F430murci

Seriously, your knowledge is limited to you ability to google. My knowledge is predicated upon 37 years of surfing and know perhaps 100s of marine biologists who have studied sharks their whole life and ask, the people commonly in the water with them, how they act. Please, stop reading Google and thinking wow I am an expert.

Top ten recorded shark attack deaths by species at URL below.

Bull Shark unprovoked attacks on 82 humans, killing 25 people

Great White unprovoked attacks on 237 humans, killing 65 people

So roughly the same kill ratios of attacks causing death

http://www.top10stop...ssive-predators

Sorry, this is bad info. I live in Bull Shark capital of the world, Florida. On a stretch of east coast between Jackson and Palm Beach, particularly NSB with highest rate of attacks, we have a lot of Bull Shark attacks with very few leading to deaths. Most are just minor hits. You are dealing with bad info. Just check out highest shark attack beaches, but almost zero deaths. I can quote you Bullshark deaths in last 20 years in US if you like. I would sat less than one percent die from Bullshark hits, although they are very aggressive and more prevalent than white sharks.

http://oceana.org/en...tack-statistics

Figures are recorded worldwide attacks, but nearly the same stats from the Florida Museum of Natural History, or do you wish to also argue their numbers?

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/statistics/species3.htm

Haha, if you want to believe Bullshark attacks are as deadly as whiteshark attacks so be it. But it ain't true. You are dealing with confirmed attack statics. I am dealing with reality. Haha, if you thing a five foot bull shark sttack is as vicious as as 20 foot great white, that is your prerogative.

I cited figures that said 1 out of 110 dies from Bullshark in Florida.

An off-topic post has been deleted.

I believe it is a clot, not an aneurysm.

clot / concussion = cover story for a more serious condition... aneurism ... regardless of what any American media source reports.(in my opinion)

I am sure that one from a thousand plus mikes away can diagnosis her condition better than those actually treating her in person.

Top ten recorded shark attack deaths by species at URL below.

Bull Shark unprovoked attacks on 82 humans, killing 25 people

Great White unprovoked attacks on 237 humans, killing 65 people

So roughly the same kill ratios of attacks causing death

http://www.top10stop...ssive-predators

Sorry, this is bad info. I live in Bull Shark capital of the world, Florida. On a stretch of east coast between Jackson and Palm Beach, particularly NSB with highest rate of attacks, we have a lot of Bull Shark attacks with very few leading to deaths. Most are just minor hits. You are dealing with bad info. Just check out highest shark attack beaches, but almost zero deaths. I can quote you Bullshark deaths in last 20 years in US if you like. I would sat less than one percent die from Bullshark hits, although they are very aggressive and more prevalent than white sharks.

http://oceana.org/en/our-work/protect-marine-wildlife/sharks/learn-act/shark-attack-statistics

If you want to point out the things you are wrong on that makes me doubt, I can do it. If you really want me to, that is.

Yes, with Lopez and Heller. First point out how I am wrong about how insertion of the guns affect interstate commerce clause language did not apparently fix Looez issues and grant Federal ability to legislate gun control.

Reread Scalia's opinion in Heller. You are seriously misinterpreting what he said in that opinion . . . Haha, this is a prime example why lay people should never attempt to practice law by representing themselves.

Dude, seriously, let it go. You're not a lawyer, just some guy on an anonymous forum claiming to be. Fine, whatever floats your boat. But everything that you've claimed in this thread, legal wise, is just not correct.

Point out one legal inaccuracy of something I have said with reference to back that up. I cited xxxxxx statute with language that Reno inserted to circumvent the Lopez decision. Not only am I lawyer, I have clerked for a Supreme Court so I have a bit of experience in statutory interpretation and constitutional issues as that as 80 + percent of what a Supreme Court does.

Watching too much National Geo though I agree that most attacks are mistaken identity.

It's "Shark week on the Discovery Channel" thank you very much. And just because some people think it is the same great white shark, doesn't mean that it is so. If you're saying there are great whites in the area and multiple sharks make multiple attacks, that I can get. If you're saying (or anyone else saying) that it's one rogue great white eating surfers I just find that hard to believe.

Not me. Just quoting experts and eyewitness accounts of Perth attacks. Bite patterns, size from witnesses and etc. Not uncommon to get large rowues every now and then and like guy I quoted above, great whites know what they are biting and many go back second and third bite.

Read articles I cited although those were the first to pop up on Google so easy to find.

Submaniac:

Haha, cool your jets. I never read past about sentence 2 or 3 of any post.

Reread Scalia's opinion in Heller. You are seriously misinterpreting what he said in that opinion . . . Haha, this is a prime example why lay people should never attempt to practice law by representing themselves.

You're not the only one on this forum with a law degree and a license to practice...and I actually went to better law schools than you did.

Haha, I never mentioned where I went to law school and I don't measure myself or others by where they attended school. I measure by performance and success in the courtroom. My firm has had plenty of Harvard grads not making the cut after being here a year or so . . . Something about book sense not equating common sense.

Another good measure I use when hiring lawyers is an ability to read and apply case law. You really miss it on Lopez. Why not look at Janet Reno's proposed changes to statute in response to Lopez and see how easily Feds can handle commerce issue. I am a Civil Rico lawyer. Civil RICO requires a degree of impact on or engagement in interstate commerce so I am no neophyte to this area of law. Guns are easy as the vast majority of guns or component parts thereof move through interstate commerce at some point.

This addition of the 5 highlighted words was all that was necessary to overcome the Lopez case you keep citing:

(q)(1) The Congress finds and declares that -

(A) crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns, is a

pervasive, nationwide problem;

( crime at the local level is exacerbated by the interstate

movement of drugs, guns, and criminal gangs;

© firearms and ammunition move easily in interstate commerce

and have been found in increasing numbers in and around schools,

as documented in numerous hearings in both the Committee on the

Judiciary (!3) the House of Representatives and the Committee on

the Judiciary of the Senate;

You also misread Heller. Scalia was very specific in Heller and the holding was very concise. Scalia, in dicta, contemplated that only certain limited types of weapons may be within the ambit of or protected by the Second Amendment. Scalia is Heller and publically has consistently articulated that the 18th century framers of the constitution permitted bans on certain types of weapons leaving door wide open for gun control.

Perhaps deny roque and save tourism . . . Perhaps research a bit before . . .

http://www.watoday.c...1022-1mdhu.html

"Fears are building that a "rogue shark" is prowling WA's southwest coast as the hunt intensifies for the great white which fatally mauled an American tourist at Rottnest Island on Saturday."

http://au.news.yahoo...feared-killers/

He believes it is possible one "rogue" shark was involved in the recent deaths, particularly those in metropolitan waters.

Edwards believes this intelligence means a great white shark does not, as is often suggested, mistake humans for their favourite food - seals.

"I'm sure that great white sharks are very intelligent and I'm sure they know all about us," he said.

"They know what we are. When we are taken, it's not a mistake.

Read more: http://www.watoday.c...l#ixzz2GdiIfhrt

http://www.perthnow....u-1226173885712

"AUTHORITIES issued a catch-to-kill order to destroy a rogue shark just one hour after an American man was mauled to death while diving off Rottnest Island today."

<deleted>!! He swam in there home expect to get eaten!!

Haha, that's definitely one way of looking at it . . . Surfing is my passion and I have a love for fascination for sharks. I have seen a wholoe lot of them andI have seen people on beach after minor shark attacks. A friend of mine at NSB got hit in the forearm in 2011 not 300 yards from me during hurricane Irene. dam_n jellies bother me worse and some of the jellies in Australia are very troublesome.

Point is, I was at Ship Sterns off Tasmania with a couple of "mates" about a year ago who were from Western Australia talking about Perth incidents. Pretty much everyone there believes it is or was a roque.

Bullsharks are very aggressive also, but at least their bite is usually limited to limbs or appendages. Great whites tend to take parts of the torso.

I hope Hillary recovers, I really do. I did not like her one bit as First Lady. I can understand why Bill would cheat on her. Snaking into a Senate seat in New York where she never lived was typical. BUT...since then I think she has been one of the better statesmen/women we've had. Unlike some, she has put in the time and had years of experience in gov't and was infinitely more deserving for the nomination in 2008.

That said, "naive" is the polite word to describe people who didn't see anything suspicious in her suddenly having an illness and concussion right before she was to testify. A condition so bad she never even needed to go to the hospital? It appears now that maybe she should have gone to the hospital in the first place. That is IF the clot is even connected to the mystery concussion. As someone has already posted, she has traveled one heckuva lot and that could be the real cause. If it is related, her doctors should be out of work by tomorrow morning.

In any case, I wish her well. My brother died from a blood clot last year that had gone undetected. Hillary at least has a better chance.

Wow, especially like the part about knowing why Bill would cheat on her since you have spent so much time with her. Aliens, the whole lot of them bydammit, better get my gun.

Perhaps deny roque and save tourism . . . Perhaps research a bit before . . .

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/shark-attack-police-name-victim-20111022-1mdhu.html

"Fears are building that a "rogue shark" is prowling WA's southwest coast as the hunt intensifies for the great white which fatally mauled an American tourist at Rottnest Island on Saturday."

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/13103258/life-with-seas-feared-killers/

He believes it is possible one "rogue" shark was involved in the recent deaths, particularly those in metropolitan waters.

Edwards believes this intelligence means a great white shark does not, as is often suggested, mistake humans for their favourite food - seals.

"I'm sure that great white sharks are very intelligent and I'm sure they know all about us," he said.

"They know what we are. When we are taken, it's not a mistake.

Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/shark-attack-police-name-victim-20111022-1mdhu.html#ixzz2GdiIfhrt

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/shark-attack-in-rotto/story-e6frg13u-1226173885712

"AUTHORITIES issued a catch-to-kill order to destroy a rogue shark just one hour after an American man was mauled to death while diving off Rottnest Island today."

Because it sounds like the plot of "jaws" where one shark preys on helpless swimmers. Usually shark attacks on humans are by the shark mistaking the surfer for a sea lion or other food. Or the shark is just investigating by biting the surfer. Sharks don't turn humans into they're favorite type of prey. Humans compared to sea lions are not real nutritional to sharks. We fit a lot of bone and relatively little blubber

Watching too much National Geo though I agree that most attacks are mistaken identity. There have been documented accounts of multiple attacks and kills by same shark though we usually offer excuses for the same or behavior patterns.

I guess we have some human behaviour psychologists that speak shark interviewing these killer sharks after they are caught, but before they die.

Perth has a problem in the form of a roque man eater that has gotten multiple victims in last year or so. Bull sharks a bit easier to fend off than the big white patrolling waters in Perth area.

Ridiculous post. Complete nonsense.

<deleted>? There has been five killed in Perth area this year and most attribute it to the same shark. I have surfed all my life, turned pro at 16, and still big wave surf, go to and have many friends in Australia. I have seen many whites surfing J-Bay, Supertube, Boneyards, Dungeons and etc. in Sotuh Africa and don't make big deals about sharks. Seen many in waters all over the world and even saw 25 shadow in 90 or 91 off Pauley's Island day after two Russians got attacked and eaten.

In Perth, I recall a swimmer getting munched completely (found only suit) on Rottnest on North side, a swimmer off boat in cove just down the beach on the North side a few weeks later got eaten, a young surfergot killed on south side, and diver got killed a few miles South of Perth and his brother was there and saw shark. I cannot remember 5th, but you can easily look it up.

Perth has a problem in the form of a roque man eater that has gotten multiple victims in last year or so. Bull sharks a bit easier to fend off than the big white patrolling waters in Perth area.

...."I can make a list, if you'd like."

Don't bother.

Top of the list (of how gun-owners differ from non-gun-owners).

1. They can't take criticism without getting angry or vindictive.

Haha, maybe he's got that warrior gene . . . Pretty prevalent in gun owners and mass murderers . . .

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121093343.htm

Submaniac:

Haha, cool your jets. I never read past about sentence 2 or 3 of any post.

Reread Scalia's opinion in Heller. You are seriously misinterpreting what he said in that opinion . . . Haha, this is a prime example why lay people should never attempt to practice law by representing themselves.

Not being from any of those countries mentioned I hesitate to bring this up since I have no knowledge of the facts, but I will ask the question anyway.

Which of those countries ( Australia, New Zealand, UK / Euro zone, Scandinavia and Canada) guarantee by law or constitution their citizens the right of Freedom of Speech?

Okay, so again and only in English and I guess we have to do without quotes then!

Article 5 of the German constitution grants the freedom of speech and exp<b></b>ression, the free admission to public sources for information and the freedom of broadcasting without censorship!

I can not speak for other countries, but...here we go!

Does the Neo-Nazi party (if there is such a thing) have the same rights to freedom of speech as other political parties?

I honestly don't know and am curious.

Thank you.

In the USA the Nazi party is legal, not banned; see http://www.americannaziparty.com/

The Nazi party USA even has their own lobbyist for capital hill. One of their big platforms is . . . right to bear arms.

http://www.americannaziparty.com/platform/index.php

Well, this has drifted way off topic.

So, tell me again why information available under a FOI request shouldn't be published in a newspaper?

Haha, I agree it was bogus to publish that info, but it apparently must be public record.

You keep saying law abiding citizens, but you say your against background checks for purchases from private sellers, no guns sold to felons and mandatory registration of all guns including those sold by private individuals. Be congruent.

...

Right now, you and I can buy AR-15s and then sell it to a felon gang banger without a background check for a profit. Mandatory registration and background checks on private sales would stop that if I could get jail time for selling to felon. It would take time, but it would eventually work.

If there is a problem with private sales, that is a state issue. I give you a case and point example. Under California law, ALL handguns (even used) can only be transferred through a licensed dealer that runs a background check. California does not have any requirements of private sales of used long guns go through a dealer with a background check. Other states, such as Nevada, do not require the sale of any used firearm (handgun or long gun) to go through a dealer with a background check. The issue is one belonging to the states. You should be aware of U.S. v. Lopez (1995 U.S. Sup. Ct.) 514 U.S. 549 that the Federal government does not have general police powers and their sole source of authority is that which is expressly granted by the Constitution (i.e. commerce clause). If California wanted to require background checks on private sales of riles, it has the ability to. The legislature chose not to. Similarly any state can pass more stringent requirements for privates sales of used firearms.

If you're complaining about mandatory background checks and private sales of firearms, then complain to your state legislature. It's up to the States to regulate sales of firearms in their own jurisdiction. It's not really a Federal issue because the Federal government is already pushing it's authority under the commerce clause.

I get that, but being a lawyer I understand that Federal prosecution and enforcement is much more effective than local which could be subject to selective enforcement.

Federal regulates class III weapons very well. All assault weapons and high capacity clips need to be banned and transferred under class III for federal regulation. I would be cool with state registration for revolvers, shotguns and bolt action hunting rifles if I believed all states would pass uniform laws and actually enforce them. If not, then a felon can still hop down to a Texas gun show and buy ARs, AKs, and etc. from a private seller fronting for a dealer and take it anywhere he wants.

The only way to stop and start getting things on right track is uniform registration laws and enforcement. Unfortunately, absent federal action, states like Texas, Montana, Kentucky, Miss., Tennessee and etc. will never pass legislation thereby undermining those stares actually trying to do something about the problem.

Since when did I ever say I was against background checks? Since when have I said I was against criminals and crazy people not being able to buy guns legally? The problem is even if you do stop these people from buying guns legally, they will just buy them illegally. Tightening up on private sales may work but once again, these criminals can always get one illegally. Gun control doesnt work if you can't control the illegal sale of the 300 million guns already in circulation. Making it harder to buy guns legally only penalises the law abiding citizens who need one.

Your evasive, won't answer unambiguous questions or clearly state your position on very straight forward issues so you are just a time waster playing games with zero credibility. Haha, you certainly sucked me in, but no more.

Thanks.

Just curious if you, Beech, or any other guys so vocal about US politics and current US problems and events live here or have lived here within last ten years?

You betcha!!

Cool. At least you a dog in the fight unlike some who flee here and just want to whine about the state of affairs somewhere they have not lived in over 10 years.

I had a condo in DC in 2002-04 and spent a lot of time up there in the late 80s and early 90s after graduating from George Washington University.

What I was trying to allude to in a very politically correct way was that the vast majority of DC violence is and always has been black on black, drug and gang related disputes primarily occurring in certain neighborhoods or areas. Neither the shooter nor the perp would likely ever pass a background check.

I doubt either one of us fit the typical DC gun crime victim profile or would even in be in the neighborhhods where violence was/is prevalant. So . . . the point being is you, I and similarly situated people can buy all the guns we want and it is not going to have any impact on gun crime or homocide rate unless we turn to crack and start going into high risk neighborhoods to buy and sell crack to support our habbits.

The question that you seem to duck is simply whether you oppose all states having the exact same guns laws now in effect in DC?

My answer goes all the way back to page 1 and it's this. You can have all the gun control you want but it still won't stop the criminals from getting illegal weapons from the 300 million guns still out there. DC's high crime rate (even though it has dropped after the gun ban was lifted) just goes to show gun control doesn't really work. The numerous black on black gang killings just goes to show no matter how tough a gun law you put in place, the criminals will still be able to get illegal guns easily anyway. And while the law abiding citizens may not be the majority killed because of gang and drug violence, they are still in danger of getting robbed, mugged, raped, house invaded, you name it! And thus a law abiding citizen should have every right to purchase a legal weapon easily.

So you are against states having laws like DC even though the homicide rate has gone from 500 to 77.

Where do you live? Montanna? You are really out of touch with reality of urban crime and gang issues.

You can be packing your pistol all you want and in a city like Memphis you will still get capped for going into the wring neighborhood. Those guys have feared getting shot since they were 10 or 12 and have have metal detectors in school since grade school. After a while, the fear turns to apathy or rage and you having a gun is no deference. They live in a war zone and we live in lillywhiteputin. Us with something lose will hesitate that spli second and just got shot for having a gun.

I worked on a case once representing property owner that had a rap club in a strip mall. The club had metal detectors and like 20 bouncers that night. There were 8 squad cars in parking lot. A guy who had gotten busted and lost of load of coke was walking toward club in parking lot. The perp walked up, held gun to his head, emptied clip, placed gun on his chest, turned around and just walked away. Thus was with 8 cop cars close by and they never caught dude.

Point being, these guys are not scared of anything and if they want you dead, there is nothing you can do about it. I have seen cases where guy was shot over a chicken wing. Most if the dead guys have guns and are not afraid to use them.

You seem to be ignoring the 300 million guns already out there. What's the point of having draconian gun laws when a criminal, who isn't going to be able to buy a gun legally anyway, can easily buy one illegally? These tough gun laws only prevent law abiding citizens from getting a legal weapon easily. Now you say it's because of the gun laws that DC's murder rate has dropped. I say it's because the gun ban was lifted and citizens are once again able to defend themselves.

Your example of the crazies and the animals out there who aren't afraid of the cops and who would blatantly shoot someone in front of them is the perfect example of why citizens should be able to have guns and defend themselves. I mean if you can't rely on the police to protect you from getting shot then you just have to defend yourself. Tough gun control laws don't stop criminals from getting guns. If they're not afraid of killing someone, you think they care whether they're put in jail for having an illegal firearm? On the opposite side, it just makes it more difficult for a law abiding citizen from getting a weapon legally. And he's definitely not going to buy an illegal weapon for fear of getting arrested.

You keep saying law abiding citizens, but you say your against background checks for purchases from private sellers, no guns sold to felons and mandatory registration of all guns including those sold by private individuals. Be congruent.

Not sure how one can say they only want law abiding citizens to have guns, but oppose those measures I listed unless they are a felon or whack alcoholic that abuses his wife. NRA members in favor of these by 74%.

Right now, you and I can buy AR-15s and then sell it to a felon gang banger without a background check for a profit. Mandatory registration and background checks on private sales would stop that if I could get jail time for selling to felon. It would take time, but it would eventually work.

I had a condo in DC in 2002-04 and spent a lot of time up there in the late 80s and early 90s after graduating from George Washington University.

What I was trying to allude to in a very politically correct way was that the vast majority of DC violence is and always has been black on black, drug and gang related disputes primarily occurring in certain neighborhoods or areas. Neither the shooter nor the perp would likely ever pass a background check.

I doubt either one of us fit the typical DC gun crime victim profile or would even in be in the neighborhhods where violence was/is prevalant. So . . . the point being is you, I and similarly situated people can buy all the guns we want and it is not going to have any impact on gun crime or homocide rate unless we turn to crack and start going into high risk neighborhoods to buy and sell crack to support our habbits.

The question that you seem to duck is simply whether you oppose all states having the exact same guns laws now in effect in DC?

My answer goes all the way back to page 1 and it's this. You can have all the gun control you want but it still won't stop the criminals from getting illegal weapons from the 300 million guns still out there. DC's high crime rate (even though it has dropped after the gun ban was lifted) just goes to show gun control doesn't really work. The numerous black on black gang killings just goes to show no matter how tough a gun law you put in place, the criminals will still be able to get illegal guns easily anyway. And while the law abiding citizens may not be the majority killed because of gang and drug violence, they are still in danger of getting robbed, mugged, raped, house invaded, you name it! And thus a law abiding citizen should have every right to purchase a legal weapon easily.

So you are against states having laws like DC even though the homicide rate has gone from 500 to 77.

Where do you live? Montanna? You are really out of touch with reality of urban crime and gang issues.

You can be packing your pistol all you want and in a city like Memphis you will still get capped for going into the wring neighborhood. Those guys have feared getting shot since they were 10 or 12 and have have metal detectors in school since grade school. After a while, the fear turns to apathy or rage and you having a gun is no deference. They live in a war zone and we live in lillywhiteputin. Us with something lose will hesitate that spli second and just got shot for having a gun.

I worked on a case once representing property owner that had a rap club in a strip mall. The club had metal detectors and like 20 bouncers that night. There were 8 squad cars in parking lot. A guy who had gotten busted and lost of load of coke was walking toward club in parking lot. The perp walked up, held gun to his head, emptied clip, placed gun on his chest, turned around and just walked away. Thus was with 8 cop cars close by and they never caught dude.

Point being, these guys are not scared of anything and if they want you dead, there is nothing you can do about it. I have seen cases where guy was shot over a chicken wing. Most if the dead guys have guns and are not afraid to use them.

DC homocide rates. Sweeping DC gun laws passed December 2008 in response to Heller decision in June of 2008 so actually a bit of a rise the year Supreme Court struck Heller. I would call the post December 2008 gun law enactment drops pretty signficant.

Historic Context

Yeap crime has taken a sharp drop after the handgun ban is struck down. Proves the point that legal guns in the hands of citizens does lower crime rate.

Huh, at first you say laws did no good. Homocides dropped from 400 to 175 during handgun ban. DC still has most restrictive laws in country which you guys before was saying did no good. These restrictive laws and strict registration requirements are apparently working in DC so why oppose the same in all states.

I have never argued that normal hand guns should be banned. I only argue for background checks on private sales and strict registration requirements for all guns. You guys never say whether you agree or disagree with this and always change subject to complete ban efforts.

BTW, your in the hand of legal owner arguments only assumes that prior violence was targeted at those types thta legally own guns now. Not true, most handgun victims are individuals with criminal backgrounds who under current laws cannot legally purchase and own and purchase guns that killed killed during arguments with epople they know.

http://homicidewatch...year-in-charts/

I don't know how you're reading your chart but it's plain to see, homicides went up and then peaked during the years of the handgun ban. And after it reached it's peaked slowly went down. It then took a sharp drop AFTER the ban was quashed and citizens were able to purchase handguns legally and defend themselves. What else is there to say?

I had a condo in DC in 2002-04 and spent a lot of time up there in the late 80s and early 90s after graduating from George Washington University.

What I was trying to allude to in a very politically correct way was that the vast majority of DC violence is and always has been black on black, drug and gang related disputes primarily occurring in certain neighborhoods or areas. Neither the shooter nor the perp would likely ever pass a background check.

I doubt either one of us fit the typical DC gun crime victim profile or would even in be in the neighborhhods where violence was/is prevalant. So . . . the point being is you, I and similarly situated people can buy all the guns we want and it is not going to have any impact on gun crime or homocide rate unless we turn to crack and start going into high risk neighborhoods to buy and sell crack to support our habbits.

The question that you seem to duck is simply whether you oppose all states having the exact same guns laws now in effect in DC?

DC homocide rates. Sweeping DC gun laws passed December 2008 in response to Heller decision in June of 2008 so actually a bit of a rise the year Supreme Court struck Heller. I would call the post December 2008 gun law enactment drops pretty signficant.

Historic Context

Yeap crime has taken a sharp drop after the handgun ban is struck down. Proves the point that legal guns in the hands of citizens does lower crime rate.

Huh, at first you say laws did no good. Homocides dropped from 450 to 175 during handgun ban. DC still has most restrictive laws in country which you guys before was saying did no good. These restrictive laws and strict registration requirements are apparently working in DC so why oppose the same in all states.

I have never argued that normal hand guns should be banned. I only argue for background checks on private sales and strict registration requirements for all guns. You guys never say whether you agree or disagree with this and always change subject to complete ban efforts.

So . . . The question is simply do you oppose all states having the exact same guns laws now in effect in DC?