Wilf Woods: A sensible approach to gun ownership

4 free views left!

Wilf Woods: A sensible approach to gun ownership

By Wilfred Woods
Chairman of the Board

Thursday, February 28, 2013

A sensible approach to the contentious question of gun ownership and use comes from the opinion page of the Scientific American’s March issue.

Wilfred Woods

They equate the gun business with the history of automobile safety, of all things. Back 60 years ago there were suggestions that auto fatalities could be lessened with better auto design and seat belt use. Death rates have fallen 80 percent per mile driven since 1966, thanks to the national recognition of the need.

Why not institute a study of gun safety research at the national level? Says the article: “The NRA has cynically framed the debate as a choice between banning all guns and doing nothing. It is a false choice... we didn’t have to ban automobiles to cut roadway fatalities, and we don’t have to ban all guns to reduce gun-related deaths.”

» Recommend this story.

» 55 comments on this story

Want to comment on this story? All Wenatchee World members are invited to comment on stories, by using the form below. Please know that we at wenatcheeworld.com hope our site is useful, entertaining and civil. So we'll delete comments that are obscene, abusive or way off topic. We appreciate it when readers use the "suggest removal" button to flag inappropriate comments. For more about interacting with the site, see our Use Policy.

davidmoa 3 months, 3 weeks ago

Wilf, I agree, but I believe all federal research on gun safety was banned over 20 years ago by Congress, the result of an NRA lobbying campaign. So it would take an act of Congress, which isn't very likely given our Congressional impasse, or a private foundation or group.

JimboBear 3 months, 3 weeks ago

I agree as well Mr. Woods, but I hold fast to my opinion that the implement is not to be blamed for the lunacy. It's the people who need to be researched and changed to stop the carnage.

kyook 3 months, 3 weeks ago

I would suggest reading this from cover to cover:

http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

Chuck 3 months, 3 weeks ago

The problem is that such solutions are always predicated on registration schemes. Yet in the historical record, registration has always at some point led to confiscation.

It is the anonymity of arms ownership that does tend to keep authority at bay, passively protecting our liberty.

Any suggestion that arms be designed with electronics to allow only one shooter, or magazine capacity limits, or mandatory liability insurance schemes all function on the necessary assumption that every firearm in private hands will at some point be cataloged in a national (or international, if the UN "Small Arms Treaty" becomes reality) database.

This is patently unacceptable in a free society.

Norm 3 months, 3 weeks ago

"Yet in the historical record, registration has always at some point led to confiscation."

False. http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_... http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/fil...>

"It is the anonymity of arms ownership that does tend to keep authority at bay"

Nonsense. Arms ownership does not and cannot "keep authority at bay", nor was that the purpose of the second amendment. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-poli...>

"This is patently unacceptable in a free society."

Nonsense. Every car is registered; its no greater burden on liberty to register a gun than it is to register a car.

kyook 3 months, 3 weeks ago

"nor was that the purpose of the second amendment."

Pray tell, what was the intent of the second amendment?

"Every car is registered; its no greater burden on liberty to register a gun than it is to register a car."

Then why didn't the founders write an amendment concerning a right to bear horses and buggies? Simply, there is no correlation between vehicles and guns, which is why Wilf's column is so silly.

Norm 3 months, 3 weeks ago

"Pray tell, what was the intent of the second amendment?"

To ensure that a Well Regulated Militia was available to - among other things - put down armed rebellions by people who didn't want to pay their taxes. Read the link I provided if you want to understand.

"Then why didn't the founders write an amendment concerning a right to bear horses and buggies?"

Apparently, they didn't find horses and buggies necessary to the security of a free state

"Simply, there is no correlation between vehicles and guns, which is why Wilf's column is so silly."

There is a very obvious connection between regulation of vehicles and regulation of guns; your arguments are consistently absurd because you begin with conclusions, then twist and torture facts and logic in futile attempts to support those predetermined conclusions.

kyook 3 months, 2 weeks ago

"To ensure that a Well Regulated Militia was available to - among other things (among what other things? please explain)- put down armed rebellions by people who didn't want to pay their taxes. Read the link I provided if you want to understand."

Again, you assume too much, Norm. I did read the link that you provided and what I understand is that it is a liberal spin piece.

In fact, the purpose of the second amendment was due to the fact that the colonists had just defeated a vastly superior military of a tyrannical dictatorship by means of a well armed citizenry who engaged in a asymetrical guerilla war . The founders wanted to assure that if a tyrant ever came to power again the citizens would again have a fighting chance.

"Apparently, they didn't find horses and buggies necessary to the security of a free state"

Thank you for confirming that guns in the hands of citizens are necessary to the security of a free state. I love it when you make my points for me.

"There is a very obvious connection between regulation of vehicles and regulation of guns..."

Please explain how the registration of vehicles assures the security of a free state.

Norm 3 months, 2 weeks ago

"In fact, the purpose of the second amendment was due to the fact that the colonists had just defeated a vastly superior military of a tyrannical dictatorship by means of a well armed citizenry who engaged in a asymetrical guerilla war . The founders wanted to assure that if a tyrant ever came to power again the citizens would again have a fighting chance."

Actually, the framers of the Constitution had just defeated "a well armed citizenry who engaged in a asymetrical guerilla war". (Shays' Rebellion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_R... ), and immediately after ratifying the new Constitution, president Washington defeated another "well armed citizenry who engaged in a asymetrical guerilla war" called the Whiskey Rebellion ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_... )

The framers drew on a well regulated militia to fight FOR the new federal government they had constituted (created), not against it.

"Apparently, they didn't find horses and buggies necessary to the security of a free state"

"Thank you for confirming that guns in the hands of citizens are necessary to the security of a free state. I love it when you make my points for me."

Its not your point - the Consitution and its amendments belong to all of us.

"Please explain how the registration of vehicles assures the security of a free state."

No. That is your strawman, not my argument. The state has a reasonable interest in regulating instrumentalities - such as cars and guns - that are commonly involved in high numbers of deaths and injuries.

kyook 3 months, 2 weeks ago

""To ensure that a Well Regulated Militia was available to - among other things... (among what other things? please explain.)

I couldn't help but notice how you completely avoided the explanation of exactly what other things you were referring to besides putting down armed rebellions. Perhaps you meant, to protect against enemies of the state both foreign and domestic? Domestic enemies of the state....hmmmm....could that be our own government in an extreme case?

"The framers drew on a well regulated militia to fight FOR the new federal government they had constituted (created), not against it."

Please provide a reference from the founding documents that indicates that the sole purpose of militias was to fight FOR the government and not against it should it become too powerful/tryannical.

"Its not your point - the Consitution and its amendments belong to all of us."

Well...duh. An artful dodge,this. Agree or disagree...guns in the hands of citizens are necessary to the security of a free state?

"The state has a reasonable interest in regulating instrumentalities - such as cars and guns - that are commonly involved in high numbers of deaths and injuries."

Define "high numbers". Is it reasonable then to assume that the government should regulate knives, baseball bats, poisonous household chemicals, & the like due to their histories of causing deaths and injuries?

When is government control too much? No need to answer this, I think I know what your response will be. Never.

Norm 3 months, 2 weeks ago

"I couldn't help but notice how you completely avoided the explanation of exactly what other things you were referring to"

Yes, I know that you only pay attention to what I don't say.

"Perhaps you meant, to protect against enemies of the state both foreign and domestic?"

Sure. Enemies of the state are enemies of the Constitution; enemies of the Constitution are enemies of using Constitutional means - elections and petitions, not violent revolution - to change or maintain the government that the Constitution Constituted.

"Domestic enemies of the state....hmmmm....could that be our own government in an extreme case?"

No, it couldn't. That would be a contradiction. Our own government IS the state.

"Please provide a reference from the founding documents that indicates that the sole purpose of militias was to fight FOR the government and not against it should it become too powerful/tryannical."

No. You find a reference from the founding documents that indicates that one purpose of a well-regulated militia was to fight AGAINST the government that the Constitution Constituted.

"Agree or disagree...guns in the hands of citizens are necessary to the security of a free state?"

Disagree. Guns in the hands of a well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free state.

"Define "high numbers"."

Big numbers. Numbers that aren't small. Many.

"Is it reasonable then to assume that the government should regulate knives, baseball bats, poisonous household chemicals, & the like due to their histories of causing deaths and injuries?"

Yes, it is, and yes, it does. It also regulates firearms.

kyook 3 months, 2 weeks ago

"Yes, I know that you only pay attention to what I don't say."

Again, you are quite mistaken. I also pay attention to what you do say but often your inability or unwillingness to comment on certain things speaks volumes and it needs to be pointed out because other readers might just gloss over your omissions.

"No. You find a reference from the founding documents that indicates that one purpose of a well-regulated militia was to fight AGAINST the government that the Constitution Constituted."

Case in point. Isn't it you that insists that it's impossible to prove a negative?

"Disagree. Guns in the hands of a well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free state."

Gosh Norm, I always thought that the militia consisted of private citizens such as in the Revolutionary War. Who is supposed to do the "well regulated" part, the government? If the government does the regulating, doesn't that effectively make the militias the army? Aren't private citizens capable of regulating themselves well? Oh sorry, I forgot, I know that those on the left don't think that citizens can do anything well without the aid, guidance, assistance, funding, interference from the government. Seems as though the government is beginning to think along those lines as well.

Norm 3 months, 2 weeks ago

"When is government control too much? No need to answer this, I think I know what your response will be. Never."

You give yourself far too much credit for understanding my positions; your responses consistently indicate that you don't understand them at all.

To answer your question, I think that the Constitution, through the government that it Constituted, specifically through the Supreme Court, has defined a reasonable answer to your question; here's a significant portion of thier answer:

"U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts, when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the "liberty" or "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification" such as race or, sometimes, national origin.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:

It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

kyook 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Gosh, all that makes me feel much better about the fact that I can't buy a 32 ounce soda in New York City.

kyook 3 months, 3 weeks ago

"Proponents of the theory sometimes point to the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising as evidence that, as Fox News’ Judge Andrew Napolitano put it, “those able to hold onto their arms and their basic right to self-defense were much more successful in resisting the Nazi genocide.” But as the Tablet’s Michael Moynihan points out, Napolitano’s history (curiously based on a citation of work by French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson) is a bit off. In reality, only about 20 Germans were killed, while some 13,000 Jews were massacred. The remaining 50,000 who survived were promptly sent off to concentration camps."

Would the outcome of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising have been dramatically different if the residents had had the equivilent of a gun for each citizen (similar to the estimated 310,000,000 guns in the U.S. with a population of a similar number) to use against the Nazis?

Methinks it would have.

Norm 3 months, 3 weeks ago

"Would the outcome of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising have been dramatically different if the residents had had the equivilent of a gun for each citizen...to use against the Nazis?"

The answer to your question is in the paragraph that precedes the one you quoted: "Besides, Omer Bartov, a historian at Brown University who studies the Third Reich, notes that the Jews probably wouldn’t have had much success fighting back. “Just imagine the Jews of Germany exercising the right to bear arms and fighting the SA, SS and the Wehrmacht. The [Russian] Red Army lost 7 million men fighting the Wehrmacht, despite its tanks and planes and artillery. The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?” he told Salon."

Also, the well-armed citizens of Pennsylvania were unable to defeat President Washington during the Whiskey Rebellion, nor were the well-armed citizens of the Confederate States of America able to overthrow the government of the United States.

kyook 3 months, 2 weeks ago

The end result probably would have turned out much the same but at least the residents of the Warsaw ghetto would have been able to inflict a lot more damage upon the Nazis had they been better armed. Who knows, perhaps the Nazis would have changed their strategy if they had faced more resistance.

Better to die in battle against a tyrant than to be rounded up, herded into cattle cars and slaughtered like animals. Do you agree?

Ahh...but how did the Afghanis do against the vastly superior Russian army?

davebugg 3 months, 3 weeks ago

I disagree that the editorial was sensible. Nor am I the only person who feels this way.

The clearly non-scientific opinion piece in the March issue drew a goodly percentage of fairly caustic comments in the online reader's forum of Scientific American. Some of the basic flaws that I had pondered when I read the editorial earlier today was captured in writing by other readers:

"Your analogy with cars of the fifties doesn't work. While the cars had many things about them that needed to be changed if you operated them in a safe considerate manner you were usually okay, unless you were the victim of someone who wasn't. But cars did not kill people, I'm here as evidence of that. Where your analogy breaks down is that there is nothing about a gun that makes it dangerous to operate, and therefore, nothing to fix."

Then there was this thought expressed by one writer regarding the allegation by the editors that "... having a gun in the home tripled the chance that a family member would get shot" (a study which was, by the way, thoroughly discredited under peer review and repudiated by its author, as I had pointed out in this forum a little while ago)

"Correlation is not causation. That is like saying chemotherapy doesn't work because people who do it are much more likely to die of cancer than those who don't. "

A number of people and researchers, not just the organization that represents a goodly number of gun owners (the NRA), have taken issue with federally funded "gun safety" research.

Objections first arose due to the National Institutes of Health's bias towards guns and gun ownership when its appointed agency, the CDC, stated in the late 70's, when beginning its nearly 20 year funding of gun safety research, that a primary goal was "..to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership, starting with a 25% reduction by the turn of the century.”

Objections continued as it became obvious over the years that studies favoring anti-gun conclusions were being adopted by the CDC, while studies favoring a pro-gun conclusion were ignored.

So the question is decidedly not whether research on gun safety should be conducted. It should. The question is how to define the parameters of research so that bias is not introduced to serve the agendas of either the pro-gun or the anti-gun groups. Given that the NIH through the CDC has not shown good faith in pursuing a truly objective outcome, the challenge begins with how to identify an unbiased and independent party to act as the lead agency in this research.

JimboBear 3 months, 3 weeks ago

I fail to understand why registration of firearms is even considered as a possible way to curb the madness of mass murder. What is it supposed to do to deter the killer?

davebugg 3 months, 3 weeks ago

Don't be so silly. It's a well known fact that criminals always register their guns with the proper authorities who, in turn, can keep criminals from employing them for nefarious deeds.

JimboBear 3 months, 3 weeks ago

Oh for Heaven's sake! You are right of course Dave. They'd obviously be shunned by the criminals union if they failed to register their weapons! I should never have suggested otherwise.

Don 3 months, 3 weeks ago

If anyone honestly believed there was going to be legitimate research I doubt any rational person would object, but only a naive person would believe any genuine research would take place. To see how the 'research' would be conducted one need only look back as far as the president's anti-gun violence task force led by Vice President Biden. It was billed as getting all the appropriate parties at the same table and having an intelligent discussion about violence, but then all it generated was the predictable gun-grab recommendation with some token mention of mental health.

Regardless of where you personally stand on the issue of private firearms ownership, there is one overwhelming point that should be something everyone considers. Privately owned firearms are no more powerful now than they were 100 years ago. In fact, prior to 1929 any citizen could own their own actual assault rifle (a real machine gun, not what the media now calls an assault rifle). BUT, and here is the salient point, it is only in the last couple of decades that people have taken to just grabbing a weapon and trying to kill a bunch of people in a congested public place. It is very easy to just 'blame guns' for all the killing, but a better question would be to ask why this is happening now? What is different about our society now than 25, 50, 75, or even 100 years ago? If you really want to solve the problem, have a study that honestly and genuinely analyzes the root cause. Once you identify the problem, then you can actually solve it. Mindlessly blaming firearms for a societal problem will not lead to a solution.

JimboBear 3 months, 3 weeks ago

Don, I wonder about your responses from time to time, but I do believe you are spot on about this one. There is no way that placing blame on the number and type of weapons or their availability brings us any closer to a solution. When we attempt to learn why so many are so angry that they wish to punish everyone around them, we'll be on our way to solving the problem.

JimboBear 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Today I swung my front door wide open and placed my S&W 357 right in the doorway. I placed 6 new hollow point cartridges beside it and noticing that it had no legs, I set it on an old wheelchair to help it get around.

I then left it alone and went about my business. While I was gone, the mail carrier delivered my mail, the neighbor boy across the street shoveled snow, a girl walked her dog down the street, and quite a few cars stopped at the stop sign right next to our house.

After a couple of hours, I checked on the gun. It was still sitting there in the wheelchair, right where I had left it. It hadn't rolled itself outside. It certainly hadn't killed anyone, even with the numerous opportunities it had been presented to do so. In fact, it hadn't even loaded itself and blasted 2 shots in the air! Well you can imagine my surprise about that, what with all the "press" about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people.

Either the media is wrong, and it's the misuse of guns by PEOPLE that kills people, or I'm in possession of the laziest gun in the world.

Alrighty then, I'm off to check on my spoons. I hear they're making people fat.

antzrus 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Yeah! What I don't understand is why is it illegal to have .50 caliber machine guns, 80mm mortars, 3.5 inch rocket launchers, flame throwers and claymore mines?

I mean it's the people that are the problem not the claymore mines et al. All my time in Vietnam I never saw a 106 recoilless rifle get up and fire a round by itself.

Why are these inanimate tools illegal?

davebugg 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Everything that you mentioned in your example are legal to own. There are some regulations to follow, but that involves filing some additional paperwork and paying the requisite fees.

JimboBear 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Thanks for answering that for me Dave. And Jim, you make my point for me. You "never saw a 106 recoilless rifle get up and fire a round by itself". I'm sure you didn't. That's why we can't blame the 106 for any destruction caused by projectiles from it's muzzle, can we? Why do you think that any other weapon can cause damage by it'self?

antzrus 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Well then that's great! Interesting that there is "some additional paperwork and paying the requisite fees."

Might qualifying for "some additional paperwork and paying the requisite fees" have some filtering out process that keeps these weapons of mass destruction out of the wrong hands. I mean so far no flame throwers nor 106 recoilless rifles in kindergarten.

Why not the same "additional paperwork" etc., etc. for other than bolt action rifles and revolvers? Apparently those that do get the rocket launchers and mortars et al are a lot more responsible than those with other weapons.

In fact, why not "additional paperwork" et al for all who want firearms-period. I mean it's a no brainer. Weapons of mass destruction noted above are legal and in the right hands-due to the "additional paperwork" et al. Let's get all firearms in the right hands.

Why not???

JimboBear 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Jim, despite your military experience, you really need to educate yourself about firearms. None of the "inanimate tools" you listed can be classified as "weapons of mass destruction". It has something to do with the scale of destruction created by the use of the weapon and your list just doesn't measure up. That said, I'm back again to my .22LR Marlin semi-auto with the 17 round magazine. Do you really believe that I or anyone else should have to acquire a Federal Firearms License before owning such a weapon? Your suggestion of ""additional paperwork" et al for all who want firearms-period" is ludicrous at it's best. Please think a little before posting such statements. We realize that you don't like guns in general, and would love to see them banned forever. You must know that is never going to happen.

davebugg 3 months, 2 weeks ago

It's not the paperwork that keeps those items out of the "wrong hands" which makes them a lessor player in multiple killings, it's the impracticality of their employment -- the size, the complexity, the weight, and the training involved. Additionally, claymores are classified as 'explosive devices' and your other examples are classified by the ATFE and court determinations as 'crew served weapons'. These types of weapons have been determined by court rulings to be outside of the standard definitions of firearms -- and therefore 'arms'-- as it applies to the 2nd Amendment's right to 'keep and bear arms'.

The other factor that comes into play is the fact that the number of gun-related deaths involving mass killings is a minuscule number relative to all criminal gun deaths. Which means that since most of those other gun deaths involve low-caliber revolvers or shotguns, a complete ban on sporting guns with semi-automatic actions will not greatly impact criminal or mentally deranged gun death rates

antzrus 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Jimbo-we are both on the same wavelength-as we are so often. Maybe we should get a room... :-))

Of course weapons don't kill-people do. But if regulations for really mass killing tools (i.e. rockets, mortars, .50 cal's etc.) work so well, why not the same for all firearm killing tools?

I mean there's a reason the above weapons of mass destruction need to be so closely regulated-in the wrong people's hands they can be catastrophic-note-in the wrong people's hands-the tools/weapons are inanimate.

Modern firearms in general are so effective (vs 1 shot muzzle loaders when the 2nd Amendment was written) now-a-days and people are so nutz it makes sense to more carefully regulate.

And no, only criminals will have the above weapons of mass destruction you say. But with the close regulation of these weapons, very, very, very few criminals here in the USA use flamethrowers, .50 cal's and 3.5 inch rockets etc. etc. Why? Because of the "additional paperwork" et al. So regulation does work.

JimboBear 3 months, 2 weeks ago

"But with the close regulation of these weapons, very, very, very few criminals here in the USA use flamethrowers, .50 cal's and 3.5 inch rockets etc. etc. Why? Because of the "additional paperwork" et al. So regulation does work."

Not true at all Jim. The reason why is that they are too cumbersome and inconvenient and are almost impossible to conceal. Add to that the fact that using those weapons pretty much requires both hands and all their attention, and it's obvious that they are simply not the right tool for the job. If they were, they would be used.

antzrus 3 months, 2 weeks ago

"The reason why is that they are too cumbersome and inconvenient and are almost impossible to conceal. Add to that the fact that using those weapons pretty much requires both hands and all their attention, and it's obvious that they are simply not the right tool for the job. If they were, they would be used."--- JImboBear

Hehehee-OK JImbo, you wanna' tell us a bit more about your personal/professional experience in the world of violent crime with small, concealable firearms.

There is a veritable smorgasbord of concealable & small fully automatic (i.e. the uzi family) "weapons of mass destruction (as compared to single bolt action rifles and revolvers)" fully available with "some additional paperwork and paying the requisite fees." But yet, they are very, very, very rarely used by criminals in the USA. Why? "Some additional paperwork and paying the requisite fees..."

davebugg 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Jim, this was already answered by both Jimbo and myself. It seems that you are posing the same questions and observations as before.

JimboBear 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Dave is correct Jim . . . you are asking the same questions over and over. If you really want a reason why the uzi and others such as the Mac10 are not often used in violent crimes, it's most likely a matter of cost. Most criminals don't have the funds to purchase one off the black market to begin with. I'm sure that you are aware almost anything can be purchased if you have enough money. These folks simply do not have deep enough pockets.

Why are you attempting to make this issue complicated? A little common sense applied to your questions would answer them for you. Have you lost touch with your common sense? Reach back and get hold of it man! You'll need it in a few more situations during the rest of your life.

JimboBear 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Aren't you glad you opened this up for another round Wilfred?

antzrus 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Of course I have to repeat myself. Why do you think that the exact same commercials on TV are repeated endlessly? That's because human beings have a strong tendency to literally see/hear what they believe-not believe what they actually see/hear.

Hence one has to repeat and repeat before another might chance a pause/slip in their beliefs that were blocking the actual facts.

Don't forget: "Whilst part of what we perceive comes through our senses from the object before us, another part (and it may be the larger part) always comes out of our own mind."---― William James, The Principles of Psychology, 1890

The very simple/clear/lucid facts speak to very careful registration of certain weapons that keep them from the hands of the irresponsible (mostly-not perfect).

Why not all firearms? Geez, just try and get a license to allow you to pass into Canada w/out a passport. You get registered w/the literal FBI and 45 minutes of one-on-one personal questions up the ying-yang along with all your pertinent official documents and an extra fee.

But if I want to own a firearm that can easily kill another human being by just pressing a trigger I should be required to do even less than register for a free pass into Canada?

davebugg 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Sorry, Jim, but your analogies are just wandering all over the place and have nothing to do with the connections that you keep trying to make. Repeating them, and adding new ones, doesn't make your opinion a fact. What you believe are facts in support your personal gun biases are simply non-existent. That you believed it was a fact that it was illegal to own the examples you gave of explosives and crew served weapons is but one example.

All guns can "easily kill another human being by just pressing a trigger", but you want to focus on registering and ATF'ing only certain types of sporting guns. That is a contradiction of conviction on your part and makes absolutely no logical sense. When you wish to exempt the most common guns used for murder from your registration proposals, yet seek to ban or heavily regulate the type of sporting rifles which have the lowest rate of use in murders, then there is something else besides 'facts' involved in your opinion.

antzrus 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Oh, "common sense" is an oxymoron. Most of us have lost our common sense. With the age of information (what others think/perceive) overload, we are herd animals, repeating back what others have thought/perceived for us; using that as a barrier to actually block the simple facts in front of us.

kyook 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I will take this under advisement while reading your posts.

JimboBear 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Antzrus, if I am assaulted by TV commercials I simply turn off the TV. The assault ends.

There is no way that I have even the slightest desire to go to Canada. They could build a 20 foot wall across the entire border and it would not bother me in the least. So what does going to Canada have to do with gun registration and/or control in the United States?

Reach back, Jim . . . reach back. You really are going to need it someday.

antzrus 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Jimbo my buddy. I don't need to reach back. I've got you out there watching my back. :-))

Isn't it great? This is my second full day of being retired (one of the 47% now...) and I can bandy back and forth with you guys and still have plenty of free time for other stuff.

You and me, we gotta' have coffee. I'd love to meet you-don't worry, I'm happily married (37 years tomorrow-39 years total together). Oh yeah, this is WA; to a woman.

Coffee?