<BLUE>

Doug:  I like blue.

John:  I don't like blue.

Doug & John:  Well, you're wrong!

 And you know what I mean here.

 "Controlled", instead of "banned".

On Feb 25, 4:00 pm, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net>
wrote:

It's okay with me. You guys should try to avoid that solution though.

That works too. I'd like to try it.

Who can afford to overuse one at five bucks a pop?

I'm sneaky.

No, but there was a girl by that name I knew in school who did.

The ones you reference below.

Apparently none or you wouldn't have mentioned this.

JF

 Make that 51 times.

 Another registered Futile John fan. :-)

 My trip to Newfoundland seems to have been cancelled, majorly pissing me
off.

 I got a message today to return the load to Minnesota (I'm in New
Hampshire), but I'm holding for confirmation tomorrow.

On the other hand, a woman will stick to her point of view no matter how
 much logic is shown her that she is mistaken and claim that it is our
fault for bringing logic into the conversation...

I was only thinking that if it was designed primarily as a sniper
rifle, what purpose would it serve for someone working within the law,
unless they're law enforcement or military? As for it's danger
potential I was thinking more of it's range. But the two things add up
to sex appeal for the "poseurs", like the guy in Montreal. Presumably
he thought he looked striking posing with his black fake "assault"
rifle. Between it and his nasty looking knife he posted enough
pictures to prove that. History shows he wasn't the right kind of
personality to have any kind of gun.

Girls can be bad too. Over the course of my life they've sure
frightened me more often than guys have.  8)

Ah, but who'll be impressed when he shows them a pic of him posed with
his Remington?

The bullseye on the targets we used to shoot was smaller than a .50
cal slug. But that being said, I've seen video of long range
competition with big guns and it's pretty impressive.

I wasn't thinking of modifying a Barrett specifically. I was thinking
more of some of the smaller weapons that have been deliberately
"detuned" for the market which can be returned to original trim with
an aftermarket kit. If someone wanted a nastier version of a Barrett
they'd lay their hands on one of the Bullpup guns wouldn't they? They
sound like fun to use.

I do. It's the problem inherent in trying to satisfy the antigunners,
isn't it? That's why I keep saying that if the progun faction was
smarter they'd be making a show of working with the antigunners to
arrive at a solution. I can't help believing that no one seriously
expects all guns to be eliminated (except a few folks whose feet are
never in solid contact with the ground) and that both sides of the
debate are making over the top statements of expectation in hopes of
meeting in the middle. As long as both sides are trying to stare each
other down there will alwats be tension and exaggeration.

Isn't the only real problem with guns that there are too many in the
hands of and being used by criminal types? And why is gun violence is
so much more common in the United States than in some other parts of
the world, like Canada? Is it possibly because your culture embraced
guns way back when and the criminal element grew up with the
expectation that guns were a necessity for them to operate in relative
safety, on a level playing field? Is the only solution to add more
guns to the equation?

I'm saying that perhaps if there was less hyping of the importance of
guns as a crime deterrent there'd be less need for petty criminals to
use them. Isn't it a no-brainer that they do bigger time if convicted
of an armed crime so wouldn't there be some incentive to go about
their business unarmed. Their problem is that there's a vocal segment
of your society, we see it represented here, that work diligently at
putting the fear into the crooks. Now, I believe that crooks will be
crooks. They're inherently lazy people without a viable means of
support, whether through choice or happenstance, so they take the easy
way to financial security, crime. That's their means of support and
they aren't going to give that up easily. Crimes of passion are a
whole other thing, as are the sociopaths, but if you reduced the
pressure on petty criminals to be armed, your world just might be a
little safer place.

I know that's a bit out there, and even if possible would take a long
time to show it's effects, but as long as guns proliferate in your
society I don't see long term improvement in your crime stats.
Something's gotta give.

Targeting the high profile, ego tripping type weapons and setting a
higher bar for gun ownership, at least with the styles of weapons
designed primarily for military applications, is obviously a positive
step in starting to reduce the numbers of guns and the possession of
guns by even slightly aberrant personalities. The real crazies and
criminally inclined will have their guns regardless, but as the
availability diminishes, and the mystique fades, the criminal use of
guns by the fringe element may also drop.

Seems to me that responsible gun owners should want to take the lead
in addressing the concerns of the public vis a vis gun violence. Their
way up till now of advocating more guns doesn't seem to be working so
well. Try some new combination of things but most importantly, set an
example, don't compound the problem.

Nice to hear someone who knows about guns here admit that. Generally
there's just a stone wall about that kind of fact.

I realize there's no single magic bullet (no pun intended) for
stopping gun violence. Crime is an inherent part of our culture. What
frustrates me mostly is the monumental stubbornness of those who love
their guns in scoffing at the concerns of the public over gun
violence, and then preaching that they have the answer. It's obvious.
Carry a gun and you'll be safe. So not only does that message go out
to the law abiding public, many of whom have no interest in arming up,
whether through fear or conviction, but it also goes out loud and
clear to the fringe criminal element. They get the message all right,
and so what their solution? They get guns to level the playing field.
Now these petty criminals are running around armed and since they're
not noted for their work ethic (or they'd be out working instead of
stealing) they are also more likely to take the easy way out when a
breakin goes sideways on them. Out comes their gun and the next thing
you know someone's dead. If the crooks hadn't felt pressured to arm up
in the first place they might have gone in unarmed and trouble
happened they'd have run.

I realize it isn't always that simple. It just seems to me that we're
watching the culmination of a self fulfilling prophecy with so many of
these shootings that occur. Crime won't go away any time soon, but the
nature of the crime might change if people point it in a certain
direction.

Some here scoff at the idea of being unarmed, say I'm naive. Perhaps I
am. Or perhaps I just have more confidence in the inherent good of
man. I like my way better.

JF