Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

sadolph

gun control bs.

Recommended Posts

That's consistent with what i found: in Canada, it's no different than a Canadian going to a regular, brick-and-mortar gun dealer in Canada in so far as paperwork must exist.

 

That's the same as it is here except that I can BUY a gun over the web, but I can't receive it. A federally-licensed person a.k.a. a gun shop has to receive it and then do the same paperwork he has to do if he had sold it to me himself in his own shop. The very same screening as for anybody else.

 

And, by golly, the site even says so:

 

Information for American and Foreign Clients American Clients: all firearms orders (including firearms clssified as 'C&R') must without exception be accompanied by an approved B.A.T.F. Form 6 import permit in compliance with U.S. federal law. Please note firearms shipments must be sent by air cargo security shipment (rates start at approximately $300.00 USD) because land-based courier companies will not truck firearms across the Canada/U.S. border.

 

Please contact your local branch of the A.T.F. (U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) for further information.

 

So marstar can ship out of the country (didn't doubt that). Receiving it is another story. I'll await proof that this company will ship to any random US address upon request, rather than to a proved gun dealer.

 

So much for sending a gun right to my door over the internet.

 

Where is the outrage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's consistent with what i found: in Canada, it's no different than a Canadian going to a regular, brick-and-mortar gun dealer in Canada in so far as paperwork must exist.

 

That's the same as it is here except that I can BUY a gun over the web, but I can't receive it. A federally-licensed person a.k.a. a gun shop has to receive it and then do the same paperwork he has to do if he had sold it to me himself in his own shop. The very same screening as for anybody else.

 

And, by holly, the site even says so:

 

Information for American and Foreign Clients American Clients: all firearms orders (including firearms clssified as 'C&R') must without exception be accompanied by an approved B.A.T.F. Form 6 import permit in compliance with U.S. federal law. Please note firearms shipments must be sent by air cargo security shipment (rates start at approximately $300.00 USD) because land-based courier companies will not truck firearms across the Canada/U.S. border.

 

Please contact your local branch of the A.T.F. (U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) for further information.

 

So marstar can ship out of the country (didn't doubt that). Receiving it is another story. I'll await proof that this company will ship to any random US address upon request, rather than to a proved gun dealer.

 

So much for sending a gun right to my door over the internet.

 

Where is the outrage?

 

The 'Waiting Period'?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Need more guns. Thankfully i can order online and have them delivered to my front door.

 

I see a glock 17c and a couple of np-22s in my future.

 

 

No shit? Good for you, if so....

I just wish that was even slightly available.

 

Stupid gun/knife/s laws do NOT work. Fact

 

Just don't forget to ask your criminals to sign up at the same time for the handback.

 

We forgot and it shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll await proof that this company will ship to any random US address upon request, rather than to a proved gun dealer.

 

So much for sending a gun right to my door over the internet.

 

 

Amro's link and the ATF agree: you're gonna need a form 6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll await proof that this company will ship to any random US address upon request, rather than to a proved gun dealer.

 

So much for sending a gun right to my door over the internet.

 

 

Amro's link and the ATF agree: you're gonna need a form 6.

 

Is that the form that asks 'Are You A Gun Nutter'?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

To be sure, even as gun rights and ownership have expanded, most of the tragic scenarios predicted by opponents of gun rights have not played out. However, murders by firearm have increased 45 percent since 1999, despite an overall drop in violent crime, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

...

 

Gosh, I wonder why they picked 1999 in particular for that statistic? Could there be more to the story if you look at other years?

 

Flfirearmmurders.gif

 

They could have picked 1987, the year Florida started issuing concealed weapons permits.

 

But that would have shown a slight decrease in firearms murders and a larger decrease in handgun murders, which is not exactly useful propaganda.

 

I just picked the one stat in jocal's article that stuck out to me as being easily verifiable as cherry-picked propaganda. I haven't bothered to dig into the rest of what was said yet, but expect I will find the same sort of cherry picking of data.

 

You're on it, mate. I have been so totally exposed, so absolutely trashed by Tom Ray himself. Ouch.

Your statistics indicate it's safer to just give away handguns on the street corners, no doubt.

 

Those are not my stats. They came from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and are the source the reporter used in writing the piece of propaganda bullshit you posted. They indicate that the numbers of murders in Florida are remarkably constant, even as the number of Floridians and the number of guns has increased.

 

Now for the questions you will not answer:

 

Why do you suppose the reporter (cherry) picked 1999 and not some other year? Why not 1987, when Florida began issuing concealed weapons permits?

 

Lost in the minutia? More NRA type white noise, TR.

I'm not too worried about which year they chose for the stats. I just notice a present-tense trail of gun damage in our nation,

 

And a lame mentality, shoring it up.

I don't think the founding fathers, in their keen reading of human nature, would look at small arms the same way in today's world, Not with what we know now about the defects in American psychology

when empowered by hand guns, assault weapons, and the like.

 

John Wayne has done us wrongly, I fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Wayne! ur reaching a little far back in time.

 

I'd like to see a chart comparing the incidence of on screen (movies and TV) violence and street violence. For whatever reason our society is fixated on violence. I blame Clint Eastwood. If he'd continued as Rowdy Yates instead of Dirty Harry the world would be a safer place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

boothie, we have a 10 day cooling off period for buying restricted firearms, meaning all sidearms and some rifles. It's designed so we don't blow a gasket, buy a gun, and go on a shooting spree. But we've already had an evaluation before getting a license, so it's kind of stupid.

 

Thing is, if i was wanting to do a shoot em up i'd have this planned, with my arsenal already on hand. Or i'd get them off the street in 20 minutes, like every other criminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...

To be sure, even as gun rights and ownership have expanded, most of the tragic scenarios predicted by opponents of gun rights have not played out. However, murders by firearm have increased 45 percent since 1999, despite an overall drop in violent crime, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

...

 

Gosh, I wonder why they picked 1999 in particular for that statistic? Could there be more to the story if you look at other years?

 

Flfirearmmurders.gif

 

 

They could have picked 1987, the year Florida started issuing concealed weapons permits.

 

But that would have shown a slight decrease in firearms murders and a larger decrease in handgun murders, which is not exactly useful propaganda.

 

 

 

 

Those are not my stats. They came from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and are the source the reporter used in writing the piece of propaganda bullshit you posted. They indicate that the numbers of murders in Florida are remarkably constant, even as the number of Floridians and the number of guns has increased.

 

Now for the questions you will not answer:

 

Why do you suppose the reporter (cherry) picked 1999 and not some other year? Why not 1987, when Florida began issuing concealed weapons permits?

 

Lost in the minutia? ...

I'm not too worried about which year they chose for the stats. ...

As predicted, you did not answer my questions.

 

Saying, "most of the tragic scenarios predicted by opponents of gun rights have not played out. However, murders by firearm have increased 45 percent since 1999" is blatantly cherry picking the data to make a case that can not otherwise be made using that data. Yes, the data show that murders by firearm have increased by 45% since 1999, as you posted back when you were worried about such minutia. That tidbit was included for a reason, and 1987 was not chosen for the same reason. A look at all the data tell a different story than the tidbit your report chose to include. That's because your report was propaganda BS, and you were taken in by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuck in 1999, Tom?

 

Let's get back to Gun Control BS.

BS is when you think you can control the gunplay without controlling the guns.

BS also is the bully mentality often found behind a gun.

The gun may be the empowerment, or vice-versa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuck in 1999, Tom?

 

Let's get back to Gun Control BS.

BS is when you think you can control the gunplay without controlling the guns.

BS also is the bully mentality often found behind a gun.

The gun may be the empowerment, or vice-versa.

 

How's this instead----there's about 350 million privately owned firearms here in the U.S. . And since you're one of the posters here that continually rant that there's too many guns in America, just how many (in your view) would be 'Just Enough'? Or the 'Correct Amount'? Or the 'Proper Number'?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuck in 1999, Tom?

 

Let's get back to Gun Control BS.

BS is when you think you can control the gunplay without controlling the guns.

BS also is the bully mentality often found behind a gun.

The gun may be the empowerment, or vice-versa.

 

Do you have a single thing to back up any of your assertions aside from your imagination? I have found the exact opposite to be true, of course that is only anectdotal, but at least it is something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be sure, even as gun rights and ownership have expanded, most of the tragic scenarios predicted by opponents of gun rights have not played out. However, murders by firearm have increased 45 percent since 1999, despite an overall drop in violent crime, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

 

That could be changed for accuracy this way:

 

To be sure, even as gun rights and ownership have expanded, most of the tragic scenarios predicted by opponents of gun rights have not played out. There has been an overall drop in violent crime, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

 

Or...

 

To be sure, even as gun rights and ownership have expanded, most of the tragic scenarios predicted by opponents of gun rights have not played out. For example, murders by firearm have decreased slightly since 1987's passage of "shall issue" concealed weapons permits, and there has been an overall drop in violent crime, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

 

All three versions are 100% true, but only one of them deliberately misrepresents a statistical anomaly as indicative of some kind of trend.

 

Only one is propaganda BS, and like a good propagandist, jocal will not acknowledge that fact, though it is obvious to all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if you take gun usage out of the stats you will see that Canada and the US are equal in other violent crimes. I own guns and I beleive we should own them, but using a gun is less personal than the Irish/UK issue with knife attacks. Guns are easier to use and do create more crimes that otherwise would not have happen becasue of the proximity issues and nervous/scared nature of most criminals (this does not include the NUTS that will and do take pleasure in hurting others) The knife attacks are filled with more hate and a upclose personal attack where a gun can be used at distance and more likely to be used in crimes where people dont know each other.

 

I'm heading to Seattle next week for the NTOA annual conf. Look it up, I will be there for 4 days visiting vendors, sitting in the seminars and talking to clients....if you go you will see how much violence is really out there, stuff you never see on TV you can see here on the CCTV vids that are shown, talked about and analyzed.

 

I own 3 guns, 1 shotgun used every fall, 1 rifle used fall and winter and a handgun that i havent fired in 8 years or more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take the hand gun out for a play date at the range.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be sure, even as gun rights and ownership have expanded, most of the tragic scenarios predicted by opponents of gun rights have not played out. However, murders by firearm have increased 45 percent since 1999, despite an overall drop in violent crime, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

 

That could be changed for accuracy this way:

 

To be sure, even as gun rights and ownership have expanded, most of the tragic scenarios predicted by opponents of gun rights have not played out. There has been an overall drop in violent crime, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

 

Or...

 

To be sure, even as gun rights and ownership have expanded, most of the tragic scenarios predicted by opponents of gun rights have not played out. For example, murders by firearm have decreased slightly since 1987's passage of "shall issue" concealed weapons permits, and there has been an overall drop in violent crime, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

 

All three versions are 100% true, but only one of them deliberately misrepresents a statistical anomaly as indicative of some kind of trend.

 

Only one is propaganda BS, and like a good propagandist, jocal will not acknowledge that fact, though it is obvious to all.

 

Okay, Tom, you've make your point. (For three days.) You've just nailed it, pal. Like I said day before yesterday, I have now been put firmly in my place. Worse yet, exposed as a propagandist.

 

 

 

If you are making the point that more guns will bring more public safety, though, I don't agree.

I suppose more guns will bring more gun violence.

And will develop a popular mindset prepared and encouraged to use those guns.

 

 

See the cycle thing here? No wonder we have a growing problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more time, JoKal----if 350 million privately owned firearms is 'too many'. how many is 'just right'?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaaannnnnnndddd... why did we not have these tragedies back to back, back in yesteryear prior to the GCA of 1968 when anyone whomsoever could order a gun through the mail right to his door, no background check, no nuthin'?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you are making the point that more guns will bring more public safety, though, I don't agree.

I suppose more guns will bring more gun violence.

 

 

Continue to suppose what you want, despite all evidence and despite the very words in the propaganda article you posted, which at least admitted part of the truth:

 

...

To be sure, even as gun rights and ownership have expanded, most of the tragic scenarios predicted by opponents of gun rights have not played out.

 

Gosh, I wonder why they picked 1999 in particular for that statistic? Could there be more to the story if you look at other years?

 

Flfirearmmurders.gif

 

 

They could have picked 1987, the year Florida started issuing concealed weapons permits.

 

But that would have shown a slight decrease in firearms murders and a larger decrease in handgun murders, which is not exactly useful propaganda.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BS also is the bully mentality often found behind a gun.

The gun may be the empowerment, or vice-versa.

 

Fuck me! Are you back on this thread again? Bully mentality???? I think you watch too much TV or read too many Pusstralia opinion pieces about America.

 

You've tried that meme on for size here many times and have yet to back it up with anything substantial. Please, for the last freaking time, provide some examples of "bully mentality" found behind a gun and how that paints all (or even most) gun-owners as a group as bullies that need to be reined in somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the founding fathers, in their keen reading of human nature, would look at small arms the same way in today's world, Not with what we know now about the defects in American psychology

when empowered by hand guns, assault weapons, and the like.

So what you're saying is that, in your opinion, developmentally, the human race, or, at least, the USAian segment of it, is... regressing?

 

John Wayne has done us wrongly, I fear.

Only for the mentally deficient, who cannot tell the difference between make-believe and real life.

 

Forming an opinion on gun issues from what one sees in most movies, newspapers, magazines and on TV is like forming an opinion on controlled substances from watching "Reefer Madness."

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose more guns will bring more gun violence.

 

First of all: Let us do away with that popular anti-gun propaganda term "gun violence." It isn't the guns doing the violence, it's the people wielding them.

 

As to your proposition: That more guns will lead to an increase in violence being done with guns my answer would be a question: Isn't the concern "violence," period? Does it matter what tool is used? Or, as the character Archie Bunker once asked: "Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?"

 

And will develop a popular mindset prepared and encouraged to use those guns.

 

Otherwise more hysterically asserted as "There will be blood running in the streets!" Only it doesn't happen. Ever since Florida started the "shall issue" movement in 1987: In every state that's adopted similar laws the crime rates, including violent crime, have gone down.

 

Anti-gun types get all hysterical over firearms and make all kinds of predictions and assertions. Thing is: If you sit back and look at reality, it turns out they're all baseless. Every last one of them.

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how canadians will respond to the quebecians now. if they stop paying the taxes, denying english speaking students into government funded colleges and requiring all religious attire not to be worn in public will the guns come out and civil war begins?

 

where is Elle and Gatyr at? its all peace and love until the riot gear comes out in Canada soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many guns is the right number, E.M.? I'll take none for five dollars, Alex.

 

 

Anecdotal? Yes, in my case. Too many encounters with local guns.

And my pal Larry, who confronted the attacker during the Cafe Racer bloodbath, well, he brought up gun control the other day.

Sorry, he weighed in with the douchebags.

 

Here's a pretty good example in today's newspaper (sadly, it's full of anecdotes).

Today's propaganda: http://seattletimes....39_noll05m.html

 

Summary of article:

Nice guy gets offed at red light, killer blows his own car widow out to do it.

On a nice street in a rather pricey part of town.

The issue? Investigators say it was road-rage.

 

I view it simply, not as per any filtered Florida stats.

If that gun had not been nearby, the benign wine merchant could be out playing with his dog right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BS also is the bully mentality often found behind a gun.

The gun may be the empowerment, or vice-versa.

 

Fuck me! Are you back on this thread again? Bully mentality???? I think you watch too much TV or read too many Pusstralia opinion pieces about America.

 

You've tried that meme on for size here many times and have yet to back it up with anything substantial. Please, for the last freaking time, provide some examples of "bully mentality" found behind a gun and how that paints all (or even most) gun-owners as a group as bullies that need to be reined in somehow.

 

What bully? Oh, it mighta been the "begone" bit, like King George or something.

Or your own "douchebag" schtick.

Really, Jeff, some of you SA guys are kinda touchy, kinda brittle,

Threatened by the Brady Bunch or something.

 

As for content? We have enjoyed some great discussions on the Second and on modern court decisions--excellent stuff.

Lots of nice pics of gun hardware. I enjoyed Boomer's Encyclopedia of Guns a lot. I note a thriving, healthy group of SA gun range enthusiasts.

 

But there was lots of white noise, too. "Grow a pair, get a gun" stuff.

Collectively, you seemed to present no real plan to help with gun violence beyond resisting any and all controls.

That really caught my eye, Jeff. If you, or the NRA, is gonna steer the boat, then steer the boat.

 

Meanwhile, a sniper fires on strangers from the bushes in Arlington, WA this week, ho-hum. (Cop sniper got him.)

Kids with years of video gunfights, a returning combat-stressed army, women in combat roles and camo undies, and now a camo boatcover on a dingy at Shilshole..

 

Guns guns guns, can't get enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many guns is the right number, E.M.? I'll take none for five dollars, Alex.

 

 

 

I'm shocked....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I view it simply, not as per any filtered Florida stats.

 

You do view things in a simple way. The stat you posted was filtered to create a bullshit impression. Sorry you're still upset that I provided the rest of the story from the actual source, but calling out bullshit propaganda is kind of a hobby of mine and you presented an irresistible target.

 

Here are those unfiltered numbers once again:

 

...

To be sure, even as gun rights and ownership have expanded, most of the tragic scenarios predicted by opponents of gun rights have not played out. However, murders by firearm have increased 45 percent since 1999, despite an overall drop in violent crime, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

...

 

Gosh, I wonder why they picked 1999 in particular for that statistic? Could there be more to the story if you look at other years?

 

Flfirearmmurders.gif

 

They could have picked 1987, the year Florida started issuing concealed weapons permits.

 

But that would have shown a slight decrease in firearms murders and a larger decrease in handgun murders, which is not exactly useful propaganda.

 

I just picked the one stat in jocal's article that stuck out to me as being easily verifiable as cherry-picked propaganda. I haven't bothered to dig into the rest of what was said yet, but expect I will find the same sort of cherry picking of data.

 

Filtering out that "45% increase since 1999" from those numbers was bullshit. As firearms ownership has grown and as our laws have become more permissive, firearms murders as a percentage of the population have declined. As previously mentioned, it's not quite true to say that "most of the tragic scenarios predicted by opponents of gun rights have not played out." It would be more accurate to say NONE of them have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many guns is the right number, E.M.? I'll take none for five dollars, Alex.

 

 

 

I'm shocked....

 

And now that my initial faux 'shock' is gone, how would YOU propose to go from 350 million legally owned firearms in private citizen's hands......to zero?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(oh fuk me, but this oughta be good :lol: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BS also is the bully mentality often found behind a gun.

The gun may be the empowerment, or vice-versa.

 

Fuck me! Are you back on this thread again? Bully mentality???? I think you watch too much TV or read too many Pusstralia opinion pieces about America.

 

You've tried that meme on for size here many times and have yet to back it up with anything substantial. Please, for the last freaking time, provide some examples of "bully mentality" found behind a gun and how that paints all (or even most) gun-owners as a group as bullies that need to be reined in somehow.

 

What bully? Oh, it mighta been the "begone" bit, like King George or something.

Or your own "douchebag" schtick.

Really, Jeff, some of you SA guys are kinda touchy, kinda brittle,

Threatened by the Brady Bunch or something.

 

As for content? We have enjoyed some great discussions on the Second and on modern court decisions--excellent stuff.

Lots of nice pics of gun hardware. I enjoyed Boomer's Encyclopedia of Guns a lot. I note a thriving, healthy group of SA gun range enthusiasts.

 

But there was lots of white noise, too. "Grow a pair, get a gun" stuff.

Collectively, you seemed to present no real plan to help with gun violence beyond resisting any and all controls.

That really caught my eye, Jeff. If you, or the NRA, is gonna steer the boat, then steer the boat.

 

Meanwhile, a sniper fires on strangers from the bushes in Arlington, WA this week, ho-hum. (Cop sniper got him.)

Kids with years of video gunfights, a returning combat-stressed army, women in combat roles and camo undies, and now a camo boatcover on a dingy at Shilshole..

 

Guns guns guns, can't get enough.

 

If you want to change the way things work, then you shoudl be lobbying for a repeal of the 2nd ammendment. There is a process for making change and it goes beyond wishign things were different and bemoaing that things are not quite the way you would like. I have lived in the NYC area, upstate NY, and now in Pennsylvania. Where I am now has, by far, more guns than anywhere else, upstate ny was second, and the NYC area had nearly none. My anecdotal evidence is that there is a far higher concentration of bullies in NYC, followed by upstate ny, and lastly by where I am now. Almost without fail when somebody is being a jerk or dangerous on the road here, I can check their plates and see they are from NY or NJ. I do not for one second think handing them a gun will make them better people, but taking them away has certainly not made them any nicer, less of a bully, or less dangerous. We have it pretty nice here, and really if you want to take that away from us, you had better do your homework, and be prepared to do the, rightfully, very hard work of changing the constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many guns is the right number, E.M.? I'll take none for five dollars, Alex.

 

 

 

I'm shocked....

 

And now that my initial faux 'shock' is gone, how would YOU propose to go from 350 million legally owned firearms in private citizen's hands......to zero?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(oh fuk me, but this oughta be good :lol: )

 

 

There is no plan, this is just an avenue for some dimwit to make himself feel superior to other folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I didn't know this happenned in GA. Lookit at the fun I missed...

PA's kinda full at the moment, we've moved out 'til after the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BS also is the bully mentality often found behind a gun.

The gun may be the empowerment, or vice-versa.

 

Fuck me! Are you back on this thread again? Bully mentality???? I think you watch too much TV or read too many Pusstralia opinion pieces about America.

 

You've tried that meme on for size here many times and have yet to back it up with anything substantial. Please, for the last freaking time, provide some examples of "bully mentality" found behind a gun and how that paints all (or even most) gun-owners as a group as bullies that need to be reined in somehow.

 

What bully? Oh, it mighta been the "begone" bit, like King George or something.

Or your own "douchebag" schtick.

Really, Jeff, some of you SA guys are kinda touchy, kinda brittle,

Threatened by the Brady Bunch or something.

 

As for content? We have enjoyed some great discussions on the Second and on modern court decisions--excellent stuff.

Lots of nice pics of gun hardware. I enjoyed Boomer's Encyclopedia of Guns a lot. I note a thriving, healthy group of SA gun range enthusiasts.

 

But there was lots of white noise, too. "Grow a pair, get a gun" stuff.

Collectively, you seemed to present no real plan to help with gun violence beyond resisting any and all controls.

That really caught my eye, Jeff. If you, or the NRA, is gonna steer the boat, then steer the boat.

 

Meanwhile, a sniper fires on strangers from the bushes in Arlington, WA this week, ho-hum. (Cop sniper got him.)

Kids with years of video gunfights, a returning combat-stressed army, women in combat roles and camo undies, and now a camo boatcover on a dingy at Shilshole..

 

Guns guns guns, can't get enough.

 

Wow, there's so much in there to address - I'm not sure I could hit it all..... But let me try.

 

First of all, you've still yet to present anything substantial regarding your constant theme of bully behind a gun other than "feelings" and anecdotes.

 

I hope us healthy, thriving gun range enthusiasts are evidence that gun owners are not all nutters as you like to charactorize as. As to the white noise..... I don't recall anyone with any credibility here saying "sack up and get a gun". Please post an example of comments like that.

 

What does women in combat roles, cammo undies or cammo boat covers have FUCK ALL to do with gun violence and gun legislation???? Do you have a problem with women in combat roles? I don't. Some of the fiercest warriors I know are chick fighter pilots and I'm sure some of the ones humping a rucksack and a rifle are just as bad-ass.

 

The most important point I want to RE-ADDRESS (because this has been said over and over) is: why is it MY place or responsibility to present a plan? I personally think the current gun restrictions and rules are more than adequate to contend with reducing crime committed with illegal guns. What is lacking is enforcement and stiffer punishments for offenders. You want a plan??? MY PLAN is let's exhaust all means possible to vigorously enforce the rules we have now and see what happens. If and when its shown that there is a hole in those rules somewhere, then we can address that. But just adding MORE restrictions on top of the existing ones without any additional enforcement mechanisms is just plain silliness. If criminals are ignoring the existing rules, what the fuck makes you think they will suddenly pay attention to a new one? The reality is that only law-abiding citizens who are ALREADY following the rules and NOT committing crimes with guns would be the ones hurt by additonal new restrictions.

 

And FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME.... stop with your BS blatent lies about gun-owners "resisting any and all controls". Do you think if you say it often enough, it will make it true? Several of us here have repeatedly said we would consider looking at gun restrictions IF you can show the new rule would actually have the desired outome the authors wanted to achieve while not being too onerous on law-abiding citizens. We have also repeatedly said we are NOT against reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and possession. For intstance - I like the instant background check system in place. Its not too onerous and yet it achieves the desired outcome because it has proven to reject many applicants who don't qualify. I personally would like to include private sales of guns into the background check system to close the "private sale loophole" a bit. So your BS about resisting any and all controls is so much malarkey.

 

What I resist is silliness, window dressing and knee-jerk reactions to appease people who need a warm and fuzzy feeling rather than real solutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Collectively, you seemed to present no real plan to help with gun violence beyond resisting any and all controls.

That really caught my eye, Jeff. If you, or the NRA, is gonna steer the boat, then steer the boat.

...

...

And FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME.... stop with your BS blatent lies about gun-owners "resisting any and all controls". Do you think if you say it often enough, it will make it true? ...

 

 

That will not be the last time. It's a propaganda favorite. I figure that there have to be a few cases in which exposure to the facts might help, but I'm not at all optimistic that this will be one of them. Still, I'll help.

 

I don't know what a politically tenable answer is, but I'm interested in finding one or finding out about one. As I said in my earlier post, I think the onus is on those who demand the unfettered right to come up with a solution that upholds the responsibility that comes with that right, or at the very least to quit with the knee-jerk reactions to the knee-jerk reactions to these ongoing tragedies.

 

Reality, anyone?

 

Most U.S. gun owners - even current and former members of the National Rifle Association - support some firearms ownership restrictions including criminal background checks for prospective gun buyers, according to a poll commissioned by an anti-gun lobbying group.

 

The survey, conducted by Republican pollster Frank Luntz for the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, was carried out in May but was released on Tuesday in the aftermath of the Colorado movie theater shooting that killed 12 people last week.

 

 

 

What's that thing called where you make up a really outrageous position and ascribe it to your opponent in an argument? I think it has a name...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of The Truth About Guns In America

 

The far left side of the US political spectrum has gone as far as calling for a complete ban on handguns. The far right has gone as far as calling for less regulations and controls.

 

...

 

Those who founded the United States intended to grant citizens the right to protect their own property, their families, and their own lives. Some more extreme instances of one being forced to protect their property could involve situations of civil disorder, social collapse, and foreign invasions. As unrealistic as some of these situations may be,

 

 

the right to self defence was never intended to be oppressed or revoked by any higher authority under any circumstances. The individualist agenda outlined in the US constitution was also meant to give citizens the means to defend themselves from their own governments.

 

OK, so I inserted a helpful video that was not in the original article. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, Jeff, to try to get this a little less personal...here's a bully with a gun for you, from PNW history,

 

This is not John Wayne, This man happened to be a Puget Sound sailor.

His little cat-rigger was an open dory, and his big sloop had sixteen cannons.

He was the Supt of Indian Affairs, and the standing Governor of the U.S. Territory of Washington.

 

Today's Propaganda. During November,1855, with three or more feet of snow in the Idaho mountains, Gov. Isaac Stevens was trapped out of state.

He found out that the next 700 miles of territory contained five rampaging tribes, openly united to kill him over treaty coercion issues (including the loss of their homelands).

How bad was it? The army and his Olympia friends insisted the Panama Canal should be used for his return to Olympia.

 

Instead, he crossed the Rockies in 3-6 ft of snow and confronted two hibernating tribes, while aiming a loaded, cocked smoothbore musket. He gained temporary neutrality from both hostile tribes.

 

 

This account is by the Governor's son:

Seven well-armed horsemen dashed up in front of the

Couer d'Alene village, rifles in hand and presented ready

to fire, and in peremptory tones demanded of the aston-

ished Indians, as they poured out of their lodges, "Are

you friends or enemies ? Do you want peace or war? "

 

 

Maybe this is too subtle for you, but it's the gun mentality thing, sort of a US fundamental. I question it.

And I question the destructive side-effects of omnipresent guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, Jeff, to try to get this a little less personal...here's a bully with a gun for you, from PNW history,

 

This is not John Wayne, This man happened to be a Puget Sound sailor.

His little cat-rigger was an open dory, and his big sloop had sixteen cannons.

He was the Supt of Indian Affairs, and the standing Governor of the U.S. Territory of Washington.

 

Today's Propaganda. During November,1855, with three or more feet of snow in the Idaho mountains, Gov. Isaac Stevens was trapped out of state.

He found out that the next 700 miles of territory contained five rampaging tribes, openly united to kill him over treaty coercion issues (including the loss of their homelands).

How bad was it? The army and his Olympia friends insisted the Panama Canal should be used for his return to Olympia.

 

Instead, he crossed the Rockies in 3-6 ft of snow and confronted two hibernating tribes, while aiming a loaded, cocked smoothbore musket. He gained temporary neutrality from both hostile tribes.

 

 

This account is by the Governor's son:

Seven well-armed horsemen dashed up in front of the

Couer d'Alene village, rifles in hand and presented ready

to fire, and in peremptory tones demanded of the aston-

ished Indians, as they poured out of their lodges, "Are

you friends or enemies ? Do you want peace or war? "

 

 

Maybe this is too subtle for you, but it's the gun mentality thing, sort of a US fundamental. I question it.

And I question the destructive side-effects of omnipresent guns.

 

Maybe it was the horses that made them bullies. Ban horses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Today's Propaganda.

 

Maybe it was the horses that made them bullies. Ban horses.

 

Nah, uniforms are much scarier than horses and guns. Ban uniforms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, Jeff, to try to get this a little less personal...here's a bully with a gun for you, from PNW history,

 

Today's Propaganda. During November,1855......

 

1855???? This is your best example of gun bullies in today's discussion??? You are seriously losing the ability to think and discuss rationally on all of this..... and while you're coming back to reality, it would be nice if you could address any of my points I made in 2012 about 2012 issues. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, Jeff, to try to get this a little less personal...here's a bully with a gun for you, from PNW history,

 

Today's Propaganda. During November,1855......

 

1855???? This is your best example of gun bullies in today's discussion??? You are seriously losing the ability to think and discuss rationally on all of this..... and while you're coming back to reality, it would be nice if you could address any of my points I made in 2012 about 2012 issues. Thanks.

 

We need a 'shooting myself in the head' emoticon thingy on this forum...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's Propaganda.

 

Maybe it was the horses that made them bullies. Ban horses.

 

Nah, uniforms are much scarier than horses and guns. Ban uniforms.

 

Only scary uniforms, right? I kinda like the ones that the Dalls Cheerleaders use, or those french maid unis. Let's just ban assault uniforms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's Propaganda.

 

Maybe it was the horses that made them bullies. Ban horses.

 

Nah, uniforms are much scarier than horses and guns. Ban uniforms.

 

Only scary uniforms, right? I kinda like the ones that the Dalls Cheerleaders use, or those french maid unis. Let's just ban assault uniforms.

 

Assault shakers?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We need a 'shooting myself in the head' emoticon thingy on this forum...

 

 

anim_banghead.gif

anim_frag.gif

 

anim_50cal.gif

 

anim_uzi.gif

 

anim_chainsawkill.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, Jeff, to try to get this a little less personal...here's a bully with a gun for you, from PNW history,

 

This is not John Wayne, This man happened to be a Puget Sound sailor.

His little cat-rigger was an open dory, and his big sloop had sixteen cannons.

He was the Supt of Indian Affairs, and the standing Governor of the U.S. Territory of Washington.

 

Today's Propaganda. During November,1855, with three or more feet of snow in the Idaho mountains, Gov. Isaac Stevens was trapped out of state.

He found out that the next 700 miles of territory contained five rampaging tribes, openly united to kill him over treaty coercion issues (including the loss of their homelands).

How bad was it? The army and his Olympia friends insisted the Panama Canal should be used for his return to Olympia.

 

Instead, he crossed the Rockies in 3-6 ft of snow and confronted two hibernating tribes, while aiming a loaded, cocked smoothbore musket. He gained temporary neutrality from both hostile tribes.

 

 

This account is by the Governor's son:

Seven well-armed horsemen dashed up in front of the

Couer d'Alene village, rifles in hand and presented ready

to fire, and in peremptory tones demanded of the aston-

ished Indians, as they poured out of their lodges, "Are

you friends or enemies ? Do you want peace or war? "

 

 

Maybe this is too subtle for you, but it's the gun mentality thing, sort of a US fundamental. I question it.

And I question the destructive side-effects of omnipresent guns.

 

Maybe it was the horses that made them bullies. Ban horses.

 

Yeah, horses are dangerous, look at this ferocious creature.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it was the horses that made them bullies.

 

...or that the Panama Canal hadn't been finished until 1914.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, Jeff, to try to get this a little less personal...here's a bully with a gun for you, from PNW history,

 

Today's Propaganda. During November,1855......

 

1855???? This is your best example of gun bullies in today's discussion??? You are seriously losing the ability to think and discuss rationally on all of this..... and while you're coming back to reality, it would be nice if you could address any of my points I made in 2012 about 2012 issues. Thanks.

 

We need a 'shooting myself in the head' emoticon thingy on this forum...

Just after we sort 'a shooting both feet off' emoticon. He's way ahead of us on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BS also is the bully mentality often found behind a gun.

The gun may be the empowerment, or vice-versa.

 

Fuck me! Are you back on this thread again? Bully mentality???? I think you watch too much TV or read too many Pusstralia opinion pieces about America.

 

You've tried that meme on for size here many times and have yet to back it up with anything substantial. Please, for the last freaking time, provide some examples of "bully mentality" found behind a gun and how that paints all (or even most) gun-owners as a group as bullies that need to be reined in somehow.

 

What bully? Oh, it mighta been the "begone" bit, like King George or something.

Or your own "douchebag" schtick.

Really, Jeff, some of you SA guys are kinda touchy, kinda brittle,

Threatened by the Brady Bunch or something.

 

As for content? We have enjoyed some great discussions on the Second and on modern court decisions--excellent stuff.

Lots of nice pics of gun hardware. I enjoyed Boomer's Encyclopedia of Guns a lot. I note a thriving, healthy group of SA gun range enthusiasts.

 

But there was lots of white noise, too. "Grow a pair, get a gun" stuff.

Collectively, you seemed to present no real plan to help with gun violence beyond resisting any and all controls.

That really caught my eye, Jeff. If you, or the NRA, is gonna steer the boat, then steer the boat.

 

Meanwhile, a sniper fires on strangers from the bushes in Arlington, WA this week, ho-hum. (Cop sniper got him.)

Kids with years of video gunfights, a returning combat-stressed army, women in combat roles and camo undies, and now a camo boatcover on a dingy at Shilshole..

 

Guns guns guns, can't get enough.

 

I think the camo is an off shoot of our Bow and Arrow culture. If you outlaw archery, then only outlaws will be archers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it was the horses that made them bullies.

 

...or that the Panama Canal hadn't been finished until 1914.

 

Facts? Facts? what the hell are you doing throwing facts around here. Geez you trying to break the internet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you don't find gun-lovers resisting changes? Here's post number two in this thread.

 

This is why so mamy US firearms owners who already follow hundreds of gun laws in the books fight even the seemingly little stuff that pops up here and there, with regard to more gun laws.

 

Seems that I bump into this concept a lot on these gun forums.

But IMO you gun guys need to manage the guns if you want them around. I have been up-front that I detest them.

 

I got to live in B.C. in the seventies. (I loved the people. but missed my homeland big-time).

With so many cultural similarities, I keep asking why Americans seem gun-predatory by comparison.

I think the John Wayne role model bit enters in. And that a true warrior-type like JBSF may not see the mentality.

 

 

A little trip back to gunplay in 1855 might do some of you well, to get some perspective.

Gov. Stevens at that time was Supt. of Indian Affairs, and enforced his will with guns while assuming the land was for the taking by the fittest.

Maybe it was for the best, maybe not, but at what point do we turn off the bullet machine?

 

Think civilization, and you may reflect that Chicks With Guns is a terrible and counter-productive anthropological direction.

Scary, guys. Because (sorry) women tamed the Wild West, not Samuel Colt.

And now we regress, somehow thinking that women should be equal in all matters, including war.

 

Yeah, let's put the kids in camo jammies, and fit your woman out in warrior undies.

Let's see where that takes us with regard to civilized behavior.

 

 

 

This anarchist, LH, like Atoyot for another, has put some thought into this problem.

I have to identify with Lefty. His parting shot, after a barrage of SA disagreement: "I know what I know."

 

 

 

"...That said there are things that can be done to reduce the risks of these tragedies. What is the purpose of a concealable handgun? Why do people need to have more triggers than they do fingers? Do we really need to make bullets that kill more efficiently and is that not insane when you think about it? Guns are a constitutional right and having A rifle to shoot deer or squirrels with or A shotgun for skeet shooting is fine; prohibition is a useless technique. Something is wrong however when the United States occupies the #1 spot of a top ten list of guns per capita along with Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Serbia. Of the 8 most developed economies in the world we are also the one with the highest death-by-guns rate and you are 2.5 times more likely to be murdered in the US than in even the most bloodthirsty of the other G8 nations. And of all the countries in the world where this data is tracked (170+) we rank 13th behind South Africa and every central american country.

 

What does this say about our great land? How would you start to fix this?

 

I would start by reducing how many guns can be in one household across the board. You have 25 rifles in your collection? Congratulations you now have three - tops. You own a shotgun in every gauge known to man? Welcome to the modern world, you now get to pick one. Your weapon is capable of holding and firing more than 5 rounds without reloading... time to look into alternate mags.

 

Handguns need to be banned forever. Why? Because there is no need for a concealable killing machine. It's the same reason why Automatic Rifles were banned - there's no need. On top of that pistols can be hidden. In the waistband of pants, in a backpack, in a shoulder/hip/ankle holster etc. The American citizen does not face life threatening danger which dictates they be able to defend themselves with lethal force on a day to day basis while walking down the street of Anytown USA. Also, if you're carrying because you worry that some gun-toting loon is going to splatter you for taking too long in the line at starbucks then you'd have no need to be fearful if he or anyone else didn't have their handguns any more. If you're truly scared of being robbed while you sleep then put the locked gun safe with your target shotgun in it next to/under your bed. You no longer get to keep that .38 in the bedside drawer for when something goes bump in the night because in a fit of adolescent rage little Johnny might decide he wants to end the creep that his girlfriend cheated on him with and daddies handgun is right there for "quick" access. Law enforcement, the military and those with credible day-to-day threats to their lives (ex: judges) are granted exceptions to this because they go out of their way to protect the rest of the population so that your next door neighbor can legitimately feel safe without a .45 strapped to his hip.

 

Imagine the number of lives which would be saved if we, as a nation, could take 10, 20, 50 percent of the guns on the streets out of the equation. It would literally save thousands of lives a year.

 

snapback.pngatoyot, on 27 February 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

 

snapback.pngLeft Hook, on 27 February 2012 - 12:04 PM, said:

 

Are you high? Of course it's a direct outcome of the availability of a gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people need to have more triggers than they do fingers? ... Your weapon is capable of holding and firing more than 5 rounds without reloading... time to look into alternate mags.

 

 

I think our number of hands is a more appropriate limit on our constitutional rights, so only two rounds makes more sense. If you missed once, you get another chance. Miss again and you're obviously someone who doesn't need to take another shot. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Joke-Kal is as scared of automobiles as he is of firearms?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you don't find gun-lovers resisting changes? Here's post number two in this thread.

 

<SNIP>

 

You are a willfully ignorant obfuscating idiot on this topic. You suppose that because YOU don't like something, that everyone else ought to bow to your wishes.

 

The primary reason for "resisting change", as has been explained to you on numerous occasions is that almost ALL changes that have been suggested recently are emotional ploys with absolutely no basis in efficacy. Given the # of attempts to confiscate all weapons by any means possible, the responsible gun owner is perfectly justified in being suspect of the motives and outcomes of any suggested additional infringement.

 

You don't NEED a boat. How many people die each year from needles drownings? Think of the sorrow that could be avoided if noone went out on the water! Now - let's talk about those damned jetskis!

 

JoCal - I understand that you don't like guns - and I'm OK with that - and if we were doing something together, I'd respect your opinion on the matter and would behave in a way so as to not intentionally aggravate or upset you. BUT - that concern and caution in this case doesn't seem to be reciprocal. You are unabashed in your attempts to justify actions that have as their sole goal the elimination of firearms as an end unto itself.

 

Yet, you ask, with a straight face, why folks who want to protect all our rights resist additional intrusions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal, make up all the stupid laws you want to. Criminals still won't obey them. and if you ever did manage an outright ban, criminals will just use something else.

 

Bottom line, it won't stop the criminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoCal - I understand that you don't like guns - and I'm OK with that - and if we were doing something together, I'd respect your opinion on the matter and would behave in a way so as to not intentionally aggravate or upset you. BUT - that concern and caution in this case doesn't seem to be reciprocal.

 

It's all rooted in the new liberal view of "tolerance" - "tolerance" means you agree with their perspective, and are perfectly happy to give up personal rights in order to go along with what they believe to be "for the greater good".

 

Of course, if you have a different perspective, you are clearly "intolerant", a "bigot" and deserve to be demonized.

 

Clearly JoCal and others are not being respectful of *your* lifestyle choices, while demanding that you respect theirs.

 

Derp.

 

Obnote, none of my guns spontaneously committed any violence, compelled any criminal behavior or turned me into a bully today. That's an unbroken streak of something over 10,000 days in a row. Not sure how any new laws would improve that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you don't find gun-lovers resisting changes?

 

Not at all. Gun lovers are responsible for reviving the second amendment from legal oblivion and making it once again relevant to our lives, which was a huge change resisted by the other side. We are responsible for the spread of concealed carry legislation to every state but one.

 

Change is good! Sometimes! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal, make up all the stupid laws you want to. Criminals still won't obey them. and if you ever did manage an outright ban, criminals will just use something else.

 

Bottom line, it won't stop the criminal.

 

Amro, I hear that said a lot. A poster said he could get a gun on the street in twenty minutes, too...

 

I read a book about the US intrigue behind the scenes during the Jimmy Carter 444 day hostage matter. Non-fiction.

The best spooks they could find spend three chapters trying to get a .45 into Iran, and IIRC they never succeeded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, you don't find gun-lovers resisting changes? Here's post number two in this thread.
You are a willfully ignorant obfuscating idiot on this topic. You suppose that because YOU don't like something, that everyone else ought to bow to your wishes. The primary reason for "resisting change", as has been explained to you on numerous occasions is that almost ALL changes that have been suggested recently are emotional ploys with absolutely no basis in efficacy. Given the # of attempts to confiscate all weapons by any means possible, the responsible gun owner is perfectly justified in being suspect of the motives and outcomes of any suggested additional infringement. You don't NEED a boat. How many people die each year from needles drownings? Think of the sorrow that could be avoided if noone went out on the water! Now - let's talk about those damned jetskis! JoCal - I understand that you don't like guns - and I'm OK with that - and if we were doing something together, I'd respect your opinion on the matter and would behave in a way so as to not intentionally aggravate or upset you. BUT - that concern and caution in this case doesn't seem to be reciprocal. You are unabashed in your attempts to justify actions that have as their sole goal the elimination of firearms as an end unto itself. Yet, you ask, with a straight face, why folks who want to protect all our rights resist additional intrusions?

 

My, what a gap here. Good discussion.

 

JBSF carried his .22 on his bike using a sling over his shoulder? How cool is that.

Well, I used a scabbard rigged on the front fork of my bike. Age ten.

I used to plink a lot, and I am fascinated by guns. I like to study historic gunplay. Mmm, I don't like the direction I see.

 

Tom Ray, having CC okay in 49 states is not progress. Wyatt Earp had several jobs taking guns away from citizens in the 1870's.

 

Chesapeake, I don't mean to push buttons as such. But, with the passion for sailing as a backdrop, I came across the opportunity on SA discuss this problem with sharp guys who love guns. It's SA; if I take some shots, I take my own hits, too.

 

I think you and your gun friends need to propose your own "additional intrusions" to what may be snowballing gun violence. What efficacious course are you proposing?

 

I don't want your hobby gone, but look, too many actual bullets are flying nearby. Disturbing.

If you think things are hunky-dory, well, maybe I'm a canary in a coal mine.

Anecdotal? In the last thirty years or so a lot of crazies have come forward. Our vocabulary has added such words as going postal and school shooting, and I have a sense that we are accepting mass shootings as routine (which they are).

 

Now help me out here, was that figure of additional US guns every year?

 

I know that good stats were posted about this (probably pro and con), but does it not seem that Canada and other English-speaking nations are having less of a problem with this? Why the difference?

 

If the difference is American machismo, then parents among us might factor that into their child-rearing. I gather that refined civilization places less development on the fighter gene, no?

A Darwin thing, if you will.

 

"Johnny, what did your mommy do in the war?" Does that sound right to you? Does teaching armed conflict resolution skills (regular gun practice for just-in-case) sound right to you? Really?

 

Part of the gun privilege thing is taking responsibility for the place of guns in society, not just in your life. In this area of responsibility, you and your NRA buddies might address assault weapon availability, and the weapons pipeline into Mexico. As you resist, here come the controls you fear.

 

 

 

This thread began with shall I say collective displeasure of a prosecutor who came after a weapons instructor, who had a loaded gun handy (and used it) when men in ski masks began throwing gas bombs at his house. The prosecutor took issue with what may have been a loaded bedside weapon.

 

I support the action of the prosecutor. I don't know the whole story, maybe the guy is a saint, but I doubt the firebombers got his address out of the thin air.

 

As it turned out, the man needed to be (and was) set up for armed conflict resolution after a business misunderstanding. We got cowboy stuff here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Ray, having CC okay in 49 states is not progress.

 

That's a matter of opinion, though we now have 25 years of data on the effects here in Florida. I helpfully posted it for you.

 

You did not ask about progress.

 

So, you don't find gun-lovers resisting changes?

 

We resist some changes and support others, just like the other side.

 

And some of us resist filtering out a statistical anomaly to make a point that can not otherwise be made using the available data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thought I'd drag this over here, as I had replied in the radio shack shoot out thread.

 

That's like that idiot reporter that said he found out that the theator shooter was a member of the Tea Party in the middle of the crisis (and, as it turned out..he wasn't). Just how fucking pertinent was THAT??? His eventual retraction/correction was equally lame.

 

The 4th Estate is the biggest joke we have in this country. THAT'S why it is important to have guns my friends, that's why. If the balance of power is out of whack, it wouldn't take much for a dick-tator to run all over us. Just sayin'....

 

Excellent point!

 

Wow thats some freaky reason to own guns. Do you really think America has become that uninterested that a dictator could step in. Wow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you and your gun friends need to propose your own "additional intrusions" to what may be snowballing gun violence. What efficacious course are you proposing?

 

 

As if it wasn't clear before, behold the ultimate goal of the author's intentions: infringe, restrict, deny, and intrude for the sake of doing so, in the hope that lawful gun ownership will be so narrowly codified and inconvenient that we will just give it all up.

 

"If" the issue were that violence per se the matter to be addressed, we "gun owners" should be honored to make proposals. Some of us, if not many of us, have done so. Some proposals addressed gun ownership, some addressed various socioeconomic strategies, some re: education, and one even proposed teaching urban yoots the finer points of marksmanship as a self-esteem builder.

 

Jocal finds them mostly unacceptable even though they seek to address believed root causes of violence, on the grounds (or so it seems) that those proposals don't do enough to control gun ownership. Directly addressing, or modifying the fuels of violence are summarily disapproved, as they don't do enough to achieve that which keeps rearing its head as the principle goal.

 

"Gun violence", while we're at it, is a media term. A manufactured term, a subtle editorial that can be inserted into "news" stories so as to demonize objects rather than identify criminal acts. I'll tell you what - address violence, hate, despair, and the farcical War on Drugs, and you will absolutely address so-called "gun violence" and you will also address all other types of violence as well.

 

If, that is, addressing violence per se were the goal.

 

It is disingenuous in the extreme to claim to want to end violence in America, ask for suggestions, then ignore those suggestions. So, while it's just as improper to think that there is nothing whatsoever we could do to better our gun ownership safeguards, it's equally fallacious to assume any safeguards will address "gun violence", until we address VIOLENCE. I mean, you can throw a tarpaulin over a cesspool, but that shit's still going to stink and still seep into the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way the world addresses violence is to make laws. Can we as people get rid of violence, I doubt it. So we have to have laws to limit the impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, you can promote social justice such that violent power struggles don't seem necessary to those who used to exist on the bottom, living hand-to-mouth for generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I get your reply... But I don't think social justice is the way to go, as it seems your advocating being a vigilante.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I get your reply... But I don't think social justice is the way to go, as it seems your advocating being a vigilante.

 

haha, picturing St Thomas as a vigilante.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you and your gun friends need to propose your own "additional intrusions" to what may be snowballing gun violence. What efficacious course are you proposing?

 

Stop teaching children that their feelings are more important than reality, that there are no consequences to bad decisions, and that everything is somebody else's fault. Turn schools back into places of education, rather than social conditioning. Bring back orphanages. Remove children from blatantly disfunctional environments and put them in said orphanages. Eliminate entirely government programs that reward people for spawning children they cannot possibly support. Stop treating convicted criminals like country club patrons. They have no "right" to Internet connectivity, TV, magazines, weight lifting equipment, "hoops," law libraries, etc. They're convicted ciminals. They forfeited their rights to the benefits of a free society when they waged crime upon it. Prison is not supposed to be comfortable. Make education mandatory, but on society's terms, not the criminal's. Fix the broken bits of the justice system that allow so many innocent people to be convicted, then bring back public executions for capital offenses. Eliminate entirely the War On Some Drugs.

 

While we're at it, reinforce the concept of personal responsibility by reforming tort law. If somebody spills hot coffee on their lap: It's their fault. If somebody trips and falls on a sidewalk: It's their fault. If somebody causes an automobile collision (not "accident," collision): It's their fault, not "no fault." If somebody takes out a loan they cannot repay: It's their fault, not the bank's, the government's or society's. (Maybe bringing back debtors' prisons would be a good idea?) If somebody misuses a power tool that was properly designed and operated as it was designed to operate, and they are injured or killed: It's their fault, not the manufacturer's or the seller's. If somebody with ciminal intent is injured or killed in the process of conducting their criminal enterprise: Too bad. Attempting to sue the victim should be laughed out of court. The perpetrators of such nonsense should be fined and their lawyers disbarred.

 

It utterly astonishes me that, due to "liberal" "thinking," we've been doing just the opposite of all those things, society has been becoming more violent, and the fault is laid at the feet of inanimate objects that have been around all along. Hello??? On what planet does blaming change on the thing that has not changed make any kind of sense whatsoever? Explain that logic, please, because it escapes me entirely.

 

I don't want your hobby gone, but...

 

The Second Amendment, and the right it affirms, is not about hobbies or hunting.

 

"Johnny, what did your mommy do in the war?" Does that sound right to you?

 

What does that have to do with the subject?

 

Waitaminute... are you suggesting women have no place in the modern military?!?!

 

Part of the gun privilege thing is taking responsibility for the place of guns in society, not just in your life.

 

That is exactly the kind of "liberal" "thinking" that's got us where we are today. Everything is somebody else's fault. Ironically: Usually the responsible individual(s) that had nothing whatsoever to do with whatever evil was done. I do not accept it. The only part of "the gun rights thing" that's my responsibility is my handling of firearms. Period.

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you and your gun friends need to propose your own "additional intrusions" to what may be snowballing gun violence. What efficacious course are you proposing?

 

Stop teaching children that their feelings are more important than reality, that there are no consequences to bad decisions, and that everything is somebody else's fault. Turn schools back into places of education, rather than social conditioning. Bring back orphanages. Remove children from blatantly disfunctional environments and put them in said orphanages. Eliminate entirely government programs that reward people for spawning children they cannot possibly support. Stop treating convicted criminals like country club patrons. They have no "right" to Internet connectivity, TV, magazines, weight lifting equipment, "hoops," law libraries, etc. They're convicted ciminals. They forfeited their rights to the benefits of a free society when they waged crime upon it. Prison is not supposed to be comfortable. Make education mandatory, but on society's terms, not the criminal's. Fix the broken bits of the justice system that allow so many innocent people to be convicted, then bring back public executions for capital offenses. Eliminate entirely the War On Some Drugs.

 

While we're at it, reinforce the concept of personal responsibility by reforming tort law. If somebody spills hot coffee on their lap: It's their fault. If somebody trips and falls on a sidewalk: It's their fault. If somebody causes an automobile collision (not "accident," collision): It's their fault, not "no fault." If somebody takes out a loan they cannot repay: It's their fault, not the bank's, the government's or society's. (Maybe bringing back debtors' prisons would be a good idea?) If somebody misuses a power tool that was properly designed and operated as it was designed to operate, and they are injured or killed: It's their fault, not the manufacturer's or the seller's. If somebody with ciminal intent is injured or killed in the process of conducting their criminal enterprise: Too bad. Attempting to sue the victim should be laughed out of court. The perpetrators of such nonsense should be fined and their lawyers disbarred.

 

It utterly astonishes me that, due to "liberal" "thinking," we've been doing just the opposite of all those things, society has been becoming more violent, and the fault is laid at the feet of inanimate objects that have been around all along. Hello??? On what planet does blaming change on the thing that has not changed make any kind of sense whatsoever? Explain that logic, please, because it escapes me entirely.

 

I don't want your hobby gone, but...

 

The Second Amendment, and the right it affirms, is not about hobbies or hunting.

 

"Johnny, what did your mommy do in the war?" Does that sound right to you?

 

What does that have to do with the subject?

 

Waitaminute... are you suggesting women have no place in the modern military?!?!

 

Part of the gun privilege thing is taking responsibility for the place of guns in society, not just in your life.

 

That is exactly the kind of "liberal" "thinking" that's got us where we are today. Everything is somebody else's fault. Ironically: Usually the responsible individual(s) that had nothing whatsoever to do with whatever evil was done. I do not accept it. The only part of "the gun rights thing" that's my responsibility is my handling of firearms. Period.

 

Jim

 

Jim, I liked the content of your post. I am not waving the liberal flag across the board here or anywhere. I'm conservative enough and seasoned enough to agree with a lot of your post.

 

I am, overall, stressing that we need to look at the place and role guns are taking in society.

I am selling true firearm responsibility. Look at what's happening here with your guns.

 

It's a discussion for elsewhere, but sure, the gun acceptance bit does touch on the question of whether it's desirable to have mothers as shooters, fighters, or killers, yes. Of course, each gal will exercise her own choices, but some societies encourage (or require) female military involvement, and some don't. We're passing from the one to the other, I take it.

 

We hold small arms so dearly to our hearts that we drill our lovers on gun ranges and yawn as we militarize our mothers. Whew! I would like to take the Nursetta out for coffee, have a listen to her views, Boothie could come along if chained to a chair and fully gagged like Hannibal Lector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal, considering how many millions of guns there are in America, and how many millions of people we have here, our 'gun violence' rate is infinitesimal. You're seeking a feely-good solution to a problem that does not exist.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...on the question of whether it's desirable to have mothers as shooters, fighters, or killers, yes. Of course, each gal will exercise her own choices...

 

And they are.

 

Librul media propaganda

 

What is the fastest-growing demographic group in my state of Texas seeking concealed handgun licenses? Black women. As a former prosecutor, I understand why they are choosing to arm themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Ray, having CC okay in 49 states is not progress.

 

 

That's a matter of opinion, though we now have 25 years of data on the effects here in Florida. I helpfully posted it for you.

 

You did not ask about progress.

 

So, you don't find gun-lovers resisting changes?

 

 

We resist some changes and support others, just like the other side.

 

And some of us resist filtering out a statistical anomaly to make a point that can not otherwise be made using the available data.

 

 

Tom, I think you need to take it easy on the myopia over any single bunk stat. Because you will discourage posters from contributing valid stats which may be helpful; I mean all stats are imperfect and any may have anomalies..

But, sorry. For my own part, there was zero intention to deceive posting that info.

We can move on, to what the better data says.

 

If we acted on some stats presented here we'd be handing out free guns at stoplights. Then I hear Left Hook's voice...

 

The credibility thing here. Gotta say, I pretty much discount all NRA stats, just I feel they have no cred given the situation looking out the window. Don't have a clue about Brady or other stats.

 

TR you da guy with the handle on stats. Who has the big-picture, impartial info?

Better yet, how do you read it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal, considering how many millions of guns there are in America, and how many millions of people we have here, our 'gun violence' rate is infinitesimal. You're seeking a feely-good solution to a problem that does not exist.......

 

 

Yeah, perfect. The denial gag.

What an SA classic, for me to be able to mix with you, Rick. I want to shoot you, amigo.

 

My opinion is that the problem exists, but the solution may not. And that the supply side aggravates the whole deal.

And that the pro-gun side generates or contributes to the problem.

 

But lo, I am just a douchebag and you and TR have 44,000 posts, so I know, STFU.

How to remove the uh 350 million guns? You may recall that my solution was a helicopter (black or otherwise) at dawn tomorrow with a big electromagnet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For my own part, there was zero intention to deceive posting that info.

 

... Who has the big-picture, impartial info?

Better yet, how do you read it?

 

 

You had no intent to deceive, but what about the reporter who took a look at those statistics and grabbed that particular one? That was an extremely strange accident or an intent to deceive. I'm not a big believer in strange accidents.

 

Impartial info? Everyone omits something. Look to a variety of sources. guncite.com is pretty good from one angle.

 

The answer to your last question is in our PM exchange, which I already gave you permission to post in full.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<SNIP>

We hold small arms so dearly to our hearts that we drill our lovers on gun ranges and yawn as we militarize our mothers. Whew! I would like to take the Nursetta out for coffee, have a listen to her views, Boothie could come along if chained to a chair and fully gagged like Hannibal Lector.

 

Bud - I think that this may be an opportune moment to help illustrate what is MY personal perspective:

 

I treasure ALL the rights that we enjoy as citizens of this country, and I fully understand that with the exercise of those rights comes personal responsibility. What I am adamantly in opposition to is the idea that because some individuals don't exhibit proper discretion in the exercise of those rights (ie, drinkin' too much and driving, getting into debt that you can't afford, ignoring existing laws in the pursuit of your own selfish satisfaction) that everyone else's RIGHTS need to be curtailed, instead of addressing the abhorrent behaviors of those who abuse their rights.

 

For the purpose of illustration, let's take the idea to someplace way out on the lunatic fringe: Fishing:

 

Let's say some guy decides to use explosives to fish for stripers - he goes out and slays 400 prime breeding fish w/his dynamite fish traps. What is the appropriate response? Outlaw dynamite? Reduce everyone else's limits to compensate for this guys disrespect of existing law? Or - is it to catch and punish the individual who chose to ignore existing laws?

 

The point is that if you don't address the root causes of the behavior - that speaking to the implement of the behavior is ineffective, and serves only to help people feel like they did "something" - even if that something is completely ineffective. How effective have historical attempts to regulate the implement in an attempt to influence behavior been? How's that prohibition thing work? How 'bout the "war on drugs"? In contrast - let's look at situations in which the behavior's been addressed: Drunk Driving laws - Nobody told anybody not to drink, but, that the penalties for engaging in the proscribed behavior were severe enough as to be a successful deterrent. Have DUI laws eliminated drunk driving? Not at all - but, it's NOW considered a personal failure to get popped for a DUI, providing a social as well as penal and economic deterrent to the undesired behavior.

 

I want to do something to stop needless violence - but - to have any effect on the behavior - the behavior is where we need to focus, not the emotionally divisive discussion of the "evil implement".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bud - I think that this may be an opportune moment to help illustrate what is MY personal perspective:

 

I treasure ALL the rights that we enjoy as citizens of this country, and I fully understand that with the exercise of those rights comes personal responsibility. What I am adamantly in opposition to is the idea that because some individuals don't exhibit proper discretion in the exercise of those rights (ie, drinkin' too much and driving, getting into debt that you can't afford, ignoring existing laws in the pursuit of your own selfish satisfaction) that everyone else's RIGHTS need to be curtailed, instead of addressing the abhorrent behaviors of those who abuse their rights.

 

For the purpose of illustration, let's take the idea to someplace way out on the lunatic fringe: Fishing:

 

Let's say some guy decides to use explosives to fish for stripers - he goes out and slays 400 prime breeding fish w/his dynamite fish traps. What is the appropriate response? Outlaw dynamite? Reduce everyone else's limits to compensate for this guys disrespect of existing law? Or - is it to catch and punish the individual who chose to ignore existing laws?

 

The point is that if you don't address the root causes of the behavior - that speaking to the implement of the behavior is ineffective, and serves only to help people feel like they did "something" - even if that something is completely ineffective. How effective have historical attempts to regulate the implement in an attempt to influence behavior been? How's that prohibition thing work? How 'bout the "war on drugs"? In contrast - let's look at situations in which the behavior's been addressed: Drunk Driving laws - Nobody told anybody not to drink, but, that the penalties for engaging in the proscribed behavior were severe enough as to be a successful deterrent. Have DUI laws eliminated drunk driving? Not at all - but, it's NOW considered a personal failure to get popped for a DUI, providing a social as well as penal and economic deterrent to the undesired behavior.

 

I want to do something to stop needless violence - but - to have any effect on the behavior - the behavior is where we need to focus, not the emotionally divisive discussion of the "evil implement".

 

I agree with you 1002%. But you're wasting your breath with these guys. That same sentiment has been posted here MANY times. Several by me directly. They don't want to hear it. All they know is that if you have guns, want guns, or whatever - you're a nutter. And that if you advocate for the right to own and use guns - that you are AUTOMATICALLY opposed to any rules to keep the bad guys from getting them.

 

They will never be satisfied until we are like the UK or Pusstralia, and even then they will just move on to knife, baseball bat and pitching wedge-bans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread kinda reminds me of a_never_ending_stairs__optical_illusion_by_dracu_teufel666-d4q9h6c.jpg

 

Slight hijack, but, who is the artist that originally produced the optically viable but physically impossible drawings like that? I think that there's a name for them, but, that too escapes me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread kinda reminds me of a_never_ending_stairs__optical_illusion_by_dracu_teufel666-d4q9h6c.jpg

 

Slight hijack, but, who is the artist that originally produced the optically viable but physically impossible drawings like that? I think that there's a name for them, but, that too escapes me.

 

M.C. Escher

 

mc_escher_origional-waterfall.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For my own part, there was zero intention to deceive posting that info.

 

... Who has the big-picture, impartial info?

Better yet, how do you read it?

 

You had no intent to deceive, but what about the reporter who took a look at those statistics and grabbed that particular one? That was an extremely strange accident or an intent to deceive. I'm not a big believer in strange accidents.

 

Impartial info? Everyone omits something. Look to a variety of sources. guncite.com is pretty good from one angle.

 

The answer to your last question is in our PM exchange, which I already gave you permission to post in full.

 

From TR:

 

My perspective on gun control in a nutshell:

 

Crime causes gun control laws, but gun control laws do not affect crime. People react to crimes by passing them, but they don't work.

 

There are myths on this from both sides. John Lott has studies "proving" that concealed carry legislation actually lowers crime rates. Yeah, maybe, but I doubt it. Those are gun control laws, and once again, gun control laws do not affect crime. Even ones I may like.

 

International comparisons are, to me, less useful than domestic ones. We have a huge range of gun control laws in America, from "Vermont Carry" to Chicago's extremely strict rules. As far as I can see, they don't correlate with crime much at all, in either direction. There are places with weak gun control and little crime, places with weak gun control and lots of crime, and that works both ways. Leading me to my bottom line: gun control does not affect crime.

 

There may be minor effects here and there, and Lott may even be right about concealed carry, but even he does not claim a very large benefit from those laws.

 

Why is this discussion private anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<SNIP>

We hold small arms so dearly to our hearts that we drill our lovers on gun ranges and yawn as we militarize our mothers. Whew! I would like to take the Nursetta out for coffee, have a listen to her views, Boothie could come along if chained to a chair and fully gagged like Hannibal Lector.

 

 

Bud - I think that this may be an opportune moment to help illustrate what is MY personal perspective:

 

I treasure ALL the rights that we enjoy as citizens of this country, and I fully understand that with the exercise of those rights comes personal responsibility. What I am adamantly in opposition to is the idea that because some individuals don't exhibit proper discretion in the exercise of those rights (ie, drinkin' too much and driving, getting into debt that you can't afford, ignoring existing laws in the pursuit of your own selfish satisfaction) that everyone else's RIGHTS need to be curtailed, instead of addressing the abhorrent behaviors of those who abuse their rights.

 

For the purpose of illustration, let's take the idea to someplace way out on the lunatic fringe: Fishing:

 

Let's say some guy decides to use explosives to fish for stripers - he goes out and slays 400 prime breeding fish w/his dynamite fish traps. What is the appropriate response? Outlaw dynamite? Reduce everyone else's limits to compensate for this guys disrespect of existing law? Or - is it to catch and punish the individual who chose to ignore existing laws?

 

The point is that if you don't address the root causes of the behavior - that speaking to the implement of the behavior is ineffective, and serves only to help people feel like they did "something" - even if that something is completely ineffective. How effective have historical attempts to regulate the implement in an attempt to influence behavior been? How's that prohibition thing work? How 'bout the "war on drugs"? In contrast - let's look at situations in which the behavior's been addressed: Drunk Driving laws - Nobody told anybody not to drink, but, that the penalties for engaging in the proscribed behavior were severe enough as to be a successful deterrent. Have DUI laws eliminated drunk driving? Not at all - but, it's NOW considered a personal failure to get popped for a DUI, providing a social as well as penal and economic deterrent to the undesired behavior.

 

I want to do something to stop needless violence - but - to have any effect on the behavior - the behavior is where we need to focus, not the emotionally divisive discussion of the "evil implement".

 

 

You guys deny the problem itself, so behavior modification would be implemented how?

 

You are training yourselves for combat in our urban settings, not adressing agressive behavior and anger management. Gunfire is the behavior mod in play here.

 

 

 

 

Chesapeake, if the dynamite used for work in your dynamite fishing were left laying around everywhere, sooner or later problems would result. Duh.

You better watch the dynamite in your village, since having some crazies in any community is a given. Duh.

 

In that village, if you have a group extolling explosives and making dynamite available to idiots, go deal with that group. Better do it before you have a big problem.

Other tips: expose any cultural influences which promote omnipresent dynamite; address any misguided villagers who prefer cheap dynamite on the street corners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For my own part, there was zero intention to deceive posting that info.

 

... Who has the big-picture, impartial info?

Better yet, how do you read it?

 

 

You had no intent to deceive, but what about the reporter who took a look at those statistics and grabbed that particular one? That was an extremely strange accident or an intent to deceive. I'm not a big believer in strange accidents.

 

Impartial info? Everyone omits something. Look to a variety of sources. guncite.com is pretty good from one angle.

 

The answer to your last question is in our PM exchange, which I already gave you permission to post in full.

 

 

From TR:

 

 

My perspective on gun control in a nutshell:

 

Crime causes gun control laws, but gun control laws do not affect crime. People react to crimes by passing them, but they don't work.

 

There are myths on this from both sides. John Lott has studies "proving" that concealed carry legislation actually lowers crime rates. Yeah, maybe, but I doubt it. Those are gun control laws, and once again, gun control laws do not affect crime. Even ones I may like.

 

International comparisons are, to me, less useful than domestic ones. We have a huge range of gun control laws in America, from "Vermont Carry" to Chicago's extremely strict rules. As far as I can see, they don't correlate with crime much at all, in either direction. There are places with weak gun control and little crime, places with weak gun control and lots of crime, and that works both ways. Leading me to my bottom line: gun control does not affect crime.

 

There may be minor effects here and there, and Lott may even be right about concealed carry, but even he does not claim a very large benefit from those laws.

 

Why is this discussion private anyway?

 

 

Yes, those are my words in a PM and jocal had permission to post them.

 

Now, jocal, I again must ask the question I first asked in April:

 

What about the reporter who took a look at those statistics and grabbed that particular one? Accident or deliberate deception?

 

I'm not trying to badger you here, but you did mention that you don't trust NRA stats. Good for you. I don't either, but nor do I dismiss them because of the source. My purpose in pursuing this question is to show you that you should not trust stats from anyone, even people whose viewpoint you may share.

 

I'll feel like my purpose has been fulfilled if you can find it in yourself to admit that the reporter was trying to deceive his audience in picking that particular year to make his point. His point, that gun violence has risen dramatically since 1999, is true with regard to that year but not indicative of any trend when you look at the rest of the numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites