Guns will protect you from tsunamis.

[tw]

Originally Posted by wolf

More legal firearms reduce the crime rates.

I assure you that the young men who are pointing Glocks sideways at each other aren't legal owners.

So then you do agree the ownership of a firearm with responsibility - just like a driver’s license - is a good thing. Problem is that MaggieL posts all ownership of guns means less violent crime. Maybe she wants to clarify that because her current posts imply wide open and unrestricted ownership of guns means less crime.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

Problem is that MaggieL posts all ownership of guns means less violent crime.

Please cite an example where I said *all* gun ownership means less violent crime (or accept the "liar" label you so delight in trying to hang on others).

I do maintain *legal* gun ownership means less violent crime.

Legal gun ownership does *not* include

-- concealed carry without a permit in jurisdictions where a permit is required,

-- use of a firearm in comission of a felony,or posession of firearms by those not legally qualiied to posess them: convicted felons, those to whom firearms are prohibited as a condition of their probation

-- handgun posession by anyone under 21.

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I do maintain *legal* gun ownership means less violent crime.

Legal gun ownership does *not* include

-- concealed carry without a permit in jurisdictions where a permit is required,

-- use of a firearm in comission of a felony,or posession of firearms by those not legally qualiied to posess them: convicted felons, those to whom firearms are prohibited as a condition of their probation

-- handgun posession by anyone under 21.

So then you are in favor of gun control.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

So then you are in favor of gun control.

No.

Let's dispose of the *last* time you misquoted me before you put even more words in my mouth. Where's your cite where I said *all* gun posession reduces crime? Or don't you have one?

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I do maintain *legal* gun ownership means less violent crime.

Legal gun ownership does *not* include

-- concealed carry without a permit in jurisdictions where a permit is required,

-- use of a firearm in comission of a felony,or posession of firearms by those not legally qualiied to posess them: convicted felons, those to whom firearms are prohibited as a condition of their probation

-- handgun posession by anyone under 21.

Originally Posted by tw

So then you are in favor of gun control.

Originally Posted by MaggieL

No.

MaggieL posts justifications for Gun Control. Then denies she approves of gun control. Obviously a paradox. She previously advocated free access to guns by all. Now she says we should restrict who has access to guns? Which is it MaggieL? Either you advocate gun control or you advocate unrestricted access to guns. They are mutually exclusive. Which is it? How can you advocate restrictions on gun access and then not support gun control? They are same thing. And they both contradict your open opposition to gun control. How do you explain that contradiction?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

Either you advocate gun control or you advocate unrestricted access to guns. They are mutually exclusive. Which is it? How can you advocate restrictions on gun access and then not support gun control? They are same thing. And they both contradict your open opposition to gun control. How do you explain that contradiction?

I don't advocate "gun control". I simply don't particularly strongly to the current Federal law on who may possess a handgun: over 21 and non-ex-felon.

At the same time, I wouldn't particularly object to removing the restriction for ex-felons (except when it has been imposed as a condition of parole). I don't object to the law forbidding children to posess handguns other than under the currently provided conditions of adult supervision, but if you call that "gun control" then you're using the term in a highly unconventional way; children are not allowed to posess alcohol or buy tobacco but nobody calles that "prohibition".

Or you're trolling. Again.

Now quit your blustering and post your cite where I said "all* firearms posession reduces crime...your continued failure to do so will be a tacit admission that you deliberately misquoted me again.

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I don't advocate "gun control". I simply don't particularly strongly to the current Federal law on who may possess a handgun: over 21 and non-ex-felon.

At the same time, I wouldn't particularly object to removing the restriction for ex-felons (except when it has been imposed as a condition of parole). I don't object to the law forbidding children to posess handguns other than under the currently provided conditions of adult supervision, but if you call that "gun control" then you're using the term in a highly unconventional way; children are not allowed to posess alcohol or buy tobacco but nobody calles that "prohibition".

Gun Control is restrictions on

-- concealed carry without a permit in jurisdictions where a permit is required,

-- use of a firearm in comission of a felony,or posession of firearms by those not legally qualiied to posess them: convicted felons, those to whom firearms are prohibited as a condition of their probation

-- handgun posession by anyone under 21.

Nothing unconventional about it. That has always been called gun control. MaggieL says she is opposed to gun control when just yesterday, MaggieL approved of gun control.

So how do we reconcile MaggieL's opposition with when she posted yesterday? Apparently MaggieL wants us to believe that Rush Limbaugh lie that gun control means removing all guns. Classic fear tactics? Apparently MaggieL has a Rush Limbaugh interpretation.

When confronted to provide facts and details, well, MaggieL really does approve of gun control. It is the expression (a phrase hyped as evil in Rush Limbaugh propaganda) that she fears.

MaggieL approves of gun control. She approves of restrictions on 155 mm howitzers. She does not approve of "posession of firearms by those not legally qualiied to posess them". And she admits to all this while kicking and screaming - pretending to be opposed. It is called gun control not matter how she denies the phrase. MaggieL has approved of 'gun control' – once we eliminate hype and fear from Rush Limbaugh lies and propaganda.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by tw

MaggieL posts justifications for Gun Control.

Crime control, not gun control, tw.

[tw]

Originally Posted by wolf

Crime control, not gun control, tw.

Crime control, according to MaggieL, is more guns, carry permits, etc. MaggieL says that more guns on the street means less crime. UG calls it a fully loaded automatic weapon over every mantle. That was defined as Crime Control.

Gun control is restructions on guns such as

-- concealed carry without a permit in jurisdictions where a permit is required,

-- use of a firearm in comission of a felony,or posession of firearms by those not legally qualiied to posess them: convicted felons, those to whom firearms are prohibited as a condition of their probation

-- handgun posession by anyone under 21.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by tw

So then you are in favor of gun control.

Only in the sense of Ringer's Paradox -- and in the using of both hands for the worthwhile sort of gun control: that which puts all your rounds downrange, inside the ten-ring, and at least half cutting the X-ring.

It is to be hoped, tw, that you will conquer your massive ignorance of guns and gun law to come around to the side of the angels. You, of course, will try and dash this hope, for the simple, but bad, reason that it's me telling you. (Vulcan, shmulcan.)