Re: LI Re Guns, guns and more guns.
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: It's that agriculture border check. They don't seem to be interested in anything other than fruits and veggies. Drugs and guns they don't care about. Heaven help us that we would get another fruit fly or something like that. Seriously, I guess that is immportant, but I can't see why the stupid fly couldn't just fly over the border on it's own, why would it need a car to transport it. Sue HI Sue, There's a border check going from Arizona into California?? I guess I never realized that. But now that you mention it, I DO remember a trip to California when I was 18 where we were stopped somewhere and questioned about plants, fruits and vegetables we had in the car. I guess it makes sense when you consider the damage that could be done if some disease were to be unleashed on the crops there in California. But it still seems obvious that bringing guns into California is not a major task. Bill -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re Guns, guns and more guns.
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: I found out something when Stacey and Eric came out here last week from Arizona. Arizona has a weapons law that allows them to carry them. Stacey said that if a person wants to strap on a gun and carry it there is nothing stopping them. Anyway when they came through the border check, into California, they were asked if they had any guns, and if so they would have to leave them in Arizona. Of course they said no, and they were waved through after being handed a map of California. The last time though they had a potted plant on the back seat, and that was confiscated right on the spot. And they were asked to open the trunk to make sure there were no others. Shows you where the priorities are at. Take the plants, but ignore the guns under the seat. LOL Sue HI Sue, I think the only effective legislation must come at the federal level, for the simple reason that travel between the states is so easy and does not require any checks as is required when travelling between countries. So just because California has a tough gun law does not mean that people from other states with weak gun laws cannot bring guns to California. I do see some progress being made in this area. But it is painfully slow and so far ineffective. Perhaps some day we'll wake up to this problem. Bill -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re Guns, guns and more guns.
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: I honestly don't think we need more laws, I think we need to enforce the laws that we have now. And make them all a little more uniform across the country. Sue HI Sue, I agree, a total ban on gun ownership would be unfeasible no matter what anyone thinks about the issue. But I DO think that a gun owner who fails to take ANY precautions against guns being stolen should be prosecuted for a crime when the guns ARE stolen and used in a crime or become involved in an accidental shooting. The problem is in enforcing a law that makes exceptions for those who DO try to safeguard their guns from being stolen. Your feelings about using a gun for protection are very well founded. Except for a few anecdotal stories about the good guy defending against the bad guy, many more cases of the good guy getttng injured or killed, or injuring/killing an innocent person can be found. I was glad to see Clinton expand the ban on imports of assault weapons. The importers had been modifying them to appear as "sport" weapons to slip through a loophole in the ban. And I still think more has to be done to curtail the number of guns in our society. While a total ban would not be feasible I still think stricter controls and heavier sentences for crimes committed with guns would help. Also, what would be wrong with destroying a gun used in a crime after the criminal has been convicted and sentenced? Bill -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re Guns, guns and more guns.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Sue, Because the fruit fly or any other pest needs the fruit/vegetable/plant in order to live and reproduce. If there are no target crops between point A and point B then the pest will not make it to point B. BUT, if someone has a target crop in a car and it is infested with something and they carry it to Point B where it gets into the crop in that location it will not take long for it to infest all of Point B's crop. The potato famine in Ireland was caused by a fungus brought to that country in ships from the US. The fungus got into the air and was carried into the potato fields by the misty fog that was so prevalant in Ireland. Bill On Wed, 08 Apr 1998 20:27:58 -0700 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: It's that agriculture border check. They don't seem to be interested in anything other than fruits and veggies. Drugs and guns they don't care about. Heaven help us that we would get another fruit fly or something like that. Seriously, I guess that is immportant, but I can't see why the stupid fly couldn't just fly over the border on it's own, why would it need a car to transport it. Sue HI Sue, There's a border check going from Arizona into California?? I guess I never realized that. But now that you mention it, I DO remember a trip to California when I was 18 where we were stopped somewhere and questioned about plants, fruits and vegetables we had in the car. I guess it makes sense when you consider the damage that could be done if some disease were to be unleashed on the crops there in California. But it still seems obvious that bringing guns into California is not a major task. Bill -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re Guns, guns and more guns.
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: Makes sense. There certainly isn't anything out there except catus, so I guess the fly wouldn't survive to get to it's host if it tried to fly in. I can see what could happen to the California economy if it did get in. :( Still think that since they have these cars stopped anyway they could also look for guns and narcotics. But I guess they have their reasons why they don't. At least they do ask. :) Sue HI Sue, Because the fruit fly or any other pest needs the fruit/vegetable/plant in order to live and reproduce. If there are no target crops between point A and point B then the pest will not make it to point B. BUT, if someone has a target crop in a car and it is infested with something and they carry it to Point B where it gets into the crop in that location it will not take long for it to infest all of Point B's crop. The potato famine in Ireland was caused by a fungus brought to that country in ships from the US. The fungus got into the air and was carried into the potato fields by the misty fog that was so prevalant in Ireland. Bill -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re Guns, guns and more guns.
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Doc: Yes it could be that, I guess. But do they need probable cause to search a car at a border check? Sue "Probable cause" maybe? I think that would be required. Doc -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re Guns, guns and more guns.
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-04-09 15:55:03 EDT, you write: Yes it could be that, I guess. But do they need probable cause to search a car at a border check? I don't know. Ed??? Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re Guns, guns and more guns.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Sue, For one thing the USDA probably doesn't have any authority when it comes to guns and/or narcotics. But more importantly I don't think the states or the feds want to set up a precedent that could develop into something that would be like border checkpoints between the states. Bill On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 11:59:25 -0700 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: Makes sense. There certainly isn't anything out there except catus, so I guess the fly wouldn't survive to get to it's host if it tried to fly in. I can see what could happen to the California economy if it did get in. :( Still think that since they have these cars stopped anyway they could also look for guns and narcotics. But I guess they have their reasons why they don't. At least they do ask. :) Sue HI Sue, Because the fruit fly or any other pest needs the fruit/vegetable/plant in order to live and reproduce. If there are no target crops between point A and point B then the pest will not make it to point B. BUT, if someone has a target crop in a car and it is infested with something and they carry it to Point B where it gets into the crop in that location it will not take long for it to infest all of Point B's crop. The potato famine in Ireland was caused by a fungus brought to that country in ships from the US. The fungus got into the air and was carried into the potato fields by the misty fog that was so prevalant in Ireland. Bill -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re Guns, guns and more guns.
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 98-04-07 01:35:20 EDT, you write: California has the strongest gun laws in the whole country, and we still have one of the highest gun related crime rates. :( I don't know what can be done to stop it. Perhaps *enforcing* the gun laws would help? All the laws in the world won't work if they are not enforced. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re Guns, guns and more guns.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Sue, I think the only effective legislation must come at the federal level, for the simple reason that travel between the states is so easy and does not require any checks as is required when travelling between countries. So just because California has a tough gun law does not mean that people from other states with weak gun laws cannot bring guns to California. I do see some progress being made in this area. But it is painfully slow and so far ineffective. Perhaps some day we'll wake up to this problem. Bill On Mon, 06 Apr 1998 22:42:13 -0700 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: California has the strongest gun laws in the whole country, and we still have one of the highest gun related crime rates. :( I don't know what can be done to stop it. But I do know that there has to be some sort of responsibility on the part of gun owners. Since Ca enacted the law that if someone is shot or killed with a gun that is in the hands of a minor, the owner can be held liable, the rate of children being hurt or killed has gone down a lot. So maybe we are on the right track. I hope so anyway. Sue HI Sue, The original meaning in the Bill of Rights was so that the states could have their own militia, but your interpretation is correct. Since the revolution was directed against the tyranny of a big government there was a strong fear against any big government telling the individual states what to do. And, of course, slavery was a big issue. You're right, today it is meaningless with respect to private citizens taking up arms to oppose or defend against the US government, in spite of what the militia groups say. I don't think it would be feasible or possible to ban all private gun ownership, nor do I think it would eliminate crime. But I DO think we have a serious gun problem in this country and that there ARE things that can and need to be done. Bill -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re Guns, guns and more guns.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Sue, I agree, a total ban on gun ownership would be unfeasible no matter what anyone thinks about the issue. But I DO think that a gun owner who fails to take ANY precautions against guns being stolen should be prosecuted for a crime when the guns ARE stolen and used in a crime or become involved in an accidental shooting. The problem is in enforcing a law that makes exceptions for those who DO try to safeguard their guns from being stolen. Your feelings about using a gun for protection are very well founded. Except for a few anecdotal stories about the good guy defending against the bad guy, many more cases of the good guy getttng injured or killed, or injuring/killing an innocent person can be found. I was glad to see Clinton expand the ban on imports of assault weapons. The importers had been modifying them to appear as "sport" weapons to slip through a loophole in the ban. And I still think more has to be done to curtail the number of guns in our society. While a total ban would not be feasible I still think stricter controls and heavier sentences for crimes committed with guns would help. Also, what would be wrong with destroying a gun used in a crime after the criminal has been convicted and sentenced? Bill On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 13:54:43 -0700 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: I don't think getting a gun stolen would come under irresponsible ownership. But I do think that they should make it some kind of a fine or something along those lines if your gun is stolen and it wasn't registered. That way at least there would be a chance of identifying it if it was found. Personally I have no use for firearms. I do know how to use them but would be afraid that if I had one the bad guy might get it away from me, and use it on me himself. Or I might mistake one of the kids or someone who came in late, unexpectedly, and shoot them, or one of my grandchildren might get it, etc. What would probably happen is that I would end up shooting myself in the foot or something. We have guns here, but it isn't because I want them here. :( Actually I feel quite safe with my dog and a cell phone by the bed at night. And both can travel around in the car with me without any chance of getting into trouble for having a concealed weapon or something like that. BG If they outlawed guns, like I told Jackie, it wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit. But that is both unrealistic and unlikely to ever happen. And I do support any gun laws that are on the books. Unfortunately the laws don't seem to pertain to the bad guys though. TIC But they can slow them down a little, sometimes. Sue HI Sue, I think there should be a general crime of "irresponsible gun ownership" that would cover a variety of cases when someone's gun is either used for a crime or involved in an accidental shooting. The severity of the crime should be commensurate with the event involving the gun. And, IMO, getting one's gun stolen is an example of irresponsible ownership. After all, if the purpose of a gun is to protect oneself from being robbed, then it seems ludicrous to get robbed of that gun. Bill -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re Guns, guns and more guns.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Sue, The original meaning in the Bill of Rights was so that the states could have their own militia, but your interpretation is correct. Since the revolution was directed against the tyranny of a big government there was a strong fear against any big government telling the individual states what to do. And, of course, slavery was a big issue. You're right, today it is meaningless with respect to private citizens taking up arms to oppose or defend against the US government, in spite of what the militia groups say. I don't think it would be feasible or possible to ban all private gun ownership, nor do I think it would eliminate crime. But I DO think we have a serious gun problem in this country and that there ARE things that can and need to be done. Bill On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 15:52:31 -0700 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: I think it would be next to impossible to get rid of guns in the United States now. Japan and England both have never allowed guns to begin with, so therefore they didn't have the problem of getting their citizens approval to rid their country of them. Our country was founded on the idea that the citizens should be allowed to have guns. The original meaning being so that the government couldn't take over the country. That idea now is ridiculous because if the government wanted to take over the country there is no way we could stop it. However, people are not going to let those guns go. The crime rate in Japan is starting to pick up now though. The economy is shot to hell and homelessness is now a part of the landscape. :( Yoko was telling me that only a few years ago there was no such thing as a homeless person in Japan. Now it is getting more and more common. So the lack of guns doesn't necessarily mean that there would be no crime. But I bet there are fewer murders and such. Sue Hi Jackie, I agree in principle, but when you have such a disparity between the US and most other countries with respect to numbers of people who are injured or killed via gun shots I think it is imperative to look for as many ways as possible to reduce these numbers. I know one can make the same analogy with respect to automobiles but this becomes apples and oranges when one considers the cost/benefit and the need for an automobile vs the need to own a gun. Bill -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re Guns, guns and more guns.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Jackie, I agree in principle, but when you have such a disparity between the US and most other countries with respect to numbers of people who are injured or killed via gun shots I think it is imperative to look for as many ways as possible to reduce these numbers. I know one can make the same analogy with respect to automobiles but this becomes apples and oranges when one considers the cost/benefit and the need for an automobile vs the need to own a gun. Bill On Sat, 04 Apr 1998 19:02:19 -0600 Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill The one big problem I see with not allowing responsible people to make that choice is that if you do that, what will be the next thing outlawed. Also, once it is illegal, then the black market thrives and we start seeing many, more problems. Also, they wouldn't be licensed--I know our target guns are so that we are legal when we transport them. Even if outlawed, you will always find that people will be shot, IMO. There was an excellent program on today about a new lockup system that would keep guns away from children, I think. But you have to be a responsible person and unload, tear down, and lock them up. jackief William J. Foristal wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Jackie, The biggest problem with the gun ownership is the large number of people who are irresponsible and shouldn't even own an air rifle. If the laws were strengthened to punish irresponsible gun owners and if these people went to jail for actions leading to death or injury via one of their guns, then perhaps we'd see some decrease in the deaths and injuries attributed to guns. But even this would cause problems because we've all see the person who had been very responsible and safety conscious make that one fatal mistake. A friend of mine was quite lucky. He had bagged a huge buck and was so excited that he dragged it to his truck, put his rifle in the case and threw it in the back of the truck along side the deer. On the way home he hit a bump and the rifle (which he failed to unload) went off. The bullet hit something and split into several pieces. He caught a few pieces in the butt. It could have been a lot worse. Bill -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re Guns, guns and more guns.
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: I don't think getting a gun stolen would come under irresponsible ownership. But I do think that they should make it some kind of a fine or something along those lines if your gun is stolen and it wasn't registered. That way at least there would be a chance of identifying it if it was found. Personally I have no use for firearms. I do know how to use them but would be afraid that if I had one the bad guy might get it away from me, and use it on me himself. Or I might mistake one of the kids or someone who came in late, unexpectedly, and shoot them, or one of my grandchildren might get it, etc. What would probably happen is that I would end up shooting myself in the foot or something. We have guns here, but it isn't because I want them here. :( Actually I feel quite safe with my dog and a cell phone by the bed at night. And both can travel around in the car with me without any chance of getting into trouble for having a concealed weapon or something like that. BG If they outlawed guns, like I told Jackie, it wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit. But that is both unrealistic and unlikely to ever happen. And I do support any gun laws that are on the books. Unfortunately the laws don't seem to pertain to the bad guys though. TIC But they can slow them down a little, sometimes. Sue HI Sue, I think there should be a general crime of "irresponsible gun ownership" that would cover a variety of cases when someone's gun is either used for a crime or involved in an accidental shooting. The severity of the crime should be commensurate with the event involving the gun. And, IMO, getting one's gun stolen is an example of irresponsible ownership. After all, if the purpose of a gun is to protect oneself from being robbed, then it seems ludicrous to get robbed of that gun. Bill -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re Guns, guns and more guns.
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: I think it would be next to impossible to get rid of guns in the United States now. Japan and England both have never allowed guns to begin with, so therefore they didn't have the problem of getting their citizens approval to rid their country of them. Our country was founded on the idea that the citizens should be allowed to have guns. The original meaning being so that the government couldn't take over the country. That idea now is ridiculous because if the government wanted to take over the country there is no way we could stop it. However, people are not going to let those guns go. The crime rate in Japan is starting to pick up now though. The economy is shot to hell and homelessness is now a part of the landscape. :( Yoko was telling me that only a few years ago there was no such thing as a homeless person in Japan. Now it is getting more and more common. So the lack of guns doesn't necessarily mean that there would be no crime. But I bet there are fewer murders and such. Sue Hi Jackie, I agree in principle, but when you have such a disparity between the US and most other countries with respect to numbers of people who are injured or killed via gun shots I think it is imperative to look for as many ways as possible to reduce these numbers. I know one can make the same analogy with respect to automobiles but this becomes apples and oranges when one considers the cost/benefit and the need for an automobile vs the need to own a gun. Bill -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re Guns, guns and more guns.
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: As far as I know there is no legit reason for assault weapons. Certainly not for hunting. In LA the sergeants (cops) had to get special permission to carry M-16 A2 Service rifles because they were outgunned by the bad guys. There is also a special unit of the SWAT team that has these, but can only use them with permission from higher ups. Of course a lot of the bad guys already have them, and no permission is needed for them to use them. TIC Sue Hi Sue I couldn't think of any legitimate reason for them to be made either--except war I guess. I do know that obtaining a gun legitimately here is not an easy task to do. They do have the time to run a thorough background check, which unfortunately may not be feasible in a large city. Gosh, when we moved here, we had to have the background check redone in order to have the target pistols. BTW--finished the book and will try and get it off next week. Did you want it sent to you or someone else?? I truly enjoyed the book. Thanks a million., jackief Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re Guns, guns and more guns.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Bill: The law here is that if you own a gun and a kid gets a hold of that gun and either hurts himself or someone else with it, you are held liable. But if your gun is stolen, I don't think that they hold you liable for any crimes that are committed with it. I don't see how they could unless may it would be because you may have had that gun illegally, such as not registered or something. Or maybe not reported it stolen. Sue HI Sue, I think there should be a general crime of "irresponsible gun ownership" that would cover a variety of cases when someone's gun is either used for a crime or involved in an accidental shooting. The severity of the crime should be commensurate with the event involving the gun. And, IMO, getting one's gun stolen is an example of irresponsible ownership. After all, if the purpose of a gun is to protect oneself from being robbed, then it seems ludicrous to get robbed of that gun. Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re Guns, guns and more guns.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Jackie, The biggest problem with the gun ownership is the large number of people who are irresponsible and shouldn't even own an air rifle. If the laws were strengthened to punish irresponsible gun owners and if these people went to jail for actions leading to death or injury via one of their guns, then perhaps we'd see some decrease in the deaths and injuries attributed to guns. But even this would cause problems because we've all see the person who had been very responsible and safety conscious make that one fatal mistake. A friend of mine was quite lucky. He had bagged a huge buck and was so excited that he dragged it to his truck, put his rifle in the case and threw it in the back of the truck along side the deer. On the way home he hit a bump and the rifle (which he failed to unload) went off. The bullet hit something and split into several pieces. He caught a few pieces in the butt. It could have been a lot worse. Bill On Fri, 03 Apr 1998 16:35:04 -0600 Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill I know that there are good arguments on both sides of the camp on this issue. I grew up with guns in the house all my life and my girls were taught gun safety and the whole works. I shoot although not the greatest and Ed is a target shooter. Of course, we do not have children in the house and our dobes are a pretty good protection system against them getting stolen. We have a number of LE friends who Ed shoots with and I enjoy the outings. So it would be difficult for me, personally, to support the banning of guns even though I see they do have some valid points and see how often guns are so readily available for those who shouldn't have guns. The assault weapons are something else entirely though--this IMO should not even be manufactured. jackief _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re Guns, guns and more guns.
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill The one big problem I see with not allowing responsible people to make that choice is that if you do that, what will be the next thing outlawed. Also, once it is illegal, then the black market thrives and we start seeing many, more problems. Also, they wouldn't be licensed--I know our target guns are so that we are legal when we transport them. Even if outlawed, you will always find that people will be shot, IMO. There was an excellent program on today about a new lockup system that would keep guns away from children, I think. But you have to be a responsible person and unload, tear down, and lock them up. jackief William J. Foristal wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Jackie, The biggest problem with the gun ownership is the large number of people who are irresponsible and shouldn't even own an air rifle. If the laws were strengthened to punish irresponsible gun owners and if these people went to jail for actions leading to death or injury via one of their guns, then perhaps we'd see some decrease in the deaths and injuries attributed to guns. But even this would cause problems because we've all see the person who had been very responsible and safety conscious make that one fatal mistake. A friend of mine was quite lucky. He had bagged a huge buck and was so excited that he dragged it to his truck, put his rifle in the case and threw it in the back of the truck along side the deer. On the way home he hit a bump and the rifle (which he failed to unload) went off. The bullet hit something and split into several pieces. He caught a few pieces in the butt. It could have been a lot worse. Bill -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re Guns, guns and more guns.
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Jackie: There is something that they have come out with that might work. It's a ring that the person shooting the gun has to wear, otherwise the gun doesn't work. I'm not sure how it works, but there are some representatives in the Ca Senate who are trying to get it to be mandatory on all guns sold in Ca. Haven't heard about it for a long time though. So it may have been shot down. Personally if they outlawed all guns my feelings wouldn't be hurt, but since that is not only an improbability, but very likely impossible, I am for any gun laws that make it even difficult for people to get them. You are right though, even if they outlawed guns they would still manage to get into the wrong hands. But by making people get them registered, running background checks, etc it does make it a little more difficult. Not impossible, but still a little difficult. Sue Hi Bill The one big problem I see with not allowing responsible people to make that choice is that if you do that, what will be the next thing outlawed. Also, once it is illegal, then the black market thrives and we start seeing many, more problems. Also, they wouldn't be licensed--I know our target guns are so that we are legal when we transport them. Even if outlawed, you will always find that people will be shot, IMO. There was an excellent program on today about a new lockup system that would keep guns away from children, I think. But you have to be a responsible person and unload, tear down, and lock them up. jackief William J. Foristal wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Jackie, The biggest problem with the gun ownership is the large number of people who are irresponsible and shouldn't even own an air rifle. If the laws were strengthened to punish irresponsible gun owners and if these people went to jail for actions leading to death or injury via one of their guns, then perhaps we'd see some decrease in the deaths and injuries attributed to guns. But even this would cause problems because we've all see the person who had been very responsible and safety conscious make that one fatal mistake. A friend of mine was quite lucky. He had bagged a huge buck and was so excited that he dragged it to his truck, put his rifle in the case and threw it in the back of the truck along side the deer. On the way home he hit a bump and the rifle (which he failed to unload) went off. The bullet hit something and split into several pieces. He caught a few pieces in the butt. It could have been a lot worse. Bill -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re Guns, guns and more guns.
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Bill: The law here is that if you own a gun and a kid gets a hold of that gun and either hurts himself or someone else with it, you are held liable. But if your gun is stolen, I don't think that they hold you liable for any crimes that are committed with it. I don't see how they could unless may it would be because you may have had that gun illegally, such as not registered or something. Or maybe not reported it stolen. Sue Hi Jackie, Yeah, we have people getting injured and killed via gunshots down here and it always seems to be someone who would never touch the gun or who had gone through such an intensive training and safety course that they'd never have an accident. Then we have those brilliant people who don't lock up their guns and manage to get them stolen. There's a Catch 22 for you. How can you protect yourself with a gun if you have to keep it locked up? G A senator from Illinois is presenting a bill that would create a law to punish gun owners whose guns are stolen and then used in a crime, or whose guns are involved in an accidental shooting. Of course, the NRA opposes this. Bill -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
