On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 10:57:36 PM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:

> I can't recall if your our Kiwi regular, but one other little wrinkle is that in NZ,
> supressors (silencers) are uncontrolled, and their use considered good manners,
> while in the US, they are illegal in some states, and subject to a $200 transfer
> tax in others.

That strikes me as odd.

Here in Canada, it's very hard to get a permit for a handgun, but rifles and
shotguns are easy enough to become licensed for, as they're used by
farmers and hunters.

Handguns are easy to hide, and are for shooting people with, is presumably
the reason.

Restrictions on silencers just follow - just as a handgun is more dangerous
because it is smaller, a gun with a silencer is more dangerous because it
could be used without it causing a ruckus - a miscreant could kill someone,
and then be far away before it was even noticed that someone had been
shot!

John Savard

On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 10:59:51 AM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:

> The peer reviewed research says that guns are used between 2 and 10
> as often to prevent crime as to commit it, depending on the study
> and the definitions involved. At least twice as often.

> But this isn't news. This has been well established for 30 years.

That is something that makes sense.

And it's an argument against sweeping gun-control measures
that will prevent people from defending themselves.

But not against reasonable Federal measures to prevent
impulsive gun purchases by the mentally unstable and so
on - which the NRA also bitterly opposed.

John Savard

On 25/06/21 4:57 pm, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 12:07:11 AM UTC-4, Titus G wrote:
snip
>>>
>> Thank you for your serious and informative answer which appears to
>> confirm that all Americans are currently subject to some form of gun
>> control. I am finding it difficult to take Ed seriously.
>
> I can't recall if your our Kiwi regular,

If 'your' means 'you are', then my ego is shattered.

but one other little wrinkle is that in NZ,
> supressors (silencers) are uncontrolled, and their use considered good manners,
> while in the US, they are illegal in some states, and subject to a $200 transfer
> tax in others.

More gun control. My apologies, but I am quite ignorant of such details
even if they relate to NZ and I lack the interest to investigate. With
only the objective of hunting, I have limited experience of guns though
have owned air and co2 rifles and pistols and have frequently been
rabbit hunting, (.22 calibre rifle) and duck shooting, (shotguns), and
have used .303 calibre rifles at target ranges.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 22:42:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 10:57:36 PM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I can't recall if your our Kiwi regular, but one other little wrinkle is that in NZ,
>> supressors (silencers) are uncontrolled, and their use considered good manners,
>> while in the US, they are illegal in some states, and subject to a $200 transfer
>> tax in others.
>
>That strikes me as odd.
>
>Here in Canada, it's very hard to get a permit for a handgun, but rifles and
>shotguns are easy enough to become licensed for, as they're used by
>farmers and hunters.
>
>Handguns are easy to hide, and are for shooting people with, is presumably
>the reason.
>
>Restrictions on silencers just follow - just as a handgun is more dangerous
>because it is smaller, a gun with a silencer is more dangerous because it
>could be used without it causing a ruckus - a miscreant could kill someone,
>and then be far away before it was even noticed that someone had been
>shot!

In a rural area no suppressor is required for that to happen and in
the city there's so much noise anyway that a gunshot is likely to not
be noticed.

This is pretty much fearmongering.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 22:37:06 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 9:28:02 PM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Firearms laws in the US are mostly decided at the state level,
>
>Indeed. And one state, with a gun law summed up by the billboard
>slogan, "Use a gun, go to jail", violates the right of self-defence to
>an even greater extent than Canada's gun control laws, unreasonable
>and excessive though they are.

Which state is that and what does the law actually say? If you mean
California, the California penal code can be found at
<https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codesTextSearch.xhtml>

The following is copied and pasted from that code:

-------------------Begin Excerpt-------------------------------------
197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any
of the following cases:
(1) When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person.
(2) When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein.
(3) When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
spouse, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person,
when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a
felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such
design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose
behalf the defense was made, if he or she was the assailant or engaged
in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to
decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed.
(4) When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.
(Amended by Stats. 2016, Ch. 50, Sec. 67. (SB 1005) Effective January
1, 2017.)

198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned
in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide may
be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the
circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable
person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of
such fears alone.
(Amended by Stats. 1987, Ch. 828, Sec. 8.)

198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily
injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force
is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or
substantial physical injury.
(Added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1666, Sec. 1.)

199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the
person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and
discharged.
----------------------End Excerpt----------------------------------

On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 15:07:42 +1000, "Gary R. Schmidt"
<grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:

>On 25/06/2021 01:27, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
>[SNIP]
>>
>> The anti-gun position is indefensible, there is nothing to support the
>> contention that gun control is of any value and everything suggests it
>> would in fact be disastrous for Americans and humanity in general.
>>
>You are generalising from a position of weakness, gun-control works
>perfectly well in civilised nations.

How do you know that? You are assuming that the disparity in homicide
rates between the US and "civilised nations" is due to the gun laws in
those nations. Yet the homicide rate among white people in the US is
similar to that in other nations. The homicide rate among minorities
is much much higher. Since those minorities typically have _less_
access to firearms (most gun licensing laws were aimed originally at
minorities and in recent years California, the most liberal of liberal
states, has been found guilty in court of having used those laws in a
discriminatory manner) it is difficult to see how firearms possession
correlates to homicide.

>Gun-related deaths (and injuries) in Australia, both criminal and
>self-inflicted, declined after the recent introduction of stricter
>gun-control laws.

So did non-gun-related deaths and injuries so how do you know that it
was the gun laws that made the change and not just a general decline
in homicides?

>No sign of any bad stars here, and that was all the way back in 1996.
>
>There has, however, been a noticed up-swing in the attempts to smuggle
>gun parts that have come from production lines in the USA *before* they
>get any identification marks on them. Could this be because the
>US-based manufacturers are aiding-and-abetting such criminal acts???

How did they get off of the production lines without the required
markings? Were they stolen?

> Cheers,
> Gary B-)
>
>P.S. I was trained in gun safety when I was a teenager (on my cousin's
>farm), and subsequently learnt to shoot various weapons as a member of a
>gun club, but have never felt the need to keep one on my own property.
>(And the only firearm I have owned - via the club - was a specialist
>target weapon, anyway.)

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 22:45:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 10:59:51 AM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>
>> The peer reviewed research says that guns are used between 2 and 10
>> as often to prevent crime as to commit it, depending on the study
>> and the definitions involved. At least twice as often.
>
>> But this isn't news. This has been well established for 30 years.
>
>That is something that makes sense.
>
>And it's an argument against sweeping gun-control measures
>that will prevent people from defending themselves.
>
>But not against reasonable Federal measures to prevent
>impulsive gun purchases by the mentally unstable and so
>on - which the NRA also bitterly opposed.

Uh, we have on the books an NRA-backed law that prohibits "the
mentally unstable" from lawfully purchasing firearms. The
difficulties with it are that (a) the courts limit the definition of
"mentally unstable"--there must have been an adjudication by a
court--it can't be on the whim of a psychologist, and (b) its efficacy
depends on police and courts actually doing their job and entering the
adjudication into the database, which they are notoriously lax in
doing.

I'm sure that what you want is for any person who wishes to purchase a
firearm being subjected to extensive scrutiny. You might want to talk
to some cops about that--they'll tell you that performing such
scrutiny is not a wise use of their time.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 22:32:55 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 5:55:08 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:sb0gis$vib$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
>
>> > Guns make murder attempts easier,
>
>> A lie from the gun grabbers
>
>> > more likely to be successful.
>
>> Also a lie from the gun grabbers.
>
>I'm surprised to hear that. I would have thought that
>those are _obvious_ facts, so obvious as to require
>little or no justification.
>
>If I wanted to kill a specific adult male, and escape
>unscathed, it would seem to me that a gun would
>very definitely beat a knife, and would be superior to
>my bare hands by an even greater margin.

"Knife" and "bare hands" are not the only options you know. A bottle
of gasoline, a rag, and a match have a long history. And then there's
the favorite of terrorists everywhere, the land mine (aka "IED"). And
poison administered in various ways. A needle full of Heroin will kill
somebody real good--walk up behind them, jab it in, shove down the
plunger and they'll have a real good very short time.

>There are fewer reasonable motives to murder,
>say, a helpless infant or a small child. And it
>would be difficult to set up an opportunity to
>run over a specific target with a car.

You are simply not very creative. One year the Chicago Murder
Analysis (the best source I know of for detailed information on the
types of weapons used in crime) listed "underwear", and not just in an
isolated incident.

>In the United States, the only Federal "gun control"
>measures being considered at present are highly
>reasonable ones that prevent impulse purchases
>of guns by mentally-unstable individuals.

Which laws are those? The only proposed legislation of which I am
aware attempts to require a background check for private sales. This
was not done in the current background check law because (a) there is
a question of whether it would pass Constitutional muster if the sale
does not cross a state line and (b) any cop will tell you that it has
no value as a preventive measure. Perhaps you are talking about the
limit on the amount of time one must wait for a background check to
complete--this was intended to prevent the background check system
from becoming a defacto ban--if there is no time limit then just turn
off the system so nobody can get a background check and you have a
ban. The Democrats are likely to try that and then the Supreme Court
will toss out the whole system, so removing that restriction is not a
good idea.

>In Canada, starting in 1968, we did get genuinely
>unreasonable gun control measures that robbed
>citizens of their legitimate right of self-defence.
>
>But the reason for this is transparent.
>
>At some point in the future, Quebec may secede
>from Canada, and the independent Quebec that
>province's government will attempt to create will
>have the following characteristics:
>
>French will be its language, and
>
>its boundaries will be the same as that of the current
>province of Quebec.
>
>Non French-speaking minorities living in Quebec will
>be anxious about their future.
>
>While the Liberal Party of Canada is intensely concerned
>about keeping Quebec happy so as to keep Quebec in
>Canada, because without Quebec they wouldn't win
>elections, they're not prepared to prevent Quebec from
>seceding by military force. It would just be wrong - they're
>a distinct ethnic group, and it's not as if they're seceding
>in order to keep slaves or something evil like that.
>
>I can't really argue with the basic premises behind that
>sentiment. I wouldn't keep French Canada in Canada by
>force either, but I would be willing to use armed force
>to prevent it taking any English Canadians with it who
>weren't enthused about the exciting new national project.
>
>Thus, while Canada's gun control laws have the support
>of Canada's police, who like it that domestic violence
>calls are less dangerous for them (thus, opponents of
>gun control are clearly sexist pigs who want a man's
>home to be his castle, where he may beat his wife with
>impunity)... the main reason for them is because nobody
>would want to see a bloody civil war, more like the ones
>in Africa than the one the United States experienced,
>as it would break out from individual initiative, rage in
>Quebec as the consequence of attempted separation.
>
>I do *not* know how to repair or alter this problem with
>the Canadian political system.
>
>John Savard

On Monday, June 21, 2021 at 4:38:30 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:

> The rank and file - like the idiots here - *believe* it will. The
> people in charge know full well it will have the same outcome. That
> is their *goald*. The more crime rates rise, the more power they can
> seize, and the easier it becomes for them to simply murder their
> opponents and get away with it.

The United States has an unacceptably high crime rate.

Therefore, Something Must Be Done about it!

Unfortunately, rounding up all the African-Americans and
turning them either into African Africans or corpses is just
not an option these days.

So grabbing all the guns is something, which, in addition
to being able to be discussed in polite company, at least
seems like it might help the problem.

Therefore it must be done!

There may indeed be a few plotting a coup in America.
For the most part, though, I tend to think that they're
working for Putin rather than leading progressive forces
in America. The other way lies madness, or at least
Fox News.

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:f1988a18-4f54-4be4-8e6c-fc6c04374382n@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 5:55:08 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:sb0gis$vib$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
>
>> > Guns make murder attempts easier,
>
>> A lie from the gun grabbers
>
>> > more likely to be successful.
>
>> Also a lie from the gun grabbers.
>
> I'm surprised to hear that. I would have thought

If you were capable of doing so.

> that
> those are _obvious_ facts, so obvious as to require
> little or no justification.

There are a lot of things that are obvious, that aren't true.

The peer reviewed science is decades old. So is you not believing
in science that doesn't reach conclusions you like.

And all that is aside from the (also peer reviewed science) 2-10
times as often that guns are used to prevent crimes as to commit
them.

But you unalterable opposition to the right to self defense, and
commiitment ot making the lives of violent criminals safer is also
well known.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in
news:jm8bdgpbpnak3v7f97f6usfv2uncttouj1@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 22:32:55 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 5:55:08 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
>>Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>> news:sb0gis$vib$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
>>
>>> > Guns make murder attempts easier,
>>
>>> A lie from the gun grabbers
>>
>>> > more likely to be successful.
>>
>>> Also a lie from the gun grabbers.
>>
>>I'm surprised to hear that. I would have thought that
>>those are _obvious_ facts, so obvious as to require
>>little or no justification.
>>
>>If I wanted to kill a specific adult male, and escape
>>unscathed, it would seem to me that a gun would
>>very definitely beat a knife, and would be superior to
>>my bare hands by an even greater margin.
>
> "Knife" and "bare hands" are not the only options you know. A
> bottle of gasoline, a rag, and a match have a long history. And
> then there's the favorite of terrorists everywhere, the land
> mine (aka "IED"). And poison administered in various ways. A
> needle full of Heroin will kill somebody real good--walk up
> behind them, jab it in, shove down the plunger and they'll have
> a real good very short time.

But they won't be as dead as if they were shot with a gun!

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:c665535a-c491-468c-8e03-017e2b18dd28n@googlegroups.com:

> On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 10:59:51 AM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>
>> The peer reviewed research says that guns are used between 2
>> and 10 as often to prevent crime as to commit it, depending on
>> the study and the definitions involved. At least twice as
>> often.
>
>> But this isn't news. This has been well established for 30
>> years.
>
> That is something that makes sense.
>
> And it's an argument against sweeping gun-control measures
> that will prevent people from defending themselves.
>
> But not against reasonable Federal measures to prevent
> impulsive gun purchases by the mentally unstable and so
> on - which the NRA also bitterly opposed.
>
Your goalposts are moving so fast there's a doppler effect.

And you still advocate laws which will restrict a constitutional
right of everone based on the actions of far less than 1% of the
population.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ae8bdg9ljmv5f3p0768c0htkjvt3kqsr5h@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 22:45:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 10:59:51 AM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
>>Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>
>>> The peer reviewed research says that guns are used between 2
>>> and 10 as often to prevent crime as to commit it, depending on
>>> the study and the definitions involved. At least twice as
>>> often.
>>
>>> But this isn't news. This has been well established for 30
>>> years.
>>
>>That is something that makes sense.
>>
>>And it's an argument against sweeping gun-control measures
>>that will prevent people from defending themselves.
>>
>>But not against reasonable Federal measures to prevent
>>impulsive gun purchases by the mentally unstable and so
>>on - which the NRA also bitterly opposed.
>
> Uh, we have on the books an NRA-backed law that prohibits "the
> mentally unstable" from lawfully purchasing firearms. The
> difficulties with it are that (a) the courts limit the
> definition of "mentally unstable"--there must have been an
> adjudication by a court

Also a constituional right.

> --it can't be on the whim of a
> psychologist,

And those laws are based on decades of abuse, especially for
political ends. (And it's a classic tool for the left - "If you
don't agree with me, and *obey* me, no matter what - you must be
mentally ill.")

> and (b) its efficacy depends on police and courts
> actually doing their job and entering the adjudication into the
> database, which they are notoriously lax in doing.

It's a high bar, and they often have more important (at least to
them) things to spend their limited resources on. Plus, based on
reports they get, the false positive rate is insanely (heh) high.
>
> I'm sure that what you want is for any person who wishes to
> purchase a firearm being subjected to extensive scrutiny. You
> might want to talk to some cops about that--they'll tell you
> that performing such scrutiny is not a wise use of their time.
>
Especially since it should apply to cops, too.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:4202a71f-0811-467b-8f99-bcbe63f10170n@googlegroups.com:

> On Monday, June 21, 2021 at 4:38:30 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>
>> The rank and file - like the idiots here - *believe* it will.
>> The people in charge know full well it will have the same
>> outcome. That is their *goald*. The more crime rates rise, the
>> more power they can seize, and the easier it becomes for them
>> to simply murder their opponents and get away with it.
>
> The United States has an unacceptably high crime rate.

Unacceptable to whom? To some idiot from Canukistan who is simply
too fucking *stupid* to understand nobody in the US gives a shit
about how he want the US to do things?

US crime rates have been on a downward trend for 30 years. A fairly
steep downard trend.

While guns have become more readitly available to nearly everyone,
and concealed carry permits much easier to get in many states.
>
> Therefore, Something Must Be Done about it!

Indeed. We must start to pointing at laughing at the retard from
Canada who is simply too fucking *stupid* to understand nobody in
the US gives a shit about how he want the US to do things, because
he's a joke.
>
> Unfortunately, rounding up all the African-Americans and
> turning them either into African Africans or corpses is just
> not an option these days.

Your blind, violent hatred of not-white people is also well
established, yes.
>
> So grabbing all the guns is something, which, in addition
> to being able to be discussed in polite company,

There's nothing polite about gun grabbers and their intention to
increase violent crime.

> at least
> seems like it might help the problem.

Other than 50 years of peer reviewed science (that you refuse to
accept) that says that the best possible outcome is no effect
whatsoever, and far more likely is *more* violent crime (by
eliminating the 2-10 times as often guns are used to prevent crime
as to commit it).
>
> Therefore it must be done!
>
> There may indeed be a few plotting a coup in America.

It only takes a few when the sheeple are many and obedient.

> For the most part, though, I tend to think

There's zero evidence that ever have.

> that they're
> working for Putin rather than leading progressive forces
> in America. The other way lies madness, or at least
> Fox News.
>
Typical of the left: "If you don't agree with me, an obey my
masters in all things, you must be mentally ill." We see in others
what we see in ourselves, eh?

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 09:48:14 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:88b9dgp2i5u8mli0i11k08iu9qmdj90iiv@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 11:37:57 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>news:abo6dgpg6df6090t0gvtn6bp4t5cokf8cr@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 13:37:09 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>news:b234dg9dku7e2crr704cp8pt4rruukkqb2@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:18:43 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>news:ibg1dgt4v786msr2t23ct739ueuphprl27@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 20:33:19 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>>>>>> <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 16:45:24 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>>>>>>><dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On 6/20/2021 2:50 PM, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you claiming that this "invisible uniform"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (however you define that) is WORSE TODAY in the U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> then it was when Black folks were subjected to open
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and institutionalized racism on a daily basis and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> trapped under an economic glass ceiling prior to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1960s?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> An openly "subjected" people will generally try to
>>>>>>>>>>>> keep their heads down to avoid triggering severe
>>>>>>>>>>>> punishment for petty slights.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A people that have been told officially that they are
>>>>>>>>>>>> treated equally and have the same opportunities as the
>>>>>>>>>>>> rest of the population but don't see that happening
>>>>>>>>>>>> WILL start "acting out" in frustration in a variety of
>>>>>>>>>>>> ways. More violence in general is one way. Rejection
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the larger culture is another. Killing "their own"
>>>>>>>>>>>> who "sell out" by succeeding in the larger culture is
>>>>>>>>>>>> another. Lashing out at the larger society for not
>>>>>>>>>>>> doing as well because one rejected it is another.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Violent reaction to being beaten down by people
>>>>>>>>>>>> telling you they aren't beating you down for being
>>>>>>>>>>>> different is common. More common than violent reaction
>>>>>>>>>>>> to being beaten down by those who openly subjugate
>>>>>>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Its not so much that their situation is worse today as
>>>>>>>>>>>> the unfulfilled promise that they are and will be
>>>>>>>>>>>> treated as equals makes them more willing to use
>>>>>>>>>>>> violence to force the promise to be fulfilled,
>>>>>>>>>>>> INSTANTLY. (Which simply isn't possible since there is
>>>>>>>>>>>> at least a small portion of meritocracy involved in
>>>>>>>>>>>> advancing in our society. It takes time to build the
>>>>>>>>>>>> education, experience and social connections to
>>>>>>>>>>>> advance.) But by our nature as humans we are not all
>>>>>>>>>>>> that good as a species at specifically targeted
>>>>>>>>>>>> violence. General mayhem at targets of opportunity is
>>>>>>>>>>>> more our thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So back to the unsubstantiated standardized “it’s White
>>>>>>>>>>> people’s fault!” excuse, which can’t be countered as
>>>>>>>>>>> there is nothing concrete to address, one must simply
>>>>>>>>>>> accept it as fact or be labeled a racist. Got it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Not what I said. It is much more complex than any simple
>>>>>>>>>>"Its THEIR fault!".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>This whole business of "fault" is part of the problem. I
>>>>>>>>>used to work for a little tiny company. Whenever anything
>>>>>>>>>went wrong, the boss wanted to know whose fault it was.
>>>>>>>>>Now I work for a great big company. Whenever anything
>>>>>>>>>goes wrong, the boss wants to know how we change the
>>>>>>>>>system so it doesn't happen again. (note that I've worked
>>>>>>>>>for great big companies where blame is the game too--where
>>>>>>>>>I work now is exceptional).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fixing the problem is better than placing the blame.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But also less satisfying.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And, besides, if the argument is about /who is at fault/,
>>>>>>>> then the discussion of /how to fix the problem/ can be ...
>>>>>>>> shelved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you *solve* the problem, you can no longer get wealthy
>>>>>>>leading teh charge against it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or re-elected to continue your "efforts".
>>>>>
>>>>>You say that like there's a difference.
>>>>
>>>> Depends on whether your wealth depends on your re-election or
>>>> not.
>>>
>>>Very few politicians at the state or national level do not end
>>>up significantly wealthier at the end of their term than the
>>>beginning. *Very* few. Democrats are especially skilled at this.
>>
>> That's not the same as their wealth /depending/ on being
>> re-elected.
>
>Most people. once they're rich, want to be richer. *Increased*
>wealth does, indeed, depend on being reelected.

If you have enough wealth, you don't need to do anything to get more.

That's what the Stock Market is all about -- making money doing
nothing.
>> They may have made enough already to be set for life.
>
>You've obviously never paid much attention to rich politicians.

What, rich politicians wear rags?

I mean, what would I be paying attention /to/ to conclude that they do
/not/ have enough to be set for life?
>> Even by billionaire standards.
>>
>> Not to doubt your assertion, although trying to shade it
>> politically is dubious.
>
>Those who go into politics often use money as a way to keep score.
>The goal is power, of which money is but one form. And that depends
>entirely on staying in office.

Wasn't that the point in /The Wheeler Dealers/? "We don't do it to
make money, that's just how we keep score"?

On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 05:43:46 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 22:32:55 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 5:55:08 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>> news:sb0gis$vib$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
>>
>>> > Guns make murder attempts easier,
>>
>>> A lie from the gun grabbers
>>
>>> > more likely to be successful.
>>
>>> Also a lie from the gun grabbers.
>>
>>I'm surprised to hear that. I would have thought that
>>those are _obvious_ facts, so obvious as to require
>>little or no justification.

Only in their original context -- impulsive crimes of passion.

IOW, it's easier for the wife to escape if the husband is forced to
use alternate methods to attack her.

Empowering and encouraging ATF to /actually regulate/ the gun
industry, such as by shutting down the occasional gun seller who has
no problem supplying hardware to the Mob, OTOH, would be a good idea.

No matter how much the NRA objects.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

> Titus G
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > Sure, I agree with that. What I disagree with, is that banning guns
> > and/or imposing harsh regulations on ALL Americans will have any
> > effect on this.
>
> I am not American and know little of your gun laws but don't you already
> have a form of gun control in that you have to have a licence to carry
> one in public?

Depends on the state. My home state of Michigan for example requires
a permit for concealed carry of a handgun but openly carrying a firearm
(handguns or rifles/shotguns) is perfectly legal and requires no license.

20 states in the U.S. now have "constitutional carry" laws on the books,
which allow carrying a gun with no permit and yet the U.S. crime rate
CONTINUES to go down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry

> Isn't that a complete violation of your civil liberties

It is, and just goes to show that the Powers That Be will always try to
disarm the People. This has been SOP throughout history.

https://ibb.co/vkF1Yk4

> if not also, yet again, the possible end of the free world?

Like I said up-thread, there is no point where the anti-gun fundies will
ever say "that’s enough gun control". ANY gun control legislation only
leads to more gun control (and associated restrictions on self defense)
as none of these gun control laws prevent crime, (and probably increase
it) resulting in a negative feed-back loop, which has been the goal all
along.

https://ibb.co/4JTg5PB

> > But they also make self defense easier and more successful, anywhere
>
> Would you apply your belief of no control to the whole world,

Yes. How are Nigeria's gun laws for example, benefiting it's people?

https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/nigeria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamfara_kidnapping

> replacing guns with nuclear weapons

I already addressed the issue of WMDs.

> or do you favour the current UN position?

The UN is simply a rubber-stamp puppet organization of the Elites, it has
been anti-gun from the start and continues to be.

> > from 200,000 to 2 million incidents per year, which is FAR more then
> > the number of deaths via guns, (which includes suicides) in fact most
> > instance of defensive gun use the gun is never fired, as even the
> > dumbest criminal will flee when faced with an armed victim.
>
> Would he run almost as fast if the victim was holding a loaded crossbow
> or even a sword or bayonet?

No, as modern people know full well that "gun = death!" whereas a criminal
might be inclined to take their chances against a crossbow or hand weapon.

> If so, do you think people should be allowed to carry such items to the corner
> store just in case a dumb criminal is met?

Sure, though I don't see the point as guns are far more effective and practical.

> > The anti-gun position is indefensible, there is nothing to support the
> > contention that gun control is of any value and everything suggests it
> > would in fact be disastrous for Americans and humanity in general.
>
> Would you argue that everybody should be allowed to carry a loaded gun?

Yes, (and this includes ex-felons who have served their time) unless judged
by a court to be crazy.

> Would you impose a lower age limit?

No, I think 18 is the accepted age for adulthood and also ought to apply
to guns also (it does for rifles/shotguns but one must 21 to buy a handgun)..

> Is there any form of gun control that has value?

No, other then bans on privately owned WMDs.

> > You're being sold a bill of goods and willfully refuse to acknowledge
> > the mountain of evidence in front of you.
>
> (Be careful with that last rhetorical question; it might be the thin end.)

I don't see how, as all scientific evidence points to gun control being
at least ineffective and probably counter-productive, which is why anti-
gun fundies resort to twisted statistics, hysteria and out right lies.

When the foundation of your dogma is that inanimate objects cause crime,
you've nowhere to go but down.

On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 16:07:05 +1200, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 25/06/21 3:27 pm, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 8:08:41 PM UTC-4, Titus G wrote:
>>> On 25/06/21 3:27 am, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> David Johnston
>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does that even mean?
>>>>>
>>>>> It means that that endemic social problems are never the product
>>>>> of a single causative factor.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, I agree with that. What I disagree with, is that banning guns
>>>> and/or imposing harsh regulations on ALL Americans will have any
>>>> effect on this.
>>> I am not American and know little of your gun laws but don't you already
>>> have a form of gun control in that you have to have a licence to carry
>>> one in public? Isn't that a complete violation of your civil liberties
>>> if not also, yet again, the possible end of the free world?
>>
>> Firearms laws in the US are mostly decided at the state level, with an
>> overlay of Federal regulation, and some county or city level regulations.
>> They also distinguish between carrying long guns, carrying a handgun
>> openly, or carrying concealed.
>>
>> They vary greatly from place to place. In Hawaii or New York City, it's
>> extremely difficult to get a permit,
>
>Great. I will advise my clients to invade Hawaii and New York City where
>there will be a greater chance of success due to a lack of well armed
>freedom loving local civilian militia with pop guns.
>
> while many states have 'Constitutional
>> Carry', where any adult who is not otherwise forbidden from possessing a firearm
>> (convicted felon, on parole, or under a restraining order), can legally carry
>> concealed without license or training.
>>
>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry
>>
>> There's been a lot of recent anti gun angst that Texas is moving to Constitutional
>> Carry, but there's little correlation between that and rates of gun violence; the state
>> with the lowest gun violence rate in the country, Vermont, has had CC for a very long
>> time.
>>
>> Im in MA, a pretty seriously anti gun state, but have a concealed carry
>> permit, obtained with some hoop jumping. That included a safety course,
>> providing references, and an interview with the chief of police.
>>
>> I think the safety course (which included training on the laws of using firearms
>> In MA) was extremely valuable.
>>
>> Pt
>>
>
>Thank you for your serious and informative answer which appears to
>confirm that all Americans are currently subject to some form of gun
>control. I am finding it difficult to take Ed seriously.

Well, of course they are.

If nothing else, they are usually subjected to:

-- minimum age for unsupervised use requirements
-- hunting season requirements
-- hunting licence requirelement
-- bag limits
-- tag limits

to list only the ones that come to mind.

If you follow the logic of the anti-gun-law crowd to its logical
conclusion, these are /all/ unconstitutional.

And I noted a while back that the tendency of pro-gun-control types to
put forth the proposals which they always put forth after any event
that catches the public's eye regardless of whether what they propose
would have prevented that event is something I have been very tired of
for a long long time.

Too much hysteria, not enough thought.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 22:42:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 10:57:36 PM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I can't recall if your our Kiwi regular, but one other little wrinkle is that in NZ,
>> supressors (silencers) are uncontrolled, and their use considered good manners,
>> while in the US, they are illegal in some states, and subject to a $200 transfer
>> tax in others.
>
>That strikes me as odd.
>
>Here in Canada, it's very hard to get a permit for a handgun, but rifles and
>shotguns are easy enough to become licensed for, as they're used by
>farmers and hunters.
>
>Handguns are easy to hide, and are for shooting people with, is presumably
>the reason.
>
>Restrictions on silencers just follow - just as a handgun is more dangerous
>because it is smaller, a gun with a silencer is more dangerous because it
>could be used without it causing a ruckus - a miscreant could kill someone,
>and then be far away before it was even noticed that someone had been
>shot!

Not in today's world, with security cameras everywhere.

Not to mention the modern tendency to film oneself doing all sorts of
thing. Such as planting evidence (if a cop) or killing someone (if a
perp, particularly if a group of perps, only one of which needs to
film it).

Also, the traditional motives still apply, and looking and friends,
relatives and business partners is often a useful first step.

None of which is affected by a silencer.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 05:04:58 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 22:42:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 10:57:36 PM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> I can't recall if your our Kiwi regular, but one other little wrinkle is that in NZ,
>>> supressors (silencers) are uncontrolled, and their use considered good manners,
>>> while in the US, they are illegal in some states, and subject to a $200 transfer
>>> tax in others.
>>
>>That strikes me as odd.
>>
>>Here in Canada, it's very hard to get a permit for a handgun, but rifles and
>>shotguns are easy enough to become licensed for, as they're used by
>>farmers and hunters.
>>
>>Handguns are easy to hide, and are for shooting people with, is presumably
>>the reason.
>>
>>Restrictions on silencers just follow - just as a handgun is more dangerous
>>because it is smaller, a gun with a silencer is more dangerous because it
>>could be used without it causing a ruckus - a miscreant could kill someone,
>>and then be far away before it was even noticed that someone had been
>>shot!
>
>In a rural area no suppressor is required for that to happen and in
>the city there's so much noise anyway that a gunshot is likely to not
>be noticed.

Oh, I don't know.

I'm in city, and Nextdoor often has "shots heard" reports.

Not nearly as often as "lost/found cat/dog" reports, of course, but
some things are more important -- and a lot cuter -- than others.

>This is pretty much fearmongering.

I suspect the US treatment of silencers has to do with their use by
the Mob. Or, perhaps more accurately, their /reputed/ use by the Mob.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 22:37:06 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 9:28:02 PM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Firearms laws in the US are mostly decided at the state level,
>
>Indeed. And one state, with a gun law summed up by the billboard
>slogan, "Use a gun, go to jail", violates the right of self-defence to
>an even greater extent than Canada's gun control laws, unreasonable
>and excessive though they are.

Which could simply be saying that using a gun /when committing a
crime/ guarantees a jail sentence upon conviction.

While not using one might result in a suspended sentence, depending on
other circumstances.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 05:28:21 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 15:07:42 +1000, "Gary R. Schmidt"
><grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:
>
>>On 25/06/2021 01:27, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
>>[SNIP]
>>>
>>> The anti-gun position is indefensible, there is nothing to support the
>>> contention that gun control is of any value and everything suggests it
>>> would in fact be disastrous for Americans and humanity in general.
>>>
>>You are generalising from a position of weakness, gun-control works
>>perfectly well in civilised nations.
>
>How do you know that? You are assuming that the disparity in homicide
>rates between the US and "civilised nations" is due to the gun laws in
>those nations. Yet the homicide rate among white people in the US is
>similar to that in other nations. The homicide rate among minorities
>is much much higher. Since those minorities typically have _less_
>access to firearms (most gun licensing laws were aimed originally at
>minorities and in recent years California, the most liberal of liberal
>states, has been found guilty in court of having used those laws in a
>discriminatory manner) it is difficult to see how firearms possession
>correlates to homicide.
>
>>Gun-related deaths (and injuries) in Australia, both criminal and
>>self-inflicted, declined after the recent introduction of stricter
>>gun-control laws.
>
>So did non-gun-related deaths and injuries so how do you know that it
>was the gun laws that made the change and not just a general decline
>in homicides?
>
>>No sign of any bad stars here, and that was all the way back in 1996.
>>
>>There has, however, been a noticed up-swing in the attempts to smuggle
>>gun parts that have come from production lines in the USA *before* they
>>get any identification marks on them. Could this be because the
>>US-based manufacturers are aiding-and-abetting such criminal acts???
>
>How did they get off of the production lines without the required
>markings? Were they stolen?

While some may indeed have "fallen off the truck", my understanding is
that there is a /legitimate/ market for such parts. Hobbyists, IIRC,
allegedly assembling guns that will never be used but which will look
nice hanging on the wall.

I would expect the local police to be involved with any that are
stolen. After all, the company making them would be losing money.

This, BTW, is something that probably /should/ be suppressed.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

In article <gl0cdgp5q28kg9otb07eghspnff33oq4gv@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 16:07:05 +1200, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >On 25/06/21 3:27 pm, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 8:08:41 PM UTC-4, Titus G wrote:
> >>> On 25/06/21 3:27 am, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> David Johnston
> >>>>>> Ed Stasiak
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What does that even mean?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It means that that endemic social problems are never the product
> >>>>> of a single causative factor.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure, I agree with that. What I disagree with, is that banning guns
> >>>> and/or imposing harsh regulations on ALL Americans will have any
> >>>> effect on this.
> >>> I am not American and know little of your gun laws but don't you already
> >>> have a form of gun control in that you have to have a licence to carry
> >>> one in public? Isn't that a complete violation of your civil liberties
> >>> if not also, yet again, the possible end of the free world?
> >>
> >> Firearms laws in the US are mostly decided at the state level, with an
> >> overlay of Federal regulation, and some county or city level regulations.
> >> They also distinguish between carrying long guns, carrying a handgun
> >> openly, or carrying concealed.
> >>
> >> They vary greatly from place to place. In Hawaii or New York City, it's
> >> extremely difficult to get a permit,
> >
> >Great. I will advise my clients to invade Hawaii and New York City where
> >there will be a greater chance of success due to a lack of well armed
> >freedom loving local civilian militia with pop guns.
> >
> > while many states have 'Constitutional
> >> Carry', where any adult who is not otherwise forbidden from possessing a
> >> firearm
> >> (convicted felon, on parole, or under a restraining order), can legally
> >> carry
> >> concealed without license or training.
> >>
> >> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry
> >>
> >> There's been a lot of recent anti gun angst that Texas is moving to
> >> Constitutional
> >> Carry, but there's little correlation between that and rates of gun
> >> violence; the state
> >> with the lowest gun violence rate in the country, Vermont, has had CC for
> >> a very long
> >> time.
> >>
> >> Im in MA, a pretty seriously anti gun state, but have a concealed carry
> >> permit, obtained with some hoop jumping. That included a safety course,
> >> providing references, and an interview with the chief of police.
> >>
> >> I think the safety course (which included training on the laws of using
> >> firearms
> >> In MA) was extremely valuable.
> >>
> >> Pt
> >>
> >
> >Thank you for your serious and informative answer which appears to
> >confirm that all Americans are currently subject to some form of gun
> >control. I am finding it difficult to take Ed seriously.
>
> Well, of course they are.
>
> If nothing else, they are usually subjected to:
>
> -- minimum age for unsupervised use requirements
> -- hunting season requirements
> -- hunting licence requirelement
> -- bag limits
> -- tag limits
>
> to list only the ones that come to mind.
>
> If you follow the logic of the anti-gun-law crowd to its logical
> conclusion, these are /all/ unconstitutional.

I can't see how hunting restrictions interfere with the 2nd Amendment.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 10:36:13 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 22:37:06 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> >Indeed. And one state, with a gun law summed up by the billboard
> >slogan, "Use a gun, go to jail", violates the right of self-defence to
> >an even greater extent than Canada's gun control laws, unreasonable
> >and excessive though they are.

> Which could simply be saying that using a gun /when committing a
> crime/ guarantees a jail sentence upon conviction.

I'd be in agreement with that, but, although I may be mistaken, my
understanding was that the state in question had a mandatory jail
sentence for _any_ discharge of a handgun by an ordinary individual -
even, say, a woman defending herself from sexual assault.

The rationale was presumably to remove the motivation to purchase or
possess handguns... by law-abiding citizens, whose being armed to the
teeth is said, by peer-reviewed research, even, to reduce crime.

However, a Google search appears to indicate that I was indeed mistaken,
and the slogan in question was used in a campaign in California, not some
state considerably further east; it was a minimum sentence law for the use
of guns in crimes, not even in self-defence.

John Savard

On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 10:57:05 AM UTC-6, Robert Woodward wrote:

> I can't see how hunting restrictions interfere with the 2nd Amendment.

If they're just restrictions on hunting, no. But if you needed a hunting license
to own a gun... but that's silly, because then what would people do out of season?

John Savard