On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 11:08:33 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 4:43:36 AM UTC-7, pvansch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 9:43:06 PM UTC-7, Tom Desjardins wrote:
> > > Yes, thankfully our Constitution gives us a right to keep and bear arms, but there are those who're unable to distinguish between limits and termination. Massacres like this will continue to increase with the continued exponential proliferation of small arms. On the bright side Daniel Defense published a pop-up statement on its homepage sending “thoughts and prayers” to the community of Uvalde.
> > Here is the text of the second amendment:
> >
> > "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> >
> > All the guns in circulation are not part of a well regulated militia. They are in the hands of some sensible gun owners and a lot of random unregulated individuals, one of whom goes crazy every few months. We regulate that people can not own operable Sherman tanks, 50 caliber machine guns that were once installed in warbirds, and lots of other weapons of war. Nobody needs an assault weapon for anything other than killing many people.
> >
> > Just like we tax the heck out of tobacco to help defray the costs to society that the tobacco inflicts; we should tax the heck out of guns and ammunition. Some of the money would compensate victims and families. And the gun manufacturers should be required to add technology to guns just like we do to cars to make them safer. Both these ideas would be more effective than yet more thoughts and prayers, which clearly do nothing at all.
> You are sadly ignorant of the Heller decision which covers the argument you made in great detail. This decision, by the way, is 14 years old.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

True but the problem with Supreme Court decisions is that depending on the current make up of the court, previous rulings can be overturned. The current POTUS wishes to STACK THE COURT, add more justices to favor his point of view creating a majority and change the law. Thus no ruling is ever permanent, take ROWE V WADE, a prime example.

Walt Connelly
Former Tow Pilot
Now Happy Helicopter Pilot

On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 5:44:50 AM UTC-7, waltco...@aol.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 11:08:33 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 4:43:36 AM UTC-7, pvansch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 9:43:06 PM UTC-7, Tom Desjardins wrote:
> > > > Yes, thankfully our Constitution gives us a right to keep and bear arms, but there are those who're unable to distinguish between limits and termination. Massacres like this will continue to increase with the continued exponential proliferation of small arms. On the bright side Daniel Defense published a pop-up statement on its homepage sending “thoughts and prayers” to the community of Uvalde.
> > > Here is the text of the second amendment:
> > >
> > > "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> > >
> > > All the guns in circulation are not part of a well regulated militia. They are in the hands of some sensible gun owners and a lot of random unregulated individuals, one of whom goes crazy every few months. We regulate that people can not own operable Sherman tanks, 50 caliber machine guns that were once installed in warbirds, and lots of other weapons of war. Nobody needs an assault weapon for anything other than killing many people.
> > >
> > > Just like we tax the heck out of tobacco to help defray the costs to society that the tobacco inflicts; we should tax the heck out of guns and ammunition. Some of the money would compensate victims and families. And the gun manufacturers should be required to add technology to guns just like we do to cars to make them safer. Both these ideas would be more effective than yet more thoughts and prayers, which clearly do nothing at all.
> > You are sadly ignorant of the Heller decision which covers the argument you made in great detail. This decision, by the way, is 14 years old.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
> True but the problem with Supreme Court decisions is that depending on the current make up of the court, previous rulings can be overturned. The current POTUS wishes to STACK THE COURT, add more justices to favor his point of view creating a majority and change the law. Thus no ruling is ever permanent, take ROWE V WADE, a prime example.
> Walt Connelly
> Former Tow Pilot
> Now Happy Helicopter Pilot

The Left continually wants to talk about muzzle loaders and their rate of fire, but they prefer to refer to "militias" as our present day National Guard. As already pointed out, militias were all able bodied men back in the eighteenth century. So, the Founders were saying that ALL able-bodied men needed to be armed so that they would be an effective fighting force wherever the need arose. As can be seen in Ukraine, it may be difficult to say when this need may arise. Also, we are HEAVILY regulated already when it comes to firearms. Those that don't own them may be unaware of this, but there are thousands of laws on the books NOW that regulates their use. Just go to your own state code and search for "firearms" and you will see a plethora of laws concerning their use. The sad truth is that we don't need more laws regulating guns, we just need to have the EXISTING laws ENFORCED! For example, Hunter Biden lied on his BATFE form 4473, which is a felony (https://www..nraila.org/articles/20210405/hunter-biden-incident-shows-that-gun-laws-are-for-the-little-people). But laws like this are for you and me, not for the privileged.

Tom

On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 1:08:33 PM UTC+10, 2G wrote:
> On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 4:43:36 AM UTC-7, pvansch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 9:43:06 PM UTC-7, Tom Desjardins wrote:
> > > Yes, thankfully our Constitution gives us a right to keep and bear arms, but there are those who're unable to distinguish between limits and termination. Massacres like this will continue to increase with the continued exponential proliferation of small arms. On the bright side Daniel Defense published a pop-up statement on its homepage sending “thoughts and prayers” to the community of Uvalde.
> > Here is the text of the second amendment:
> >
> > "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> >
> > All the guns in circulation are not part of a well regulated militia. They are in the hands of some sensible gun owners and a lot of random unregulated individuals, one of whom goes crazy every few months. We regulate that people can not own operable Sherman tanks, 50 caliber machine guns that were once installed in warbirds, and lots of other weapons of war. Nobody needs an assault weapon for anything other than killing many people.
> >
> > Just like we tax the heck out of tobacco to help defray the costs to society that the tobacco inflicts; we should tax the heck out of guns and ammunition. Some of the money would compensate victims and families. And the gun manufacturers should be required to add technology to guns just like we do to cars to make them safer. Both these ideas would be more effective than yet more thoughts and prayers, which clearly do nothing at all.
> You are sadly ignorant of the Heller decision which covers the argument you made in great detail. This decision, by the way, is 14 years old.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

And of course, no SC decision can ever be overturned, right??

....So, the Founders were saying that ALL able-bodied men needed to be armed so that they would be an effective fighting force wherever the need arose. As can be seen in Ukraine, it may be difficult to say when this need may arise...

This has got to be the most fantastical of all the reasons why we should ignore the growing number of these massacres. Put forth by folks who watched the movie, 'Red Dawn' too many times when they were impressionable teenagers. ;)

On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 4:53:35 AM UTC-4, Tom Desjardins wrote:
> ...So, the Founders were saying that ALL able-bodied men needed to be armed ....

Legally insane people should not have guns because they are not responsible for what they are doing. There is a certain amount of personal responsibility involved with gun ownership. Felons and drug addicts have shown a total disregard for the lives of others and themselves. Keep guns away form those people as well.

I think that responsible, law abiding men and women should have all the guns they want, for whatever lawful purpose they wish. Underage boys and girls need adult supervision and proper training.

On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 7:38:24 AM UTC-4, Rakel wrote:
> On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 4:53:35 AM UTC-4, Tom Desjardins wrote:
> > ...So, the Founders were saying that ALL able-bodied men needed to be armed ....
>
>
> Legally insane people should not have guns because they are not responsible for what they are doing. There is a certain amount of personal responsibility involved with gun ownership. Felons and drug addicts have shown a total disregard for the lives of others and themselves. Keep guns away form those people as well.
>
> I think that responsible, law abiding men and women should have all the guns they want, for whatever lawful purpose they wish. Underage boys and girls need adult supervision and proper training.

Interpretation can be misleading at times, "able bodied" would in my opinion exclude anyone with diminished mental capacity. Two people can read the same paragraph and come away with a different perspective to some degree based on their predilection. Village idiots were not uncommon back in early America, the locals most likely knew who they were and kept an eye on them without worry about the court finding them in violation of their rights.

Felons are by law not allowed to buy or even POSESS a firearm, a drug addict convicted of such an offense would fall into this category. Personally I would be in favor of raising the age to buy any firearm to 21. JMHO.

Walt Connelly
Former Tow Pilot
Now Happy Helicopter Pilot.

On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 9:03:56 AM UTC-4, waltco...@aol.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 7:38:24 AM UTC-4, Rakel wrote:
> > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 4:53:35 AM UTC-4, Tom Desjardins wrote:
> > > ...So, the Founders were saying that ALL able-bodied men needed to be armed ....
> >
> >
> > Legally insane people should not have guns because they are not responsible for what they are doing. There is a certain amount of personal responsibility involved with gun ownership. Felons and drug addicts have shown a total disregard for the lives of others and themselves. Keep guns away form those people as well.
> >
> > I think that responsible, law abiding men and women should have all the guns they want, for whatever lawful purpose they wish. Underage boys and girls need adult supervision and proper training.
> Interpretation can be misleading at times, "able bodied" would in my opinion exclude anyone with diminished mental capacity. Two people can read the same paragraph and come away with a different perspective to some degree based on their predilection. Village idiots were not uncommon back in early America, the locals most likely knew who they were and kept an eye on them without worry about the court finding them in violation of their rights.
>
> Felons are by law not allowed to buy or even POSESS a firearm, a drug addict convicted of such an offense would fall into this category. Personally I would be in favor of raising the age to buy any firearm to 21. JMHO.
> Walt Connelly
> Former Tow Pilot
> Now Happy Helicopter Pilot.
I think that's a bit much, but for semi-autos I agree. We need to enforce existing laws first - many dealers have been in gross violation yet ATF does nothing. Make gun owners very accountable when their weapons get into other's hands.

At 14 years, I'd put my .22 rifle in a canvas bag my mother made for me, and tie it to my bicycle to go shooting. What has changed since then is the family unit has been eroded and broken for many minorities and poor. Their children get little to no parental guidance and are not taught moral and acceptable behavior. 75% of black babies are born to unwed mothers, welfare is the enabler and a cancer on our society, it enables young girls to get pregnant and get a place of their own. It was that way when I was a cop in Oakland in the 70's and has only gotten worse. Most of their kids are raised on the street, with drug dealers and pimps their heroes sporting fat rolls of cash. When the government was doing the "Train them for a job" program, I went to take a report at a welding trade school. There was the instructor, and not one student. He said he couldn't get them to show up most of the time. Total waste of money. What we have here is a breakdown in the very foundation of our country. People are the problem, not guns. As an aside, I never had to shoot anyone in the 10 years I was on OPD. Lost a few police friends to gun violence by bad guys, and but for some luck and good awareness, survived the planned killing of me by 4 robbery suspects in a car I stopped alone when I was on motors. When I later heard the general description of the robbery vehicle on the radio, I gave them enough extra info they were able to stake out a house and arrest the bad guys. One of them, who was in the back seat when I stopped them, told the investigator they were planning to kill me if I gave them the chance.

Absent straightening out our country and getting back on track (which will take years if ever), we need armed security and far better safety measures in our schools.

bumper

I was in Uvalde in 1991. I remember again the son in the family that owned the motel describing to us possibly naive visitors how simple it was to buy a gun. I also remember occasionally listening to the radio while driving the trailer to Jacksonville after the comp, hearing news reports of shootings in nearby places I saw on road signs, such as Biloxi.

I see plenty of argument, some of it surely tenuous or dubious, such as the solution to having too many guns is get even more, or blame the victims, or anyone who wants to do anything must be left wing nutters, or threatens our historic Constitution.

I just found a Newsweek article written on the occasion of a mass shooting in Plymouth England, the first such incident in this country for about a decade. In the same time the USA had hundreds or even thousands, according to counting by different monitoring groups.

We had an infamous shooting in 1996 in a school in Dunblane, home town of the tennis player Andy Murray, who was present. The country did something about it.

I won't dare to tell you what to do about this in your country. Too many of you seem to want to do nothing at all, except come up with very highly assertive excuses why you don't have any interest or responsibility in the matter.

Sure, I don't understand. This may attract some replies saying so.

Instead, look in the mirror:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

One excerpt:

"Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the U.S. gun-related homicide rate is 25 times higher.[16] Although it has half the population of the other 22 nations combined, among those 22 nations studied, the U.S. had 82 percent of gun deaths, 90 percent of all women killed with guns, 91 percent of children under 14 and 92 percent of young people between ages 15 and 24 killed with guns, with guns being the leading cause of death for children."

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 6:35:38 AM UTC-4, andy l wrote:
> I was in Uvalde in 1991. I remember again the son in the family that owned the motel describing to us possibly naive visitors how simple it was to buy a gun. I also remember occasionally listening to the radio while driving the trailer to Jacksonville after the comp, hearing news reports of shootings in nearby places I saw on road signs, such as Biloxi.
>
> I see plenty of argument, some of it surely tenuous or dubious, such as the solution to having too many guns is get even more, or blame the victims, or anyone who wants to do anything must be left wing nutters, or threatens our historic Constitution.
>
> I just found a Newsweek article written on the occasion of a mass shooting in Plymouth England, the first such incident in this country for about a decade. In the same time the USA had hundreds or even thousands, according to counting by different monitoring groups.
>
> We had an infamous shooting in 1996 in a school in Dunblane, home town of the tennis player Andy Murray, who was present. The country did something about it.
>
> I won't dare to tell you what to do about this in your country. Too many of you seem to want to do nothing at all, except come up with very highly assertive excuses why you don't have any interest or responsibility in the matter.
>
> Sure, I don't understand. This may attract some replies saying so.
>
> Instead, look in the mirror:
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
>
> One excerpt:
>
> "Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the U.S. gun-related homicide rate is 25 times higher.[16] Although it has half the population of the other 22 nations combined, among those 22 nations studied, the U.S. had 82 percent of gun deaths, 90 percent of all women killed with guns, 91 percent of children under 14 and 92 percent of young people between ages 15 and 24 killed with guns, with guns being the leading cause of death for children."

There is no easy answer to this question but unlike many other countries the USA has a Constitution where the right to keep and bear arms is spelled out.

As I have stated in the past, I do not need a fire extinguisher RIGHT NOW but I have in the past and the one I had was inadequate to do the job. I now have two and they are of a much larger capacity. Should someone have the right to tell me I don’t need such capacity? Not the same thing you say? I beg to differ. When the need comes to defend myself I want to make the decision as to the method myself, not to have a bureaucrat do it for me.

In the UK one is not allowed to apply for a gun purchase permit if the reason is self defense. In the USA the right to self defense is clear. You have the right to use deadly force when your life is in danger or you are in danger of seriously bodily harm, except of course in cities like New York where only the criminal has the advantage. Gun laws vary from state to state and some times from municipality to municipality however the US Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense .... the liberal left hates this.

I will say that I think an 18 year old should not be permitted to buy a firearm, just my personal opinion. I don’t think they should be allowed to drink alcohol either, again a personal opinion. Twenty one or twenty five would be a better age unless they have been in the military with proper training. I had a .22 rifle at age 12, a bolt action model and I received some good safety training and marksmanship training from my dad, and I knew if I screwed up it would be my ass. I lived out in the country where most of my childhood friends also had a rifle or access to one. I am in favor of COMMON SENSE gun laws but to me that does not mean confiscation or banning of certain types. Just my constitutionally protected opinion.

Walt Connelly
Former Tow Pilot
Now Happy Helicopter Pilot

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 5:34:58 AM UTC-7, waltco...@aol.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 6:35:38 AM UTC-4, andy l wrote:
> > I was in Uvalde in 1991. I remember again the son in the family that owned the motel describing to us possibly naive visitors how simple it was to buy a gun. I also remember occasionally listening to the radio while driving the trailer to Jacksonville after the comp, hearing news reports of shootings in nearby places I saw on road signs, such as Biloxi.
> >
> > I see plenty of argument, some of it surely tenuous or dubious, such as the solution to having too many guns is get even more, or blame the victims, or anyone who wants to do anything must be left wing nutters, or threatens our historic Constitution.
> >
> > I just found a Newsweek article written on the occasion of a mass shooting in Plymouth England, the first such incident in this country for about a decade. In the same time the USA had hundreds or even thousands, according to counting by different monitoring groups.
> >
> > We had an infamous shooting in 1996 in a school in Dunblane, home town of the tennis player Andy Murray, who was present. The country did something about it.
> >
> > I won't dare to tell you what to do about this in your country. Too many of you seem to want to do nothing at all, except come up with very highly assertive excuses why you don't have any interest or responsibility in the matter.
> >
> > Sure, I don't understand. This may attract some replies saying so.
> >
> > Instead, look in the mirror:
> > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
> >
> > One excerpt:
> >
> > "Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the U.S. gun-related homicide rate is 25 times higher.[16] Although it has half the population of the other 22 nations combined, among those 22 nations studied, the U.S. had 82 percent of gun deaths, 90 percent of all women killed with guns, 91 percent of children under 14 and 92 percent of young people between ages 15 and 24 killed with guns, with guns being the leading cause of death for children."
> There is no easy answer to this question but unlike many other countries the USA has a Constitution where the right to keep and bear arms is spelled out.
>
> As I have stated in the past, I do not need a fire extinguisher RIGHT NOW but I have in the past and the one I had was inadequate to do the job. I now have two and they are of a much larger capacity. Should someone have the right to tell me I don’t need such capacity? Not the same thing you say? I beg to differ. When the need comes to defend myself I want to make the decision as to the method myself, not to have a bureaucrat do it for me.
>
> In the UK one is not allowed to apply for a gun purchase permit if the reason is self defense. In the USA the right to self defense is clear. You have the right to use deadly force when your life is in danger or you are in danger of seriously bodily harm, except of course in cities like New York where only the criminal has the advantage. Gun laws vary from state to state and some times from municipality to municipality however the US Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense .... the liberal left hates this.
>
> I will say that I think an 18 year old should not be permitted to buy a firearm, just my personal opinion. I don’t think they should be allowed to drink alcohol either, again a personal opinion. Twenty one or twenty five would be a better age unless they have been in the military with proper training. I had a .22 rifle at age 12, a bolt action model and I received some good safety training and marksmanship training from my dad, and I knew if I screwed up it would be my ass. I lived out in the country where most of my childhood friends also had a rifle or access to one. I am in favor of COMMON SENSE gun laws but to me that does not mean confiscation or banning of certain types. Just my constitutionally protected opinion.
> Walt Connelly
> Former Tow Pilot
> Now Happy Helicopter Pilot

A peculiar form of insanity seems to be sweeping the nation, where the police are regarded as the problem instead of part of the solution. Seattle, for example, has recently announced that they are no longer going to investigate adult sexual assaults. Your read that right: forget it if you a woman in Seattle and are sexually assaulted. This is a direct result of their bizarre Defund the Police movement. So, what impact do you think this will have on perverts motivated to commit these type of crimes?
https://www.foxnews.com/us/seattle-police-stopped-investigating-new-adult-sexual-assaults

Tom

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 3:35:38 AM UTC-7, andy l wrote:
> I was in Uvalde in 1991. I remember again the son in the family that owned the motel describing to us possibly naive visitors how simple it was to buy a gun. I also remember occasionally listening to the radio while driving the trailer to Jacksonville after the comp, hearing news reports of shootings in nearby places I saw on road signs, such as Biloxi.
>
> I see plenty of argument, some of it surely tenuous or dubious, such as the solution to having too many guns is get even more, or blame the victims, or anyone who wants to do anything must be left wing nutters, or threatens our historic Constitution.
>
> I just found a Newsweek article written on the occasion of a mass shooting in Plymouth England, the first such incident in this country for about a decade. In the same time the USA had hundreds or even thousands, according to counting by different monitoring groups.
>
> We had an infamous shooting in 1996 in a school in Dunblane, home town of the tennis player Andy Murray, who was present. The country did something about it.
>
> I won't dare to tell you what to do about this in your country. Too many of you seem to want to do nothing at all, except come up with very highly assertive excuses why you don't have any interest or responsibility in the matter.
>
> Sure, I don't understand. This may attract some replies saying so.
>
> Instead, look in the mirror:
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
>
> One excerpt:
>
> "Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the U.S. gun-related homicide rate is 25 times higher.[16] Although it has half the population of the other 22 nations combined, among those 22 nations studied, the U.S. had 82 percent of gun deaths, 90 percent of all women killed with guns, 91 percent of children under 14 and 92 percent of young people between ages 15 and 24 killed with guns, with guns being the leading cause of death for children."

"...I won't dare to tell you what to do about this in your country. Too many of you seem to want to do nothing at all, except come up with very highly assertive excuses why you don't have any interest or responsibility in the matter..."

Well said andi I. You put your finger on the bottom line why these massacres, happen here and not in other western nations, the huge number of and easy access to guns. But the truth is that the vast majority of Americans DO want to do something about it, it's only a relatively small percentage of hardcore extremists and their leaders who continue to block sensible reform..

And most of those who blame mental illness and the breakdown of the family unit (both factors) have no interest in proposing policies and providing resources that would help reduce these issues. Let alone address the rise in the hate and racism that have motivated these recent massacres, like the replacement and other conspiracy theories. I believe this will be the motivation behind the majority of massacres in the coming months and years, until the vast majority who want to do something grows large enough to make the changes that will actually save lives.

Some believe our Constitution came down from heaven written in stone, but America can and have made the changes to meet the needs that time, science and knowledge has shown the majority of Americans what's required for, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 2:01:05 PM UTC-7, Tom Desjardins wrote:
> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 3:35:38 AM UTC-7, andy l wrote:
> > I was in Uvalde in 1991. I remember again the son in the family that owned the motel describing to us possibly naive visitors how simple it was to buy a gun. I also remember occasionally listening to the radio while driving the trailer to Jacksonville after the comp, hearing news reports of shootings in nearby places I saw on road signs, such as Biloxi.
> >
> > I see plenty of argument, some of it surely tenuous or dubious, such as the solution to having too many guns is get even more, or blame the victims, or anyone who wants to do anything must be left wing nutters, or threatens our historic Constitution.
> >
> > I just found a Newsweek article written on the occasion of a mass shooting in Plymouth England, the first such incident in this country for about a decade. In the same time the USA had hundreds or even thousands, according to counting by different monitoring groups.
> >
> > We had an infamous shooting in 1996 in a school in Dunblane, home town of the tennis player Andy Murray, who was present. The country did something about it.
> >
> > I won't dare to tell you what to do about this in your country. Too many of you seem to want to do nothing at all, except come up with very highly assertive excuses why you don't have any interest or responsibility in the matter.
> >
> > Sure, I don't understand. This may attract some replies saying so.
> >
> > Instead, look in the mirror:
> > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
> >
> > One excerpt:
> >
> > "Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the U.S. gun-related homicide rate is 25 times higher.[16] Although it has half the population of the other 22 nations combined, among those 22 nations studied, the U.S. had 82 percent of gun deaths, 90 percent of all women killed with guns, 91 percent of children under 14 and 92 percent of young people between ages 15 and 24 killed with guns, with guns being the leading cause of death for children."
> "...I won't dare to tell you what to do about this in your country. Too many of you seem to want to do nothing at all, except come up with very highly assertive excuses why you don't have any interest or responsibility in the matter..."
>
> Well said andi I. You put your finger on the bottom line why these massacres, happen here and not in other western nations, the huge number of and easy access to guns. But the truth is that the vast majority of Americans DO want to do something about it, it's only a relatively small percentage of hardcore extremists and their leaders who continue to block sensible reform..
>
> And most of those who blame mental illness and the breakdown of the family unit (both factors) have no interest in proposing policies and providing resources that would help reduce these issues. Let alone address the rise in the hate and racism that have motivated these recent massacres, like the replacement and other conspiracy theories. I believe this will be the motivation behind the majority of massacres in the coming months and years, until the vast majority who want to do something grows large enough to make the changes that will actually save lives.
>
> Some believe our Constitution came down from heaven written in stone, but America can and have made the changes to meet the needs that time, science and knowledge has shown the majority of Americans what's required for, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Mass murders won't even make into the Top 100 causes of death. If you denied the insane access to what is erroneously called "assault rifles" (not likely as you are talking about mass confiscation of ALL rifles) they would, simply, switch to handguns. And if you went whole hog and confiscated EVERY firearm (which is blatantly unconstitutional) they would switch to a car, pickup or truck (which has happened, not here, but in Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack).

Typical of liberals, they look at an inanimate object as the problem when it is the person. If you study serial killers they rarely use firearms to kill their victims. What would REALLY help is the STRICT enforcement of EXISTING gun laws, like straw buyers and people who lie on their gun application form (like Hunter Biden). Criminals caught with illegal firearms typically have the gun enhancement charge pled down.
All approaches at gun control impact law-abiding citizens the most severely.. Criminal don't follow the law because, after all, they are criminals. There are hundreds of thousands of instances of defensive gun use each year in the USA, but most are unknown because it may only involve showing the gun to the criminal.

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:05:32 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 2:01:05 PM UTC-7, Tom Desjardins wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 3:35:38 AM UTC-7, andy l wrote:
> > > I was in Uvalde in 1991. I remember again the son in the family that owned the motel describing to us possibly naive visitors how simple it was to buy a gun. I also remember occasionally listening to the radio while driving the trailer to Jacksonville after the comp, hearing news reports of shootings in nearby places I saw on road signs, such as Biloxi.
> > >
> > > I see plenty of argument, some of it surely tenuous or dubious, such as the solution to having too many guns is get even more, or blame the victims, or anyone who wants to do anything must be left wing nutters, or threatens our historic Constitution.
> > >
> > > I just found a Newsweek article written on the occasion of a mass shooting in Plymouth England, the first such incident in this country for about a decade. In the same time the USA had hundreds or even thousands, according to counting by different monitoring groups.
> > >
> > > We had an infamous shooting in 1996 in a school in Dunblane, home town of the tennis player Andy Murray, who was present. The country did something about it.
> > >
> > > I won't dare to tell you what to do about this in your country. Too many of you seem to want to do nothing at all, except come up with very highly assertive excuses why you don't have any interest or responsibility in the matter.
> > >
> > > Sure, I don't understand. This may attract some replies saying so.
> > >
> > > Instead, look in the mirror:
> > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
> > >
> > > One excerpt:
> > >
> > > "Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the U.S. gun-related homicide rate is 25 times higher.[16] Although it has half the population of the other 22 nations combined, among those 22 nations studied, the U.S. had 82 percent of gun deaths, 90 percent of all women killed with guns, 91 percent of children under 14 and 92 percent of young people between ages 15 and 24 killed with guns, with guns being the leading cause of death for children.."
> > "...I won't dare to tell you what to do about this in your country. Too many of you seem to want to do nothing at all, except come up with very highly assertive excuses why you don't have any interest or responsibility in the matter..."
> >
> > Well said andi I. You put your finger on the bottom line why these massacres, happen here and not in other western nations, the huge number of and easy access to guns. But the truth is that the vast majority of Americans DO want to do something about it, it's only a relatively small percentage of hardcore extremists and their leaders who continue to block sensible reform.
> >
> > And most of those who blame mental illness and the breakdown of the family unit (both factors) have no interest in proposing policies and providing resources that would help reduce these issues. Let alone address the rise in the hate and racism that have motivated these recent massacres, like the replacement and other conspiracy theories. I believe this will be the motivation behind the majority of massacres in the coming months and years, until the vast majority who want to do something grows large enough to make the changes that will actually save lives.
> >
> > Some believe our Constitution came down from heaven written in stone, but America can and have made the changes to meet the needs that time, science and knowledge has shown the majority of Americans what's required for, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
> Mass murders won't even make into the Top 100 causes of death. If you denied the insane access to what is erroneously called "assault rifles" (not likely as you are talking about mass confiscation of ALL rifles) they would, simply, switch to handguns. And if you went whole hog and confiscated EVERY firearm (which is blatantly unconstitutional) they would switch to a car, pickup or truck (which has happened, not here, but in Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack).
>
> Typical of liberals, they look at an inanimate object as the problem when it is the person. If you study serial killers they rarely use firearms to kill their victims. What would REALLY help is the STRICT enforcement of EXISTING gun laws, like straw buyers and people who lie on their gun application form (like Hunter Biden). Criminals caught with illegal firearms typically have the gun enhancement charge pled down.
>
> All approaches at gun control impact law-abiding citizens the most severely. Criminal don't follow the law because, after all, they are criminals. There are hundreds of thousands of instances of defensive gun use each year in the USA, but most are unknown because it may only involve showing the gun to the criminal.
Such certainty about what "would' happen. Awesome.

On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 6:30:31 PM UTC-7, FZ wrote:
> Uvalde, the place loaded with so many great memories for hundreds of glider pilots. Town of great hospitality to gliding community, site of the world's best soaring, and now suddenly.... the capital of school shootings.

My take,
Envision a straight line graph with a fist sized stone on the far left and a thermonuclear bomb on the far right. Each category of lethal weapon is placed on the graph according to its relative lethality. The least lethal to the left progressing toward the most lethal on the right.

The second amendment (literally interpreted) suggests American citizens can own any weapon they please. But few among us actually believe the average citizen should own a shoulder launched anti aircraft rocket, or an armed F 18. Where do you personally draw the vertical line on this grey scale of weaponry?

I’m guessing most of us, conservatives included, would draw it somewhere just left of hand grenades, but right of handguns and hunting rifles. In this narrow band between hunting rifles and hand grenades lives a small subset of weapons designed for military use — specifically for efficiently killing people (the AR-15 and its counterparts). These weapons fire high velocity bullets possessing enough kinetic energy to literally blow holes in people. They are capable of rapid fire, possess large magazines, and are readily available in your neighborhood.

The majority of us, who favor some form of gun control, don’t want your 9mm or your deer rifle. Hell, Im a notorious liberal and I keep a 12 gage for protection. We want to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the insane, and we want to close the gun show loophole and require background checks. And yes, we want to ban military style weapons designed expressly to kill humans.

Over and over again, I’ve heard the same arguments justifying a man’s need for an assault rifle. These arguments apply just as readily to hand grenades, rocket launchers and thermonuclear weapons. None of us really believe that the second amendment is sacrosanct. It just a matter of where we draw the line.

I’ve read that many of the Uvalde children were literally blown to pieces and unrecognizable.

Dale Bush

On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 4:18:58 PM UTC-7, twofiv...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 6:30:31 PM UTC-7, FZ wrote:
> > Uvalde, the place loaded with so many great memories for hundreds of glider pilots. Town of great hospitality to gliding community, site of the world's best soaring, and now suddenly.... the capital of school shootings.
>
> My take,
> Envision a straight line graph with a fist sized stone on the far left and a thermonuclear bomb on the far right. Each category of lethal weapon is placed on the graph according to its relative lethality. The least lethal to the left progressing toward the most lethal on the right.
>
> The second amendment (literally interpreted) suggests American citizens can own any weapon they please. But few among us actually believe the average citizen should own a shoulder launched anti aircraft rocket, or an armed F 18. Where do you personally draw the vertical line on this grey scale of weaponry?
>
> I’m guessing most of us, conservatives included, would draw it somewhere just left of hand grenades, but right of handguns and hunting rifles. In this narrow band between hunting rifles and hand grenades lives a small subset of weapons designed for military use — specifically for efficiently killing people (the AR-15 and its counterparts). These weapons fire high velocity bullets possessing enough kinetic energy to literally blow holes in people. They are capaite of rapid fire, possess large magazines, and are readily available in your neighborhood.
>
> The majority of us, who favor some form of gun control, don’t want your 9mm or your deer rifle. Hell, Im a notorious liberal and I keep a 12 gage for protection. We want to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the insane, and we want to close the gun show loophole and require background checks. And yes, we want to ban military style weapons designed expressly to kill humans.
>
> Over and over again, I’ve heard the same arguments justifying a man’s need for an assault rifle. These arguments apply just as readily to hand grenades, rocket launchers and thermonuclear weapons. None of us really believe that the second amendment is sacrosanct. It just a matter of where we draw the line.
>
> I’ve read that many of the Uvalde children were literally blown to pieces and unrecognizable.
>
> Dale Bush

Dale,

An AR15 is not an assault rifle, it is a semi-automatic rifle patterned after the M16 or M4 which ARE assault rifles, it is also illegal for civilians to own AR's unless made prior to 1986 and then you need a tax stamp for it.. They are so rare and hard to get that the price is around $25K or more. The difference being the M16 and M4 can fire full-auto or burst. You speak of the deadly 5.56 round "blowing holes", many hunting rounds have more velocity, bullet weight and energy, and can take down bigger game than the 5.56 mm. The 5.56 is much weaker than the 30-06 used in WWII, but the 5.56 round being lighter and smaller, soldiers can carry more rounds with them. For civilians, at least those that live in rural areas without closely spaced houses, the AR makes a very good home defense weapon, easy to handle, low recoil, etc. BTW, a .22 short will "blow a hole in you", your shotgun will make a much bigger hole of course.

As I said before, the problem isn't guns, it's people. Oh, and pistols are used in nearly two thirds of US firearm murders.

bumper

Great reading this thread as a non American :)

This dude hits the nail on the head.

Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4

This thread is worse than the Monkey-Sun-Penis one. And has NOTHING to do with soaring.

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 9:29:18 AM UTC-4, gfbwi...@gmail.com wrote:
> This thread is worse than the Monkey-Sun-Penis one. And has NOTHING to do with soaring.

Possibly a view from the LEFT?

On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 11:28:02 PM UTC-7, bumper wrote:
> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 4:18:58 PM UTC-7, twofiv...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 6:30:31 PM UTC-7, FZ wrote:
> > > Uvalde, the place loaded with so many great memories for hundreds of glider pilots. Town of great hospitality to gliding community, site of the world's best soaring, and now suddenly.... the capital of school shootings.
> >
> > My take,
> > Envision a straight line graph with a fist sized stone on the far left and a thermonuclear bomb on the far right. Each category of lethal weapon is placed on the graph according to its relative lethality. The least lethal to the left progressing toward the most lethal on the right.
> >
> > The second amendment (literally interpreted) suggests American citizens can own any weapon they please. But few among us actually believe the average citizen should own a shoulder launched anti aircraft rocket, or an armed F 18. Where do you personally draw the vertical line on this grey scale of weaponry?
> >
> > I’m guessing most of us, conservatives included, would draw it somewhere just left of hand grenades, but right of handguns and hunting rifles. In this narrow band between hunting rifles and hand grenades lives a small subset of weapons designed for military use — specifically for efficiently killing people (the AR-15 and its counterparts). These weapons fire high velocity bullets possessing enough kinetic energy to literally blow holes in people. They are capaite of rapid fire, possess large magazines, and are readily available in your neighborhood.
> >
> > The majority of us, who favor some form of gun control, don’t want your 9mm or your deer rifle. Hell, Im a notorious liberal and I keep a 12 gage for protection. We want to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the insane, and we want to close the gun show loophole and require background checks. And yes, we want to ban military style weapons designed expressly to kill humans.
> >
> > Over and over again, I’ve heard the same arguments justifying a man’s need for an assault rifle. These arguments apply just as readily to hand grenades, rocket launchers and thermonuclear weapons. None of us really believe that the second amendment is sacrosanct. It just a matter of where we draw the line.
> >
> > I’ve read that many of the Uvalde children were literally blown to pieces and unrecognizable.
> >
> > Dale Bush
> Dale,
>
> An AR15 is not an assault rifle, it is a semi-automatic rifle patterned after the M16 or M4 which ARE assault rifles, it is also illegal for civilians to own AR's unless made prior to 1986 and then you need a tax stamp for it. They are so rare and hard to get that the price is around $25K or more. The difference being the M16 and M4 can fire full-auto or burst. You speak of the deadly 5.56 round "blowing holes", many hunting rounds have more velocity, bullet weight and energy, and can take down bigger game than the 5.56 mm. The 5.56 is much weaker than the 30-06 used in WWII, but the 5.56 round being lighter and smaller, soldiers can carry more rounds with them. For civilians, at least those that live in rural areas without closely spaced houses, the AR makes a very good home defense weapon, easy to handle, low recoil, etc. BTW, a .22 short will "blow a hole in you", your shotgun will make a much bigger hole of course.
>
> As I said before, the problem isn't guns, it's people. Oh, and pistols are used in nearly two thirds of US firearm murders.
>
> bumper

As its been pointed out over and over again, every other industrialized, civilized western democracies do not have these massacres. Are their citizens less deranged then Americans? Do Americans suffer from so much more mental illness? Can their children run faster or hide better? No, the difference is the huge number of and easy access to weapons. And what are the two responses from the right, either ignore the killings or incredibly arm more people and add to the existing number of weapons in circulation.

The hardcore need to get past their paranoid delusion that background checks, limiting the purchase of AR15's to 21 years olds and their magazines to 10 rounds, means that the government is coming to take everyone's guns away..

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 5:12:27 PM UTC-4, Tom Desjardins wrote:
> As its been pointed out over and over again, every other industrialized, civilized western democracies do not have these massacres. Are their citizens less deranged then Americans? Do Americans suffer from so much more mental illness? Can their children run faster or hide better? No, the difference is the huge number of and easy access to weapons. ...

Another difference is that many other industrialized, civilized western democracies have some sort of public health care with easy acess to mental health services. Thhis is more important than any other factor, in my opinion.

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 5:12:27 PM UTC-4, Tom Desjardins wrote:

> As its been pointed out over and over again, every other industrialized, civilized western democracies do not have these massacres. Are their citizens less deranged then Americans? Do Americans suffer from so much more mental illness? Can their children run faster or hide better? No, the difference is the huge number of and easy access to weapons. And what are the two responses from the right, either ignore the killings or incredibly arm more people and add to the existing number of weapons in circulation.
>
> The hardcore need to get past their paranoid delusion that background checks, limiting the purchase of AR15's to 21 years olds and their magazines to 10 rounds, means that the government is coming to take everyone's guns away.

Another difference is that many other industrialized, civilized western democracies have some sort of public health care with easy acess to mental health services. This is more important than any other factor, in my opinion. We have just as many legally insane people here in the US as are in other places, but in other countries, they get the mental help they need.

> > This thread is worse than the Monkey-Sun-Penis one. And has NOTHING to do with soaring.
> Possibly a view from the LEFT?

No, a view from someone who thinks this newsgroup should be about soaring and soaring related topics. Not gun control, take that elsewhere.

With very few exception the vast responds on this thread don’t surprise me when seeing other posts from the same folks. Anyway, to me it only makes me feel better being on the right side of history and live among open minded folks.
Very well said Andy and few others. The rest, I wish you keep your opinions to yourself and talk about soaring instead. Indeed it is getting worse than the Monkey-Penis worshiper. I think I can guess his opinion. He sure enjoys his first amendment, at least that one doesn’t result in so many deaths.

Ramy

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 5:32:54 PM UTC-7, gfbwi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > This thread is worse than the Monkey-Sun-Penis one. And has NOTHING to do with soaring.
> > Possibly a view from the LEFT?
> No, a view from someone who thinks this newsgroup should be about soaring and soaring related topics. Not gun control, take that elsewhere.

You could move to one of those countries...

Dan
5J

On 6/7/22 15:12, Tom Desjardins wrote:
> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 11:28:02 PM UTC-7, bumper wrote:
>> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 4:18:58 PM UTC-7, twofiv...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 6:30:31 PM UTC-7, FZ wrote:
>>>> Uvalde, the place loaded with so many great memories for hundreds of glider pilots. Town of great hospitality to gliding community, site of the world's best soaring, and now suddenly.... the capital of school shootings.
>>>
>>> My take,
>>> Envision a straight line graph with a fist sized stone on the far left and a thermonuclear bomb on the far right. Each category of lethal weapon is placed on the graph according to its relative lethality. The least lethal to the left progressing toward the most lethal on the right.
>>>
>>> The second amendment (literally interpreted) suggests American citizens can own any weapon they please. But few among us actually believe the average citizen should own a shoulder launched anti aircraft rocket, or an armed F 18. Where do you personally draw the vertical line on this grey scale of weaponry?
>>>
>>> I’m guessing most of us, conservatives included, would draw it somewhere just left of hand grenades, but right of handguns and hunting rifles. In this narrow band between hunting rifles and hand grenades lives a small subset of weapons designed for military use — specifically for efficiently killing people (the AR-15 and its counterparts). These weapons fire high velocity bullets possessing enough kinetic energy to literally blow holes in people. They are capaite of rapid fire, possess large magazines, and are readily available in your neighborhood.
>>>
>>> The majority of us, who favor some form of gun control, don’t want your 9mm or your deer rifle. Hell, Im a notorious liberal and I keep a 12 gage for protection. We want to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the insane, and we want to close the gun show loophole and require background checks. And yes, we want to ban military style weapons designed expressly to kill humans.
>>>
>>> Over and over again, I’ve heard the same arguments justifying a man’s need for an assault rifle. These arguments apply just as readily to hand grenades, rocket launchers and thermonuclear weapons. None of us really believe that the second amendment is sacrosanct. It just a matter of where we draw the line.
>>>
>>> I’ve read that many of the Uvalde children were literally blown to pieces and unrecognizable.
>>>
>>> Dale Bush
>> Dale,
>>
>> An AR15 is not an assault rifle, it is a semi-automatic rifle patterned after the M16 or M4 which ARE assault rifles, it is also illegal for civilians to own AR's unless made prior to 1986 and then you need a tax stamp for it. They are so rare and hard to get that the price is around $25K or more. The difference being the M16 and M4 can fire full-auto or burst. You speak of the deadly 5.56 round "blowing holes", many hunting rounds have more velocity, bullet weight and energy, and can take down bigger game than the 5.56 mm. The 5.56 is much weaker than the 30-06 used in WWII, but the 5.56 round being lighter and smaller, soldiers can carry more rounds with them. For civilians, at least those that live in rural areas without closely spaced houses, the AR makes a very good home defense weapon, easy to handle, low recoil, etc. BTW, a .22 short will "blow a hole in you", your shotgun will make a much bigger hole of course.
>>
>> As I said before, the problem isn't guns, it's people. Oh, and pistols are used in nearly two thirds of US firearm murders.
>>
>> bumper
>
> As its been pointed out over and over again, every other industrialized, civilized western democracies do not have these massacres. Are their citizens less deranged then Americans? Do Americans suffer from so much more mental illness? Can their children run faster or hide better? No, the difference is the huge number of and easy access to weapons. And what are the two responses from the right, either ignore the killings or incredibly arm more people and add to the existing number of weapons in circulation.
>
> The hardcore need to get past their paranoid delusion that background checks, limiting the purchase of AR15's to 21 years olds and their magazines to 10 rounds, means that the government is coming to take everyone's guns away.