Re: Re: Gun Insurance
By: JIMMY ANDERSON to DUMAS WALKER on Tue Jan 10 2023 01:19 pm
DUMAS WALKER wrote to WEATHERMAN <=-
@VIA: CAPCITY2
@MSGID: <63BC8861.2382.dove-gun@capitolcityonline.net>
@REPLY: <63BBDEC1.670.dove-firearms@tlcbbs.synchro.net>
Nothing has changed, hand-and-foot still outpaces firearms. And don't
forget
that the lowly handgun accounts for far more deaths than that scary and deadly-looking AR-15 (or ANY rifle forthat matter).
I have always suspected that they are going after rifles more lately because they figured out that their private body guards are more likely to carry a handgun and they don't want to have to give the body guards up.
"They" in this case being celebrities and politicians.
Well - that, and they have to start somewhere...
... Deja Tue: A feeling that yesterday was Monday ...
While creating the National Firearms Act of 1934, a complete ban on handguns was on the list. Other countries followed suit so subjects can only own full length single shot shotgun or single shot rifles. Resistance to a complete handgun ban was very strong. I know anti-gun folks who think owning a
handgun for home use is fine, while long guns are terrible. If the firearm ne ver left the home, size would not be important. The law being put into effect's emphasis was on concealed firearms carried by criminals, and long gun s being cut down so they could be carried concealed under long coats. Suppressors got thrown in not because gangsters owned them. They were more co ncerned about poachers tresapassing and not getting caught.
---
þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net