Archived

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

Bull Gator

Gun nutter sttrikes again

Recommended Posts

 

 

In related news, the Internet is facing a bit shortage due to indiscriminate cutting and pasting of large amounts of irrelevant material which is never read. Wasteful.... very very wasteful. Authorities say that if the offenders are not reined in, people may be faced with the prospect of using pencils and paper or in the most extreme cases talking to live people occupying the same physical space as them.

 

Irrelevant? Hardly. I count 109 documented gun shootings in one weekend there. It speaks to the enormity of the problem. Let's face it.

 

 

Indeed so - let's face it. The longer we wait, the worse it will be, and the harder it will get to make the necessary societal changes. When do we stop telling people that it's OK when their bad behavior negatively impacts those around them?

 

You can't do it until they are at least 26 because there of the potential to damage their self esteem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is a clear degeneration of the United States which our parents left us, where it was assumed daily sidearms were unnecessary. The gun mindset is a poison.

 

 

Are you fuking kidding us? Gun ownership and gun use has been woven into the fabric of America since Day One. There have been no 'down times' since the 1600's when they were deemed unnecessary, useless or otherwise verbotten to own and/or use. Appropriately. To think that our parents did NOT use and own firearms back in the 40's,50's or 60's is completely fuking incorrect. Especially given the fact that they were affordable, they were available everywhere (department stores, gas stations, sporting goods stores, many super markets and yes, even in 7-11's) and there was NO stigma associated with everyone in the family owning one. Just ask any ex-Boy Scout that's your folks age. Or their school teachers/principals.....who actually ALLOWED us to bring firearms on campus.

 

Jfc, you're really trying my patients this year......

they had recreational firearms. They didn't "pack heat"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It is a clear degeneration of the United States which our parents left us, where it was assumed daily sidearms were unnecessary. The gun mindset is a poison.

 

 

Are you fuking kidding us? Gun ownership and gun use has been woven into the fabric of America since Day One. There have been no 'down times' since the 1600's when they were deemed unnecessary, useless or otherwise verbotten to own and/or use. Appropriately. To think that our parents did NOT use and own firearms back in the 40's,50's or 60's is completely fuking incorrect. Especially given the fact that they were affordable, they were available everywhere (department stores, gas stations, sporting goods stores, many super markets and yes, even in 7-11's) and there was NO stigma associated with everyone in the family owning one. Just ask any ex-Boy Scout that's your folks age. Or their school teachers/principals.....who actually ALLOWED us to bring firearms on campus.

 

Jfc, you're really trying my patients this year......

they had recreational firearms. They didn't "pack heat"

 

For the most part that is who owns guns today, the difference is that now there is a large contingent of people trying to make that illegal.

 

 

BTW. I forgot my revolver last time I was out bow hunting and had a close encounter with a 600lb bear and it's 300lb friend. Everyone asked me why I was not carrying a revolver as backup. I don't know if you have bears that size out there or whether they are just more polite, but that is the last time I go out without something that can go bang if I turn from predator to prey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hey jocal,

 

THIS is the "gun culture" that I and rest of us responsible gun owners (and the NRA) promote.

 

THIS is what Jocal's "Gun Culture" is:

 

(photos snipped)

 

Jocal, do you see a difference here? If you do, then explain to me in your own words how my competing in a match with a "sniper rifle" promotes what the later group of thugs does or behaves? I would REALLY REALLY like an answer to that question!!!!

Jeff, I have studied your words for YEARS. Our best conversations have ended with your use of the word "cunt".

 

The gun culture I refer to is that of the SA Gun Club, as expressed (primarily by you, Boothy, and Tom Ray) on literally dozens of threads on PA. Pretty sketchy. I find that you are not honest with yourself. (One example: you deny the thrill of shooting, and your attachment to that thrill. WTF? Another example is that what you are selling is not contained to warm fuzzy pics of kids with guns on a firing range. A third example of your self-deciet is the first sentence of your post, above: the NRA is doing serious cultural damage on behalf of the gun lobby, Sir.)

 

The gun culture I refer to may be best exemplified by your suggestion that blowing away a creep who chucked used tires into someone else's dumpster (he was advancing with threatening fists) is "self defense". It's just not acceptable. Your mentality is scary, and uncivilized. In a thread (which you started) you offered that some new, devastating military ordnance is "cute". Not acceptable, Jeff, but I am glad to have met you.

 

Address the subject of the tire chucker directly, without being abusive, and I may continue the discourse.

Take it easy..............

I haven't called you a cunt in a long time and I've been very nice and respectful to you as of late.

 

Answer my DIRECT questions and ill answer yours. Nice diversion btw, but it ain't working. The subject is "gun culture" and you're ignoring the point and looking in the wrong places. The so called SA gun club isn't the problem. The differences in the pics I posted above ARE the problem. The latter set of pics are the "gun culture" that is the problem. The former is not. The former is the gun culture I subscribe to an promote. Please tell me where your problem with that is.

 

Btw - I'm headed to the US (boarding in about 5 min) on a business trip and will get in some shooting this weekend. Likely some long range rifle stuff, some AR blasting and some pistol work. I might even get in a day of coyote hunting (inshallah). I can 100% guarantee you that no humans will be harmed in any of these activities. How is what I'm doing contributing or in any way connected to your 109 cut n paste BS? Serious question. But I know you won't answer like usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In related news, the Internet is facing a bit shortage due to indiscriminate cutting and pasting of large amounts of irrelevant material which is never read. Wasteful.... very very wasteful. Authorities say that if the offenders are not reined in, people may be faced with the prospect of using pencils and paper or in the most extreme cases talking to live people occupying the same physical space as them.

 

Irrelevant? Hardly. I count 109 documented gun shootings in one weekend there. It speaks to the enormity of the problem. Let's face it.

 

I notice you didn't paste them with the links this time, making it harder for me to identify the ones that are self-defense shootings so I can ask you questions you will not answer.

 

Your silence strongly suggests you think Ms. Mason should have just laid back and thought of England, you know...

 

I think mixing self-defense cases like hers and the others I have picked out of your long copy/pastes with violent crimes is dishonest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It is a clear degeneration of the United States which our parents left us, where it was assumed daily sidearms were unnecessary. The gun mindset is a poison.

 

Are you fuking kidding us? Gun ownership and gun use has been woven into the fabric of America since Day One. There have been no 'down times' since the 1600's when they were deemed unnecessary, useless or otherwise verbotten to own and/or use. Appropriately. To think that our parents did NOT use and own firearms back in the 40's,50's or 60's is completely fuking incorrect. Especially given the fact that they were affordable, they were available everywhere (department stores, gas stations, sporting goods stores, many super markets and yes, even in 7-11's) and there was NO stigma associated with everyone in the family owning one. Just ask any ex-Boy Scout that's your folks age. Or their school teachers/principals.....who actually ALLOWED us to bring firearms on campus.

 

Jfc, you're really trying my patients this year......

 

they had recreational firearms. They didn't "pack heat"

The pilgrims may or may not have had guns but if they did it was bot for self defense

 

You guys seem to have ingested some of that stuff produced by Bellesiles. They took away his tenure and Bancroft prize for good reasons. You should try a history book instead. Their guns were hardly recreational and were primarily for self-defense and hunting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In related news, the Internet is facing a bit shortage due to indiscriminate cutting and pasting of large amounts of irrelevant material which is never read. Wasteful.... very very wasteful. Authorities say that if the offenders are not reined in, people may be faced with the prospect of using pencils and paper or in the most extreme cases talking to live people occupying the same physical space as them.

 

Irrelevant? Hardly. I count 109 documented gun shootings in one weekend there. It speaks to the enormity of the problem. Let's face it.

 

I notice you didn't paste them with the links this time, making it harder for me to identify the ones that are self-defense shootings so I can ask you questions you will not answer.

 

Your silence strongly suggests you think Ms. Mason should have just laid back and thought of England, you know...

 

I think mixing self-defense cases like hers and the others I have picked out of your long copy/pastes with violent crimes is dishonest.

 

It's a package deal. Valid self defense uses occur, as verified by the recent CDC figures. Do they offset the senseless gun mahem? No. Show me the study that says they do.

 

When you allow proliferation of un-registered guns (I'm with Blackjenner on that one), then handcuff the background checks, what do you expect?

 

Hey, I hold no single, magic solution. But when you propose guns as a solution to the populace at large, a certain percentage of humans screw up.

In fact, several LE officers screwed up just last weekend, and you're the guy preaching NO BADGE REQUIRED, no?

 

My own strong take on it is that guns and their use need to be discouraged. That it's on the upwardly mobile to be something more than gunslingers.

With better studies we may know how to navigate this: the lack of viable study falls on the NRA. Few here have criticized that bit, for a shame.

 

Tom, you may need to get over what happened to your wonderful wife. Fear seems to be driving your behavior... But ginning up gunfire across the 50 states? Oh, please...

 

Thank you for openly examining, and re-considering, the SYG debacle, Tom.

That link can be found by Googling Joe Nocera, the Daily Gun Report. All the best.

 

Joe Calhoun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

In related news, the Internet is facing a bit shortage due to indiscriminate cutting and pasting of large amounts of irrelevant material which is never read. Wasteful.... very very wasteful. Authorities say that if the offenders are not reined in, people may be faced with the prospect of using pencils and paper or in the most extreme cases talking to live people occupying the same physical space as them.

 

Irrelevant? Hardly. I count 109 documented gun shootings in one weekend there. It speaks to the enormity of the problem. Let's face it.

 

I notice you didn't paste them with the links this time, making it harder for me to identify the ones that are self-defense shootings so I can ask you questions you will not answer.

 

Your silence strongly suggests you think Ms. Mason should have just laid back and thought of England, you know...

 

I think mixing self-defense cases like hers and the others I have picked out of your long copy/pastes with violent crimes is dishonest.

 

It's a package deal. Valid self defense uses occur, as verified by the recent CDC figures. Do they offset the senseless gun mahem? No. Show me the study that says they do.

 

When you allow proliferation of un-registered guns (I'm with Blackjenner on that one), then handcuff the background checks, what do you expect?

 

Hey, I hold no single, magic solution. But when you propose guns as a solution to the populace at large, a certain percentage of humans screw up.

In fact, several LE officers screwed up just last weekend, and you're the guy preaching NO BADGE REQUIRED, no?

 

My own strong take on it is that guns and their use need to be discouraged. That it's on the upwardly mobile to be something more than gunslingers.

With better studies we may know how to navigate this: the lack of viable study falls on the NRA. Few here have criticized that bit, for a shame.

 

Tom, you may need to get over what happened to your wonderful wife. Fear seems to be driving your behavior... But ginning up gunfire across the 50 states? Oh, please...

 

Thank you for openly examining, and re-considering, the SYG debacle, Tom.

 

Joe Calhoun

 

The bolded portion of your statement is something that noone here is advocating - more guns the solution? That's a bit of a stretch from the oft-repeated position that questions the inefficacy of hastily enacted prohibitions.

 

My own strong take on it is that the improper and illegal attacks on innocents guns and their use need to be discouraged - I think that reads a bit better, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell ya what----you figure out how to stop the river of single moms and kids with no dads, how to stop crime and get our fuking bleeding heart judges to start dropping the hammer on violent criminals and giving them REAL LONG prison sentences (instead of little mini vacations), then, and only then, can you come back here and try your hand at 'disarming' law abiding citizens. In the meantime, those of us here will continue to arm ourselves, to fight fire with fire, and to protect our own lives and the lives of our loved ones---the way we see fit...and within the legal confines of our existing gun laws.

 

You, on the other hand, Mr. Gun Owning Hipocrite, can do wetf you want. Just do NOT attempt to impede us responsible gun owners with your pablumatic cut & pastes, or your Berkleyesque views on how you think we should conduct ourselves. Because we are not the problem....just the solution.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Hey jocal,

 

THIS is the "gun culture" that I and rest of us responsible gun owners (and the NRA) promote.

 

THIS is what Jocal's "Gun Culture" is:

 

(photos snipped)

 

Jocal, do you see a difference here? If you do, then explain to me in your own words how my competing in a match with a "sniper rifle" promotes what the later group of thugs does or behaves? I would REALLY REALLY like an answer to that question!!!!

Jeff, I have studied your words for YEARS. Our best conversations have ended with your use of the word "cunt".

 

The gun culture I refer to is that of the SA Gun Club, as expressed (primarily by you, Boothy, and Tom Ray) on literally dozens of threads on PA. Pretty sketchy. I find that you are not honest with yourself. (One example: you deny the thrill of shooting, and your attachment to that thrill. WTF? Another example is that what you are selling is not contained to warm fuzzy pics of kids with guns on a firing range. A third example of your self-deciet is the first sentence of your post, above: the NRA is doing serious cultural damage on behalf of the gun lobby, Sir.)

 

The gun culture I refer to may be best exemplified by your suggestion that blowing away a creep who chucked used tires into someone else's dumpster (he was advancing with threatening fists) is "self defense". It's just not acceptable. Your mentality is scary, and uncivilized. In a thread (which you started) you offered that some new, devastating military ordnance is "cute". Not acceptable, Jeff, but I am glad to have met you.

 

Address the subject of the tire chucker directly, without being abusive, and I may continue the discourse.

Take it easy..............

I haven't called you a cunt in a long time and I've been very nice and respectful to you as of late.

 

Answer my DIRECT questions and ill answer yours. Nice diversion btw, but it ain't working. The subject is "gun culture" and you're ignoring the point and looking in the wrong places. The so called SA gun club isn't the problem. The differences in the pics I posted above ARE the problem. The latter set of pics are the "gun culture" that is the problem. The former is not. The former is the gun culture I subscribe to an promote. Please tell me where your problem with that is.

 

Btw - I'm headed to the US (boarding in about 5 min) on a business trip and will get in some shooting this weekend. Likely some long range rifle stuff, some AR blasting and some pistol work. I might even get in a day of coyote hunting (inshallah). I can 100% guarantee you that no humans will be harmed in any of these activities. How is what I'm doing contributing or in any way connected to your 109 cut n paste BS? Serious question. But I know you won't answer like usual.

 

 

Jeff. I offered you a deal, and I shall stand by it. When you explain the rationale for coaching others to blow away a shirtless tire-chucker and just call it "self-defense", I will dig into your four links. Not until then. Have fun on your trip, and welcome back; have fun with your guns, too. The thrill is gone for me, Bud; I wouldn't want a child to see me load my gun in my van.

 

Well, though you are not particularly balanced in your relationship with (and promulgation of) high muzzle velocity, military style weapons, I don't suppose you are a direct danger to society. With others who read your words and match your weaponry, the jury is out. We'll never know. But given the types who are attracted to such power, I doubt your enthusiasm for firearms, and your 24-7-365 promotion of them, is some big positive. Mother Teresa wouldn't have those damn things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Win a few, lose a few. My side loses a lot. And then, there's this...

 

 

 

 

Doonesbury-Starbucks-Anti-Gun_zpsddd087e

 

 

 

In the past few months, two separate ladies set their purses down in different Starbucks coffee shops, and the guns went off. (Glocks?)

 

Another clown, a church minister, showed up last month at a Huntsville Starbucks with an AW slung over his shoulder to express his gratitude for their open carry policy. He brought his son to film the encounter to bolster the 1st Amendment, then posted the video on You Tube.

 

In Newton, CT, some gun club showed up with their weapons wearing cammo to hold their club meeting. The manager promptly shut the place down.

 

Two other customers brought in their guns openly, as allowed, then robbed Starbucks.

 

Starbucks Seeks to Keep Guns Out of Its Coffee Shops

By STEPHANIE STROM

Published: September 18, 2013

Tired of being thrust onto the front lines of the nation’s debate over guns, Starbucks is asking customers to leave firearms behind when they are in its stores and its outdoor seating areas.

Related

The policy change came after a shooting rampage at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday that left 13 people, including the gunman, dead. But Starbucks said its decision was not in response to that or to the shooting spree that killed 26 children and adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., just days before Christmas last year.

“I’ve spent a significant amount of personal time on this issue in the last several months and I’ve seen the emotionally charged nature of this issue and how polarizing it is on both sides,” Howard Schultz, the chief executive of Starbucks, said in a telephone interview. “Nevertheless, customers in many stores have been jarred and fairly uncomfortable to see guns in our stores, not understanding the issue and feeling that guns should not be part of the Starbucks experience, especially when small kids are around.”

Under the change, baristas and other store employees will not ask customers who come in with guns in holsters, say, to leave or confront them in any way, Mr. Schultz said. No signs explaining the policy will be posted in Starbucks stores, either.

“We are going to serve them as we would serve anyone else,” he said. “There are going to be people on both sides

who will be disappointed or angry, but we’re making a decision we think is in the best interests of our customers, employees and the company.” He said store officials would evaluate compliance over time and consider posting signs if necessary.

A majority of company-owned Starbucks stores are in states that allow people to openly carry guns, although restrictions and limitations vary from state to state. The company has had a handful of armed robberies in its stores over the years, as well as two recent incidents where guns carried in women’s purses have discharged accidentally, but little other gun violence in its stores.

Under its previous policy, however, Starbucks has been unwillingly co-opted by proponents of “open carry” policies and vilified by those seeking stricter laws on gun ownership. Garry Trudeau devoted six consecutive days of his Doonesbury comic strip in 2010 to mocking the company’s stance, which opened with a barista greeting a customer in a plaid flannel shirt and saying, “Welcome to Starbucks, sir. Would you be openly carrying a weapon today?”

“Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called ‘Starbucks Appreciation Days’ that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of open carry,” Mr. Schultz wrote in an open letter to be published in ads in major newspapers.

Last month, Starbucks closed a store in Newtown early after gun rights supporters wearing camouflage and Connecticut Citizens Defense League T-shirts held one of their events there.

Similarly, opponents of military-style assault weapons in stores, like the group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, which advocated “Skip Starbucks Sundays,” have staged protests outside Starbucks stores and urged consumers to boycott the company.

In 2010, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence teamed with Credo Action, an activist group that uses mobile technology and social media to push change, and attracted more than 40,000 signatures on a petition aimed at changing the company’s policy on guns in its stores that was delivered to Starbucks headquarters in Seattle.

“It sounds like Howard Schultz is making a very good business decision,” said Brian Malte, director of legislation and mobilization at the Brady Campaign. “Lots of families with children, college students and young people are Starbucks customers, and they want to feel safe.”

The company has long followed local laws regarding the ability to carry guns in plain sight. Customers in the 44 states that allow legal gun owners to carry weapons openly have been permitted in its stores there, while those in the six other states — New York, California, South Carolina, Illinois, Florida and Texas — have not, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

“I want to make it very clear that Starbucks is not a policy maker and as a company we are not pro- or anti-gun,” Mr. Schultz said. “However, there have been a number of episodes over the course of the last few months that have put us in a position to take a big step back and assess the issue of open carry.”

Most other restaurant chains and retailers follow policies similar to the one Starbucks is abandoning, although Peet’s Coffee and Tea and California Pizza Kitchen ban guns from their stores altogether. Disney also forbids guns in its theme parks, and Costco does not allow its members to carry them openly in its stores.

“While Peet’s Coffee and Tea respects and values all individuals’ rights under the law, like many other private retail establishments, our policy is not to allow customers carrying firearms in our stores or on our outdoor seating premises unless they are uniformed or identified law enforcement officers,” the company said in a statement forwarded by a spokeswoman.

A spokeswoman for the National Restaurant Association said the organization did not have a list of its members’ policies on guns but noted that some states that have open carry laws on the books still prohibit public display of firearms in restaurants.

Pasted from <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/business/starbucks-seeks-to-keep-guns-out-of-its-cofee-shops.html?_r=0>

 

 

The behavior is amusing from a certain angle.

You gun guys, in general, don't seem to know when to stop, so must be stopped by others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Win a few, lose a few. My side loses a lot. And then, there's this...

 

 

 

 

Doonesbury-Starbucks-Anti-Gun_zpsddd087e

 

 

 

In the past few months, two separate ladies set their purses down in different Starbucks coffee shops, and the guns went off. (Glocks?)

 

Another clown, a church minister, showed up last month at a Huntsville Starbucks with an AW slung over his shoulder to express his gratitude for their open carry policy. He brought his son to film the encounter to bolster the 1st Amendment, then posted the video on You Tube.

 

In Newton, CT, some gun club showed up with their weapons wearing cammo to hold their club meeting. The manager promptly shut the place down.

 

Two other customers brought in their guns openly, as allowed, then robbed Starbucks.

 

Starbucks Seeks to Keep Guns Out of Its Coffee Shops

By STEPHANIE STROM

Published: September 18, 2013

Tired of being thrust onto the front lines of the nation’s debate over guns, Starbucks is asking customers to leave firearms behind when they are in its stores and its outdoor seating areas.

Related

The policy change came after a shooting rampage at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday that left 13 people, including the gunman, dead. But Starbucks said its decision was not in response to that or to the shooting spree that killed 26 children and adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., just days before Christmas last year.

“I’ve spent a significant amount of personal time on this issue in the last several months and I’ve seen the emotionally charged nature of this issue and how polarizing it is on both sides,” Howard Schultz, the chief executive of Starbucks, said in a telephone interview. “Nevertheless, customers in many stores have been jarred and fairly uncomfortable to see guns in our stores, not understanding the issue and feeling that guns should not be part of the Starbucks experience, especially when small kids are around.”

Under the change, baristas and other store employees will not ask customers who come in with guns in holsters, say, to leave or confront them in any way, Mr. Schultz said. No signs explaining the policy will be posted in Starbucks stores, either.

“We are going to serve them as we would serve anyone else,” he said. “There are going to be people on both sides

who will be disappointed or angry, but we’re making a decision we think is in the best interests of our customers, employees and the company.” He said store officials would evaluate compliance over time and consider posting signs if necessary.

A majority of company-owned Starbucks stores are in states that allow people to openly carry guns, although restrictions and limitations vary from state to state. The company has had a handful of armed robberies in its stores over the years, as well as two recent incidents where guns carried in women’s purses have discharged accidentally, but little other gun violence in its stores.

Under its previous policy, however, Starbucks has been unwillingly co-opted by proponents of “open carry” policies and vilified by those seeking stricter laws on gun ownership. Garry Trudeau devoted six consecutive days of his Doonesbury comic strip in 2010 to mocking the company’s stance, which opened with a barista greeting a customer in a plaid flannel shirt and saying, “Welcome to Starbucks, sir. Would you be openly carrying a weapon today?”

“Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called ‘Starbucks Appreciation Days’ that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of open carry,” Mr. Schultz wrote in an open letter to be published in ads in major newspapers.

Last month, Starbucks closed a store in Newtown early after gun rights supporters wearing camouflage and Connecticut Citizens Defense League T-shirts held one of their events there.

Similarly, opponents of military-style assault weapons in stores, like the group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, which advocated “Skip Starbucks Sundays,” have staged protests outside Starbucks stores and urged consumers to boycott the company.

In 2010, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence teamed with Credo Action, an activist group that uses mobile technology and social media to push change, and attracted more than 40,000 signatures on a petition aimed at changing the company’s policy on guns in its stores that was delivered to Starbucks headquarters in Seattle.

“It sounds like Howard Schultz is making a very good business decision,” said Brian Malte, director of legislation and mobilization at the Brady Campaign. “Lots of families with children, college students and young people are Starbucks customers, and they want to feel safe.”

The company has long followed local laws regarding the ability to carry guns in plain sight. Customers in the 44 states that allow legal gun owners to carry weapons openly have been permitted in its stores there, while those in the six other states — New York, California, South Carolina, Illinois, Florida and Texas — have not, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

“I want to make it very clear that Starbucks is not a policy maker and as a company we are not pro- or anti-gun,” Mr. Schultz said. “However, there have been a number of episodes over the course of the last few months that have put us in a position to take a big step back and assess the issue of open carry.”

Most other restaurant chains and retailers follow policies similar to the one Starbucks is abandoning, although Peet’s Coffee and Tea and California Pizza Kitchen ban guns from their stores altogether. Disney also forbids guns in its theme parks, and Costco does not allow its members to carry them openly in its stores.

“While Peet’s Coffee and Tea respects and values all individuals’ rights under the law, like many other private retail establishments, our policy is not to allow customers carrying firearms in our stores or on our outdoor seating premises unless they are uniformed or identified law enforcement officers,” the company said in a statement forwarded by a spokeswoman.

A spokeswoman for the National Restaurant Association said the organization did not have a list of its members’ policies on guns but noted that some states that have open carry laws on the books still prohibit public display of firearms in restaurants.

Pasted from <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/business/starbucks-seeks-to-keep-guns-out-of-its-cofee-shops.html?_r=0>

 

 

The behavior is amusing from a certain angle.

You gun guys, in general, don't seem to know when to stop, so must be stopped by others.

 

 

I'd like to see a source on the guns firing within purses stories, but in general I agree with you on this one. Not mentioned in the article: the "Starbucks Appreciation" started when gun control activists tried to pressure Starbucks into using their stores to promote their political agenda. Starbucks did not cave to the pressure, which was appreciated. I think it was wrong for the gun control groups to use Starbucks as a pawn in this.

 

Then the gun nutz went further, with open carry events that, as the article said, tried to use Starbucks as a pawn for the gun nut agenda. That was wrong too. Leave 'em alone! They're just trying to sell overpriced coffee and sugary items.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice also that StarFux spoke's hole stated that they were neither pro, nor anti gun.

 

Sorry JokeOff, you fail. Yet again.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice also that StarFux spoke's hole stated that they were neither pro, nor anti gun.

 

Sorry JokeOff, you fail. Yet again.....

 

 

If you paid close attention, what happened was: the anti-gun nutters tried to get Starbucks to institute a "no guns" policy. Starbucks said their policy was to sell coffee and obey state and local laws. They added that disarming customers might make employees and customers less safe. Needless to say, that line was not well-received in some quarters, but was cheered in others.

 

Where allowed by state and local laws, gun nuts proceeded to flock to Starbucks wearing their guns. They were trying to make Starbucks into a hero of the movement. Starbucks just wants to sell coffee to people, no matter how they feel about guns. They don't want to be hero, villain, or even relevant in the gun debate. We should ALL respect their wishes. Goes for other companies too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jeff. I offered you a deal, and I shall stand by it. When you explain the rationale for coaching others to blow away a shirtless tire-chucker and just call it "self-defense", I will dig into your four links. Not until then. Have fun on your trip, and welcome back; have fun with your guns, too. The thrill is gone for me, Bud; I wouldn't want a child to see me load my gun in my van.

 

Well, though you are not particularly balanced in your relationship with (and promulgation of) high muzzle velocity, military style weapons, I don't suppose you are a direct danger to society. With others who read your words and match your weaponry, the jury is out. We'll never know. But given the types who are attracted to such power, I doubt your enthusiasm for firearms, and your 24-7-365 promotion of them, is some big positive. Mother Teresa wouldn't have those damn things.

Joco,

 

Feel free to show me where I "coached" or "cheered" any such incident and we'll talk. I did no such thing. I do stand by my long standing principle that a firearm is a legitimate self-defense tool against even unarmed people. I wouldn't expect a smaller person to take a potentially lethal beating just because the assailant wasn't armed. A bigger person armed only fists and skittles can maim and kill, as GITC correctly said. So stating that fact is not "coaching", as much as you'd like it to be so.

 

Again, ALL of your words here are nothing but projection of your own insecurities and fears. First of all, this is the ONLY place I write these words about guns, guns rights, etc. so I'm not sure who you're afraid I'm influencing. Aside from you and gaytor, I know of no else here that might be remotely unstable enough to have this adult conversation. So what others who "read my words" are you worried about? I personally think it is YOU who are the danger. You have a love/hate fascination with guns. You own guns, yet you find people who own guns dangerous and unbalanced. Mmmmm, perhaps this is a cry out for help for someone to take your gun away? Having suicidal or homicidal thoughts?

 

Again, please address my gun culture question. Stop ignoring it because it doesn't suit your narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You coached what you coached, it is no fabrication of mine.

 

 

My sincere concern is volitional shootings by dunderheads, now called SYG, and the general proliferation of guns in our fine country. The problem involves both lowlifes and others like you, who should know better. You don't seem to have the sense to apply effective background checks, do ya?

 

 

 

Dude, I'm living with a huge bear on my property, which by the way was targeted by a methamphetamine crew for five years. They took the baby grand, the wiring, even the garbage disposal and shower heads, etc. etc. etc. They also trashed the place. Six arrests didn't stem the crew. My dog and workmate Charlie Freckles is DTS, he perished in pursuit of the bear a month ago, and it hurt pretty badly. But my sole gun, a little .22, is seventy paces away in a separate building. Yeah, tell me again what a sissy I am.

 

 

 

Jeff, I would not leave you alone in a room with George Zimmerman, out of concern for the way society is developing. I am bemused that you can't admit the legacy of the modern NRA. You think I don't have you pegged, eh? I'll repeat myself for you directly: these military style weapons simply have no place on our streets. You are not well if you defend and promote them, IMO. My observation: you are just another small man with a gun who could take a page from d'ranger's book.

 

Another gun nut, another practiced fibber, methinks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Post210JBSF.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got any 'stories' of people running around the streets of America with 'military style' style weapons? If so I'd love to hear them.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You coached what you coached, it is no fabrication of mine.

 

My sincere concern is volitional shootings by dunderheads, now called SYG, and the general proliferation of guns in our fine country. The problem involves both lowlifes and others like you, who should know better. You don't seem to have the sense to apply effective background checks, do ya?

 

 

 

Dude, I'm living with a huge bear on my property, which by the way was targeted by a methamphetamine crew for five years. They took the baby grand, the wiring, even the garbage disposal and shower heads, etc. etc. etc. They also trashed the place. Six arrests didn't stem the crew. My dog and workmate Charlie Freckles is DTS, he perished in pursuit of the bear a month ago, and it hurt pretty badly. But my sole gun, a little .22, is seventy paces away in a separate building. Yeah, tell me again what a sissy I am.

 

 

 

Jeff, I would not leave you alone in a room with George Zimmerman, out of concern for the way society is developing. I am bemused that you can't admit the legacy of the modern NRA. You think I don't have you pegged, eh? I'll repeat myself for you directly: these military style weapons simply have no place on our streets. You are not well if you defend and promote them, IMO. My observation: you are just another small man with a gun who could take a page from d'ranger's book.

 

Another gun nut, another practiced fibber, methinks.

Uhhh, yes it is if you can't be bothered to quote the relevant bit you're referring to. Another fibber??? Yes, you are.

 

Speaking of unadulterated liar...... You've been called on this many times. Show me where I oppose effective background checks. You keep saying this. You keep getting called on it by others besides me and you continue to ignore that and then come back and repeat it as if its never been said. Do you fucking think we are that stupid?

 

Address the gun culture thing, jocal. You can't hide from that that. Stop talking AT us and start talking TO us. A "forum" means its a two way discussion. I answered you and fulfilled my end of your "deal". Your turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I want to see Jokey comment on this story, and on what's been happening in Mexico lately. Are these 'gun nutters' too, Jokey? Or do you think they actually have a legitimate cause, where they should be free to protect themselves and theirs?.....

 

 

 

 

Mexico Self-Defense Squads Battle Violence Where Authorities Fail

By MARK STEVENSON 01/21/13 01:13 PM ET EST ap_wire.png

gplus-32.png
r-MEXICO-SELF-DEFENSE-SQUADS-large570.jp

AYUTLA, Mexico — The young man at the roadside checkpoint wept softly behind the red bandanna that masked his face. At his side was a relic revolver, and his feet were shod in the muddy, broken boots of a farmer.

Haltingly, he told how his cousin's body was found in a mass grave with about 40 other victims of a drug gang. Apparently, the cousin had caught a ride with an off-duty soldier and when gunmen stopped the vehicle, they killed everyone on the car.

"There isn't one of us who hasn't felt the pain ... of seeing them take a family member and not being able to ever get them back," said the young civilian self-defense patrol member, who identified himself as "just another representative of the people of the mountain."

Now he has joined hundreds of other men in the southern Mexico state of Guerrero who have taken up arms to defend their villages against drug gangs, a vigilante movement born of frustration at extortion, killings and kidnappings that local police are unable, or unwilling, to stop.

Vigilantes patrol a dozen or more towns in rural Mexico, the unauthorized but often tolerated edge of a growing movement toward armed citizen self-defense squads across the country.

"The situation Mexico is experiencing, the crime, is what has given the communities the legitimacy to say, `We will assume the tasks that the government has not been able to fulfill,'" said rights activist Roman Hernandez, whose group Tlachinollan has worked with the community forces.

The young man and his masked cohorts stop cars at a checkpoint along the two-lane highway that runs past mango and palm trees to Ayutla, a dusty, sun-struck town of concrete homes with red-tile roofs. Pigs, chickens and skinny dogs root in the dirt while the mountains of the Pacific Coast range loom above.

The men wear fading t-shirts, leather sandals and most are armed with old hunting rifles or ancient 20-gauge shotguns hanging from their shoulders on twine slings as they stop cars and check the IDs of passing drivers.

The reach of drug gangs based in Acapulco, about 45 miles (75 kilometers) away, had intensified to the point that they were demanding protection payments from almost anybody with any property: truck and bus drivers, cattle ranchers, store owners. In a region where farmworkers make less than $6 per day, the situation grew intolerable for everyone.

"When they extorted money from the rancher, he raised the price of beef, and the store owner raised the price of tortillas," said a short, stocky defense-patrol commander who wore a brown ski mask and a black leather jacket. Because the patrols are not formally recognized by the courts, the law or the government – and they fear drug cartel reprisals – most members wear masks and refuse to give their full names.

An example of the danger came in late July when the city's official police chief was found shot to death on the edge of town.

It was another attack by criminals that sparked the movement in Ayutla: In early January, gang members kidnapped a commander of an existing community police force in a nearby town.

"Maybe they wanted to intimidate us, but it backfired. They just awakened the people," said one of the older vigilantes, a straw-hatted man without a gun.

Since then, the upstart self-defense movement has spread to other towns and villages such as Las Mesas and El Pericon. On a recent day, Associated Press journalists saw 200 to 300 masked, armed men patrolling, manning checkpoints and moving around in squad-size contingents. Some had only machetes, but most had old single-shot, bolt-action rifles.

Waving guns, they stop each vehicle, and ask for driver's licenses or voter IDs, which they check against a handwritten list of "los malos," or "the bad guys." They sometimes search vehicles and frisk the drivers.

The commander of the Las Mesas vigilantes explains their motives. "We are not against those who are distributing drugs. That's a way for them to earn a living. Let anyone who wants to poison themselves with drugs do it. What we are against is them messing with the local people."

The movement so far seems to be well-accepted by local residents fed up with crime that plagued this stretch of mountain highway.

"In less than a month, they have done something that the army and state and federal police haven't been able to do in years," said local resident Lorena Morales Castro, who waited in a line of cars at a checkpoint Friday. "They are our anonymous heroes."

One vigilante passed sheepishly down the line of waiting cars with a jar asking for donations. Some people tossed in coins or small bills.

Housewife Audifa Miranda Arismendi showed up at the vigilante checkpoint in El Pericon with a vat of chilate, a local beverage made of rice, cocoa beans and cinnamon, for the masked men. "It's good to help out here, because this is for the good of all," she said.

Some officials, too, have cautiously approved of the do-it-yourself police. Guerrero Gov. Angel Aguirre offered to supply them with uniforms so they wouldn't be confused with masked gang members, but he also said he is trying to eliminate the need for vigilantes by beefing up official forces.

Community and indigenous rights activists often see citizen patrols as a good alternative or addition to standard rural police forces that are considered corrupt or repressive.

But clearly, the vigilante squads here present problems even in their first few weeks. The vigilantes in Guerrero are holding, by their own account, 44 people accused of crimes ranging from homicide to theft. Nobody outside the village of El Zapote, where they are being held in a makeshift jail, knows what conditions they are being held in, or what charges, if any, there are against them.

When the head of the Guerrero state Human Rights Commission, Juan Alarcon Hernandez, showed up to check on the prisoners' condition, he was met by about 100 angry villagers who said they didn't want anyone to visit the prisoners. "No, no, no. We want justice!" the crowd shouted.

"We wanted to see what condition these people are in, as a human rights issue and as a humanitarian issue," said Alarcon Hernandez. Eventually, he and his aides turned around and left, unsure how to proceed, because the self-defense squads exist in legal limbo.

Still, the idea of citizen patrols is spreading in Mexico.

In 2011, townsfolk in the pine-covered-hill town of Cheran in neighboring Michoacan state began armed patrols in the face of what they said were the killings of farmers by illegal loggers in league with drug traffickers. In the northern state of Chihuahua, a community of farmers and ranchers known as Colonia Lebaron – most of whom hold dual U.S. citizenship – set up self-defense squads following the 2009 killings of two of its members.

And in the drug-plagued northern state of Sinaloa, the mayor of Concordia, Jose Elijio Medina, responded to a massacre, which forced everyone in a remote hamlet to flee, by calling for the Mexican army to revive the Rural Self Defense Corps, units of armed farmers it once helped train and supervise. While the army did not respond to requests to say how many of the units remain, local media have reported the army has been trying to wind down the few remaining units.

Since 1995, about 80 villages in Guerrero state have organized legal "community police" forces in which poorly armed villagers detain and prosecute people.

With their own jails, "courts" – actually village assemblies that can hand down verdicts – and punishments that can include forced labor for the town or re-education talks, the community police are recognized by state law, though rights activist Hernandez said there is still friction when community rules intersect with the formal legal system.

He pointed to one incident in 2012 where a judge and a detective in the Guerrero town of San Luis Acatlan arrested a community police leader for exceeding his authority. Villagers responded by arresting the judge, the detective and an assistant.

Members of the vigilante squads in Guerrero say what they want from the government is some kind of salary, not modern weapons. What counts, they say, are their ties to the community and resistance to corruption.

"When the people are united, it doesn't matter if it's a .22, a 16-gauge shotgun or 20-gauge. It's that when we are united, not even bullets from an AK-47 can defeat us," said the self-defense commander in Las Mesas. "They can't kill us all."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick, those people have "alternatives" (says jocal). The have no need to SYG. they could reason with the cartels, or they could just move. Guns have never solved anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Florida woman shot at Starbucks by friend who forgot gun was in her purse


By Scott Kaufman


Monday, August 12, 2013 10:10 EDT



Police say a loaded handgun in a Florida woman’s purse accidentally discharged when she dropped it in a St. Petersberg’s Starbucks on Saturday. The bullet from 51-year-old Pamela Beck’s gun struck her friend, 38-year-old Amie Peterson, above the knee. The wound was not serious and Peterson was released from the hospital late Saturday night.



Beck, who does not have a concealed weapons permit, told police that the gold-plated .25 caliber semi-automatic pistol had been given to her by her father a year ago, for protection, and that she had forgotten that she placed the gun in a spare purse. Before leaving for the Tyrone Square Mall in which the Starbucks was located, she switched purses to the spare one.



St. Petersburg Police spokesman Mike Puetz said that her purse “hit the ground hard” and the gun fired.


Starbucks, which has been criticized in the past for its refusal to ban armed customers, released this statement:


“At Starbucks, the safety and security of our partners who are our employees and customers is our top priority. We are aware of the accident that took place and are thankful that nobody was seriously injured.”



Police consider the shooting accidental, but have referred the case to the Pinellas County State Attorney’s Office because Beck lacked a concealed carry permit. Prosecutors are still deciding whether to press charges.


This is just the latest in a string of accidental shootings. In June alone, a 13-year-old Nevada girl was accidentally shot by a friend and a Texas boy shot his 13-year-old stepsister while making his AK-47 “safe.”



Pasted from <http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/12/florida-woman-shot-at-starbucks-by-friend-who-forgot-gun-was-in-her-purse/>




Gun fires from girl's purse in Wyoming Starbucks


Updated 12/28/2011 12:22 PM


CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) – Police in Wyoming say nobody was hurt when a small gun that was inside a girl's purse fired while she was in a Cheyenne Starbucks.



The bullet went through a chair and into a wall and narrowly missed several customers.


Police say the mishap occurred while officers were at the coffee shop around 7 a.m. Monday. They found a gunshot hole in the purse and a small, Derringer-type, double-barrel .38 Special inside.



Authorities say the girl is under age 18 and didn't release her name. She was cited for underage possession of a firearm.



The Wyoming Tribune Eagle (http://bit.ly/uwHpuP ) reported that the girl's father had given her the gun and encouraged her to carry it for her protection. According to police records, she hasn't had any formal firearms training.



Pasted from <http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-28/starbucks-gun-fires/52252886/1>


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Florida woman shot at Starbucks by friend who forgot gun was in her purse

By Scott Kaufman

Monday, August 12, 2013 10:10 EDT

Police say a loaded handgun in a Florida woman’s purse accidentally discharged when she dropped it in a St. Petersberg’s Starbucks on Saturday. The bullet from 51-year-old Pamela Beck’s gun struck her friend, 38-year-old Amie Peterson, above the knee. The wound was not serious and Peterson was released from the hospital late Saturday night.

Beck, who does not have a concealed weapons permit, told police that the gold-plated .25 caliber semi-automatic pistol had been given to her by her father a year ago, for protection, and that she had forgotten that she placed the gun in a spare purse. Before leaving for the Tyrone Square Mall in which the Starbucks was located, she switched purses to the spare one.

St. Petersburg Police spokesman Mike Puetz said that her purse “hit the ground hard” and the gun fired.

Starbucks, which has been criticized in the past for its refusal to ban armed customers, released this statement:

“At Starbucks, the safety and security of our partners who are our employees and customers is our top priority. We are aware of the accident that took place and are thankful that nobody was seriously injured.”

Police consider the shooting accidental, but have referred the case to the Pinellas County State Attorney’s Office because Beck lacked a concealed carry permit. Prosecutors are still deciding whether to press charges.

This is just the latest in a string of accidental shootings. In June alone, a 13-year-old Nevada girl was accidentally shot by a friend and a Texas boy shot his 13-year-old stepsister while making his AK-47 “safe.”

Pasted from <http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/12/florida-woman-shot-at-starbucks-by-friend-who-forgot-gun-was-in-her-purse/>

Gun fires from girl's purse in Wyoming Starbucks

Updated 12/28/2011 12:22 PM

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) – Police in Wyoming say nobody was hurt when a small gun that was inside a girl's purse fired while she was in a Cheyenne Starbucks.

The bullet went through a chair and into a wall and narrowly missed several customers.

Police say the mishap occurred while officers were at the coffee shop around 7 a.m. Monday. They found a gunshot hole in the purse and a small, Derringer-type, double-barrel .38 Special inside.

Authorities say the girl is under age 18 and didn't release her name. She was cited for underage possession of a firearm.

The Wyoming Tribune Eagle (http://bit.ly/uwHpuP ) reported that the girl's father had given her the gun and encouraged her to carry it for her protection. According to police records, she hasn't had any formal firearms training.

Pasted from <http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-28/starbucks-gun-fires/52252886/1>

 

Thanks, Jocal. Both pretty appalling in different ways. 2011 is not all that recent, BTW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Win a few, lose a few. My side loses a lot. And then, there's this...

 

 

 

 

Doonesbury-Starbucks-Anti-Gun_zpsddd087e

 

 

 

In the past few months, two separate ladies set their purses down in different Starbucks coffee shops, and the guns went off. (Glocks?)

 

<SNIP>

 

A point of clarification, if you'll permit: Glocks can't be discharged by being dropped, stepped on, driven over, etc. Glocks have an internal "trigger safety lock", and the firing pin/striker is actuated by what's commonly referred to as a "double action" or "striker fired" mechanism. This means that the firing pin can't be armed unless the trigger is pulled, which results in the striker being pushed backwards against a spring, until it reaches the end of the travel of the striker, and the trigger "falls off" the end of the striker, allowing spring pressure to then push the striker against the bullet's primer with enough force to initiate the shot.

 

There are no external hammers, and no way, short of pulling the trigger, that a Glock can fire a round. If anyone cares to understand more, here's an article.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/guts-of-the-gun-1-striker-fired-pistols/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You coached what you coached, it is no fabrication of mine.

 

My sincere concern is volitional shootings by dunderheads, now called SYG, and the general proliferation of guns in our fine country. The problem involves both lowlifes and others like you, who should know better. You don't seem to have the sense to apply effective background checks, do ya?

 

 

 

Dude, I'm living with a huge bear on my property, which by the way was targeted by a methamphetamine crew for five years. They took the baby grand, the wiring, even the garbage disposal and shower heads, etc. etc. etc. They also trashed the place. Six arrests didn't stem the crew. My dog and workmate Charlie Freckles is DTS, he perished in pursuit of the bear a month ago, and it hurt pretty badly. But my sole gun, a little .22, is seventy paces away in a separate building. Yeah, tell me again what a sissy I am.

 

 

 

Jeff, I would not leave you alone in a room with George Zimmerman, out of concern for the way society is developing. I am bemused that you can't admit the legacy of the modern NRA. You think I don't have you pegged, eh? I'll repeat myself for you directly: these military style weapons simply have no place on our streets. You are not well if you defend and promote them, IMO. My observation: you are just another small man with a gun who could take a page from d'ranger's book.

Another gun nut, another practiced fibber, methinks.

Uhhh, yes it is if you can't be bothered to quote the relevant bit you're referring to. Another fibber??? Yes, you are.

Speaking of unadulterated liar...... You've been called on this many times. Show me where I oppose effective background checks. You keep saying this. You keep getting called on it by others besides me and you continue to ignore that and then come back and repeat it as if its never been said. Do you fucking think we are that stupid?

Address the gun culture thing, jocal. You can't hide from that that. Stop talking AT us and start talking TO us. A "forum" means its a two way discussion. I answered you and fulfilled my end of your "deal". Your turn.

Yoo Hoo. Jocal......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You coached what you coached, it is no fabrication of mine.

 

My sincere concern is volitional shootings by dunderheads, now called SYG, and the general proliferation of guns in our fine country. The problem involves both lowlifes and others like you, who should know better. You don't seem to have the sense to apply effective background checks, do ya?

 

 

 

Dude, I'm living with a huge bear on my property, which by the way was targeted by a methamphetamine crew for five years. They took the baby grand, the wiring, even the garbage disposal and shower heads, etc. etc. etc. They also trashed the place. Six arrests didn't stem the crew. My dog and workmate Charlie Freckles is DTS, he perished in pursuit of the bear a month ago, and it hurt pretty badly. But my sole gun, a little .22, is seventy paces away in a separate building. Yeah, tell me again what a sissy I am.

 

 

 

Jeff, I would not leave you alone in a room with George Zimmerman, out of concern for the way society is developing. I am bemused that you can't admit the legacy of the modern NRA. You think I don't have you pegged, eh? I'll repeat myself for you directly: these military style weapons simply have no place on our streets. You are not well if you defend and promote them, IMO. My observation: you are just another small man with a gun who could take a page from d'ranger's book.

Another gun nut, another practiced fibber, methinks.

Uhhh, yes it is if you can't be bothered to quote the relevant bit you're referring to. Another fibber??? Yes, you are.

Speaking of unadulterated liar...... You've been called on this many times. Show me where I oppose effective background checks. You keep saying this. You keep getting called on it by others besides me and you continue to ignore that and then come back and repeat it as if its never been said. Do you fucking think we are that stupid?

Address the gun culture thing, jocal. You can't hide from that that. Stop talking AT us and start talking TO us. A "forum" means its a two way discussion. I answered you and fulfilled my end of your "deal". Your turn.

Yoo Hoo. Jocal......

 

 

It's the sound of a one handed cricket masturbating....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

In the past few months, two separate ladies set their purses down in different Starbucks coffee shops, and the guns went off. (Glocks?)

 

<SNIP>

A point of clarification, if you'll permit: Glocks can't be discharged by being dropped, stepped on, driven over, etc. Glocks have an internal "trigger safety lock", and the firing pin/striker is actuated by what's commonly referred to as a "double action" or "striker fired" mechanism. This means that the firing pin can't be armed unless the trigger is pulled, which results in the striker being pushed backwards against a spring, until it reaches the end of the travel of the striker, and the trigger "falls off" the end of the striker, allowing spring pressure to then push the striker against the bullet's primer with enough force to initiate the shot.

 

There are no external hammers, and no way, short of pulling the trigger, that a Glock can fire a round. If anyone cares to understand more, here's an article.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/guts-of-the-gun-1-striker-fired-pistols/

Jocal knows what jocal knows.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Football. The Sport of Thugs, Rapists, Murderers, Thieves and Scum. So on this one, I wouldn't blame the gun so much as I would that Ditka guy. Or EA. Or Sandusky.

 

Or.....you, ya f'ng football nutter........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously an amateur one at that. What a sad combination---both a coke AND a football addict.

 

I think we need some regulations. 'Cuz if they could save just one.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You coached what you coached, it is no fabrication of mine.

 

My sincere concern is volitional shootings by dunderheads, now called SYG, and the general proliferation of guns in our fine country. The problem involves both lowlifes and others like you, who should know better. You don't seem to have the sense to apply effective background checks, do ya?

 

 

 

Dude, I'm living with a huge bear on my property, which by the way was targeted by a methamphetamine crew for five years. They took the baby grand, the wiring, even the garbage disposal and shower heads, etc. etc. etc. They also trashed the place. Six arrests didn't stem the crew. My dog and workmate Charlie Freckles is DTS, he perished in pursuit of the bear a month ago, and it hurt pretty badly. But my sole gun, a little .22, is seventy paces away in a separate building. Yeah, tell me again what a sissy I am.

 

 

 

Jeff, I would not leave you alone in a room with George Zimmerman, out of concern for the way society is developing. I am bemused that you can't admit the legacy of the modern NRA. You think I don't have you pegged, eh? I'll repeat myself for you directly: these military style weapons simply have no place on our streets. You are not well if you defend and promote them, IMO. My observation: you are just another small man with a gun who could take a page from d'ranger's book.

Another gun nut, another practiced fibber, methinks.

Uhhh, yes it is if you can't be bothered to quote the relevant bit you're referring to. Another fibber??? Yes, you are.

Speaking of unadulterated liar...... You've been called on this many times. Show me where I oppose effective background checks. You keep saying this. You keep getting called on it by others besides me and you continue to ignore that and then come back and repeat it as if its never been said. Do you fucking think we are that stupid?

Address the gun culture thing, jocal. You can't hide from that that. Stop talking AT us and start talking TO us. A "forum" means its a two way discussion. I answered you and fulfilled my end of your "deal". Your turn.

Yoo Hoo. Jocal......

 

Hellooo......... Jocal, is this thing on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knife nutter attempts to rob gas station, gun nutter asks him to leave instead and he does. No shots fired, but the gun nutter was. He seems OK with that outcome.

 

“I can find another job,” he said. “A paycheck’s a paycheck. I don’t really care where it comes from. I cannot justify in my mind trying to save my job at the risk of not ever seeing my family and friends again.”

 

After the incident, Cothran was asked to file a report with his employer, Nouria Energy, which owns and operates the gas station. He said the store manager and a district manager lobbied to save his job, but Cothran was terminated only a few hours later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Knife nutter attempts to rob gas station, gun nutter asks him to leave instead and he does. No shots fired, but the gun nutter was. He seems OK with that outcome.

 

“I can find another job,” he said. “A paycheck’s a paycheck. I don’t really care where it comes from. I cannot justify in my mind trying to save my job at the risk of not ever seeing my family and friends again.”

 

After the incident, Cothran was asked to file a report with his employer, Nouria Energy, which owns and operates the gas station. He said the store manager and a district manager lobbied to save his job, but Cothran was terminated only a few hours later.

 

Good for him. I hope someone sees that story and gets him a better job.

 

I think the disarmers just want us to be compliant victims like those in AUS and GBR. Its interesting that almost universally, anti-gun people who are victims of crime suddenly find jesus and go out and buy a gun for protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, um, curtailing guns has worked out pretty well in both those countries. The hard part was the initial "standing down" of their gun aficionados. As it sorted out, their gunboys made some adjustments and their societies were the better for it. Sadly, the future of devastation-by-gunfire looks brighter for them than for the U.S.

 

Jeffie, look, every time I come back here I can count on mean-spirited, abusive posts by JBSF. Your guns may be a symptom of (as well as an expression of), well, inner turmoil. My kind suggestion is that you spend more time in your boat (a cool SB3, if I recall) and less time promoting violent, antagonistic,destructive behaviors to yourself and others.

 

Happy Sunday. Think karma, my good man.

 

 

 

@ Opa1: you show singular courage, considering. Don't be a stranger, hear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A point of clarification, if you'll permit: Glocks can't be discharged by being dropped, stepped on, driven over, etc. Glocks have an internal "trigger safety lock", and the firing pin/striker is actuated by what's commonly referred to as a "double action" or "striker fired" mechanism. This means that the firing pin can't be armed unless the trigger is pulled, which results in the striker being pushed backwards against a spring, until it reaches the end of the travel of the striker, and the trigger "falls off" the end of the striker, allowing spring pressure to then push the striker against the bullet's primer with enough force to initiate the shot.

There are no external hammers, and no way, short of pulling the trigger, that a Glock can fire a round. If anyone cares to understand more, here's an article.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/guts-of-the-gun-1-striker-fired-pistols/

 

 

Hi Guy.

 

I just recall that some years ago so many Glocks were shooting their own owners that the matter wound up in court. Glock took ugly legal countermeasures. America's gun, indeed.

 

Source? Jeffie's NPR broadcast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

A point of clarification, if you'll permit: Glocks can't be discharged by being dropped, stepped on, driven over, etc. Glocks have an internal "trigger safety lock", and the firing pin/striker is actuated by what's commonly referred to as a "double action" or "striker fired" mechanism. This means that the firing pin can't be armed unless the trigger is pulled, which results in the striker being pushed backwards against a spring, until it reaches the end of the travel of the striker, and the trigger "falls off" the end of the striker, allowing spring pressure to then push the striker against the bullet's primer with enough force to initiate the shot.

There are no external hammers, and no way, short of pulling the trigger, that a Glock can fire a round. If anyone cares to understand more, here's an article.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/guts-of-the-gun-1-striker-fired-pistols/

 

Hi Guy.

 

I just recall that some years ago so many Glocks were shooting their own owners that the matter wound up in court. Glock took ugly legal countermeasures. America's gun, indeed.

 

Source? Jeffie's NPR broadcast.

Rule three violations, not dropped guns.

 

When I become dictator, one of my first arbitrary edicts will be: any witness to a rule three violation shall disarm the gun nutter in violation, unload his gun, and then beat him senseless with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And I want to see Jokey comment on this story, and on what's been happening in Mexico lately. Are these 'gun nutters' too, Jokey? Or do you think they actually have a legitimate cause, where they should be free to protect themselves and theirs?.....

 

 

 

 

Mexico Self-Defense Squads Battle Violence Where Authorities Fail

By MARK STEVENSON 01/21/13 01:13 PM ET EST ap_wire.png

(text clipped for brevity)

 

DARWIN CALLING. Obviously, we here we have a near-total degeneration into social chaos. The situation was literally fed by US guns, and the US gun culture which first justified gun culture behavior. The gun lobby handcuffed the ATF. Not recommended for my neighborhood, I hope.

 

I suggest we put Wayne LP up front in Mexico, with his views and his sidearm of choice.

I understand he earns about a million a year; he won't be found anywhere near that scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dedicate this post to JBSF.

Jeff, it's not about shitfighting, eh? My own veracity is not and has not been an issue.

 

The facts? That's different.

 

In contrast, children in other industrialized nations are not dying from guns. Compared with children 5-14 years old in other industrialized nations, the firearms-related homicide rate in the United States is 17 times higher, the firearm-related suicide rate 10 times higher, and the unintentional firearm-related death rate 9 times higher.

 

Overall, before a child in the United States reaches 15 years of age, he or she is 5 times more likely than a child in the rest of the industrialized world to be murdered, 2 times as likely to commit suicide, and 12 times more likely to die a firearm-related death.

Miller, Axrael, and Hemenway, "Firearm Availabil.ity", p122

 

Lost Youth

A County-by-County Analysis of 2010 California Homicide Victims Ages 10 to 24

http://www.vpc.org/studies/cayouth2012.pdf

January 2012, Violence Policy Center

 

Conclusion:

Homicide, and particularly gun homicide, continues to be one of the most pressing public health

concerns in California among youth and young adults ages 10 to 24.

 

Effective violence prevention strategies must include measure s that prioritize preventing youth and

Young adults from accessing firearms, especially handguns. With firearms accounting for 87 percent

of homicides in the 10 to 24 age range in California (compared to 68 percent among all age groups

nationally) and handguns accounting for 76 percent of all gun homicides, the importance of

prevention strategies to limit exposure to firearms in this age range are of the utmost importance.

 

Important components of such a strategy would be the identification of the make, model, and caliber

of weapons most preferred by this age group as well as analyses identifying the sources of the

weapons. It should be kept in mind that a large percentage of this age group—those under the age

of 21—cannot legally purchase a handgun. It is also generally illegal for anyone under the age of

18 to possess a handgun.15

 

While most youth and young adults can neither buy nor possess a handgun, this in no way protects

them from the emotional and psychological effects of gun violence. As has been noted by others

before, an ongoing need exists for the expansion of comprehensive violence intervention and

Prevention strategies that include a focus on the psychological well-being of witnesses and survivors

of gun violence.

 

Finally, this year’s county-by-county rankings also point to the continuing urgent need for tailored,

localized approaches to reducing youth homicide that integrate prevention and intervention while

engaging local leaders and community stakeholders. At the same time, state and regional policies

should incorporate elements necessary to help ensure effective community practices. 16

 

 

New England Journal of Medicine

Perspective

Preventing Gun Deaths in Children

As practicing pediatricians who have lost patients to gun violence, we join our colleagues in mourning the 20 children and their teachers who were killed in Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14, 2012. Our sadness is deepened by our knowledge that the deaths, terror, and post-traumatic stress of the relatives and friends left behind could have been prevented.

Prevention is the core of pediatric work. We aim to protect children from all things that can harm them. Injuries are the biggest threat to U.S. children over 1 year of age. In 2010, gun-related injuries accounted for 6570 deaths of children and young people (1 to 24 years of age). That includes 7 deaths per day among people 1 to 19 years of age. Gun injuries cause twice as many deaths as cancer, 5 times as many as heart disease, and 15 times as many as infections (see graph)

In a randomized, controlled, cluster-design study by the Pediatric Research in Office Settings network, the intervention group that received specific gun-safety counseling from their doctors reported significantly higher rates of handgun removal or safe storage than did the control group. This study showed that families do follow through on pediatricians' recommendations about gun safety.4

 

Despite this evidence, in 2011, Florida passed legislation, the Firearms Owners' Privacy Act, making it illegal for a doctor to conduct preventive screening by asking families about guns in the home — essentially “gagging” health care providers. Under the aegis of the Second Amendment, the First Amendment rights and the Hippocratic responsibilities of physicians were challenged. In response, the AAP's Florida chapter brought suit, and in June 2012, Miami-based U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke issued a permanent injunction banning the state from enforcing the law. Governor Rick Scott has appealed the ruling, and similar bills have been introduced in three additional states.

 

At the federal level, problematic language was introduced into the Affordable Care Act. Section 2717© sets restrictions on the collection and aggregation of data on guns in the home. Furthermore, Congress has restricted the research activities of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) by stipulating that no funds that are made available for injury prevention and control at the CDC “may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”5 Strictures like these often have a chilling effect on the gathering of important public health data.

Pasted from <http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1215606>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The situation was literally fed by US guns, and the US gun culture which first justified gun culture behavior. The gun lobby handcuffed the ATF....

 

 

To the extent Mexico's problems result from US policy, it's our drug policy.

 

As for our guns, about 3 out of 4 US guns sold to Mexico come from... drumroll please... the US government via military-to-military sales and government-authorized direct commercial sales. Not retail gun dealers. Old news.

 

 

Looks like Grassley got tired of the disinformation/distraction about guns used in crimes in Mexico and dug into the information that they just (finally) allowed him to see.

In the meantime, in an effort to distract from the investigation Congressman Issa and I are conducting, the ATF released selective statistical data that inaccurately reflects the scope and source of the problem of firearms in Mexico and the drug trafficking organization violence. The implication made by the ATF and various press reports that 70 percent of the firearms found in Mexico come directly from U.S. manufacturers or U.S. Federal Firearms Licensees selling guns to drug trafficking organizations is incomplete and misleading. Not only does this paint a grossly inaccurate picture of the situation, but there’s also evidence that the U.S. State Department doesn’t believe it either.

 

I received additional documentation from an ATF database of firearms, and learned that the actual percentage of firearms found in Mexico and traced back to U.S. based federal firearms licensees in 2009 and 2010 was only 24 percent. It turns out the discrepancy lies in the fact that most of the firearms found in Mexico may actually have been sold between governments in direct military to military transactions or were exported directly from manufacturers approved by our government. In either case, U.S. gun dealers are the last people who should be blamed.

 

The Inspector General also found that the gun dealers who were knowingly making illegal sales of guns in the Fast and Furious program did so reluctantly, and only after ATF agents lied to them and told them the guns were being interdicted.

 

 

...

The Inspector General seemed to think that the gun dealers were operating at the direction of ATF and making sales they would not otherwise make:

We concluded that ATF used its long-standing relationship with and cooperation from FFL1 to advance the investigative interests of Operation Fast and Furious, and did so in a manner that risked compromising public safety and at a minimum created the perception that FFL1 was selling firearms with ATF’s approval. We reached a similar conclusion with respect to FFL2 and found that in at least one instance, ATF agents affirmatively requested that the store proceed with a sale. In making this finding, we were not persuaded by the contention of several individuals that the FFLs must have thought it was lawful to make sales to Patino, Steward, and other individuals who were clearly of interest to the ATF. We believe that the government’s requests for substantial assistance from the FFLs and statements to the FFLs that it was monitoring the purchasers could have led the FFLs to reasonably assume ATF was taking steps to prevent the weapons’ unlawful transfers and might have caused them to complete sales they otherwise would not have. In short, we do not believe the arrangement between ATF and the FFLs in Operation Fast and Furious was appropriate or responsible.

 

...

 

In light of the extent and nature of ATF’s requests for cooperation, we did not find persuasive ATF’s and the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s position that because the FFLs continued to complete sales to subjects, they must have made an independent determination that the sales were lawful. As we described in Chapter Two, ATF has a national program to educate FFLs about the indicia of straw purchasing – which of course was precisely the activity FFL1 and FFL2 were seeing and reporting to the ATF on a regular basis with respect to Operation Fast and Furious subjects. Further, we do not believe the requests ATF made to the FFLs with respect to particular individuals – such as to provide the records of all pertinent sales, record telephone calls, sell a particular style of AK-47, or segregate the cash – could reasonably be interpreted by the FFLs as anything other than indications that the sales to Operation Fast and Furious subjects were not legitimate.

 

We also found that the extent and nature of the government’s requests for cooperation from FFL1 and FFL2 created at a minimum the appearance that sales to particular Operation Fast and Furious subjects were made with the government’s approval.

As if further evidence were needed, the fact that one of the gun dealers is now being sued for doing what the ATF asked him to do is more evidence that if the ATF comes along asking a dealer to complete obviously illegal sales and offering reassurance that everything is OK, everything is NOT OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quote from The Last Gun, by Tom Diaz, p170

The sluggish bureaucracy at ATF takes the laws a step further by spinning timid rationales to avoid releasing information. No wonder. ATF's executive ranks have been brazenly infiltrated by the gun industry. In 2006, Shooting Industry gleefully reported--under the headline "Our Man at ATF"--that "John Badowski, a five-plus-year veteran of the National Shooting Sports Foundation staff, is now the Firearms Industry Technical Adviser at ATF."

Shooting Industry, Jan. 2006, p97

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last people government regulators should ever hear technical advise from are the people actually working in the industry being regulated. It's a travesty, I tells ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeffie, look, every time I come back here I can count on mean-spirited, abusive posts by JBSF. Your guns may be a symptom of (as well as an expression of), well, inner turmoil. My kind suggestion is that you spend more time in your boat (a cool SB3, if I recall) and less time promoting violent, antagonistic,destructive behaviors to yourself and others.

 

 

Mean-spirited??? I think I've been exceedingly polite to you hoping you might actually FOR ONCE bother to 1) actually read and comprehend a post of mine in its entirety and 2) actually respond to a direct question I've posed to you. You haven't upheld your end of your own deal

 

Now stop being such a fucking cry-baby, go change your tampon, and respond to my post above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The situation was literally fed by US guns, and the US gun culture which first justified gun culture behavior. The gun lobby handcuffed the ATF....

To the extent Mexico's problems result from US policy, it's our drug policy.

 

As for our guns, about 3 out of 4 US guns sold to Mexico come from... drumroll please... the US government via military-to-military sales and government-authorized direct commercial sales. Not retail gun dealers. Old news.

 

Jocal has never met a gun fact or stat he actually liked. You're wasting your time..... But you knew that already, right Tom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got any 'stories' of people running around the streets of America with 'military style' style weapons? If so I'd love to hear them.....

 

 

 

Good morning, Rick.

 

SELECTION OF THE AR-15 RIFLE IN INDISCRIMINATE MASS SHOOTINGS

Apr 1, 2013 // Politics, Top Story

... the percentage of AR-15 rifles amongst all firearms held by the American public (that being about 1%, or 0.01).

Using that statistic, and assuming no bias in selection amongst handguns, rifles and shotguns (all can be used to kill people), the odds of an AR-15 rifle being selected simply by chance at any of these individual events would be about 1 in 100, or 0.01. The odds that an AR-15 would be selected simply by chance at all 4 of these independent events would be 0.01 X 0.01 X 0.01 X 0.01 = 10(-8), or about one chance in a hundred million.

A total of four independent, premeditated and indiscriminate mass shootings occurred in the latter half of 2012. There was no connection between the shooters and the victims, and no reason was established in the selection of victims other than inflicting mass casualties. An AR-15 rifle was the weapon used in all four of these events. The odds of this particular weapon being selected for all four of these independent events simply by chance was estimated to be less than one in a million using two different approaches. The intentional selection of this firearm is additionally supported by the behavior of all four shooters. It is felt that this finding fundamentally changes the assault weapon debate. It is not that this weapon was simply being used at these events, there is little if any doubt that it was being intentionally selected as a weapon of choice in those premeditated indiscriminate mass killings. As this weapon is being actively sought for these events, leaving it unregulated and expanding public availability could only increase the opportunity for its use in future mass shootings of the nature we witnessed in 2012.

Although mass shootings are relatively low frequency events and claim far fewer lives than the broad body of shootings in this country, they garner much attention because of the horrific nature of the events. According to one source, there have been 62 mass shootings in the US since 1982 that occurred in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii (ref). Twenty-five (25) of these took place since 2006 and 7 of them occurred in 2012. Of the 143 guns possessed by the assailants, more that three-quarters of them were obtained legally. More than half of those shooters possessed high-capacity magazines, assault weapons, or both (ref).

(snippage for brevity and pertinence)

Odds Considerations

It is recognized that this is a complex problem. It is known that some individuals own multiple AR-15 rifles (one individual in a recent newscast claiming to own 17 of them) thus reducing the number of individual owners to some extent (would be fewer owners than the number of rifles). Additionally the level of gun ownership varies from state to state and the distribution of AR-15′s in various states was not found. However, assuming that AR-15 rifles would not be overly concentrated in the four states where these events occurred (considered unlikely as there are only 3 million amongst 300 million total firearms nationwide), a straight-forward statistic was felt to be the percentage of AR-15 rifles amongst all firearms held by the American public (that being about 1%, or 0.01).

Using that statistic, and assuming no bias in selection amongst handguns, rifles and shotguns (all can be used to kill people), the odds of an AR-15 rifle being selected simply by chance at any of these individual events would be about 1 in 100, or 0.01. The odds that an AR-15 would be selected simply by chance at all 4 of these independent events would be 0.01 X 0.01 X 0.01 X 0.01 = 10(-8), or about one chance in a hundred million.

As a rifle was used in all four events, another way to approach this problem would be to consider the likelihood of a member of the AR rifle family being used at these events amongst all makes and models of rifles and shotguns. These numbers can be derived from Senator Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban legislation (ref). Combining the 2258 cited “legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns” (by specific make and model) with the 118 proposed banned rifles and shotguns yields 2376 total available rifles and shotguns by make and model. The legislation identifies 57 members of the AR rifle family by make and model (all AR rifles are proposed to be banned). The AR rifles therefore constitute about 2.4% of all rifles and shotguns. Again, assuming no bias in selection, the odds of a member of the AR rifle family being selected simply by chance in any of the individual events amongst all available types of rifles and shotguns becomes about 2.4 in 100 (0.024). The odds of a member of the AR rifle family being selected in all four independent events simply by chance is less than 1 in 3 million (Note: this consideration includes all AR Rifles and excludes handguns as a potential weapon).

These results would support a conclusion that, in the latter half of 2012, the AR-15 was being intentionally selected for use in the premeditated, indiscriminate mass murder events identified here.

Discussion

The purpose of this article was not to perform detailed statistical analyses of a broad array of events and weapons, but rather simplify the matter by selecting a specific type of event (as described above), examining the weapon used, and then using basic odds considerations in determining the likelihood of the weapon being selected simply by chance. The odds that an AR-15 rifle would be selected simply by chance in all 4 of the identified events in the latter half of 2012 was found to be infinitesimally small under the assumptions and parameters used here. And behavior of the shooters support an intentional selection. The Aurora shooter purchased the firearm for the event; the Happy Valley shooter stole the weapon for the event; the Newtown shooter had access to multiple weapons but used the AR-15 as the primary (firing 151 of the total 152 bullets from that weapon – the last came from a handgun he used to kill himself); and the Webster shooter (who was prohibited from owning a firearm being a felon) obtained the weapon through a ‘straw purchase’.

If one wishes to strip away the definitions used here, the finding that an AR-15 (that constitutes but 1% of all firearms held by US civilians) was found in a majority of all of the ‘mass shooting’ events (5/9) considered here in the latter half of 2012 is striking. But defining a specific type of event is felt to be important as an event could influence weapon selection. The intent to kill one’s boss or spouse, as examples, would not require the use of a ‘military-style’ rifle like the AR-15. However, the premeditated indiscriminate killing of multiple individuals would likely involve the selection of a weapon the shooter felt would best accomplish the task. And the development/history/appearance (and thus perception) of the AR-15 separates it from most other handguns, rifles, and shotguns in that regard.

Although arguments have been made that there are other more powerful weapons available to US citizens than the AR-15, the power of a weapon would not seem to be the desired feature for the events considered here. It would be the ability of the firearm to rapidly and accurately claim as many lives as possible. Again, the history and appearance (and thus perception) of the AR-15 would make the weapon well-suited to the selection.

There is little doubt that the assailants in these events were disturbed and a proposed solution is to address mental illness rather than the weapon. Lanza (the shooter in the Newtown incident) could be restricted under law from purchasing a firearm and placed into a database, but he took the weapons from his mother’s home after putting multiple bullets into her head (should the AWB legislation become law, it would leave 3 million of these weapons in civilian hands). And the shooter in the Webster NY incident was already prohibited from purchasing a firearm (being a felon), but obtained the weapon through a straw purchase. As long as the weapon remains available and is being actively sought for these types of events, it will find its way into the wrong hands. And the NRA’s proposed tightening up the mental health system, or increasing federal and state resources in going after the less-than-law-abiding, is disingenuous as the organization supported legislation making it easier for the mentally-ill to regain their gun rights (ref) and Grover Norquist, whose stated purpose is to shrink government to the size he can drown in a bathtub, holds a board position (ref).

Although there has been much discussion of ‘assault weapons’ being used this past year in several mass shootings, it is felt that the considerations presented here fundamentally change the assault weapons debate. It is not just that the AR-15 rifle was being used in these events, there is little if any doubt that it was being intentionally selected as a weapon of choice in premeditated indiscriminate mass murder events of the horrific nature we witnessed in the latter half of 2012. Keeping this weapon unregulated and increasing public availability could only increase the opportunity for its use in future mass shootings of the nature we witnessed in 2012.

This places lawmakers who oppose the AWB into a troublesome position. Are they willing to leave a weapon unregulated knowing that it is being intentionally selected for indiscriminate mass killings in the civilian population (what its look-alike version was designed to do in battle)? Or if they remain opposed to a ban, would they also be opposed to limiting the magazine capacity of a weapon being sought for such horrific events? (Maddow makes the point that Lanza had to reload the AR-15 only four times over a space of 5 minutes in Sandy Hook Elementary rather than 14 times had the magazines held only 10 bullets). Or are they willing to keep their position that regulating this product is an infringement on the rights of, or an imposition to, ‘law abiding’ citizens. It is important to note that Supreme Court justices in both the Heller and McDonald rulings made clear that the Second Amendment did not confer ‘a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose’ and that a wide range of gun control laws remain ‘presumptively lawful’ including prohibiting ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’. A legal summary of both cases is provided here.

But for lawmakers to not address this matter at all, would speak to a dereliction of duty

Pasted from <http://www.artonissues.com/2013/04/selection-of-the-ar-15-rifle-in-premeditated-indiscriminate-mass-shootings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The situation was literally fed by US guns, and the US gun culture which first justified gun culture behavior. The gun lobby handcuffed the ATF....

 

 

To the extent Mexico's problems result from US policy, it's our drug policy.

 

The Inspector General also found that the gun dealers who were knowingly making illegal sales of guns in the Fast and Furious program did so reluctantly, and only after ATF agents lied to them and told them the guns were being interdicted.

 

 

Mark Karlin: The NRA may be a front to rally the beleaguered white males who see the gun as their last vestige of power, but they are also an organization that actually impedes law enforcement, not to mention their defense of selling guns to persons on the terrorist watch list. Can you mention some of the more egregious NRA positions that have hampered law enforcement?

Tom Diaz: At the broadest level, it has made sure that the federal agency charged with regulating the industry - the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) - is chronically underfunded, understaffed and procedurally hogtied. This goes so far as to be sure that the criminal law is so weak as to be virtually unenforceable in cases of straw-buying for gun traffickers. ATF has also been blatantly infiltrated by industry shills and moles in several key offices.

The NRA, acting as the industry's handmaiden, has also virtually shut down the release of aggregate data about the tens of millions of traces the ATF has done on guns involved in crimes. This is the procedure by which the ATF traces a given gun from its manufacture through the latest transfer of record. Taken in the aggregate, these records would clearly show, for example, which guns, by make and model, are most often used in what kinds of crimes. The NRA and its ilk know this would be unpleasant news (even though it was routinely released a decade ago).

Related to this is the law prohibiting ATF from computerizing its records or creating national databases. This is pure insanity, driven by the paranoia of the extremist gun zombies who think a national data base is the next step to confiscation and FEMA prison camps. So imagine Amazon, for example, processing all of its online sales orders by then putting everything on paper, and referring to cardboard boxes and boxes filled with paper inventory records, some of which are age- and water-damaged, with an army of clerks sorting by hand through every order. Pretty whacky, eh? That is the almost literal equivalent of what the ATF has to do to help solve gun crime in America. What is even crazier is the chin-stroking, lint-pulling - I dare say cowardly - acquiescence in this madness by "progressive" politicians in Washington.

Mark Karlin: Illinois is the last state in the Union without a law allowing some kind of carrying

a concealed (handgun) weapon. Earlier this year, a federal appellate court panel (2-1) ordered the state legislature to enact a carry-concealed law, based on the infamous Supreme Court law striking down the Chicago ban on handguns. The NRA pushed for carry-concealed for many years and is near victory with a clean sweep, once Illinois passes a court-mandated law. How did they do this?

Tom Diaz: It's actually thanks to the "Beyond the Gunshine" state, an epithet in common use even by Florida journalists. The NRA has successfully used Florida as a kind of social biological warfare lab to take down long-standing restrictions on the carry and use of guns and substitute for them drastically weakened laws. Having succeeded in passing waves of such radical laws in Florida, the NRA then worked closely with such right-wing front groups as ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, to spread its bacilli across the country. Cheerleading the process was a network of right-wing and so-called "libertarian" front groups funded by the Koch brothers and other wealthy plutocrats. Most Americans, including political "leaders" and journalists, snoozed through this change. Some were roused by the infamous Trayvon Martin case, but apparently not enough to get out of the micro-politics of going along to get along.

By the way, I can't help noting here how droll I find it that so-called free-market, gun-rights "libertarians" have nestled into cozy careers at front groups like the Cato Institute, underwritten by a handful of plutocratic industrialists, instead of actually trying to sell their ideas independently on the "markets" they so love for everyone else.

Mark Karlin: This nation has spent trillions of dollars in the last dozen years on wars allegedly to fight terrorism. But isn't the United States known among terrorist groups as a bazaar for obtaining weapons, including the .50 caliber sniper rifle - not to mention the drug cartels?

Tom Diaz: There is absolutely no question that the United States civilian gun market is the principal armorer for transnational organized crime, including drug trafficking organizations that most people call "cartels." A number of terrorist organizations have also exported guns and other weapons from the United States. I would prefer not to address the potential of terrorist access and domestic use of guns except to say that the potential threat is obviously enormous, and leave it at that. I think we have reached a critical point at which giving bad people any more bad ideas is a bad idea in itself.

I would, however, point out two extraordinarily dangerous trends. One has been the vicious political assault on ATF that has been led by the NRA and California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa (under the guise of exposing the so-called "Fast and Furious" scandal, in which some ATF agents undoubtedly made some poor judgment calls about letting guns "walk" to Mexico in hopes of tracking them to higher-up principals). That scheme ended badly and may, depending on how one interprets the facts, have cost one US agent his life. But the political attack by Issa, his staff, and the NRA was, and is, really aimed at diverting attention from the enormously greater quantum of guns that flow south (and now increasingly north to Canada) by traffickers buying in the US civilian market. What I find fascinating about this shameless travesty is that it is an analog of exactly the strategy that the Sicilian mafia has used to attack, and therefore weaken, law enforcement agencies in Italy. Smearing law enforcement raises public doubt, consumes limited government resources and, obviously, diverts attention from real criminals. Who benefits from this kind of attack?

Another trend is the increase in attacks on law enforcement in the United States, most recently illustrated by the murders of two prosecutors in Texas. In my opinion, what is important here is not simply what kinds of guns may have been used, or the alleged fact that white racists may have been behind these attacks. Those are important questions, but the overriding warning flag, to me, is that we may be at, or approaching, a tipping point beyond which "bad guys" - to use an expression from Wayne LaPierre's analytical poverty - no longer fear killing law enforcement agents. In one sense, this would be the natural and probable consequence of a gun culture that portrays government itself as the enemy, and the passivity of a political culture that can muster the will neither to condemn violence nor to control its most deadly implements.

Make no mistake about it, what protects law enforcement in the United States is not their guns. It is our respect for them and the process of civil democracy they represent. They are outnumbered and outgunned by orders of magnitude. The Los Angeles Police Department found that out, to its chagrin, during the famous Rodney King verdict riots, when it simply could not stop a rampaging population that had lost its fear of, and respect for, authority.

This is precisely what is going on today in Mexico. Anyone who thinks it cannot happen here must already have their prescription filled for that green, medical plant-like substance so many people use to escape reality.

Support Truthout's mission. The Last Gun is yours with a minimum donation to Truthout of $30 (which includes shipping and handling) or a monthly donation of $15.

Copyright, Truthout.

Pasted from <http://truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/15634-the-common-denominator-in-gun-massacres-is-military-style-weapons-championed-for-profit>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well gee whiz, if Tom Diaz thinks that a complete breakdown in policing and law is around the corner, then I sure as hell want to be able to protect myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Mark Karlin: The NRA may be a front to rally the beleaguered white males who see the gun as their last vestige of power, but they are also an organization that actually impedes law enforcement, not to mention their defense of selling guns to persons on the terrorist watch list. Can you mention some of the more egregious NRA positions that have hampered law enforcement?

...

Tom Diaz: ...One has been the vicious political assault on ATF that has been led by the NRA and California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa (under the guise of exposing the so-called "Fast and Furious" scandal, in which some ATF agents undoubtedly made some poor judgment calls about letting guns "walk" to Mexico in hopes of tracking them to higher-up principals). That scheme ended badly and may, depending on how one interprets the facts, have cost one US agent his life. But the political attack by Issa, his staff, and the NRA was, and is, really aimed at diverting attention from the enormously greater quantum of guns that flow south (and now increasingly north to Canada) by traffickers buying in the US civilian market. ..

 

I always ask the same question when that particular egregious NRA position is brought up:

 

We don't want terrorists voting, do we? Inclusion on the secret terror watch list for undisclosed reasons should be reason enough to revoke voter registration.

 

The Inspector General faulted not just "some ATF agents" but also DOJ officials for their bad judgement. Was that a "political attack" too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A point of clarification, if you'll permit: Glocks can't be discharged by being dropped, stepped on, driven over, etc. Glocks have an internal "trigger safety lock", and the firing pin/striker is actuated by what's commonly referred to as a "double action" or "striker fired" mechanism. This means that the firing pin can't be armed unless the trigger is pulled, which results in the striker being pushed backwards against a spring, until it reaches the end of the travel of the striker, and the trigger "falls off" the end of the striker, allowing spring pressure to then push the striker against the bullet's primer with enough force to initiate the shot.

There are no external hammers, and no way, short of pulling the trigger, that a Glock can fire a round. If anyone cares to understand more, here's an article.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/guts-of-the-gun-1-striker-fired-pistols/

 

 

Hi Guy.

 

I just recall that some years ago so many Glocks were shooting their own owners that the matter wound up in court. Glock took ugly legal countermeasures. America's gun, indeed.

 

Source? Jeffie's NPR broadcast.

 

If a Glock owner was shooting him/herself - was it a design defect, or was it because they were idiots and drawing the weapon w/their finger on the trigger?

It's impossible for the Glock, or any other striker fired weapon, to discharge without something depressing first the trigger-safety in the middle of the trigger, and then pulling the trigger.

 

Once again, JoCal - you demonstrate your obsession with the implement while ignoring the behavior of those wielding the implement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well gee whiz, if Tom Diaz thinks that a complete breakdown in policing and law is around the corner, then I sure as hell want to be able to protect myself.

 

 

Another back fire fail on Jokey's part? Kinda like posting his recent stats on California gun 'violence'? The same Cali that has the strictest gun laws in America?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thing has Tea Party regressive written all over it. We'll wait for the background on this kid, but the odds are he spent much more time stuffing Tea Party propoganda into envelopes at his local GOP campaign office than he did playing violent video games.

 

If he got the gun from his home, his parent/parents should go to jail as accessories to murder.

 

The last sentence wasn't sarcasm, btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the teacher was a ex marine. I'm waiting to see how long the "what if he was allowed to carry" speculation starts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BG, you know the answer is more guns.

 

What was the question again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep, but how many accidental deaths would occur if all teachers were packing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair if the ex marine had been armed I expect he could have got the drop on the 14 year old.

 

If he got the drop on the kid you would have started a thread about a nut-job product of our military going batshit and killing babies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep, but how many accidental deaths would occur if all teachers were packing?

 

I'd wager it would be significantly lower than intentional murders in schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To be fair if the ex marine had been armed I expect he could have got the drop on the 14 year old.

 

If he got the drop on the kid you would have started a thread about a nut-job product of our military going batshit and killing babies.

See? It's a double edged sword. To be fair I would have called him a child killer not a baby killer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

To be fair if the ex marine had been armed I expect he could have got the drop on the 14 year old.

 

If he got the drop on the kid you would have started a thread about a nut-job product of our military going batshit and killing babies.

See? It's a double edged sword. To be fair I would have called him a child killer not a baby killer.

 

Which edge of that sword would you like to be sharper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

 

 

 

Hey jocal,

 

THIS is the "gun culture" that I and rest of us responsible gun owners (and the NRA) promote.

 

THIS is what Jocal's "Gun Culture" is:

 

(photos snipped)

 

Jocal, do you see a difference here? If you do, then explain to me in your own words how my competing in a match with a "sniper rifle" promotes what the later group of thugs does or behaves? I would REALLY REALLY like an answer to that question!!!!

 

Jeff, I have studied your words for YEARS. Our best conversations have ended with your use of the word "cunt".

 

The gun culture I refer to is that of the SA Gun Club, as expressed (primarily by you, Boothy, and Tom Ray) on literally dozens of threads on PA. Pretty sketchy. I find that you are not honest with yourself. (One example: you deny the thrill of shooting, and your attachment to that thrill. WTF? Another example is that what you are selling is not contained to warm fuzzy pics of kids with guns on a firing range. A third example of your self-deciet is the first sentence of your post, above: the NRA is doing serious cultural damage on behalf of the gun lobby, Sir.)

 

The gun culture I refer to may be best exemplified by your suggestion that blowing away a creep who chucked used tires into someone else's dumpster (he was advancing with threatening fists) is "self defense". It's just not acceptable. Your mentality is scary, and uncivilized. In a thread (which you started) you offered that some new, devastating military ordnance is "cute". Not acceptable, Jeff, but I am glad to have met you.

 

Address the subject of the tire chucker directly, without being abusive, and I may continue the discourse.

Take it easy..............

 

Fists can be life altering, it is foolish to treat physical attacks without a weapon as something that does not warrant self defense using whatever means are at one's disposal. I have seen enough TBI victims to know that I would rather be six feet under than to live that way. I am very glad that D'Ranger's situation was resolved with nobody in a hospital or worse, but there are also plenty of cases where a physical attack against an unarmed person ensues and that unarmed person ends up a hollowed out shell of their former self. I really, really wish that the pro gun control folks would stop with this bullshit that somehow it is wrong to defend yourself or your family against an aggressor who is not armed with a gun.

 

Len, allow me to begin by saying I gain from your posts (same to Atoyot and The Chesapeakster). Always thoughtful, always measured. But it's now a matter of taking the higher road and confronting the gun lobby, and gunslingers, when it comes to our guns.

 

Vigilantism is what it is, and a massively armed population, motivated by "self defense", is a population of vigilantes. The behavior, the by-product of a certain philosophy, is disgusting, IMO.

 

It is a clear degeneration of the United States which our parents left us, where it was assumed daily sidearms were unnecessary. The gun mindset is a poison.

 

Here's an example from law enforcement: 63 cops suspended, fired, and disciplined for a car chase in Ohio.

The unarmed perps, fleeing on foot, were possible lowlifes with criminal records and cocaine in their systems; they wound up with 23 and 24 bullet perforations, respectively. The police motivation at the time? Attempted vehicular homicide.

 

I am hoping that we just get a grip, and not have the guns do the thinking for us. My thanks to the Cleveland police commissioners for taking a stand.

Maybe such temperance will prevail upon the SA Gun Club someday.

 

you are one miserably fucked up human being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Hey jocal,

 

THIS is the "gun culture" that I and rest of us responsible gun owners (and the NRA) promote.

 

THIS is what Jocal's "Gun Culture" is:

 

(photos snipped)

 

Jocal, do you see a difference here? If you do, then explain to me in your own words how my competing in a match with a "sniper rifle" promotes what the later group of thugs does or behaves? I would REALLY REALLY like an answer to that question!!!!

 

Jeff, I have studied your words for YEARS. Our best conversations have ended with your use of the word "cunt".

 

The gun culture I refer to is that of the SA Gun Club, as expressed (primarily by you, Boothy, and Tom Ray) on literally dozens of threads on PA. Pretty sketchy. I find that you are not honest with yourself. (One example: you deny the thrill of shooting, and your attachment to that thrill. WTF? Another example is that what you are selling is not contained to warm fuzzy pics of kids with guns on a firing range. A third example of your self-deciet is the first sentence of your post, above: the NRA is doing serious cultural damage on behalf of the gun lobby, Sir.)

 

The gun culture I refer to may be best exemplified by your suggestion that blowing away a creep who chucked used tires into someone else's dumpster (he was advancing with threatening fists) is "self defense". It's just not acceptable. Your mentality is scary, and uncivilized. In a thread (which you started) you offered that some new, devastating military ordnance is "cute". Not acceptable, Jeff, but I am glad to have met you.

 

Address the subject of the tire chucker directly, without being abusive, and I may continue the discourse.

Take it easy..............

 

Fists can be life altering, it is foolish to treat physical attacks without a weapon as something that does not warrant self defense using whatever means are at one's disposal. I have seen enough TBI victims to know that I would rather be six feet under than to live that way. I am very glad that D'Ranger's situation was resolved with nobody in a hospital or worse, but there are also plenty of cases where a physical attack against an unarmed person ensues and that unarmed person ends up a hollowed out shell of their former self. I really, really wish that the pro gun control folks would stop with this bullshit that somehow it is wrong to defend yourself or your family against an aggressor who is not armed with a gun.

 

Len, allow me to begin by saying I gain from your posts (same to Atoyot and The Chesapeakster). Always thoughtful, always measured. But it's now a matter of taking the higher road and confronting the gun lobby, and gunslingers, when it comes to our guns.

 

Vigilantism is what it is, and a massively armed population, motivated by "self defense", is a population of vigilantes. The behavior, the by-product of a certain philosophy, is disgusting, IMO.

 

It is a clear degeneration of the United States which our parents left us, where it was assumed daily sidearms were unnecessary. The gun mindset is a poison.

 

Here's an example from law enforcement: 63 cops suspended, fired, and disciplined for a car chase in Ohio.

The unarmed perps, fleeing on foot, were possible lowlifes with criminal records and cocaine in their systems; they wound up with 23 and 24 bullet perforations, respectively. The police motivation at the time? Attempted vehicular homicide.

 

I am hoping that we just get a grip, and not have the guns do the thinking for us. My thanks to the Cleveland police commissioners for taking a stand.

Maybe such temperance will prevail upon the SA Gun Club someday.

 

you are one miserably fucked up human being.

 

 

I knew there was a reason I liked ya.....:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1383749_240295082791961_1684756567_n.jpg

 

A scent that can ease anxiety, promote a sensation of security and calmness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality is that murders per thousand people have declined, even in places with few restrictions on guns. Another reality is that the decline has been most pronounced when examining handguns used in murders. Another reality is that the plural of anecdote is not data. Another one is that I could post self defense stories every day, but I don't. Lots of realities to deal with.

 

Flfirearmmurders.gif

 

 

Sorry, Tom.

For the nine years complete data is available in the 21st century (2000 to 2008), the deaths have remained fairly constant.

The reason they have leveled out is attributed by the studies to medical improvements, trauma centers, and the 911 system.

 

However there is an increase in people who are shot but do not die: 617, 688 in this time period, an average of 68,610 per year.

In 2008, the most recent year, 110,115 were shot and survived. WOW!

 

These numbers are horrific, boys. They come from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Disease Prevention and Control.

 

In other words, the US problem has gotten worse, not better.

More guns = more shootings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Hey jocal,

 

THIS is the "gun culture" that I and rest of us responsible gun owners (and the NRA) promote.

 

THIS is what Jocal's "Gun Culture" is:

 

(photos snipped)

 

Jocal, do you see a difference here? If you do, then explain to me in your own words how my competing in a match with a "sniper rifle" promotes what the later group of thugs does or behaves? I would REALLY REALLY like an answer to that question!!!!

 

Jeff, I have studied your words for YEARS. Our best conversations have ended with your use of the word "cunt".

 

The gun culture I refer to is that of the SA Gun Club, as expressed (primarily by you, Boothy, and Tom Ray) on literally dozens of threads on PA. Pretty sketchy. I find that you are not honest with yourself. (One example: you deny the thrill of shooting, and your attachment to that thrill. WTF? Another example is that what you are selling is not contained to warm fuzzy pics of kids with guns on a firing range. A third example of your self-deciet is the first sentence of your post, above: the NRA is doing serious cultural damage on behalf of the gun lobby, Sir.)

 

The gun culture I refer to may be best exemplified by your suggestion that blowing away a creep who chucked used tires into someone else's dumpster (he was advancing with threatening fists) is "self defense". It's just not acceptable. Your mentality is scary, and uncivilized. In a thread (which you started) you offered that some new, devastating military ordnance is "cute". Not acceptable, Jeff, but I am glad to have met you.

 

Address the subject of the tire chucker directly, without being abusive, and I may continue the discourse.

Take it easy..............

 

Fists can be life altering, it is foolish to treat physical attacks without a weapon as something that does not warrant self defense using whatever means are at one's disposal. I have seen enough TBI victims to know that I would rather be six feet under than to live that way. I am very glad that D'Ranger's situation was resolved with nobody in a hospital or worse, but there are also plenty of cases where a physical attack against an unarmed person ensues and that unarmed person ends up a hollowed out shell of their former self. I really, really wish that the pro gun control folks would stop with this bullshit that somehow it is wrong to defend yourself or your family against an aggressor who is not armed with a gun.

 

Len, allow me to begin by saying I gain from your posts (same to Atoyot and The Chesapeakster). Always thoughtful, always measured. But it's now a matter of taking the higher road and confronting the gun lobby, and gunslingers, when it comes to our guns.

 

Vigilantism is what it is, and a massively armed population, motivated by "self defense", is a population of vigilantes. The behavior, the by-product of a certain philosophy, is disgusting, IMO.

 

It is a clear degeneration of the United States which our parents left us, where it was assumed daily sidearms were unnecessary. The gun mindset is a poison.

 

Here's an example from law enforcement: 63 cops suspended, fired, and disciplined for a car chase in Ohio.

The unarmed perps, fleeing on foot, were possible lowlifes with criminal records and cocaine in their systems; they wound up with 23 and 24 bullet perforations, respectively. The police motivation at the time? Attempted vehicular homicide.

 

I am hoping that we just get a grip, and not have the guns do the thinking for us. My thanks to the Cleveland police commissioners for taking a stand.

Maybe such temperance will prevail upon the SA Gun Club someday.

 

you are one miserably fucked up human being.

 

Mr. McCabe, would you feel better about me if I pathologically collected and fired lots of guns?

 

Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep, but how many accidental deaths would occur if all teachers were packing?

Entertaining hypothetical speculation may be entertaining for those kicking a scapegoat around a room full of like-minded, ivory-tower elitists. However, where formulating public policy is concerned, examine the actual, published figures comparing persons licensed to carry vs. the general population for crimes and accidental shootings. I'd look it up for you though it's been done before.

 

Show us (factually, with citations) that people who've gone through practical firearms training and who have learned legal ramifications & related aspects of respective state laws re: armed self-defense are currently involved in equal OR greater accidental discharges than the general populace, and I for one will consider that to be quite material.

 

In the absence of real numbers, I'd have to play "what if" as well and ask how many little cretins would we not have to deal with, to whom it occurs to shoot someone at school, if we required a license to reproduce and required parent-skills training? Oh, and mandatory sterilization for convicted, violent felons?

 

Besides, nobody's saying all teachers should be "packing"; the argument goes that teachers, faculty or staff should have the option to work it out with a district program or policy, rather than continue on with the illusion that these "disarmed victim" zones prevent trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The reality is that murders per thousand people have declined, even in places with few restrictions on guns. Another reality is that the decline has been most pronounced when examining handguns used in murders. Another reality is that the plural of anecdote is not data. Another one is that I could post self defense stories every day, but I don't. Lots of realities to deal with.

 

Flfirearmmurders.gif

 

 

Sorry, Tom.

For the nine years complete data is available in the 21st century (2000 to 2008), the deaths have remained fairly constant....

 

These numbers are horrific, boys. They come from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Disease Prevention and Control.

...

 

 

Way back in 1999 we did not know how many murders were committed? Is that really what the CDC says? If so, provide the link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides, nobody's saying all teachers should be "packing"; the argument goes that teachers, faculty or staff should have the option to work it out with a district program or policy, rather than continue on with the illusion that these "disarmed victim" zones prevent trouble.

 

Don't we give airline pilots the option to carry guns in the cockpit if they choose to and go through the appropriate training? Isn't the whole principle of armed Air Marshals on planes is that only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites