Asp Forum - with and without initialize method

Li Chen

12/17/2006 7:16:00 PM

Hi all,

I define two classes, one with and the other without initialize method.
But I can call them with the same method new. I am not sure how to
explain them but I guess there are some kinds of default settings within
Ruby. Any comments?

Thanks,

Li

##

class X
puts "x"
end

class Y
def initialize
puts "y"
end
end

X.new
Y.new

>ruby variables4.rb
x
y
>Exit code: 0

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

6 Answers

dblack

12/17/2006 7:29:00 PM

Li Chen

12/17/2006 7:59:00 PM

> Try the program with this line:
>
> X.new
>
> removed or commented out. You'll get the same output. The reason is
> that the statement:
>
> puts "x"
>
> is executed when the class definition is executed. puts "y", however,
> is inside an instance method (initialize), so it isn't executed until
> there's an instance (and in this case, since it's an
> automatically-called constructor, you don't have to call it
> explicitly).

Thanks David. Now I get the point.

Li

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

Ed Huntress

4/16/2013 11:31:00 AM

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:16:08 -0700 (PDT), JohnJohnsn
<TopCop1988@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Apr 15, 4:20 pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 15:44:45 -0500, RD Sandman
>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote in
>>>news:6nmlm8pk08ns4egl9daoptv9a4pdu92g5t@4ax.com:
>>
>>>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 11:09:51 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote in
>>>>>news:hukjm8l40fmnlu4vbib2olkckr1m7n7pla@4ax.com:
>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 16:47:00 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>news:9pijm8127ib8k4frb8d6k28p90lcol87v4@4ax.com:
>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 15:54:42 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>Snip......
>>
>>>>>>>>>> But not in such *volume*. With low recoil, a consequence of
>>>>>>>>>> shooting a cartridge that's not worth a shit for anything but
>>>>>>>>>> groundhogs, poodles, masses of people, and my javelina <g>; lots
>>>>>>>>>> of penetration but low stopping power;
>>
>>>>>>>>> I Have seen javelinas walk away with a pair of .357 Magnum 146
>>>>>>>>> grain hollowpoints in their chest. And another with a .30-40 Krag
>>>>>>>>> round in the head. They are tough animals.
>>
>>>>>>>> I shot mine through the heart with a hollow-point varmint bullet
>>>>>>>> (50 or 52 gr.; I forget which) in a .223 Browning Model 1885
>>>>>>>> (Winchester Hi-Wall). He ran six feet and fell over.
>>
>>>>>>>> Overall, a .223 is a pretty worthless cartridge, except as a
>>>>>>>> medium-power varmint round.
>>
>>>>>>>That's what I have been telling everyone who claims it is high
>>>>>>>powered round.
>>
>>>> Unfortunately, there is a long tradition in gun culture of calling any
>>>> center-fire rifle "high power." How high? Not very, in this case.
>>
>>>Particularly in the media. They use high powered to mean high capacity.
>>
>> Yeah, they don't have a clear idea of what it's about, but the term
>> "high power" is something they got from us, and it has applied to all
>> centerfire rifles for longer than I've been alive.
>>
>> NRA still uses the term in that sense:
>>
>> http://competitions.nra.org/how-to-get-started/high-power-r......
>>
>The 5.56mm NATO cartridge is "high power" when compared to the M1
>Carbine segment of the CMP program, Ed. :)
>>
>>>> So people who don't know guns pick that up, and then you have to
>>>> explain. I find it tedious.
>>
>>> As do I but that is our typical voter and congresscritter.
>>
>>>>>>>> That's what I bought it for. Oh...and it's pretty good for laying
>>>>>>>> down a lot of fire in combat. Otherwise, it's a second-tier target
>>>>>>>> round; it's too big for small game, and too small for medium-to-large
>>>>>>>> game. A javelina is about the outer limit for ethical hunting with a .223.
>>
>>>>>>> Man is a soft, thin skinned target.
>>
>>>>>> Kids are even softer! Lanza made a good choice.
>>
>>>>> I assume you mean in the guns he chose, not in the deeds he chose.
>>
>>>> Correct.
>>
>>>>> He also took what was available to him and what most closely matched
>>>>> what he used in his video games.
>>
>>>> And to what he saw on the news.
>>
>>> Which is also to blame for what the public thinks of assault weapons.
>>> I have seen many times that when describing an assault weapon they are
>>> displaying scened of troops in Iraq or Afghanistan and using full auto.
>>
>> They're the same damned thing, RD. The only difference is in the
>> number of shots you fire with one pull of the trigger. Either one is
>> capable of high rates of fire and extended fire with one loading. The
>> select-fire version is just higher. If they were readily available to
>> loons, I don't doubt they would be using the select-fire versions to
>> get an extra edge. But they do have the quick handling, the big
>> magazines that change quickly, and the low recoil with good
>> penetration.
>>
>> They're designed for combat and they have no significant civilian use.
>> They have a minor use in service-rifle competition, which is what I
>> defended vigorously when I was lobbying on behalf of our state NRA
>> affiliate in the early '90s. But that's about it. Beyond that, they're
>> toys.
>>
>Actually, ED; a match-built M16A2 has been the primary rifle of the
>USAMU for quite some time now. But to comply with the NM and SR rules
>of the DCM, they have had the "BURST" position of the selector lever
>locked out.
>
>See also:
>
>M16 rifle at 1000 yards
>USAMU Service Rifle Team dominates at National Matches
>http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-1...
>>
>> Just like the single-shot rifles I used to shoot in ASSRA matches.
>> They're toys, too. Like a lot of left-handed shooters, I have a warm
>> spot for the things -- I used one to hunt javelina in Arizona -- but
>> they're really just toys.
>>
>> Everyone should have access to the toys he wants and can afford unless
>> there is some strong reason to prohibit them. And I believe there are
>> strong reasons to re-classify ARs, at least, as Class 3 weapons.
>> I don't know of any strong reason to prohibit falling-block rifles.
>>
>Obviously, you've fallen for `Daffy Dianne' Emiel Goldman Berman
>Feinstein [Blum]'s gun control propaganda, since that's _exactly_ what
>she's got in mind; and her first step is her "Assault Weapons Ban v.
>2.0":
>
>http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s150rs/pdf/BILLS-113...

I only read the first 30 of 126 pages, and you'd have to see the
earlier statutes to know what the changes mean, but overall it looks
pretty good to me.

It sounds like what we have in NJ for handgun purchases. I went
through that a few times, with no trouble, fingerprints and all.

In terms of efficacy, the hated Mayors have compiled a useful set of
stats from ATF trace data. It shows, for example, that of guns
recovered in crimes anywhere in the US that were sold in NJ, versus
guns that were recovered in NJ that were sold in other states, the
ratio is 1:7.4. In contrast, the ratio for Virginia is 2.6:1. For
Arizona, it's 1.5:1.

Our gun problem in NJ, in other words, is other states' laws.
Otherwise, we have them largely blocked from the hands of criminal
users.

But no state law has a chance of much success in reducing criminals'
access to guns in this way. Only a federal law has any chance of
success.

>
>Imagine having to get permission from both the local CLEO, the FBI and
>ATF; then having to pay $200 and wait as long as six months (maybe
>more: maybe less) just in order to exercise your constitutionally-
>protected Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Ed:

We do it for a lot less in NJ. But then, the history of our law is not
one of trying to make it prohibitively expensive, like the NFA of 1934
was. The fee was $35 when I got mine. It's now $2.

However, you need an FOID to buy any gun or ammo here, so, if you
don't already have one, that's $60 for the fingerprint fee.

>
>Assault weapons to be registered as NFA weapons
>http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/foghorn/sen-feinstein-wants-all-assault-weapons-to-be-registered-under-nfa-like-silencers-and-mac...
>
>And since you have recently mentioned the M1 Carbine, how about this
>for her "Liberal Logic:"
>
>The AWBv.2.0 specifically exempts the M1 Carbine, while at the same
>time banning the M1A1 "Paratrooper" version (though not by name);
>merely because of the "two `military' features'' it has: the wire-
>frame folding buttstock and the pistol grip.
>
>Exact same action; exact same firepower, exact same capability to
>accept "30-round magazines:" but one's "exempted" and the other is
>"banned."

Yeah, well this ties in with what I was saying to RD about the
cultural issues. It's like not being allowed to walk naked down Main
Street. Same reasoning, which we live with every day in almost every
walk of life.

>And just in case you missed it:
>
>Assault Weapons Ban: A Cure That Could Kill
>The proposed federal Assault Weapons Ban has the potential to disarm
>public safety personnel.
>February 04, 2013 | by David Griffith | POLICE Magazine
>
>Lost in all the storm and fury over the proposed federal Assault
>Weapons Ban is the effects that these measures will have on the men
>and women responsible for maintaining public safety.
>
>For proof of how dangerous it can be to rush gun control legislation
>into law, all you have to do is look at New York. Last month the
>Empire State passed a law that will ban the sale of so-called "assault
>weapons" and criminalize the possession of pistol and rifle magazines
>of more than seven rounds. But in their rush to punish law-abiding gun
>owners for the actions of the criminally insane, the New York
>legislators and the governor didn't realize that they were causing a
>lot of unnecessary confusion for law enforcement.
>
>The Draconian New York "gun safety" law, which takes effect in March,
>does not specifically exempt LEOs. Which has made every cop, deputy,
>trooper, and agent in the state wonder if he or she will be in
>violation when the new law goes into effect. Existing law has now been
>interpreted to provide an exemption for LEOs that would carry over
>into the new law.
>
>But questions still remain. No one is quite sure how the New York law
>affects retired officers who have a federal right to carry concealed
>handguns under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004. And I
>have it on good authority that the law has no provision to exempt
>private security.
>
>At first glance, you may think something that affects private security
>is not a big issue. After all, who cares if a bunch of "mall cops" are
>restricted to seven-round mags?
>
>Some security guards and private security officers are indeed "mall
>cops;" others, however, are the first line of armed response at
>nuclear power stations, chemical plants, oil refineries, and other
>critical pieces of infrastructure. Imagine that you are one of these
>highly trained civilian security professionals and you don't know
>whether possession of the magazine in your handgun constitutes a
>misdemeanor. This is what happens when people rush gun control
>legislation into law.
>
>So what happens if the new federal gun safety act proposed by Sen.
>Diane Feinstein becomes law? I don't know. But I can make an educated
>guess. I believe it will make procurement of patrol rifles a lot more
>difficult for the average cop. Follow along with me for a moment.
>
>Walking around the recent Shooting Hunting and Outdoor Trade (SHOT)
>Show in Las Vegas a few weeks ago, I started thinking about what a new
>and permanent assault weapon ban might mean for the gun industry. In a
>word: Devastation.
>
>There are dozens of small to mid-size companies that do nothing but
>produce what the industry refers to as "modern sporting rifles" and
>parts for "modern sporting rifles." These are the ARs and other semi-
>automatic versions of rifles that gun control advocates refer to as
>"assault weapons." Very few of these companies can survive an assault
>weapon ban.
>
>That means the number of sources for police patrol rifles will dry up.
>But the demand for these weapons by law enforcement officers will
>remain steady. I'm no economist, but I believe that is the formula for
>radical price increases.
>
>Some of you who work for certain well-heeled agencies probably don't
>see that as a big concern. You don't worry about the price of
>equipment because the agency gives you what you need.
>
>That's great for you. But most police in this country work for
>agencies with fewer than 10 officers, and the officers who work for
>such small agencies pretty much have to buy their own gear.
>
>What that means is when a sergeant approaches the chief of Smallville
>PD and says that the department needs a patrol rifle, the chief will
>say, "Great. You want one, you pay for it. We don't have the budget
>for it. But I'll authorize you to carry it when you qualify with it."
>So the sergeant or the senior officer who sees a tactical need for a
>patrol rifle goes out and buys an AR out of pocket from one of the
>dozens of vendors that make such rifles.
>
>If the assault weapons ban becomes law, that small agency sergeant is
>not going to be able to afford that rifle anymore. It will only be
>available from the companies that make such a gun in mass quantities
>for the military, and they will have a captive market. These companies
>may not even make semi-auto versions anymore. Which means the concept
>of patrol rifles on a lot of agencies may fade away because few chiefs
>will want their officers carrying "machine guns."
>
>This is why the proposed federal Assault Weapons Ban, which is
>supposed to curtail mass shootings, could be very bad for law
>enforcement officers. It may take the tools you need to protect the
>public from active shooters right out of your hands.
>
>-30-
>
>http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2013/02/assault-weapons-ban-a-cure-that-could...

RD Sandman

4/16/2013 9:18:00 PM

Ed Huntress <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in
news:sgkpm8hgjof0m17iia98kqf4bn6timbklk@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:49:46 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

SNIP....

> As for varmints, I've shot a LOT of varmint rifles and owned a few,
> and so don't try to lay no steenking 0.015-sec lock time on me and
> call that firestick a "varmint gun." Not where I've hunted varmints,
> where no one I hunted with would take a shot within 150 yards. You
> just didn't do it.
>
> Shooting ground squirrels or other pests in your back yard, maybe.
> That isn't what I mean by "varmint hunting."

What I meant was javelina, bobcats and coyotes.

>>> They have a minor use in service-rifle competition, which is what I
>>> defended vigorously when I was lobbying on behalf of our state NRA
>>> affiliate in the early '90s. But that's about it. Beyond that,
>>> they're toys.
>>
>>Work quite well on coyotes and Coues Whitetails. I wouldn't use one
>>on a muley or an elk, but......
>>
>>> Just like the single-shot rifles I used to shoot in ASSRA matches.
>>> They're toys, too. Like a lot of left-handed shooters, I have a warm
>>> spot for the things -- I used one to hunt javelina in Arizona -- but
>>> they're really just toys.
>>>
>>> Everyone should have access to the toys he wants and can afford
>>> unless there is some strong reason to prohibit them. And I believe
>>> there are strong reasons to re-classify ARs, at least, as Class 3
>>> weapons.
>>
>>I don't. Unlike you I don't think that the current problems are due
>>to the firearms. I think they are due to the asshole shooting those
>>very few of them. Even most of the mass shootings are done with
>>handguns not AR15s, or SKSs or AK clones.
>
> This must be our third go-around on this, but I also consider the
> other people in this country we live in. ARs are bad ju-ju. They
> attract pests and crackpots and they look like death rays. They're bad
> for gun culture in general, and their use in these mass killings has
> exacerbated the problem they cause for us by tenfold. They're like Ben
> Hur hubcaps, monster trucks on the Interstate, and giving your teacher
> crotchless underwear for Christmas.

Hmmm, I have had a couple of them. I haven't turned out too bad. One
was a Ruger 556 and the other was a Daniel Defense lower, with a Daniel
Defense upper in 5.56 and an Alexander Arms 6.5 Grendel upper. The 6.5
is a neat weapon with a 6 power scope.

>> I
>>> don't know of any strong reason to prohibit falling-block rifles.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not much of a man-killer except in terms of gun mechanics
>>>>>>> and statistics. In other words, the basic design is calibrated
>>>>>>> to kill a LOT of men -- or at least to improve your casualty
>>>>>>> numbers. If you want to kill ONE man, you'll do better with a
>>>>>>> lot more power and forget the big magazine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is a big difference between being a foot soldier in a normal
>>>>>>combat scenario and being a sniper. They also use different
>>>>>>weaponry, although sometimes they change roles.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to kill someone, don't pick a .223 unless you plan to
>>>>> shoot him multiple times. That's the point.
>>>>
>>>>I doubt Lanza deliberately picked a .223 as the right cartridge. I
>>>>suspect that an AR looks more like he saw in the video games and
>>>>.223 cartridges happened to be the ones that fit it.
>>>
>>> Again, who needs video games? TV and movies have burned that image
>>> into practically everyone in the country.
>>
>>Partly because reports say that is how Lanza spent a lot of his idle
>>time. That is why it is being mentioned currently.
>
> There sure are a lot of amateur psychologists around, aren't there? I
> never thought much of it as a hobby.

YOU seem to be trying quite a bit of it by placing motives on people.
Why does it bother when others do the same thing?

>> That's why there's so much
>>> antipathy for them. You may recall that more than half of the adults
>>> in the country wanted to ban them just a couple of months ago.
>>
>>So? They fucked up and couldn't get it together while the bodies were
>>still warm.
>
> No. Most people are just not single-issue voters. Gun nutz, like
> anti-abortionists, are single-issue voters. As a result, gun nutz can
> get their way even when very large majorities oppose their positions.

Not that you would be biased like your language usage indicates. Not
you....

> Just last week, a CNN poll showed 86% favor universal background
> checks. That hasn't changed. What has changed is that Congress doesn't
> give a shit, because that's not the way their elections are decided.
> So now even *that* looks like it's in trouble.
>
> And that poll still shows over 50% want to ban large magazines, and
> just barely over 50% want to ban ARs.
>
> Forget it.

Yep, the impetus to do things or to make changes dies off almost as fast
as the body heat of the victims.

>>>> In combat, you aren't
>>>>> necessarily trying to kill. You're trying to create casualties
>>>>> that can't shoot back.
>>>>
>>>>He shot each kid 5 or 6 times. That was completely unnecessary to
>>>>kill them. He was looking for a blood bath or a blaze of glory to
>>>>go out with.
>>>
>>> He was trying to run up a big score. Apparently he had a spreadsheet
>>> with all of the big mass killings on it, and he wanted to be on top.
>>
>>I doubt he referenced it at the time and he failed in that, too. The
>>record is Cho at Virginia Tech and he used two stock Glocks.
>
> No, the champion he was aiming for, according to reports, was Anders
> Behring Breivik and his record of 77 killed in Norway. Lanza had big
> ambitions.

Yep, I have heard the same thing. He could have had more of a chance to
do that if he had used less rounds per person.

>>>>>>> So for a lunatic bent on killing as many people as he can, it's
>>>>>>> quite a good choice. The loons know it. And it's so paramilitary
>>>>>>> and cool. They may be insane, but they seem to know their guns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, I don't think they really do know their guns. Oh, they
>>>>>>probably know the difference between an assault weapon and a
>>>>>>revolver or semi auto handgun which is more than some of our
>>>>>>congresscritters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Except that
>>>>>>> Holmes overreached with that crappy drum magazine. The basic
>>>>>>> idea was good, but the equipment couldn't execute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He bought cheap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> huge magazines that change quickly;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>But no quicker than a 10 rounder. Loughner fumbled his 33
>>>>>>>>>>rounder.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and an
>>>>>>>>>>> overall configuration that makes them quick-handling in
>>>>>>>>>>> combat.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Just what you need for ground-sluicing a classroom full of
>>>>>>>>>>> kids.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Which happensw very rarely. Unfortunately, lately it has been
>>>>>>>>>>happening more and more often. I blame it on a lot of things
>>>>>>>>>>like mental illness, movies, video games, fascination with the
>>>>>>>>>>military, police acting more and more like ninjas, wishing to
>>>>>>>>>>emulate those folks...... single parent homes due to absentee
>>>>>>>>>>fathers or non caring ones who live down the street. It isn't
>>>>>>>>>>just guns and magazines.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh, no, of course not....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Passing lots of laws on
>>>>>>>>>>honest gunowners to fix the problem is like trying to hold
>>>>>>>>>>water in a strainer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Most gun owners, according to polls, think that background
>>>>>>>>> checks are a good idea, aimed not at honest gun owners, but at
>>>>>>>>> blocking some sales to criminals and lunatics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What will happen if that gets passed is that when the homicides
>>>>>>>>don't go away, then they will back for more. We only need a
>>>>>>>>couple more laws and all will be well while never grasping the
>>>>>>>>thought that criminals really don't give a hoot what laws you
>>>>>>>>pass, they aren't going to obey them anyway.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you, Wayne LaPierre.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Look at the history of gun control laws.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have. They're dropping like flies, starting with the end of the
>>>>> AR ban in 2004.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe we dropped too many and never enacted the right ones in the
>>>>> first place. Strawman purchasing is still a low-risk enterprise.
>>>>
>>>>That's an enforcement problem. Tighten existing laws and enforce
>>>>them.
>>>
>>> Show us how you gather evidence that will stand up in court with
>>> "existing laws" and I'll be interested. It's so difficult now, and
>>> so rare, that it's like a gun pipeline to crime.
>>
>>Then stiffen those currently *existing* laws. Don't add more.
>
> How stiff do you want them? Like, we aren't going to require you to
> report losses or thefts, and we certainly won't keep a record of what
> you've bought, and we don't really want to know who you sell to, but
> we're going to get *really*, *really* mad if you sell a gun to a
> criminal. Oh, and if we happen, by some lucky chance, to find out
> about it. Not that we'd blame you...
>
> Is that what you have in mind?
>
> Arizona's law on private sales is instructive. Here's how it could go:
> [seller] "Are you an Arizona resident?" [buyer] "Sure." [seller] "Are
> you under 18 or a prohibited person?" [buyer] "Nope." [seller] "OK,
> here's your handgun."

Except that federal law places the age to purchase a handgun at 21. You
scenarion works much better if it is about a rifle or shotgun.

> No ID required. No bill of sale. No record of any kind. And that's a
> legal sale.

Nope.....look at the federal age requirment for purchase.

> This fits philosophically with the statutory law in Arizona, which
> allows ANYONE to carry openly or concealed, without a permit.

Yep, it is known as "constitutional carry". There are a couple of
reasons for getting an Arizona CCW, however. One, it allows you to dine
in a restaurant that serves alcohol (although you cannot participate) and
it allows reciprocity with other states. I have no problem with it
although a CCW is still needed for a sword cane.

It must
> give the felons and the schizophrenics some peace of mind.

They know a lot people are armed.

> So, how do you want to "stiffen" these existing laws, RD?

They also don't affect federal ones, Ed, but then you knew that.....I
hope.

>>>>>> You're forgetting that they're aimed at
>>>>>>> reducing availability to criminals and nuts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, I don't forget that, however, they are trying to do it by
>>>>>>limiting what guns I can have and I am not the problem. I'm one
>>>>>>of the good guys.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good for you. Now, how about all of the other people who operate
>>>>> under the same laws that you do? Like, criminals?
>>>>
>>>>Criminals operate under whatever laws they wish to at the time or
>>>>none of them.
>>>
>>> So, when they go to buy a gun at a gun shop, they just say "The NICS
>>> check doesn't apply to me"?
>>>
>>> Get serious, RD. You keep repeating the same nonsense response.
>>
>>Most criminals don't get them from gun shops, Ed. Even you have been
>>stating that. They get them from family, friends, the street or other
>>illegal sources.
>
> But you keep saying the criminals ignore the laws. How would they
> ignore a requirement to show ID and submit to a background check?

By getting them from there family, friends, street and other illegal
sources. Was that really so hard?

> The object, once again, is to start closing doors on them.

And, as noted several times, I have no problem with a UBC. Why don't you
drop it since even you are smart enough, I think, to understand where I
stand on that subject.

>>>>>>Do you think we should try and reduce the availability of guns
>>>>>>in, say, Somalis, by taking them away from our folks? Mexico
>>>>>>doesn't allow its citizens to own guns freely. There is only one
>>>>>>gun store in Mexico. It is in Mexico City and run by the Mexican
>>>>>>army. How is that working out for reducing violence?
>>>>>
>>>>> You're creating red herrings and strawmen. Nobody is keeping you
>>>>> from buying guns. The effort is to keep criminals and nuts from
>>>>> buying guns.
>>>>
>>>>The effort is to keep me and any other honest citizen from buying an
>>>>AR15. Or an SKS. Or a AK knockoff.
>>>
>>> The only one that's likely to pass is a law that will keep criminals
>>> and institutionalized nutbags from buying guns.
>>
>>And that is which one, Ed? UBC?
>
> Even that's questionable now. So you have NO laws to worry about.

Good. Now, maybe we can concentrate on the real reasons for violence.

>>>>>> They've blocked a million
>>>>>>> or two of them from buying from FFLs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh? They have had a million or two denials which is about 1 or 2%
>>>>>>of the applications and most of them either go through on an
>>>>>>appeal or are dropped in lieu of being sent for any prosecution.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll live with a million or two. It beats what we'd have with your
>>>>> plan, eh?
>>>>
>>>>What plan is that you are commenting on? The only plan I have
>>>>really pushed for deals with mental illness, slum conditions, gang
>>>>culture, absentee parents, opportunity opportunities and education
>>>>in dense urban areas.
>>>
>>> So that's how you're going to decide who gets guns? Your gun crime
>>> plan sounds to me like one that will let any criminal or nutcase
>>> continue to buy guns from private sellers.
>>
>>IOW, you want the senseless crimes to simply continue without doing
>>anything about any of them unless they were committed with a gun?
>
> It's pretty hard to shoot someone without a gun, senseless or not. And
> I don't see mass killers taking up archery.

In other words, you care about mass shootings because it is little white
kids and not hispanics or blacks in Chicago? You only care about mass
shooters which are comparatively rare compared to the normal weekend
outings in Detroit or Los Angeles?

>>>>>> From 2006 to 2010,
>>>>>>they failed to refer about 80% of the denials to the field for any
>>>>>>investigation. They came up with a total of 273 for prosecution
>>>>>>in 2006, 196 in 2007, 147 in 2008, 140 in 2009 and 62 in 2010. Of
>>>>>>those, only 209 ended with a guilty plea or a guilty verdict.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, a million or two million stopped sounds like a step in the
>>>>> right direction.
>>>>
>>>>Except they weren't all stopped. A couple hundred thousand of them
>>>>went right through after the appeal process.
>>>
>>> If they win on appeal, the chance is good they were Ok.
>>
>>Yep, but the numbers used were like the ones you used just above that
>>comment. They were from the initial purchase attempt and don't
>>include retries, appeals, etc..
>
> You don't say why they were denied in the first place.

Correct.....neither did you.

Some were
> errors. I'm sure that many are hard to prosecute. And the federal
> attorneys can't even prosecute all of the serious crimes now, let
> alone prosecuting someone with a mental health background who tried to
> buy a rifle.

Tha vast majority of those denials never got referred for investigation.

>>>>>>Now, if people would get serious
>>>>>>> about duplicating that system for individual sales, maybe you'd
>>>>>>> block a lot more. There's no reason to believe otherwise, based
>>>>>>> on the stats with the existing NICS system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Have you looked at all the stats?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not recently, but I have in the past.
>>>>
>>>>I have the figures from studies of the 2006 through 2010 enforcement
>>>>of the Brady Act.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyone too lazy to do a little
>>>>>>>>> paperwork to certify their saneness and honesty is too
>>>>>>>>> irresponsible to buy a gun.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hmmmm, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty via due
>>>>>>>>process?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whatever happened to responsibility? And what would constitute
>>>>>>> "guilt" under the NICS system? It's trying to buy a gun when
>>>>>>> you're not qualified. If gun owners won't participate in that
>>>>>>> system, and help in the process of blocking illegal sales, then
>>>>>>> screw 'em.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As I have said before, I don't have a problem with a universal
>>>>>>background check. I have a problem with what folks like Schumer
>>>>>>wish to do with it. I also have a bit of a problem with having to
>>>>>>background check my brother to give him a gun or to have to
>>>>>>background check someone who wishes to shoot one of my guns at the
>>>>>>range or someone I loan a deer rifle to during hunting season.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Why are you placing the workload on Joe Citizen to prove his
>>>>>>>>innocence?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's the alternative? To trust everyone? Criminals are all so
>>>>>>> trustworthy, right? There's no need to distinguish them from
>>>>>>> honest gun owners....not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The point is that they won't obey whatever laws are passed in the
>>>>>>first place. No matter how effective the laws are with honest
>>>>>>folks, it won't be with the criminal set.
>>>>>
>>>>> You keep avoiding the point. If you have the right laws, they
>>>>> can't dodge them. They get caught.
>>>>
>>>>Then fix the laws that address the criminals so that they can be
>>>>enforced and do some good. You don't need new laws until you fix
>>>>the existing ones.
>>>
>>> The first one to fix is the nonsense that imposes NICS checks at gun
>>> dealers and pawn shops, and then lets any felon or loon go buy one
>>> at a gun show.
>>
>>I agree.....so fix it. However, I don't expect the same spectacular
>>results you do. As I have said, I have no problem with UBC itself.
>>
>>> Then we have to get serious about dealing with straw purchasers.

Go for it. Start with the ATF. Or do you think they learned their
lesson with F&F?

--

Democracy means that anyone can grow up to be President,

And anyone who doesn't grow up can be Vice President.

Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

Ed Huntress

4/16/2013 9:59:00 PM

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:18:24 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>Ed Huntress <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in
>news:sgkpm8hgjof0m17iia98kqf4bn6timbklk@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:49:46 -0500, RD Sandman
>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>SNIP....
>
>> As for varmints, I've shot a LOT of varmint rifles and owned a few,
>> and so don't try to lay no steenking 0.015-sec lock time on me and
>> call that firestick a "varmint gun." Not where I've hunted varmints,
>> where no one I hunted with would take a shot within 150 yards. You
>> just didn't do it.
>>
>> Shooting ground squirrels or other pests in your back yard, maybe.
>> That isn't what I mean by "varmint hunting."
>
>What I meant was javelina, bobcats and coyotes.
>
>>>> They have a minor use in service-rifle competition, which is what I
>>>> defended vigorously when I was lobbying on behalf of our state NRA
>>>> affiliate in the early '90s. But that's about it. Beyond that,
>>>> they're toys.
>>>
>>>Work quite well on coyotes and Coues Whitetails. I wouldn't use one
>>>on a muley or an elk, but......
>>>
>>>> Just like the single-shot rifles I used to shoot in ASSRA matches.
>>>> They're toys, too. Like a lot of left-handed shooters, I have a warm
>>>> spot for the things -- I used one to hunt javelina in Arizona -- but
>>>> they're really just toys.
>>>>
>>>> Everyone should have access to the toys he wants and can afford
>>>> unless there is some strong reason to prohibit them. And I believe
>>>> there are strong reasons to re-classify ARs, at least, as Class 3
>>>> weapons.
>>>
>>>I don't. Unlike you I don't think that the current problems are due
>>>to the firearms. I think they are due to the asshole shooting those
>>>very few of them. Even most of the mass shootings are done with
>>>handguns not AR15s, or SKSs or AK clones.
>>
>> This must be our third go-around on this, but I also consider the
>> other people in this country we live in. ARs are bad ju-ju. They
>> attract pests and crackpots and they look like death rays. They're bad
>> for gun culture in general, and their use in these mass killings has
>> exacerbated the problem they cause for us by tenfold. They're like Ben
>> Hur hubcaps, monster trucks on the Interstate, and giving your teacher
>> crotchless underwear for Christmas.
>
>Hmmm, I have had a couple of them. I haven't turned out too bad. One
>was a Ruger 556 and the other was a Daniel Defense lower, with a Daniel
>Defense upper in 5.56 and an Alexander Arms 6.5 Grendel upper. The 6.5
>is a neat weapon with a 6 power scope.
>
>>> I
>>>> don't know of any strong reason to prohibit falling-block rifles.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not much of a man-killer except in terms of gun mechanics
>>>>>>>> and statistics. In other words, the basic design is calibrated
>>>>>>>> to kill a LOT of men -- or at least to improve your casualty
>>>>>>>> numbers. If you want to kill ONE man, you'll do better with a
>>>>>>>> lot more power and forget the big magazine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There is a big difference between being a foot soldier in a normal
>>>>>>>combat scenario and being a sniper. They also use different
>>>>>>>weaponry, although sometimes they change roles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to kill someone, don't pick a .223 unless you plan to
>>>>>> shoot him multiple times. That's the point.
>>>>>
>>>>>I doubt Lanza deliberately picked a .223 as the right cartridge. I
>>>>>suspect that an AR looks more like he saw in the video games and
>>>>>.223 cartridges happened to be the ones that fit it.
>>>>
>>>> Again, who needs video games? TV and movies have burned that image
>>>> into practically everyone in the country.
>>>
>>>Partly because reports say that is how Lanza spent a lot of his idle
>>>time. That is why it is being mentioned currently.
>>
>> There sure are a lot of amateur psychologists around, aren't there? I
>> never thought much of it as a hobby.
>
>YOU seem to be trying quite a bit of it by placing motives on people.
>Why does it bother when others do the same thing?
>
>>> That's why there's so much
>>>> antipathy for them. You may recall that more than half of the adults
>>>> in the country wanted to ban them just a couple of months ago.
>>>
>>>So? They fucked up and couldn't get it together while the bodies were
>>>still warm.
>>
>> No. Most people are just not single-issue voters. Gun nutz, like
>> anti-abortionists, are single-issue voters. As a result, gun nutz can
>> get their way even when very large majorities oppose their positions.
>
>Not that you would be biased like your language usage indicates. Not
>you....

I'm not a single-issue voter. I'm nearly at the opposite extreme.

>
>> Just last week, a CNN poll showed 86% favor universal background
>> checks. That hasn't changed. What has changed is that Congress doesn't
>> give a shit, because that's not the way their elections are decided.
>> So now even *that* looks like it's in trouble.
>>
>> And that poll still shows over 50% want to ban large magazines, and
>> just barely over 50% want to ban ARs.
>>
>> Forget it.
>
>Yep, the impetus to do things or to make changes dies off almost as fast
>as the body heat of the victims.
>
>>>>> In combat, you aren't
>>>>>> necessarily trying to kill. You're trying to create casualties
>>>>>> that can't shoot back.
>>>>>
>>>>>He shot each kid 5 or 6 times. That was completely unnecessary to
>>>>>kill them. He was looking for a blood bath or a blaze of glory to
>>>>>go out with.
>>>>
>>>> He was trying to run up a big score. Apparently he had a spreadsheet
>>>> with all of the big mass killings on it, and he wanted to be on top.
>>>
>>>I doubt he referenced it at the time and he failed in that, too. The
>>>record is Cho at Virginia Tech and he used two stock Glocks.
>>
>> No, the champion he was aiming for, according to reports, was Anders
>> Behring Breivik and his record of 77 killed in Norway. Lanza had big
>> ambitions.
>
>
>Yep, I have heard the same thing. He could have had more of a chance to
>do that if he had used less rounds per person.
>
>>>>>>>> So for a lunatic bent on killing as many people as he can, it's
>>>>>>>> quite a good choice. The loons know it. And it's so paramilitary
>>>>>>>> and cool. They may be insane, but they seem to know their guns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, I don't think they really do know their guns. Oh, they
>>>>>>>probably know the difference between an assault weapon and a
>>>>>>>revolver or semi auto handgun which is more than some of our
>>>>>>>congresscritters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Except that
>>>>>>>> Holmes overreached with that crappy drum magazine. The basic
>>>>>>>> idea was good, but the equipment couldn't execute.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>He bought cheap.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> huge magazines that change quickly;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>But no quicker than a 10 rounder. Loughner fumbled his 33
>>>>>>>>>>>rounder.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and an
>>>>>>>>>>>> overall configuration that makes them quick-handling in
>>>>>>>>>>>> combat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Just what you need for ground-sluicing a classroom full of
>>>>>>>>>>>> kids.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Which happensw very rarely. Unfortunately, lately it has been
>>>>>>>>>>>happening more and more often. I blame it on a lot of things
>>>>>>>>>>>like mental illness, movies, video games, fascination with the
>>>>>>>>>>>military, police acting more and more like ninjas, wishing to
>>>>>>>>>>>emulate those folks...... single parent homes due to absentee
>>>>>>>>>>>fathers or non caring ones who live down the street. It isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>just guns and magazines.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh, no, of course not....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Passing lots of laws on
>>>>>>>>>>>honest gunowners to fix the problem is like trying to hold
>>>>>>>>>>>water in a strainer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Most gun owners, according to polls, think that background
>>>>>>>>>> checks are a good idea, aimed not at honest gun owners, but at
>>>>>>>>>> blocking some sales to criminals and lunatics.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What will happen if that gets passed is that when the homicides
>>>>>>>>>don't go away, then they will back for more. We only need a
>>>>>>>>>couple more laws and all will be well while never grasping the
>>>>>>>>>thought that criminals really don't give a hoot what laws you
>>>>>>>>>pass, they aren't going to obey them anyway.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you, Wayne LaPierre.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Look at the history of gun control laws.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have. They're dropping like flies, starting with the end of the
>>>>>> AR ban in 2004.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe we dropped too many and never enacted the right ones in the
>>>>>> first place. Strawman purchasing is still a low-risk enterprise.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's an enforcement problem. Tighten existing laws and enforce
>>>>>them.
>>>>
>>>> Show us how you gather evidence that will stand up in court with
>>>> "existing laws" and I'll be interested. It's so difficult now, and
>>>> so rare, that it's like a gun pipeline to crime.
>>>
>>>Then stiffen those currently *existing* laws. Don't add more.
>>
>> How stiff do you want them? Like, we aren't going to require you to
>> report losses or thefts, and we certainly won't keep a record of what
>> you've bought, and we don't really want to know who you sell to, but
>> we're going to get *really*, *really* mad if you sell a gun to a
>> criminal. Oh, and if we happen, by some lucky chance, to find out
>> about it. Not that we'd blame you...
>>
>> Is that what you have in mind?
>>
>> Arizona's law on private sales is instructive. Here's how it could go:
>> [seller] "Are you an Arizona resident?" [buyer] "Sure." [seller] "Are
>> you under 18 or a prohibited person?" [buyer] "Nope." [seller] "OK,
>> here's your handgun."
>
>Except that federal law places the age to purchase a handgun at 21. You
>scenarion works much better if it is about a rifle or shotgun.
>
>> No ID required. No bill of sale. No record of any kind. And that's a
>> legal sale.
>
>Nope.....look at the federal age requirment for purchase.

That's only from FFLs. Age for private sales is up to the state. In
AZ, it's 18 for any type of gun. And you don't have to prove your age
in a private sale in AZ; you just declare to the seller that you are
18 and not an "unqualified person." Heh, heh...

>
>> This fits philosophically with the statutory law in Arizona, which
>> allows ANYONE to carry openly or concealed, without a permit.
>
>Yep, it is known as "constitutional carry". There are a couple of
>reasons for getting an Arizona CCW, however. One, it allows you to dine
>in a restaurant that serves alcohol (although you cannot participate) and
>it allows reciprocity with other states. I have no problem with it
>although a CCW is still needed for a sword cane.
>
> It must
>> give the felons and the schizophrenics some peace of mind.
>
>They know a lot people are armed.
>
>> So, how do you want to "stiffen" these existing laws, RD?
>
>They also don't affect federal ones, Ed, but then you knew that.....I
>hope.
>
>>>>>>> You're forgetting that they're aimed at
>>>>>>>> reducing availability to criminals and nuts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, I don't forget that, however, they are trying to do it by
>>>>>>>limiting what guns I can have and I am not the problem. I'm one
>>>>>>>of the good guys.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good for you. Now, how about all of the other people who operate
>>>>>> under the same laws that you do? Like, criminals?
>>>>>
>>>>>Criminals operate under whatever laws they wish to at the time or
>>>>>none of them.
>>>>
>>>> So, when they go to buy a gun at a gun shop, they just say "The NICS
>>>> check doesn't apply to me"?
>>>>
>>>> Get serious, RD. You keep repeating the same nonsense response.
>>>
>>>Most criminals don't get them from gun shops, Ed. Even you have been
>>>stating that. They get them from family, friends, the street or other
>>>illegal sources.
>>
>> But you keep saying the criminals ignore the laws. How would they
>> ignore a requirement to show ID and submit to a background check?
>
>By getting them from there family, friends, street and other illegal
>sources. Was that really so hard?

Aha! Like straw purchases? And where to the "other illegal sources"
source THEIR guns? Like, straw purchases? And thefts from nightstands
and walnut-and-glass gun cabinets?

>
>> The object, once again, is to start closing doors on them.
>
>And, as noted several times, I have no problem with a UBC. Why don't you
>drop it since even you are smart enough, I think, to understand where I
>stand on that subject.

I do know where you stand. And you appear to stand nowhere on
squeezing off straw purchases. According to ATF and FBI sources,
they're the primary source of guns for criminals.

Do you just accept them and let it go? I've been asking you this
question for weeks. All I get in response is "tighten up existing
laws." How?

>
>>>>>>>Do you think we should try and reduce the availability of guns
>>>>>>>in, say, Somalis, by taking them away from our folks? Mexico
>>>>>>>doesn't allow its citizens to own guns freely. There is only one
>>>>>>>gun store in Mexico. It is in Mexico City and run by the Mexican
>>>>>>>army. How is that working out for reducing violence?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're creating red herrings and strawmen. Nobody is keeping you
>>>>>> from buying guns. The effort is to keep criminals and nuts from
>>>>>> buying guns.
>>>>>
>>>>>The effort is to keep me and any other honest citizen from buying an
>>>>>AR15. Or an SKS. Or a AK knockoff.
>>>>
>>>> The only one that's likely to pass is a law that will keep criminals
>>>> and institutionalized nutbags from buying guns.
>>>
>>>And that is which one, Ed? UBC?
>>
>> Even that's questionable now. So you have NO laws to worry about.
>
>Good. Now, maybe we can concentrate on the real reasons for violence.
>
>>>>>>> They've blocked a million
>>>>>>>> or two of them from buying from FFLs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Oh? They have had a million or two denials which is about 1 or 2%
>>>>>>>of the applications and most of them either go through on an
>>>>>>>appeal or are dropped in lieu of being sent for any prosecution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll live with a million or two. It beats what we'd have with your
>>>>>> plan, eh?
>>>>>
>>>>>What plan is that you are commenting on? The only plan I have
>>>>>really pushed for deals with mental illness, slum conditions, gang
>>>>>culture, absentee parents, opportunity opportunities and education
>>>>>in dense urban areas.
>>>>
>>>> So that's how you're going to decide who gets guns? Your gun crime
>>>> plan sounds to me like one that will let any criminal or nutcase
>>>> continue to buy guns from private sellers.
>>>
>>>IOW, you want the senseless crimes to simply continue without doing
>>>anything about any of them unless they were committed with a gun?
>>
>> It's pretty hard to shoot someone without a gun, senseless or not. And
>> I don't see mass killers taking up archery.
>
>In other words, you care about mass shootings because it is little white
>kids and not hispanics or blacks in Chicago? You only care about mass
>shooters which are comparatively rare compared to the normal weekend
>outings in Detroit or Los Angeles?
>
>>>>>>> From 2006 to 2010,
>>>>>>>they failed to refer about 80% of the denials to the field for any
>>>>>>>investigation. They came up with a total of 273 for prosecution
>>>>>>>in 2006, 196 in 2007, 147 in 2008, 140 in 2009 and 62 in 2010. Of
>>>>>>>those, only 209 ended with a guilty plea or a guilty verdict.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, a million or two million stopped sounds like a step in the
>>>>>> right direction.
>>>>>
>>>>>Except they weren't all stopped. A couple hundred thousand of them
>>>>>went right through after the appeal process.
>>>>
>>>> If they win on appeal, the chance is good they were Ok.
>>>
>>>Yep, but the numbers used were like the ones you used just above that
>>>comment. They were from the initial purchase attempt and don't
>>>include retries, appeals, etc..
>>
>> You don't say why they were denied in the first place.
>
>Correct.....neither did you.
>
>Some were
>> errors. I'm sure that many are hard to prosecute. And the federal
>> attorneys can't even prosecute all of the serious crimes now, let
>> alone prosecuting someone with a mental health background who tried to
>> buy a rifle.
>
>Tha vast majority of those denials never got referred for investigation.
>
>>>>>>>Now, if people would get serious
>>>>>>>> about duplicating that system for individual sales, maybe you'd
>>>>>>>> block a lot more. There's no reason to believe otherwise, based
>>>>>>>> on the stats with the existing NICS system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Have you looked at all the stats?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not recently, but I have in the past.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have the figures from studies of the 2006 through 2010 enforcement
>>>>>of the Brady Act.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyone too lazy to do a little
>>>>>>>>>> paperwork to certify their saneness and honesty is too
>>>>>>>>>> irresponsible to buy a gun.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Hmmmm, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty via due
>>>>>>>>>process?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Whatever happened to responsibility? And what would constitute
>>>>>>>> "guilt" under the NICS system? It's trying to buy a gun when
>>>>>>>> you're not qualified. If gun owners won't participate in that
>>>>>>>> system, and help in the process of blocking illegal sales, then
>>>>>>>> screw 'em.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As I have said before, I don't have a problem with a universal
>>>>>>>background check. I have a problem with what folks like Schumer
>>>>>>>wish to do with it. I also have a bit of a problem with having to
>>>>>>>background check my brother to give him a gun or to have to
>>>>>>>background check someone who wishes to shoot one of my guns at the
>>>>>>>range or someone I loan a deer rifle to during hunting season.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Why are you placing the workload on Joe Citizen to prove his
>>>>>>>>>innocence?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What's the alternative? To trust everyone? Criminals are all so
>>>>>>>> trustworthy, right? There's no need to distinguish them from
>>>>>>>> honest gun owners....not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The point is that they won't obey whatever laws are passed in the
>>>>>>>first place. No matter how effective the laws are with honest
>>>>>>>folks, it won't be with the criminal set.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You keep avoiding the point. If you have the right laws, they
>>>>>> can't dodge them. They get caught.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then fix the laws that address the criminals so that they can be
>>>>>enforced and do some good. You don't need new laws until you fix
>>>>>the existing ones.
>>>>
>>>> The first one to fix is the nonsense that imposes NICS checks at gun
>>>> dealers and pawn shops, and then lets any felon or loon go buy one
>>>> at a gun show.
>>>
>>>I agree.....so fix it. However, I don't expect the same spectacular
>>>results you do. As I have said, I have no problem with UBC itself.
>>>
>>>> Then we have to get serious about dealing with straw purchasers.
>
>Go for it. Start with the ATF. Or do you think they learned their
>lesson with F&F?

I think that F&F has nothing whatever to do with straw purchases by
criminals that feed the criminal market.

--
Ed Huntress

RD Sandman

4/16/2013 10:27:00 PM

Ed Huntress <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in
news:r4hrm8p405b301nhifr34sh8b0ckrpu19l@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:18:24 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Ed Huntress <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in
>>news:sgkpm8hgjof0m17iia98kqf4bn6timbklk@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:49:46 -0500, RD Sandman
>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>SNIP....
>>
>>> As for varmints, I've shot a LOT of varmint rifles and owned a few,
>>> and so don't try to lay no steenking 0.015-sec lock time on me and
>>> call that firestick a "varmint gun." Not where I've hunted varmints,
>>> where no one I hunted with would take a shot within 150 yards. You
>>> just didn't do it.
>>>
>>> Shooting ground squirrels or other pests in your back yard, maybe.
>>> That isn't what I mean by "varmint hunting."
>>
>>What I meant was javelina, bobcats and coyotes.
>>
>>>>> They have a minor use in service-rifle competition, which is what
>>>>> I defended vigorously when I was lobbying on behalf of our state
>>>>> NRA affiliate in the early '90s. But that's about it. Beyond that,
>>>>> they're toys.
>>>>
>>>>Work quite well on coyotes and Coues Whitetails. I wouldn't use one
>>>>on a muley or an elk, but......
>>>>
>>>>> Just like the single-shot rifles I used to shoot in ASSRA matches.
>>>>> They're toys, too. Like a lot of left-handed shooters, I have a
>>>>> warm spot for the things -- I used one to hunt javelina in Arizona
>>>>> -- but they're really just toys.
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone should have access to the toys he wants and can afford
>>>>> unless there is some strong reason to prohibit them. And I believe
>>>>> there are strong reasons to re-classify ARs, at least, as Class 3
>>>>> weapons.
>>>>
>>>>I don't. Unlike you I don't think that the current problems are due
>>>>to the firearms. I think they are due to the asshole shooting those
>>>>very few of them. Even most of the mass shootings are done with
>>>>handguns not AR15s, or SKSs or AK clones.
>>>
>>> This must be our third go-around on this, but I also consider the
>>> other people in this country we live in. ARs are bad ju-ju. They
>>> attract pests and crackpots and they look like death rays. They're
>>> bad for gun culture in general, and their use in these mass killings
>>> has exacerbated the problem they cause for us by tenfold. They're
>>> like Ben Hur hubcaps, monster trucks on the Interstate, and giving
>>> your teacher crotchless underwear for Christmas.
>>
>>Hmmm, I have had a couple of them. I haven't turned out too bad. One
>>was a Ruger 556 and the other was a Daniel Defense lower, with a
>>Daniel Defense upper in 5.56 and an Alexander Arms 6.5 Grendel upper.
>>The 6.5 is a neat weapon with a 6 power scope.
>>
>>>> I
>>>>> don't know of any strong reason to prohibit falling-block rifles.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's not much of a man-killer except in terms of gun mechanics
>>>>>>>>> and statistics. In other words, the basic design is calibrated
>>>>>>>>> to kill a LOT of men -- or at least to improve your casualty
>>>>>>>>> numbers. If you want to kill ONE man, you'll do better with a
>>>>>>>>> lot more power and forget the big magazine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There is a big difference between being a foot soldier in a
>>>>>>>>normal combat scenario and being a sniper. They also use
>>>>>>>>different weaponry, although sometimes they change roles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want to kill someone, don't pick a .223 unless you plan
>>>>>>> to shoot him multiple times. That's the point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I doubt Lanza deliberately picked a .223 as the right cartridge.
>>>>>>I suspect that an AR looks more like he saw in the video games and
>>>>>>.223 cartridges happened to be the ones that fit it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, who needs video games? TV and movies have burned that image
>>>>> into practically everyone in the country.
>>>>
>>>>Partly because reports say that is how Lanza spent a lot of his idle
>>>>time. That is why it is being mentioned currently.
>>>
>>> There sure are a lot of amateur psychologists around, aren't there?
>>> I never thought much of it as a hobby.
>>
>>YOU seem to be trying quite a bit of it by placing motives on people.
>>Why does it bother when others do the same thing?
>>
>>>> That's why there's so much
>>>>> antipathy for them. You may recall that more than half of the
>>>>> adults in the country wanted to ban them just a couple of months
>>>>> ago.
>>>>
>>>>So? They fucked up and couldn't get it together while the bodies
>>>>were still warm.
>>>
>>> No. Most people are just not single-issue voters. Gun nutz, like
>>> anti-abortionists, are single-issue voters. As a result, gun nutz
>>> can get their way even when very large majorities oppose their
>>> positions.
>>
>>Not that you would be biased like your language usage indicates. Not
>>you....
>
> I'm not a single-issue voter. I'm nearly at the opposite extreme.

Then there should be no reason for you to post using prejorative terms to
discuss gun owners, although many of them do vote on single issues. That
is their right. Some tend to feel that is a candidate or politician
doesn't trust them with a gun, why should they trust him or her with
their country?

SNIP.....

>>> Arizona's law on private sales is instructive. Here's how it could
>>> go: [seller] "Are you an Arizona resident?" [buyer] "Sure." [seller]
>>> "Are you under 18 or a prohibited person?" [buyer] "Nope." [seller]
>>> "OK, here's your handgun."
>>
>>Except that federal law places the age to purchase a handgun at 21.
>>You scenario works much better if it is about a rifle or shotgun.
>>
>>> No ID required. No bill of sale. No record of any kind. And that's a
>>> legal sale.
>>
>>Nope.....look at the federal age requirment for purchase.
>
> That's only from FFLs. Age for private sales is up to the state.
In AZ, it's 18 for any type of gun. And you don't have to prove your age
> in a private sale in AZ; you just declare to the seller that you are
> 18 and not an "unqualified person." Heh, heh...

That's true.

>>> This fits philosophically with the statutory law in Arizona, which
>>> allows ANYONE to carry openly or concealed, without a permit.
>>
>>Yep, it is known as "constitutional carry". There are a couple of
>>reasons for getting an Arizona CCW, however. One, it allows you to
>>dine in a restaurant that serves alcohol (although you cannot
>>participate) and it allows reciprocity with other states. I have no
>>problem with it although a CCW is still needed for a sword cane.
>>
>> It must
>>> give the felons and the schizophrenics some peace of mind.
>>
>>They know a lot people are armed.
>>
>>> So, how do you want to "stiffen" these existing laws, RD?
>>
>>They also don't affect federal ones, Ed, but then you knew that.....I
>>hope.
>>
>>>>>>>> You're forgetting that they're aimed at
>>>>>>>>> reducing availability to criminals and nuts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, I don't forget that, however, they are trying to do it by
>>>>>>>>limiting what guns I can have and I am not the problem. I'm one
>>>>>>>>of the good guys.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good for you. Now, how about all of the other people who operate
>>>>>>> under the same laws that you do? Like, criminals?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Criminals operate under whatever laws they wish to at the time or
>>>>>>none of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, when they go to buy a gun at a gun shop, they just say "The
>>>>> NICS check doesn't apply to me"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Get serious, RD. You keep repeating the same nonsense response.
>>>>
>>>>Most criminals don't get them from gun shops, Ed. Even you have
>>>>been stating that. They get them from family, friends, the street
>>>>or other illegal sources.
>>>
>>> But you keep saying the criminals ignore the laws. How would they
>>> ignore a requirement to show ID and submit to a background check?
>>
>>By getting them from there family, friends, street and other illegal
>>sources. Was that really so hard?
>
> Aha! Like straw purchases? And where to the "other illegal sources"
> source THEIR guns? Like, straw purchases? And thefts from nightstands
> and walnut-and-glass gun cabinets?

Sometimes. Some times it is simply being given one by a relative or
friend. Street and other illegal source is straw purchasers, stolen
items, guns on the black market.

>>> The object, once again, is to start closing doors on them.
>>
>>And, as noted several times, I have no problem with a UBC. Why don't
>>you drop it since even you are smart enough, I think, to understand
>>where I stand on that subject.
>
> I do know where you stand. And you appear to stand nowhere on
> squeezing off straw purchases. According to ATF and FBI sources,
> they're the primary source of guns for criminals.

I haven't discussed straw purchase with you. I have been too busy
repeating the discussion on UBC.

> Do you just accept them and let it go? I've been asking you this
> question for weeks. All I get in response is "tighten up existing
> laws." How?

Not quite. Be honest or forget about it. I get tired of having to go
over the same stuff over and over and I would imagine you do too.

>>>>>>>>Do you think we should try and reduce the availability of guns
>>>>>>>>in, say, Somalis, by taking them away from our folks? Mexico
>>>>>>>>doesn't allow its citizens to own guns freely. There is only
>>>>>>>>one gun store in Mexico. It is in Mexico City and run by the
>>>>>>>>Mexican army. How is that working out for reducing violence?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're creating red herrings and strawmen. Nobody is keeping you
>>>>>>> from buying guns. The effort is to keep criminals and nuts from
>>>>>>> buying guns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The effort is to keep me and any other honest citizen from buying
>>>>>>an AR15. Or an SKS. Or a AK knockoff.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only one that's likely to pass is a law that will keep
>>>>> criminals and institutionalized nutbags from buying guns.
>>>>
>>>>And that is which one, Ed? UBC?
>>>
>>> Even that's questionable now. So you have NO laws to worry about.
>>
>>Good. Now, maybe we can concentrate on the real reasons for violence.
>>
>>>>>>>> They've blocked a million
>>>>>>>>> or two of them from buying from FFLs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Oh? They have had a million or two denials which is about 1 or
>>>>>>>>2% of the applications and most of them either go through on an
>>>>>>>>appeal or are dropped in lieu of being sent for any prosecution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll live with a million or two. It beats what we'd have with
>>>>>>> your plan, eh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What plan is that you are commenting on? The only plan I have
>>>>>>really pushed for deals with mental illness, slum conditions, gang
>>>>>>culture, absentee parents, opportunity opportunities and education
>>>>>>in dense urban areas.
>>>>>
>>>>> So that's how you're going to decide who gets guns? Your gun crime
>>>>> plan sounds to me like one that will let any criminal or nutcase
>>>>> continue to buy guns from private sellers.
>>>>
>>>>IOW, you want the senseless crimes to simply continue without doing
>>>>anything about any of them unless they were committed with a gun?
>>>
>>> It's pretty hard to shoot someone without a gun, senseless or not.
>>> And I don't see mass killers taking up archery.
>>
>>In other words, you care about mass shootings because it is little
>>white kids and not hispanics or blacks in Chicago? You only care
>>about mass shooters which are comparatively rare compared to the
>>normal weekend outings in Detroit or Los Angeles?
>>
>>>>>>>> From 2006 to 2010,
>>>>>>>>they failed to refer about 80% of the denials to the field for
>>>>>>>>any investigation. They came up with a total of 273 for
>>>>>>>>prosecution in 2006, 196 in 2007, 147 in 2008, 140 in 2009 and
>>>>>>>>62 in 2010. Of those, only 209 ended with a guilty plea or a
>>>>>>>>guilty verdict.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, a million or two million stopped sounds like a step in
>>>>>>> the right direction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Except they weren't all stopped. A couple hundred thousand of
>>>>>>them went right through after the appeal process.
>>>>>
>>>>> If they win on appeal, the chance is good they were Ok.
>>>>
>>>>Yep, but the numbers used were like the ones you used just above
>>>>that comment. They were from the initial purchase attempt and don't
>>>>include retries, appeals, etc..
>>>
>>> You don't say why they were denied in the first place.
>>
>>Correct.....neither did you.
>>
>>Some were
>>> errors. I'm sure that many are hard to prosecute. And the federal
>>> attorneys can't even prosecute all of the serious crimes now, let
>>> alone prosecuting someone with a mental health background who tried
>>> to buy a rifle.
>>
>>Tha vast majority of those denials never got referred for
>>investigation.
>>
>>>>>>>>Now, if people would get serious
>>>>>>>>> about duplicating that system for individual sales, maybe
>>>>>>>>> you'd block a lot more. There's no reason to believe
>>>>>>>>> otherwise, based on the stats with the existing NICS system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Have you looked at all the stats?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not recently, but I have in the past.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have the figures from studies of the 2006 through 2010
>>>>>>enforcement of the Brady Act.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Anyone too lazy to do a little
>>>>>>>>>>> paperwork to certify their saneness and honesty is too
>>>>>>>>>>> irresponsible to buy a gun.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Hmmmm, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty via
>>>>>>>>>>due process?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Whatever happened to responsibility? And what would constitute
>>>>>>>>> "guilt" under the NICS system? It's trying to buy a gun when
>>>>>>>>> you're not qualified. If gun owners won't participate in that
>>>>>>>>> system, and help in the process of blocking illegal sales,
>>>>>>>>> then screw 'em.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>As I have said before, I don't have a problem with a universal
>>>>>>>>background check. I have a problem with what folks like Schumer
>>>>>>>>wish to do with it. I also have a bit of a problem with having
>>>>>>>>to background check my brother to give him a gun or to have to
>>>>>>>>background check someone who wishes to shoot one of my guns at
>>>>>>>>the range or someone I loan a deer rifle to during hunting
>>>>>>>>season.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Why are you placing the workload on Joe Citizen to prove his
>>>>>>>>>>innocence?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What's the alternative? To trust everyone? Criminals are all
>>>>>>>>> so trustworthy, right? There's no need to distinguish them
>>>>>>>>> from honest gun owners....not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The point is that they won't obey whatever laws are passed in
>>>>>>>>the first place. No matter how effective the laws are with
>>>>>>>>honest folks, it won't be with the criminal set.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You keep avoiding the point. If you have the right laws, they
>>>>>>> can't dodge them. They get caught.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then fix the laws that address the criminals so that they can be
>>>>>>enforced and do some good. You don't need new laws until you fix
>>>>>>the existing ones.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first one to fix is the nonsense that imposes NICS checks at
>>>>> gun dealers and pawn shops, and then lets any felon or loon go buy
>>>>> one at a gun show.
>>>>
>>>>I agree.....so fix it. However, I don't expect the same spectacular
>>>>results you do. As I have said, I have no problem with UBC itself.
>>>>
>>>>> Then we have to get serious about dealing with straw purchasers.
>>
>>Go for it. Start with the ATF. Or do you think they learned their
>>lesson with F&F?
>
> I think that F&F has nothing whatever to do with straw purchases by
> criminals that feed the criminal market.

It was a snide remark on my part but was true there for awhile.

--

Democracy means that anyone can grow up to be President,

And anyone who doesn't grow up can be Vice President.

Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

comp.lang.ruby

with and without initialize method

Li Chen

dblack

Li Chen

Ed Huntress

RD Sandman

Ed Huntress

RD Sandman

x Login to ForumsZone