is inevitable t hat we will have more restrictions on owning guns than we have today.

How important can it be to have such dangerous weapons today anyway? The p en is mightier than the sword. I guess you don't want to bring a pen to a gun fight though.

--

  Rick C. 

  + Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
  + Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Those functional qualities, along with badass military styling that gets wannabe superheros pumped up, feed a fantasy.

The Assault Rifle "look" alone should send up a red flag. Maybe nobody can define what makes a rifle an assault rifle well enough to put controls on them, but the appearance should be enough to tell anyone that there's something wrong there.

I remember an article from 40 years ago about typical names that the Japanese gave their domestic market cars - like Honeybee, Fairlady - and Hornets and Stingrays marketed in America. Everything has to be killer!

I totally disagree with you.

But I just wanted to mention that ALL guns are dangerous. Superlatives don't matter when it comes to lethality. You can't be more dead than dead.

This liberal concept of a "pro-life, warm and friendly" firearm just baffle s me. If something gets to the point where you have to defend your life with that kind of deadly force, then (to you) nothing else really matters, does it?

I also disagree that more (restrictive) gun ownership laws are inevitable. We'll just have to see. The opposite is happening in many jurisdictions.

Some in the anti-gun crown vilify "assault rifles", but fail to.. You know what? Not even going to get into it.

As for government restrictions on firearms, I'm pretty much against most of them, mainly because they simply cannot achieve the objectives for which t hey were proposed.

Let's make places of worship "gun-free" zones. (Supposedly in the name of safety). Gunman walks into church....

The whole discussion is pointless. Every time there is a shooting that is hyped in the media or occurs close t o home (no matter the weapon - which is almost never an AR-15, BTW), more a nd more people go out an purchase their first firearm.

And that's a fact.

So, like it or not... Gun ownership tracks pretty well with how willing someone is to defend them selves (not attack..., defend) vs. what I consider to be a misplaced relian ce on police (who have NO DUTY to defend or protect you). Recent history c learly shows the reliance choice to be a mistake! Rely on yourself - at le ast that's a known quantity.

As the old saying goes, I carry a gun because a policeman is just too heavy . (And unfortunately, often enough, the gun is more reliable.) With apologies to those in law enforcement who might not have hid behind sq uad cars while our kids were getting shot up in the school. (or, fill in t he blank - plenty to choose from here).

The US government passed an assault rifle law in the 90s. It was only temp orary and after its 10 years had expired it was not renewed. The point is an assault rifle can be defined. The only thing lacking is the will to reg ulate it.

I would like to know more about how they regulate guns in other countries. I can't believe there isn't a way to prevent the wrong people from having guns and allowing responsible people to use them. I think no small part of the problem here is that people want to have no new laws because they fear it is a noose tightening around their proverbial gun owning necks. That m ay well happen some day that all guns are outlawed. But not providing for responsible gun ownership will just make that event even more likely.

If we get the problem under control it is less likely that even more restri ctive controls will be enacted.

--

  Rick C. 

  -- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
  -- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

I won't get into the details of your post because I can see it is a losing argument. You seem to have made up your mind not only about how you feel a bout guns, but about how others feel about guns. You say you disagree with me, but don't indicate what I said that you disagree with!

Anyway, I don't oppose all guns. I'm not really that concerned about banni ng assault rifles. I just don't see any reason not to do it. Do you carry an assault rifle for protection??? Even if you have one in your home and you use it for home protection, it is likely to shoot right through your wa lls and kill someone out on the street!

Jim Jefferies has a really good comic bit on gun control in the US. While trying to be funny, he exposes the argument for owning guns to be a fraud o ther than "Fuck off, I like guns!" which is not an unreasonable justificati on. We just need to decide if we are going to allow people to own guns for that reason alone. He does a really good American accent, not over done, just real American. It's funny to hear him switch seamlessly.

So personally, I don't agree that, "Fuck off, I like guns!" is a good enoug h argument to allow anyone to have any gun they want. We have some gun con trol already. Some don't think it is good enough. Some think it is onerou s. It's a tough problem.

In Virginia the newly elected legislature is going to enact more gun contro l. They ran on that ticket and for the first time in 26 years Democrats co ntrol the government. So clearly it is the will of the majority of the peo ple.

We will see what they come up with.

--

  Rick C. 

  -+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
  -+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

les me.

at kind of deadly force, then (to you) nothing else really matters, does it ?

.

of them, mainly because they simply cannot achieve the objectives for which they were proposed.

f safety).

to home (no matter the weapon - which is almost never an AR-15, BTW), more and more people go out an purchase their first firearm.

A most unfortunate fact.

Places with effective gun control - like Australia - have very few mass sho otings. There are plenty of licensed gun out in the community, but the syst em seems to stop murderous lunatics getting the kinds of guns they want.

The mosque shooting in New Zealand that was carried out by an Australian ma kes the point perfectly. He moved to New Zealand because their gun control rules were lax enough to let him get his hands on the kind of gun he wanted to use to shoot up a mosque. He killed some fifty people. He'd have been l ess effective with a less effective tool.

emselves (not attack..., defend) vs. what I consider to be a misplaced reli ance on police (who have NO DUTY to defend or protect you).

n yourself - at least that's a known quantity.

For an optimist. If you own a gun. the person most likely to be killed by i t is you, at your own hand. You my not have realised that you might fall in to suicidal depression when you bought the gun, but that's the biggest sing le risk involved in buying one.

The risk of being killed by some other suicidal maniac is a lot lower, and where there are effective gun control laws, even lower still.

vy. (And unfortunately, often enough, the gun is more reliable.)

Sadly, you carry the gun because don't know the statistics.

squad cars while our kids were getting shot up in the school. (or, fill in the blank - plenty to choose from here).

Law enforcement is rarely in the right place at the right time to stop a lu natic with gun before they kill a few bystanders.

Using law enforcement to stop the lunatic getting the gun in the first plac e is a lot more effective, even if it doesn't feed the kind of Hollywood-in spired fantasies that make you feel warm and secure when you put your life at risk.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

I think you may have totally missed my point about all guns being LETHAL. Which of course, is their entire reason to exist. That is their purpose. It matters not how it is done, what you call it, or how it looks and feels.

Whether someone is killed with a .22 or 380 small caliber compact handgun, or a 338 Lapua Magnum precision, long-distance competition rifle, makes no difference. That person is still DEAD.

Anti-gunners want to ban entire "classes" of firearms based on features OTH ER than the one that should really matter: How safe is the gun in the righ t hands, and does it do the job intended? Beyond that - you need to look a t the person behind the gun, not the scary black plastic gun components or features.

You do know that the deadliest mass school shooting in America was committe d with only HANDGUNS, right. Not "assault rifles".

And you know what, I don't even believe the entire field of "gun violence" is a big deal. It's actually been on the decline for decades, even as tota l gun ownership (as % of population), and total firearms in private ownersh ip (raw #'s) has skyrocketed. And the population has grown significantly a s well. (That's another way to say if gun ownership were the problem, you'd KNOW IT ! - There would be zero doubt.)

The TRUTH is the number of deaths appropriately attributed to gun violence is declining, and far less than a lot of other aspects in daily life: medi cal malpractice, texting and driving, assault other than with firearms (inc luding someone's bare fists, BTW!).

Subtract suicides, police action, and gang-on-gang violence, and the number s are even less demanding of a solution. Any solution. It's just not a b ig deal.

Of course, school & church shootings grab the headlines, and a public outcr y ensues (Note: Both are "gun free zones" in many jurisdictions.) And ever ybody's got a solution - but none of them are proven to work (in fact, most are proven to NOT work), because they don't focus on the actual problem - the crazed, murdering individual. (who I guarantee you could care less abou t gun-free zone laws, and what color plastic the gun is made from.)

It truly is like outlawing spoons to prevent diabetes. Maybe if we just outlaw the scary black plastic spoons?

Personally, I agree tweaks to the system could benefit all, but it's never going to happen when basic gun ownership in under attack. Give an inch, ta ke a mile, sort of thing. For example, the current system relies upon felo ny record prohibition - practically guaranteeing that the "first time felon " will never be denied a weapon. And some felonies are not violent (i.e., white collar crime), and I'm not sure those should rise to the level of fo rever forfeiting one's 2A rights.

No. None of that matters. For the typical anti-gunner, it's encroach, encroach, encroach, until the 2 nd Amendment is meaningless, or so unworkable under a bewildering patchwork of laws as to be impossible to enjoy.

You can do what you want, and believe what you want.

But if you can imagine yourself in a really ugly life-and-death situation, say a violent felony assault against your person, would you rather have the means to defend yourself (and those you love), or do you think you could n egotiate a "time-out" with your attacker to allow enough time to call "911" , and then wait for the police to arrive? (who may or may not help)

In reality, the tens of millions of citizens who carry a firearm daily will never find themselves in situations where deadly force against an attacker will be needed. But you never know. Watch the nightly news - bad thing h appen even in the best of neighborhoods. (BTW: Something to consider - whe n you're carrying, you actually go out of your way to avoid confrontation. Your attitude changes. Even if you're in the right to pull a weapon in se lf-defense, that's not going to stop the subsequent, expensive legal proces s, or civil lawsuits. But it's something that often gets overlooked until it hits home. Responsible gun owners don't go looking for trouble.)

The problem is sick individuals. No amount of regulation on law-abiding citizens is ever going to fix that.

And as far as Virginia - we'll see. I wouldn't read too much into it. It could just as easily be explained by conservatives (Republicans) kicking themselves not getting out the vote, especially in a midterm election - ha ppens all the time. We might see a backlash, 180 turnaround next election, or people flocking to the gun stores for their first time purchases.

Yawn... I just can't go through it with you again, Bill.

The sad fact is you will never understand until it is too late. I sincerely hope that day never comes for you.

On another note: How are those wildfires down there? Far from home, I hope!!

That would require you to think, and you prefer to let NRA do your thinking for you. The people who fund the NRA make their money by selling lots of g uns, and that does influence the message they propagate

Your sincere hope is that some lunatic comes after me with a gun?

Much less likely in Australia, which does have effective gun control.

I live close to the centre of Sydney. At one point one of the main highways out of Sydney was shut at the turn-off after the one that my wife takes to get to her work, but that's the closest they've come to us. The smoke is a nother matter. It has cleared in the past few hours and we can now see the other side of Sydney harbour out of living room window. On the worst day so far - back in November - we couldn't even see the near side of the harbour (Wooloomooloo Wharf).

That made the air quality worse than Peking's.

The fires are nowhere near as far from home as we'd like. Quite how the loc al vegetation is going to adapt is an interesting question, and it may take quite a lot of work to get it to adapt in a way that makes it less inflamm able in the current climate.

A prolonged drought isn't exactly climate - the Indian Ocean dipole flips b etween two states, and we get drought in one of them - but global warming s eems to be shifting the time it spends in each state towards longer dry per iods.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Again, your arguments are flat because they literally ignore my point. My point is there is no reason to allow people to have guns other than "Fuck o ff, I like guns!". All the self protection crap is just that, crap.

You construct many arguments against things I never said. So clearly this is an argument you are having in your own head.

The bottom line is owning a gun makes you less safe, not more safe. I don' t imagine myself being in a life or death situation from a violent attacker and needing a gun to save me, because the likelihood of that happening is minuscule. We have a larger chance of dying in an automobile. And yet man y people give that short shrift in their life. But the idea of not having a gun if it were ever needed terrifies them.

As to the election, again you ignore the facts. Virginia has had a Republi can government for 26 years! The Democrats made a campaign issue of gun co ntrol and won. What could be more clear than that??? How about a referend um?

What I was really writing about is how some people are literally crazy enou gh about gun control to threaten violence or swear they will obstruct or ig nore the laws if passed.

That's anarchy. You said the problem is "sick individuals". I agree. And those sick individuals will be locked up if they don't obey the law.

--

  Rick C. 

  +- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
  +- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

In practice, gun control laws do not work. Anybody can get a gun, most especially illegal, most especially criminals. A gun has one function: kill.

newly elected Democratic majority in Virginia. It seems this is angering a number of voters even if not enough to have controlled the election. The re have been threats of violence and armed resistance to any new gun laws p assed.

form of enacting gun control in order to help reduce gun violence, is being threatened by those who oppose these laws with gun violence.

Too many people believe they can get what they want by pointing guns at ot hers. What they want is all that matters.

are passed they will be enforced and anyone refusing to abide by the laws w ill be punished according to law.

ut I sincerely believe that anyone threatening gun violence should never be allowed to have a gun again.

The present arrangement doesn't seem to be going very well. I don't think the data supports your point. The US has some of the highest gun death rat es in the world, right up there with out central and south American neighbo rs. Our Canadian neighbor has much more restrictive gun laws and have less than a quarter our homicide rate. Other countries like the UK and Austral ia with stiffer gun control laws have much, much lower homicide rates.

No, not anybody would be able to get a gun legally if they were more restri cted. Not just anyone can get a gun now... not legally. If you don't thin k making something illegal makes it harder to get your hands on, should we make all drugs legal to buy and possess? Should radioactive materials be l egal to buy and own? Clearly it is much harder to get things that are ille gal even if they are still available.

I think Jim Jefferies said the Bushmaster gun that the shooter was going to use in Sandy Hook was $1,000 delivered to your door. In Australia it is $

34,000 on the black market!!! Yeah, I think that reduces how many will be sold illegally.

In practice gun control laws do work even if it's not 100%. Do laws agains t bank robbery work 100%, no. But it's still illegal.

Yes, a gun has one function, to kill. So why do we need so many of them?

--

  Rick C. 

  ++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
  ++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Robert Baer wrote in news:afySF.8559$ snipped-for-privacy@fx40.iad:

I can provide cover...

I can do damage to assets...

I could shoot you in the temple, and you could end up like Ambrose Bierce.

Lots more uses than just killin'.

A charged up but not connected HV cap has only one use, but I could toss it to you and another use would magically appear. :-)

I got it! Embedded Linux and AI for the next generation gun. Cloud connected.

Jose Curvo wrote in news:qveg98$1ipn$ snipped-for-privacy@gioia.aioe.org:

Only fires if the targeted person 'deserves' it.

Uses the same database they use for deciding if you can have a gun or not.

Jose Curvo wrote in news:qveg98$1ipn$ snipped-for-privacy@gioia.aioe.org:

Don't use any jackscrews or atitude sensors.

newly elected Democratic majority in Virginia. It seems this is angering a number of voters even if not enough to have controlled the election. The re have been threats of violence and armed resistance to any new gun laws p assed.

form of enacting gun control in order to help reduce gun violence, is being threatened by those who oppose these laws with gun violence.

Too many people believe they can get what they want by pointing guns at ot hers. What they want is all that matters.

are passed they will be enforced and anyone refusing to abide by the laws w ill be punished according to law.

ut I sincerely believe that anyone threatening gun violence should never be allowed to have a gun again.

Real gun control laws work well in every advanced industrial country other than the USA. In the US people cross the borders between individual states carrying guns they've bought in less restrictive states so there don't work too well there.

It isn't all that easy, and making people get a licenses before they can le gally own a gun does reduce gun crime quite dramatically. It doesn't elimin ate it, but it makes it a great deal less frequent.

But it has a lot of uses, and comforting right-wing lunatics with the idea that they could use to kill somebody who threatened them isn't a particular ly useful one.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

or how it looks and feels.

, or a 338 Lapua Magnum precision, long-distance competition rifle, makes n o difference. That person is still DEAD.

THER than the one that should really matter: How safe is the gun in the ri ght hands, and does it do the job intended? Beyond that - you need to look at the person behind the gun, not the scary black plastic gun components o r features.

ted with only HANDGUNS, right. Not "assault rifles".

" is a big deal. It's actually been on the decline for decades, even as to tal gun ownership (as % of population), and total firearms in private owner ship (raw #'s) has skyrocketed. And the population has grown significantly as well.

IT! - There would be zero doubt.)

e is declining, and far less than a lot of other aspects in daily life: me dical malpractice, texting and driving, assault other than with firearms (i ncluding someone's bare fists, BTW!).

ers are even less demanding of a solution. Any solution. It's just not a big deal.

cry ensues (Note: Both are "gun free zones" in many jurisdictions.) And ev erybody's got a solution - but none of them are proven to work (in fact, mo st are proven to NOT work), because they don't focus on the actual problem

- the crazed, murdering individual. (who I guarantee you could care less ab out gun-free zone laws, and what color plastic the gun is made from.)

r going to happen when basic gun ownership in under attack. Give an inch, take a mile, sort of thing. For example, the current system relies upon fe lony record prohibition - practically guaranteeing that the "first time fel on" will never be denied a weapon. And some felonies are not violent (i.e. , white collar crime), and I'm not sure those should rise to the level of forever forfeiting one's 2A rights.

2nd Amendment is meaningless, or so unworkable under a bewildering patchwo rk of laws as to be impossible to enjoy.

, say a violent felony assault against your person, would you rather have t he means to defend yourself (and those you love), or do you think you could negotiate a "time-out" with your attacker to allow enough time to call "91

1", and then wait for the police to arrive? (who may or may not help)

ll never find themselves in situations where deadly force against an attack er will be needed. But you never know. Watch the nightly news - bad thing happen even in the best of neighborhoods. (BTW: Something to consider - w hen you're carrying, you actually go out of your way to avoid confrontation . Your attitude changes. Even if you're in the right to pull a weapon in self-defense, that's not going to stop the subsequent, expensive legal proc ess, or civil lawsuits. But it's something that often gets overlooked unti l it hits home. Responsible gun owners don't go looking for trouble.)

.

ng themselves not getting out the vote, especially in a midterm election - happens all the time. We might see a backlash, 180 turnaround next electio n, or people flocking to the gun stores for their first time purchases.

Rick would freak out if free charging stations were outlawed, and a lengthy process to obtain a special license to own an EV were put into place. Some weapons cost a small fortune just for the right to own, and you pay that t ax every year even if the weapon can't be fired. Like too many liberals, i t's OK to demand that others give up their rights, since they don't exercis e them. My definition of an assault weapon is one that can empty the entire magazine with one pull of the trigger. That results in 'Spray and Pray' th at you actually hit anything.

The early M16 that I was issued in the US Army had three modes. Single shot , three rounds or full auto. The third option was eliminated because it jus t wasted ammunition, and the enemy could pick you off while you changed the 20 round magazine.

The machine gun served a different purpose. It was for battle on a large op en space. Night fire had tracer rounds to let you see where the bullets wer e going. As the barrel heated up, the path changed. Too many fools believe old war movies of some moron holding a machine gun and running with it whil e firing. They quickly get too hot to hold, and continuous fire destroys th e barrel. Our biggest problem is that the ACLU went to the courts to have t he insane asylums shut down. All that did was put the nutcases out into the streets and make it harder to get them the help that they needed. No norma l human would pick up any weapon to go on a killing spree.

It is amazing that supposedly grown men are terrified of a little piece of inert metal.