Jim M

What Does Gun Violence Really Cost?

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Its not maddening to me at all.  I just want to know what jocal thinks about your stance.  Yes, everyone is entitled to differing opinions - but on something THIS Yuge to jocal I'm having a hard time buying that he could consider you in the same team.  I meant this is almost the core of his thinking on scary assault rifles and he is a hypocrite in the worst way if he gives you a pass on this.  YOU and I are far more aligned on gun control that you and joe are - if what you're saying your "position" is true.

Jeff, he doesn't have to give me a pass on this, we are both entitled to differing opinions. He is welcome to convince me otherwise, and I welcome it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Hey joe, you'd better get to work on BL before he joins the PAGC.  His views are 180 out with yours on scary battlefield weapons of war.  Are you the one who is always saying that no one "needs" the battlefield weapons and that it is not only right but required to ban them from civilian ownership.  Seems amazing to me that someone like BL who pretends to be a staunch liberal gun control advocate could let you down like this on something so near and dear to your heart.  What gives?

Sounds like Jeff is afraid we might agree on something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sean said:

Five years ago today. 

 

Sandy-Hook-Newtown-678x381.jpg

Uh oh. The victims. Unapproved comment alert!  That’s a red herring!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, badlatitude said:

MOUNT WASHINGTON, Ky. (WKYT) - Kentucky State Representative Dan Johnson, who was under investigation for alleged sexual molestation, has committed suicide, according to a report from WDRB in Louisville. 

Bullitt County Sheriff Donnie Tinnell said Johnson killed himself on a bridge on Greenwell Ford Road in Mt. Washington, and the gun was recovered. 

On Tuesday, Johnson said that he had no intention of resigning his seat."

http://www.wkyt.com/content/news/Report-Rep-Dan-Johnson-commits-suicide-464023783.html

Not sure how this ended up in another thread.

Add one more reason to ban bump stocks to the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2017 at 11:16 AM, badlatitude said:

The law addresses the folding stock and requires it be fixed, it also requires the magazine be fixed, there is also a law restricting barrel length. Rather than pay to make those things conform to law I moved it to Oregon at little cost. None of those things make the gun safer or more dangerous in my opinion, rather they are an expense that is unnecessary.

That might be why Uncooperative Californicators who do not own property in another state resent those rules and most likely will fail to comply in large numbers once the judge's order is lifted. If you did not have the foresight to buy property in another state, they are an expense that is necessary. And yet, like you, nutz know they are really unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

That might be why Uncooperative Californicators who do not own property in another state resent those rules and most likely will fail to comply in large numbers once the judge's order is lifted. If you did not have the foresight to buy property in another state, they are an expense that is necessary. And yet, like you, nutz know they are really unnecessary.

You will never be happy, no matter where the line is drawn. The "cosmetics" paint a picture here, to mask an amalgam of dangerous function eh?

And no line will be perfect and fair from every angle. Yet a line must be drawn because of gun extremists.The line could have been drawn earlier. Your problem here is insignificant compared to the gun deaths and domestic chaos being generated by AW's (which cause 30% to 40% if officer fatalities, according to Kolbe).

 

On 12/5/2017 at 3:46 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

The gungrabby lobbyist says these are "uniquely dangerous" operations but the ATF agents tasked with doing the work didn't consider the people all that dangerous and recovered almost all of the weapons in the years examined.

You have underfunded the ATF, are all about lawbreaking, and you vocally support and encourage lawbreakers in CA. How about YOU go collect the felons' guns across the USA, smarty pants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Sounds like Jeff is afraid we might agree on something.

Sounds like badlat enjoys exotic guns, but knows when enough is enough. A positive, evolving, self-correcting society, respectful of voter wishes, could be built upon the badlat model.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

If that's true, we need a new word. I asked you for one in the thread about the program under which California gun owners' tools involuntarily come into the possession of the state. But that's a really bulky way to describe the program. Please help.

What's your problem with confiscation? George Washington disarmed many by confiscation. He took ALL their weaponry, not just the 300 round-per-minute models. California is within its rights, based on the voting in that state. Welcome the blueprint of the NRA, baby. Jeffie is having a cocktail as we speak, to celebrate the reversal of confiscation in CA.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2017 at 9:27 PM, Rockdog said:

What are your thoughts about BL owning a "battle rifle" and a "weapon of war"?  Do you respect him for that?

Badlat is a free man, the citizen of a free country. He shall own what he wants, up to a point.

  • If badlat wanted the AW  to shoot tirechuckers over debris box territoriality, I would think more poorly of him.
  • If he wanted it to shoot disgruntled employees on payday down at the Burger King in Oregon, I dunno.
  • If he wanted to pick off rapists in the conjugal act, I would engage the man in conversation. WTF?
  • If he felt he needed it to face off with politicians whom he personally felt were violating "the constitution," we have voting for that.
  • If he were a poser who showed bad judgement, dispeptic civics, and general bigotry,  the world would be better off without his AW IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Its not maddening to me at all.  I just want to know what jocal thinks about your stance.  Yes, everyone is entitled to differing opinions - but on something THIS Yuge to jocal I'm having a hard time buying that he could consider you in the same team.  I meant this is almost the core of his thinking on scary assault rifles and he is a hypocrite in the worst way if he gives you a pass on this.  YOU and I are far more aligned on gun control that you and joe are - if what you're saying your "position" is true.

BTW - I can send you an on-line application to the PAGC whenever you're ready to join.  Just fill out the app and send it to LB15 so he can get you into the system.  Plus You get a 15% off coupon on 30 round Pmags when you join.  And your name automatically gets entered into the raffle for a bayonet.  That way you can complete the ultimate assault rifle cosmetic feature.

Santa might be bringing me a bayonet for Christmas! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Do you really take me for someone who hasn't been around the block? You don't care what I've done, you care about what you can attack. Do your own work and be honest for a change.

Seems to describe much discourse these days... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Badlat is a free man, the citizen of a free country. He shall own what he wants, up to a point.

  • If badlat wanted the AW  to shoot tirechuckers over debris box territoriality, I would think more poorly of him.
  • If he wanted it to shoot disgruntled employees on payday down at the Burger King in Oregon, I dunno.
  • If he wanted to pick off rapists in the conjugal act, I would engage the man in conversation. WTF?
  • If he felt he needed it to face off with politicians whom he personally felt were violating "the constitution," we have voting for that.
  • If he were a poser who showed bad judgement, dispeptic civics, and general bigotry,  the world would be better off without his AW IMO.

What's the common thread in everything you just mentioned - wait for it - BEHAVIOR.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

What's the common thread in everything you just mentioned - wait for it - BEHAVIOR.  

You're ignoring my positions. As few as possible prohibit guns.

And gun policies affect behavior, while laws define acceptable behavior.

  • I'd like background checks for private sales, now assessed around 28% by volume.
  • I'd like our battle guns confined to congressionally approved international battle situations
  • I'd like your comments on how guns in homes relate to DV. 
  • I'd like guns registered, and CC carriers, if any, trained and licensed.
  • I'd like real founding father confiscation habits recognized.
  • I'd like better interstate transfer regulations, which can prosecute offenders.
  • I'd like guns recognized as public safety hazards.
  • I'd like the Tiahrt and FOPA and PLCAA reviewed even before
  • freewheeling federal findings about gun violence.
  • I'd like data blockage and research blockage stopped. I'd like RICO charges against LaPierre.

Lots of behavior modifications there. Very little "prohibition."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

You're ignoring my positions. As few as possible prohibit guns.

And gun policies affect behavior, while laws define acceptable behavior.

  • I'd like background checks for private sales, now assessed around 28% by volume. - Sales? Sure - word it so it doesn't include me loaning a shotgun to a friend to bust clays in my backyard and I'll support it. 
  • I'd like our battle guns confined to congressionally approved international battle situations
  • I'd like your comments on how guns in homes relate to DV. - my comments are irrlevant - DV is its own issue, and already addressed by poorly reinforced statute
  • I'd like guns registered, and CC carriers, if any, trained and licensed. - already a requirement
  • I'd like real founding father confiscation habits recognized.
  • I'd like better interstate transfer regulations, which can prosecute offenders. - What specifically do you intend ?
  • I'd like guns recognized as public safety hazards.
  • I'd like the Tiahrt and FOPA and PLCAA reviewed even before
  • freewheeling federal findings about gun violence.
  • I'd like data blockage and research blockage stopped. I'd like RICO charges against LaPierre.

Lots of behavior modifications there. Very little "prohibition."

Everything bolded is a prohibition or bullshit, and most are based in fallacy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

What’s to prevent BL from doing any of those things at some future date?  We in the PAGC have long said that ownership should be predicated on good behavior and you’ve continually rejected that out of hand by saying the presence of a gun contributes to gunplay mentality and that even law abiding citizens can turn bad and snap and kill people with easy access to a gun. 

Did the LV shooter exhibit any of those qualities above before he went on his bump-stocka shooting spree??  Who says BL is any safer having a gun much less a folding stocka high capacity assault rifle that truly IS a “battle rifle” given it’s the .308 version?

This is a remarkably dumb comment that keeps you from being taken seriously. No wonder PA gun threads hover near the bottom of any gun lover's preferred reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, badlatitude said:

This is a remarkably dumb comment that keeps you from being taken seriously. No wonder PA gun threads hover near the bottom of any gun lover's preferred reading.

It's pretty easy to tell what kind of political reading interests California gun owners.

The political threads with the most views and replies at Calguns:

LIST OF DOJ AW REGISTRATION REJECTIONS

(GENERAL How Does Registration Work thread)

Gee, I wonder why they're so interested in registration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

It's pretty easy to tell what kind of political reading interests California gun owners.

The political threads with the most views and replies at Calguns:

LIST OF DOJ AW REGISTRATION REJECTIONS

(GENERAL How Does Registration Work thread)

Gee, I wonder why they're so interested in registration?

In no time at all, you'll be interested in registration too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, badlatitude said:

In no time at all, you'll be interested in registration too.

What makes you think I'm not?

I've discussed at length how registration/confiscation programs work to separate guns from owners and even named myself Uncooperative Tom in anticipation of disregarding the registration/confiscation program that Democrats in my state wish to implement.

Of course, I still think it will be longer than "no time at all" before people like yourself can convince others to give up their guns while refusing to give up yours. Your actions speak louder than your words on this subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I'd like our battle guns confined to congressionally approved international battle situations

You're free to hand your assault weapon over to Congress at any time. Why don't you do it?

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad you won't. It makes it much easier to demonstrate your hypocrisy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, badlatitude said:

(To Jeffie) This is a remarkably dumb comment that keeps you from being taken seriously. No wonder PA gun threads hover near the bottom of any gun lover's preferred reading.

Selectively applied intelligence. Jeff and Tom turn the dumb switch on and off, depending. IMO, as a community we are blessed by some of their insights, but only on non-firearm subjects. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You're free to hand your assault weapon over to Congress at any time. Why don't you do it?

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad you won't. It makes it much easier to demonstrate your hypocrisy.

The Badgeless Niggler is back at it. I hate to encourage your nonsense, but I lost the silly plot. Really.

What AW? Lay out your position for us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

It's pretty easy to tell what kind of political reading interests California gun owners.

The political threads with the most views and replies at Calguns:

LIST OF DOJ AW REGISTRATION REJECTIONS

(GENERAL How Does Registration Work thread)

Gee, I wonder why they're so interested in registration?

This citizenry brought to you by Howard Stern, Roger Stone, and Pooplius Propagandus.

 Tom's first link shows that the CA  registration folks are specific, and careful, and behind, as they manage LCM platforms.

Quote
Let's make it as hard for them as we can.

I think everybody should submit messed up registration applications multiple times to overwhelm the system! Its called civil disobedience and this is a perfect opportunity for everyone to protest by making their job as hard as possible.
__________________
sigpic34566_8.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

already a requirement

Twelve states have no requirement for CC. This = no training in 23% of the states.

 

22 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'd like data blockage and research blockage stopped.

This is neither prohibition, nor bullshit. Can cite again.

 

22 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'd like real founding father confiscation habits recognized.

Some examples are the Torries from 1776 to 1783, the Shays Rebellion participants around 1791, and (after the new federal teeth within the 1792 Militia Act), the  Whiskey Rebellion participants in PA. Pennsylvania has an individual gun rights state constitution. My notes show that Pensylvania gun confiscation ran for 17 years during colonial times. It was called for in 1776, and federally enforced in 1793 by 13,000 mustered militia marchers, from four states.

Please quote chapter , verse, and source in your claim that GW did not confiscate wea[ons, even based on politics.  The "Rights We Inherited from England" disarmed Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and sometimes, England, depending. Lord Dunsmore published his British authority to confiscate colonial powder in VA, while crickets chirped loudly to the slaves.

 

22 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

most are based in fallacy. 

Which ones, AGIC? Let's discuss the specifics of any claim in my post. Or you can reach for the ignore fuction for the fifth time.

Gun Grabber Boogaloo.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Twelve states have no requirement for CC. This = no training in 23% of the states.

 

This is neither prohibition, nor bullshit. Can cite again.

 

My examples are the Torries after 1783, the Shays Rebellion participants, and after the federal teeth within the 1792 Militia Act, the  Whiskey Rebellion Participants in PA. Pennsylvania has an individual gun rights state constitution. Please quote chapter , verse, and source in your claim that GW was not a "gungrabber."  The "Rights We Inherited from England" disarmed Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and depending, England. Lord Dunsmore published his British authority to confiscate colonial powder in VA, while crickets chirped loudly to the slaves.

Which ones, AGIC? Let's discuss the specifics of any claim in my post. Or you can reach for the ignore fuction for the fifth time.

EVERYTHING you propose is either a direct prohibition, a path that you hope will lead to more prohibition, or personal bullshit - LaPierre brought up on charges? For what - advocating his position?   "Better regulation of interstate sales leading to more prosecution"?  WTF is that supposed to mean other than you mistakenly think that it's wrong for someone in CA to sell a gun to someone in AZ. 

You are a myopic disingenuous cunt who thinks that quoting out of context historical quotes lends credence to your disjointed circular-logic argument, all the while refusing to address a single truly causal factor in the increased propensity for violence.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 "Better regulation of interstate sales leading to more prosecution"?  WTF is that supposed to mean

This comes from general and specific statements of ATF Agents. Read SAILING ANARCHY.

Plain as day in the quotes within  the thread O'bama's Mexican Gurunning. The DOJ and ATF felt paralyzed in AZ, mate, according to them, by inadequate laws. What has happened to enforcement down there is just not not decent. 

Ahem. Same bitches, except from other agents, on the Iron Pipeline, right up your Eastern Seaboard.

 

My experience with your bit is that you deny the status, and prevent the means of gathering data, while dragging your feet.  You want effective laws, which takes research, which you have not spoken for. IIRC, you think peer-reviewed research is jaded, and universally unacceptable, without naming one single skewed scientist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

quoting out of context historical quotes

Your problem is that I have now ACED the context of colonial behavior, with cites.

I can employ and add the missing context of the cites of YOUR scholars. You boys have a problem, based on scholarship presented within MacDonald.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

This comes from general and specific statements of ATF Agents. Read SAILING ANARCHY.

Plain as day in the quotes within  the thread O'bama's Mexican Gurunning. The DOJ and ATF felt paralyzed in AZ, mate, according to them, by inadequate laws. What has happened to enforcement down there is just not not decent. 

Ahem. Same bitches, except from other agents, on the Iron Pipeline, right up your Eastern Seaboard.

 

My experience with your bit is that you deny the status, and prevent the means of gathering data, while dragging your feet.  You want effective laws, which takes research, which you have not spoken for. IIRC, you think peer-reviewed research is jaded, and universally unacceptable, without naming one single skewed scientist.

What you want is advocacy cloaked as research - to support a pre-supposed outcome.  Yeah - I oppose that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

LaPierre brought up on charges? For what - advocating his position? 

IANAL. (Just an SAF debunker.) I dunno. Conspiracy against the public safety. Shielding gun sales to dealers who are uniquely shielded from disclosing illegal transfers. Stuff now masked by the PLCA...

Quote

Adam Winkler, on Sandy Abrams (an excerpt from The Standardless Second Amendment)

 

The NRA's board of directors included  a rogue gun dealer named Sandy Abrams, whose Valley Gun in Baltimore was determined by federal officials, after more than nine hundred offenses, to be a "serial violator" of federal gun laws.

 

Abrams guns had a suspicious way of disappearing,. At one point, he could not account for 27 per cent f his inventory. These guns didn't appear to have been stolen. Abrams never filed a police report  about a theft or files an insurance claim--that is, he didn't do what you'd expect a businessman to do when a huge chunk of inventory disappears without a trace. Abrams justrdidn't have the guns anymore.

 

Federal law enforcement agents suspected that the guns were sold illegally without the required background checks. And they traced numerous homicides, assaults, and other crimes to guns that were once part of Abrams' inventory. ATF eventually revoked Abrams's federal license to sell firearms.

Nevertheless, Abrams was reelected to serve on the NRA's board. See footnote 84.

https://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/Mehr_and_Winkler_Standardless_Second_Amendment.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

What you want is advocacy cloaked as research - to support a pre-supposed outcome.  Yeah - I oppose that. 

Advocacy is a broad term. A code word, rather general. Be specific, my good man. You can't be rejecting it all with a just the wave of your nose in the air.

SUGGESTION BOX FOR A GUY LIKE GUY

  • You need to trash Donohue. He sat in the 2004 NAS conference which Tom quotes. They voted John Lott off the Island 18-1. Then, twice in the ensueingnine years, Donohue applied Lott's epidemiological formulae to our new RTC states. They showed the NAS that serious increases in violent crime had occured, around 8%.
    Quote

    Now, Donohue and his colleagues have shown that extending the data yet another decade (1999-2010) provides the most convincing evidence to date that right-to-carry laws are associated with an increase in violent crime.

     "The totality of the evidence based on educated judgments about the best statistical models suggests thatright-to-carry laws are associated with substantially higher rates" of aggravated assault, rape, robbery and murder, said Donohue.

    The strongest evidence was for aggravated assault, with data suggesting that right-to-carry (RTC) laws increase this crime by an estimated 8 percent – and this may actually be understated, according to the researchers.

     

     

  • He is different elk than David Hemenway and his trainee, Daniel Webster, of Harvard, who represent a separate body of work. 
    Quote

                Using death certificate data available through 2010, the repeal of Missouri’s PTP law was associated with an increase  in annual firearm homicides rates of  (+23 %) but was unrelated to changes in non-firearm homicide rates.   Using Uniform Crime Reporting data from police through 2012, the law’s repeal was associated with increased annual murders rates of (+16 %).  http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-014-9865-8

     

  • They are different elk than Seigal, whose work in 2013 covered all fifty states over thirty years, and concluded that, geograpically speaking, high gun density affected public safety.
    Quote

    Our study substantially advances previous work by analyzing recent data, examining the longest and most comprehensive panel of state-specific data to date, and accounting for year and state clustering and for a wide range of potential confounders. We found a robust relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide rates, a finding that held whether firearm ownership was assessed through a proxy or a survey measure, whether state clustering was accounted for by GEEs or by fixed effects, and whether or not gun ownership was lagged, by up to 2 years. The observed relationship was specific to firearm-related homicide. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher levels of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides. http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409>

     

  • There are many other random elk whose studies are consistent with the above. You need to trash then one-by-one, or demonstrate, with credible sources, crooked science among them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

IANAL. (Just an SAF debunker.) I dunno. Conspiracy against the public safety. Shielding gun sales to dealers who are uniquely shielded from disclosing illegal transfers. Stuff now masked by the PLCA...

 

So - because you personally hate his organization and its advocacy, you would proffer as a suggestion to be seriously considered that he should be criminally charged?   You spout stupid shit like this and wonder why you're not taken seriously?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Advocacy is a broad term. A code word, rather general. Be specific, my good man. You can't be rejecting it all with a just the wave of your nose in the air.

<SNIP>

OK - I'll be very specific - the "research" you have advocated is based upon questions that are formulated to support a pre-conceived notion, namely that the presence of firearms is the primary cause of increasing violence.   

If you want to advocate for research aimed at violence reduction?  I'll send a check.  If you want to "research" how getting rid of guns would make things better, eschewing the societal and behavioral factors that motivate individuals to seek a means of inflicting violence upon someone else,  that's advocacy, and you can pay for it, and enjoy playing with yourself as you read the opinions that you paid someone to support.  

You are myopic and singularly focused on one implement thru which violence is effected (and even then, you ignore the type of implement that's most commonly used to inflict violence - it ain't the AR15) - while ignoring WHY we have an increasing propensity to use violence as expression.   You're simply disingenuous, and I really don't know why you keep spouting the bullshit you do - you're not convincing anyone of anything beyond your intellectual dishonesty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Some examples are the Torries from 1776 to 1783,

When are you going to get it through your thick head that there was a war going on at that time?

Imagine that, arms get seized from the other side when places are taken during a war. What a novel idea.

It seems like there was an effort to do some seizing of military supplies that led to the initial encounters of that war..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jocal505 said:

My experience with your bit is that you deny the status, and prevent the means of gathering data, while dragging your feet.  You want effective laws, which takes research, which you have not spoken for. IIRC, you think peer-reviewed research is jaded, and universally unacceptable, without naming one single skewed scientist.

I've posted research about "peer review" before Joe, strangely enough you never have anything to say about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Advocacy is a broad term. A code word, rather general. Be specific, my good man. You can't be rejecting it all with a just the wave of your nose in the air.

Quite a rich comment from you, Joe. You reject anything that doesn't support your opinion all the time.

While being a gunowner yourself. Hypocrite...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jocal505 said:

IANAL. (Just an SAF debunker.) I dunno. Conspiracy against the public safety. Shielding gun sales to dealers who are uniquely shielded from disclosing illegal transfers. Stuff now masked by the PLCA...

You just make this shit up as you go along, don't you? "Shielding gun sales to dealers who are uniquely shielded from disclosing illegal transfers"

What does that even mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jocal505 said:
13 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You're free to hand your assault weapon over to Congress at any time. Why don't you do it?

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad you won't. It makes it much easier to demonstrate your hypocrisy.

The Badgeless Niggler is back at it. I hate to encourage your nonsense, but I lost the silly plot. Really.

What AW? Lay out your position for us. 

I'm from Florida, OK?

You've described your gun and grabberz in my state define it as an assault weapon. We have lots of FL voters here, but only nutz have suggested it's not an assault weapon. So therefore, under FL grabberz' definition, your gun is an assault weapon. As you know, it's also one in New Jersey.

It's an assault weapon because of the excessive magazine capacity, as you have said yourself.

My position is, if assault weapons are really so bad in your view and need to be turned over to Congress, you should demonstrate that you actually believe your stated view by turning over your assault weapon to Congress.

I'd prefer you remain a hypocrite who is easily discredited, which is what I expect you to do instead of following my suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I'm from Florida, OK?

You've described your gun and grabberz in my state define it as an assault weapon. We have lots of FL voters here, but only nutz have suggested it's not an assault weapon. So therefore, under FL grabberz' definition, your gun is an assault weapon. As you know, it's also one in New Jersey.

It's an assault weapon because of the excessive magazine capacity, as you have said yourself.

My position is, if assault weapons are really so bad in your view and need to be turned over to Congress, you should demonstrate that you actually believe your stated view by turning over your assault weapon to Congress.

I'd prefer you remain a hypocrite who is easily discredited, which is what I expect you to do instead of following my suggestion.

There's nothing there, Tom. It's useless monologue, based on TR falsehoods. Frankly, you need to be more considerate of our time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bpm57 said:

You just make this shit up as you go along, don't you? "Shielding gun sales to dealers who are uniquely shielded from disclosing illegal transfers"

What does that even mean?

Thanks for asking, bpm57.

Quote

This law  enables gun makers and sellers to market their products in ways that are intended to appeal to criminals and other ineligible purchasers without  facing any legal consequences. It also allows the industry to make available  increasingly dangerous weapons and to fail to monitor inventory, even in the face of evidence that thousands of guns are being stolen from dealerships and end up in the hands of criminals.

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-safety-public-health-policy-recommendations-for-a-more-secure-america/#Immunity

Quote

The Guns Gone Missing after PLCA

Between 2004 and 2011, the ATF discovered nearly 175,000 guns were missing from the inventories of federally licensed firearm dealers (FFLs). Lacking resources, the ATF is only able to inspect the inventories of approximately 19% of FFLs each year. Without a doubt, tens of thousands of additional guns went missing during that seven-year period.

The Center for American Progress collected information on several stores that lost track of a significant amount of their inventory. From a June 2013 report:101

VALLEY GUN, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. ATF conducted a compliance inspection of Valley Gun in 2003 and discovered that 422 guns were missing—more than a quarter of the store’s entire inventory. Additionally, this store was connected with more than 483 guns found at crime scenes, including 41 assaults and 11 homicides. For these and other violations, ATF eventually revoked the owner’s federal firearms license, although he was permitted to continue selling the guns in the store’s inventory as a private seller.

TAYLOR’S TRADING POST, BIGLERVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA. ATF conducted its first compliance inspection of Taylor’s Trading Post in more than 30 years in January 2010 and discovered that the store’s owner could not properly account for more than 3,000 guns that had been bought or sold during the previous three years. After an extended investigation, ATF concluded that 168 firearms were missing from the store’s inventory. ATF revoked the store’s federal firearms license, although it remains open pending various appeals.

ELLIOT’S GUN SHOP, OLD JEFFERSON, LOUISIANA. Elliot’s Gun Shop caught the attention of federal law enforcement in 2007, when guns sold by the store began appearing at crime scenes in the New Orleans region in large numbers. Between 2002 and 2007, 2,300 crime guns were traced to the store, which included guns linked to 127 homicide investigations and 517 drug-related crimes. The owners of Elliot’s were charged with various crimes relating to their management of the gun store, including falsifying sales records to enable sales to prohibited purchasers.

 

Quote

“Justice Denied: The Case Against Gun Industry Immunity.” 

BEFORE AND AFTER PLCAA. Prior to the enactment of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, civil litigation encouraged positive change in the gun industry and compensated victims of violence. Lawsuits against the gun industry were also a strong tool to pry free otherwise hidden information about marketing and distribution practices. One important finding revealed by lawsuits launched by municipalities, including Chicago and New York, was that a small number of gun dealers were the source of a vastly disproportionate number of crime guns.

Additionally, heads of major gun companies were forced to answer basic questions under oath thatnthey had long avoided:

In a deposition, under questioning from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Ugo Gussalli Beretta, head of the Italian firearms company Beretta, said he believed American gun dealers had a policy to require people buying large quantities of guns to establish a legitimate reason for the purchase, saying it was “common sense.” In the United States, of course, there is no such requirement.95

Finally, product liability lawsuits against manufacturers were responsible for some of the most important safety improvements in the gun industry, including basic changes like making guns that don’t accidentally fire when dropped.9615

 

One high profile example of successful litigation occurred when victims of the 2002 D.C. sniper shootings successfully sued gun distributor Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply and manufacturer Bushmaster Firearms, Inc. for actions that created an unnecessary risk that their products would fall into criminal hands.

For 20 days, the Washington metropolitan area struggled to respond to the random and often lethal shootings. When the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle used by the killers was eventually traced across the country to Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, Washington, the store said they were not even aware they were no longer in possession of the weapon. It simply had disappeared from their inventory, they claimed. ATF investigators found that 238 firearms had also inexplicably “disappeared” from Bull’s Eye over the preceding three years.97 Under a September 2004 settlement agreement, the victims and their families eventually received $2.5 million dollars for this negligence, $500,000 of which came from Bushmaster.98

According to attorneys David Boies and Lloyd N. Cutler, this settlement would likely have been prevented by PLCAA despite the overwhelming evidence of misdeeds by Bushmaster and Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply.99 A widow of one of the sniper victims worried openly in 2004 that should PLCAA become law, “the courthouse door will be slammed in my face.”100 She was able to avoid such a fate, but today many victims are less fortunate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

There's nothing there, Tom. It's useless monologue. Frankly, you need to be more considerate of our time.

What an ironic comment in a thread where I have spent time detailing the Golden Age of the Hoplophobic Hypocrite: using suicide stats to call for bans on assault weapons while refusing to give up assault weapons. You people are nearly as funny as Rimas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

OK - I'll be very specific - the "research" you have advocated is based upon questions that are formulated to support a pre-conceived notion, namely that the presence of firearms is the primary cause of increasing violence.   

No. Looking at gunownership density is only one approach with a consistent outcome. There' are other comparisons possible. One is to compare the gun mayhem in areas with loose gun regulations with areas which have tight gun regulations.

Quote

The link between high levels of gun violence and weak state gun laws https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/general/news/2013/04/03/59026/the-link-between-gun-violence-and-state-gun-laws/

Conclusion,  Centers for American Progress

The data analyzed in this report relate to the following:

 10 indicators of gun violence:

  1. Overall firearm deaths in 2010
  2. Overall firearm deaths from 2001 through 2010
  3. Firearm homicides in 2010
  4. Firearm suicides in 2010
  5. Firearm homicides among women from 2001 through 2010
  6. Firearm deaths among children ages 0 to 17, from 2001 through 2010
  7. Law-enforcement agents feloniously killed with a firearm from 2002 through 2011
  8. Aggravated assaults with a firearm in 2011
  9. Crime-gun export rates in 2009
  10. Percentage of crime guns with a short “time to crime” in 2009

While many factors contribute to the rates of gun violence in any state, our research clearly demonstrates a significant correlation between the strength of a state’s gun laws and the prevalence of gun violence in the state.  Across the key indicators of gun violence that we analyzed, the 10 states with the weakest gun laws collectively have a level of gun violence that is more than twice as high—104 percent higher—than the 10 states with the strongest gun laws.

 

weak laws, bad outcomes.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, jocal505 said:

No. Looking at gunownership density is only one approach with a consistent outcome. There' are other comparisons possible. One is to compare the gun mayhem in areas with loose gun regulations with areas which have tight gun regulations.

Center for American Progress - claims to be "non-partisan", but admits a sentence or 2 later that they are "progressives". https://www.americanprogress.org/about/mission/

https://www.americanprogress.org/about/c3-board/

Not exactly a group concerned with certain parts of the constitution..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2017 at 10:16 AM, badlatitude said:

The law addresses the folding stock and requires it be fixed, it also requires the magazine be fixed, there is also a law restricting barrel length. Rather than pay to make those things conform to law I moved it to Oregon at little cost. None of those things make the gun safer or more dangerous in my opinion, rather they are an expense that is unnecessary.

Hypocracy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rockdog said:

Hypocracy

How? I am already planning a move soon and own two condos and two ranches in Oregon. BTW, I wish you would learn to spell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Center for American Progress - claims to be "non-partisan", but admits a sentence or 2 later that they are "progressives". https://www.americanprogress.org/about/mission/

https://www.americanprogress.org/about/c3-board/

Not exactly a group concerned with certain parts of the constitution..

Okay. Your point is recognized as intelligent. (BTW, the CAP org wants the ATF rolled into the FBI>)

So just for you, this source doesn't have that "progressive" NTTAWWT problem,  and concludes the same thing. This case is quoted in the higher courts. It passed peer review.

Quote

Fleegler 2013: States with more gun laws have less gun violence

States with more gun laws have fewer gun-related deaths, according to a new study released Wednesday by Boston Children's Hospital.

States with the most laws had a mortality rate 42% lower than those states with the fewest laws, they found. The strong law states' firearm-related homicide rate was also 40% lower and their firearm-related suicide rate was 37% lower.

Specifically, Fleeger pointed to states with many gun laws like Massachusetts, which had 3.4 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, and New Jersey, which had 4.9 gun-deaths per 100,000 people. Conversely, he focused on states with less laws like Louisiana, which had 18 deaths per 100,000 individuals and Alaska, which had 17.5 deaths per 100,000 individuals.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/07/gun-violence-study-chicago/1969227/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, badlatitude said:

I am already planning a move soon and own two condos and two ranches in Oregon.

Yes, but you also say things like this about the pending confiscation of your assault weapons:

On 12/12/2017 at 1:29 PM, badlatitude said:

... The government will eventually do their job and we will live with the results. ...

Their job is to represent us. If taking your guns represents you, don't wait around for the government to do the confiscation job. Prove you think that's their job by giving your guns to the government today.

Or don't and continue to be a hypocrite on this issue, which makes life easier for my elk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yes, but you also say things like this about the pending confiscation of your assault weapons:

Their job is to represent us. If taking your guns represents you, don't wait around for the government to do the confiscation job. Prove you think that's their job by giving your guns to the government today.

Or don't and continue to be a hypocrite on this issue, which makes life easier for my elk.

You seem confused (as usual), California requires that I adjust my weapon to new specifications. California doesn't even have a solution for what to do about folks who don't modify their weapons. Confiscation hasn't even been discussed in that regard, so you are ahead of yourself and wrong again (as usual). 

I moved my weapon in anticipation of a move, and I defy you to find something wrong about that. I have written that your lack of discourse on gun law has resulted in the possibility of severe gun laws being written as a result. You have had twenty years to discuss a fix, but instead, you put your money in the mouth of the NRA and other outfits whose job it is to spin stories, change the dialog, lobby and defeat any attempt to change current law. It is just a matter of time before the public gets fed up and rams law that you won't like on the public. None of that is my fault, but the fault of you and your elk who refuse to take your fingers out of your ears.

You're the one who should be surrendering your weapons; you caused this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, badlatitude said:

How? I am already planning a move soon and own two condos and two ranches in Oregon. BTW, I wish you would learn to spell

It’s gun nutters like you who cause gun violence in California.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

You seem confused (as usual), California requires that I adjust my weapon to new specifications. California doesn't even have a solution for what to do about folks who don't modify their weapons. Confiscation hasn't even been discussed in that regard, so you are ahead of yourself and wrong again (as usual). 

I moved my weapon in anticipation of a move, and I defy you to find something wrong about that. I have written that your lack of discourse on gun law has resulted in the possibility of severe gun laws being written as a result. You have had twenty years to discuss a fix, but instead, you put your money in the mouth of the NRA and other outfits whose job it is to spin stories, change the dialog, lobby and defeat any attempt to change current law. It is just a matter of time before the public gets fed up and rams law that you won't like on the public. None of that is my fault, but the fault of you and your elk who refuse to take your fingers out of your ears.

You're the one who should be surrendering your weapons; you caused this.

Good to see you are one of the gun butters who don’t believe gun restriction laws work or should be followed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Okay. Your point is recognized as intelligent. (BTW, the CAP org wants the ATF rolled into the FBI>)

So just for you, this source doesn't have that "progressive" NTTAWWT problem,  and concludes the same thing. This case is quoted in the higher courts. It passed peer review.

Firearm legislation and firearm-related fatalities in the United States. Fleegler EW, Lee LK, Monuteaux MC, Hemenway D, Mannix R. JAMA Intern Med. 2013 May 13

Every author of this paper is a Pediatrics MD, except for Hemenway. He is a PhD, probably in Public Health policy - his Harvard page doesn't say.

But Hemenway was a " Senior Soros Justice Fellow " I'm sure that means he is totally unbiased on the gun topic.

Do I need to quote papers talking about major issues with peer review again, Joe? For the record, the papers were peer reviewed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, badlatitude said:

You seem confused (as usual), California requires that I adjust my weapon to new specifications. California doesn't even have a solution for what to do about folks who don't modify their weapons. Confiscation hasn't even been discussed in that regard, so you are ahead of yourself and wrong again (as usual). 

I moved my weapon in anticipation of a move, and I defy you to find something wrong about that. I have written that your lack of discourse on gun law has resulted in the possibility of severe gun laws being written as a result. You have had twenty years to discuss a fix, but instead, you put your money in the mouth of the NRA and other outfits whose job it is to spin stories, change the dialog, lobby and defeat any attempt to change current law. It is just a matter of time before the public gets fed up and rams law that you won't like on the public. None of that is my fault, but the fault of you and your elk who refuse to take your fingers out of your ears.

You're the one who should be surrendering your weapons; you caused this.

How did Tom, or any other law abiding gun owners, "caused this". 

Caused what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Firearm legislation and firearm-related fatalities in the United States. Fleegler EW, Lee LK, Monuteaux MC, Hemenway D, Mannix R. JAMA Intern Med. 2013 May 13

Every author of this paper is a Pediatrics MD, except for Hemenway. He is a PhD, probably in Public Health policy - his Harvard page doesn't say.

But Hemenway was a " Senior Soros Justice Fellow " I'm sure that means he is totally unbiased on the gun topic.

Do I need to quote papers talking about major issues with peer review again, Joe? For the record, the papers were peer reviewed.

Sure, let's hear you diss peer-revierwed work some more. Your documentation, singular,  has not reversed science so far. However imperfect the system, peer reviewed writing, and being published in scientific journals, is the brass ring of the scientific culture.

Hemenway has been quoted by the higher courts for some time. His level or work is not to be balanced against the like of John R Lott. To demonstrate that, this Hemenway  study involved ONLY recently published gun violence experts. At this point, Hemenway is annoyed with equal time.

Quote

There's scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won't like it http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-oe-hemenway-guns-20150423-story.html

Lott hasn't been published by scientific journals since 2004, when the NAS fleeced his work for 340 pages. Here is his recent fraudulent claim of peer review...

Quote

The GOP’s favorite gun “academic” is a fraud

The Peer Reviewed Study That Wasn't  https://thinkprogress.org/debunking-john-lott-5456e83cf326/

Last fall, Lott’s website proudly declared it published a study in a peer-reviewed journal. “CPRC Has New Refereed Publication in Econ Journal Watch: Explaining a Bias in Recent Studies on Right-to-Carry Laws” blared the headline on his website. A link to a downloadable copy of the paper also touts its place in the economic journal...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About guns and suicide? This is from Hemenway's study of gun  researchers, cited just above.

Quote

So, for example, one survey asked whether having a gun in the home increased the risk of suicide. An overwhelming share of the 150 people who responded, 84%, said yes.

This result was not at all surprising because the scientific evidence is overwhelming. It includes a dozen individual-level studies that investigate why some people commit suicide and others do not, and an almost equal number of area-wide studies that try to explain differences in suicide rates across cities, states and regions. These area-wide studies find that differences in rates of suicide across the country are less explained by differences in mental health or suicide ideation than they are explained by differences in levels of household gun ownership.

A 2014 meta-analysis, conducted by researchers at UC San Francisco, of the scientific studies on guns and suicide concluded that access to firearms increases the risk of suicide. Similarly, the 2012 National Strategy for Suicide Prevention from the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention and the U.S. Surgeon General concluded that “firearm access is a risk factor for suicide in the United States.”

As I said, I wasn't surprised by the results of that questionnaire. Still, it was nice to be able to document that the large majority of gun researchers have arrived at the same conclusion about firearms and suicide from their reading of the scientific literature.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Sure, let's hear you diss peer-revierwed work some more. Your documentation, singular,  has not reversed science so far. However imperfect the system, peer reviewed writing, and being published in scientific journals, is the brass ring of the scientific culture.

Hemenway has been quoted by the higher courts for some time. His level or work is not to be balanced against the like of John R Lott. To demonstrate that, this Hemenway  study involved ONLY recently published gun violence experts. At this point, Hemenway is annoyed with equal time.

Lott hasn't been published by scientific journals since 2004, when the NAS fleeced his work for 340 pages. Here is his recent fraudulent claim of peer review...

 

https://participatorymedicine.org/journal/opinion/2009/10/21/in-search-of-an-optimal-peer-review-system/

Use a dictionary if the words are to big, Joe. Maybe even read the cited papers. "singular"? Only if you have reading comprehension issues.

Hasn't been published since 2004. I mean.. here is one.. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-014-0171-5

Maybe a basic search on google scholar before posting might help a bit, Joe.

Do you even check your sources before posting them? thinkprogress? really?

" ThinkProgress is a news site dedicated to providing our readers with rigorous reporting and analysis from a progressive perspective. Founded in 2005, ThinkProgress is an editorially independent project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. " https://thinkprogress.org/about/

Yep, no bias there.

But keep telling us in thread-after-thread about how firearms are the cause of everything bad.. And then consider that you _still_ own one yourself. Hypocrite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

About guns and suicide? This is from Hemenway's study of gun  researchers, cited just above.

 

Clearly the mere existence of a gun causes suicide. The large font carries the extra weight needed to convince me, Joe. Can you explain the suicide rates in countries that are above the USA in "per 100K" stats - especially the ones where legal civilian firearm ownership is very low? If it is all due to legal private ownership of firearms, shouldn't those countries - South Korea and Japan, for example - be far below the US in suicide rate?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

How so?  My impression of you is that its very unlikely that you will snap and go on a shooting spree.  But who knows.  Every time someone goes on a shooting murder spree the neighbors always say they are shocked and he was such a nice boy.  My point is jocal doesn't care about behavior, he is only about the implement.  The presence of the implement means that you are dangerous.  That you are a threat to society.  YOU own a battlefield weapon only good for killing and war.  Do you dispute that?  Jocal would say that it makes zero difference if you are a good upstanding citizen, you not only do not NEED that weapon, but that it should be taken away from you because of its danger to society.  You seem to support jocal's policies, except when it comes to your personal property. 

So according to jocal, YOU are no different in potential harm than the LV shooter or any of the others who have murdered others with a scary black rifle.  

Jocal is correct; we don't need to own battle weapons. It's the same as owning a dragster to go to work on the freeway, or owning an F35 as a personal plane. Although I must say an F35 would be a lot of fun, it doesn't make sense. We have an obligation to our neighbors and our fellow citizens to not engage in activities that threaten the general good. I have said many times that I will surrender my weapon when it is legislated out of existence. Hell, I will surrender it when an argument or an incident proves the necessity of immediately disposing of them. But that is my personal decision and legislating morality as it applies to me does not belong to Tom Ray, or anyone else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You've also had 20 years to discuss a fix as well.  What have you done in that time?  Seriously, You cannot cast stones without saying what you've done differently, especially since you are an owner of a Battle gun weapon of war that your buddy jocal so despises.   

I've done plenty. I have a file half a foot thick and canceled checks that total a small fortune. For argument's sake, I won't get into that, but I'm pretty happy with the effort I have put forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, badlatitude said:

You seem confused (as usual), California requires that I adjust my weapon to new specifications. California doesn't even have a solution for what to do about folks who don't modify their weapons. Confiscation hasn't even been discussed in that regard, so you are ahead of yourself and wrong again (as usual). 

I moved my weapon in anticipation of a move, and I defy you to find something wrong about that. I have written that your lack of discourse on gun law has resulted in the possibility of severe gun laws being written as a result. You have had twenty years to discuss a fix, but instead, you put your money in the mouth of the NRA and other outfits whose job it is to spin stories, change the dialog, lobby and defeat any attempt to change current law. It is just a matter of time before the public gets fed up and rams law that you won't like on the public. None of that is my fault, but the fault of you and your elk who refuse to take your fingers out of your ears.

You're the one who should be surrendering your weapons; you caused this.

Weapons that are not modified are illegal. When you make possession of something that people already own illegal, that's a confiscation program to me. I've asked for an acceptable synonym and would use one if one is suggested.

2 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Jocal is correct; we don't need to own battle weapons.

You have had over twenty years to say there's something wrong with New Jersey classifying .22's like Joe's as battle guns. Instead, you've spent that time giving money to the Brady bunch and voting for the kind of elk who think ordinary .22's with fixed magazines can be found on battlefields.

Guess what? Even Joe isn't convinced he needs to get rid of his battle guns, just like you can't convince yourself you need to get rid of your battle guns.

I haven't ever given money to the NRA but certainly will if I see any chance that FL grabberz will succceed in their plans to ban and confiscate my .22 and my wife's. Why can't US grabberz be more like Canadians? They don't seem to have a problem with my battle guns being unregistered and unconfiscated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

And I'm curious..... what "argument or incident" would be enough for you to get you over the line???  Is 20 children in Newtown, 50 people in Orlando, and 60 people in Vegas not good enough for you to immediately dispose of your battle gun?  

Incidents like those should prompt people to not engage in activities that threaten the general good. Like owning battle guns.

(But only if those people say bad things about gun control.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Jocal would say that it makes zero difference if you are a good upstanding citizen, you not only do not NEED that weapon, but that it should be taken away from you because of its danger to society.  You seem to support jocal's policies, except when it comes to your personal property. 

So according to jocal, YOU are no different in potential harm than the LV shooter or any of the others who have murdered others with a scary black rifle.  

You are making shit up, since I have spoken clearly about this in two posts.

 I don't like your behavior. Here in the Cascade Mts we call it lying. Lying to promote a sick gun mentality. 

Two examples of questionable behavior, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

He's hopelessly ignorant and deliberately disingenuous. 

I brought you ALL the current gun research. I brought you ALL the social science conclusions about guns in U.S. Society. And I have exposed the shabby scholarship, with Scalia quoting Blackstock, displaying an appalling contradiction. You failed to benefit from each.

One of us is ignorant, and one isn't. One of us in disingenuous, and can't count gansta homicides honestly. One of us understands the Heller basics, one doesn't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pee Wee dresses for Jeffie.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, bpm57 said:

https://participatorymedicine.org/journal/opinion/2009/10/21/in-search-of-an-optimal-peer-review-system/

Use a dictionary if the words are to big, Joe. Maybe even read the cited papers. "singular"? Only if you have reading comprehension issues.

Hasn't been published since 2004. I mean.. here is one.. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-014-0171-5

Maybe a basic search on google scholar before posting might help a bit, Joe.

Do you even check your sources before posting them? thinkprogress? really?

" ThinkProgress is a news site dedicated to providing our readers with rigorous reporting and analysis from a progressive perspective. Founded in 2005, ThinkProgress is an editorially independent project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. " https://thinkprogress.org/about/

Yep, no bias there.

But keep telling us in thread-after-thread about how firearms are the cause of everything bad.. And then consider that you _still_ own one yourself. Hypocrite.

If peer review is worthless, why did John R. Lott recently claim (falsely) to have been accepted for peer review? Why did your Fox News academic lie about that?  And why was his work considered, then refused? Daniel Webster was published five times in one year. One of those works showed 23% more murders in Missouri after they cancelled their background checks in 2007. Does that hold any significance to you?

Peer review is the accepted standard of the civilized world. Joyce Lee Malcom, Steven Halbrook, Clayton Cramer, and Scalia had to avoid it with their laughable, embarassing version of FF history.

The embody junk science, it's good enough for bpm57. Are you a Gary Kleck fan? His work is 20 years old now, its vulnerable too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

If you already feel that it is an obligation to your neighbors and your fellow citizens to not engage in activities that threaten the common good, why the fuck are you waiting for it to be legislated out of existence.  As we all know, legislation horribly lags behind morality and common sense.  Using that logic, gays should never have been allowed to exist because it took a LONG time for legislation to catch up to the reality.  

And I'm curious..... what "argument or incident" would be enough for you to get you over the line???  Is 20 children in Newtown, 50 people in Orlando, and 60 people in Vegas not good enough for you to immediately dispose of your battle gun?  

What about your soon to be new neighbors in OR?  Do they not deserve to be safe from battlefield weapons being brought into their neighborhood and around their children??

I said in the post that I will make the moral decision when I feel the time is right. 

I was hoping the gun industry would see the light and do something to control the violence coming from their side, but incredibly, that will never happen. An entire American city could be murdered and the news from them would be greeted with a shrug. How can you align with something so void of common decency and morality?

I will have no neighbors in Oregon, I have 6,100 acres and border BLM on three sides.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Tell you what, BL.  I waffled back and forth over whether to get the SCAR 16 or the 17.  I ended up with the 16 and love it.  Especially after I replaced the shit factory trigger with a Geiselle Super Scar trigger.  But I digress...... if you are feeling guilty about having a battlefield weapon of war, I'll be glad to take it off your hands for a reasonable price.  It will go in a safe in Vegas and will likely sit there unused and never the see the light of day for 6-12 months at a time.  It won't be able to contribute to jocal's gun mayhem.  PM me if you're interested.  

IMO, you should have bought a 17S it too is better with a super trigger. I also bought an extra barrel, angled charging handle, new grip, rail, I probably have close to $7000 into it so far not counting scopes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2017 at 1:28 PM, bpm57 said:

Firearm legislation and firearm-related fatalities in the United States. Fleegler EW, Lee LK, Monuteaux MC, Hemenway D, Mannix R. JAMA Intern Med. 2013 May 13

Every author of this paper is a Pediatrics MD, except for Hemenway. He is a PhD, probably in Public Health policy - his Harvard page doesn't say.

But Hemenway was a " Senior Soros Justice Fellow " I'm sure that means he is totally unbiased on the gun topic.

Do I need to quote papers talking about major issues with peer review again, Joe? For the record, the papers were peer reviewed.

Why would anyone believe children’s doctors are experts on illegal use of guns is beyond logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jocal505 said:

One of those works showed 23% more murders in Missouri after they cancelled their background checks in 2007

Um... that would be 23% more than a Synthetic Missouri that grabby researchers invented, and that behaves like grabby researchers wish the world did.

The only "science" less deserving of the name than economics. If Synthetic Missouri behaved based on my assumptions, the "science" would say something different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Um... that would be 23% more than a Synthetic Missouri that grabby researchers invented, and that behaves like grabby researchers wish the world did.

The only "science" less deserving of the name than economics. If Synthetic Missouri behaved based on my assumptions, the "science" would say something different.

Okay, some research is better grounded than other research. Good doggie, keep digging.

When are you going to retract the poisoning and strangulation stats you used on Sean? The Missouri crime rates you linked are violent crime rates, few of which ever involve guns.

 

 

FACT, NOT INNUENDO; Webster's Missouri work was math, not a synthetic estimation-type study. It showed a whoppng 25% increase in murders, Tom. Gun murders up 34%. Fifty to sixty non-synthetic folks shot dead, every year, for a decade. Background checks are good.

Quote

2014, Effects of the Repeal of Missouri’s Handgun Purchaser Licensing Law on Homicideshttp://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-014-9865-8

(An early summary from Webster)

From 1999 through 2007, Missouri’s age-adjusted homicide rate was relatively stable, fluctuating around a mean of 4.66 per 100,000 population per year.

In 2008, the first full  year after the permit-to-purchase licensing law was repealed, the age-adjusted firearm homicide  rate in Missouri increased sharply to 6.23 per 100,000 population, a 34 percent increase. For the post-repeal period of 2008-2010, the mean annual age-adjusted firearm homicide rate was 5.82, 25 percent above the pre-repeal mean. This increase was out of synch with changes during that period in age-adjusted homicide rates nationally which decreased ten percent and with changes in other states in the Midwest which declined by 5%.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

MEMORY LANE ON THE GUN THREADS

Pooplius once scammed Sean, when this study came out it 2014, by tossing in the stable murder rates of poisonings and strangulations in Post 35 of the Missouri Background Check thread. Then Tom flat-out lied, without retraction when challenged, saying his stats included gun murders.

Quote

 I was responding to a post distorting carefully massaged gun murder stats by citing the actual gun murder stats.

High-handed, like King George, eh? It was an "ah ha" moment in my relationship with Pooplius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jocal505 said:

FACT, NOT INNUENDO; Webster's Missouri work was math, not a synthetic estimation-type study. It showed a whoppng 25% increase in murders, Tom. Gun murders up 34%. Fifty to sixty non-synthetic folks shot dead, every year, for a decade. Background checks are good.

So, lets see here. In order to purchase a pistol, you had to get a permission slip. You then had to go to a dealer with this permission slip - and go through another check when you purchased the pistol.

Just like NJ.. and probably just as "effective".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ishmael said:
7 hours ago, Laker said:

Interesting perspective.  Japanese industrial productivity is obviously not the pathway to the "worker's paradise" but I doubt the North American way is all that much better.  I notice that Germany, the country with the highest worker participation in industry ranks below the United States, but then so do Canada and Mexico.

Well, you guys shoot people before they can off themselves, so it skews the numbers a bit.

Almost joking.


Actually, the vast majority of our gun violence deaths are suicides. Speaking of skewed numbers.

Hah hah. That's almost funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:


Actually, the vast majority of our gun violence deaths are suicides. Speaking of skewed numbers.

Hah hah. That's almost funny.

Explain to us, please, your amusement with 22,000 gun suicides every year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/19/2017 at 2:16 PM, bpm57 said:

So, lets see here. In order to purchase a pistol, you had to get a permission slip. You then had to go to a dealer with this permission slip - and go through another check when you purchased the pistol.

Just like NJ.. and probably just as "effective".

Hi bpm57. Not much homework done so far eh?

NY City is at a thirty year low in gun violence.

Q. Why? It was similar to Chicago three decades ago.

A. That area regulated guns as well as possible, as early as possible.

 

The East Coast and parts of New England, including NJ, are the gold standard of model gun control effectiveness and success.

CT has the model law review structure. They regulated LCM's 19 years before Adam Lanza.

West coast progress?  California had the best model for effective state legislation, with courts ruling liberally against NRA pre-emption provisions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
5 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

West coast progress?  California had the best model for effective state legislation, with courts ruling liberally against NRA pre-emption provisions. 

That must be why the murder rates in LA, SF and Oakland are all so low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Hi bpm57. Not much homework done so far eh?

NY City is at a thirty year low in gun violence.

Q. Why? It was similar to Chicago three decades ago.

A. That area regulated guns as well as possible, as early as possible.

 

The East Coast and parts of New England, including NJ, are the gold standard of model gun control effectiveness and success.

CT has the model law review structure. They regulated LCM's 19 years before Adam Lanza.

West coast progress?  California had the best model for effective state legislation, with courts ruling liberally against NRA pre-emption provisions. 

 

No answer for my original point, Joe? Can you explain why a person would need 2 background checks before buying a pistol? Can you explain how it decreases crime?

 

Joe, I'll need a cite for A. Please list all firearms laws passed in NYC for the last 30 years. Be sure to include data showing how each one decreased crime, since the NYPD feels that crime dropped over the last 30 years due to better methods and procedures. " In 1994, Police Commissioner William Bratton implemented CompStat, which through management, statistics, and accountability, successfully drove down crime to record levels not seen since the 1960s. " http://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/stats/crime-statistics/crime-statistics-landing.page

The Sullivan Act was passed in 1911. Since that required a license to possess/carry,  shouldn't NYC firearms crimes stayed at (or significantly dropped from) those levels? Now they have 100% owner licensing and registration. Since you are claiming that NYC is a gun crime free utopia, you should be able to tell us when all of these laws went in to effect.

Camden and Newark, NJ are noted for their low crime levels, Joe. You should move there to find out for yourself. Unfortunately, if your semi-auto .22 holds over 15 it is an assault weapon. Turning it in will be for your own good. Getting your FPID is easy if your local PD follows the law, however, many do not. Good luck in court if you want to fight that.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-1

(reported to the FBI) violent crime has been mostly dropping for the last 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Can you explain why a person would need 2 background checks before buying a pistol? Can you explain how it decreases crime?

Waah! I  had to go through a gun  permit proceedure.

Well, I'm not in favor of two errands as opposed to one errand, personally. The reason behind such a devastating excess may be that people are being careful about the gun mentality. GUns on the streets? You are setting up violence, justifying it, expanding it, and legalizing it. (Castile doctrine expanded to the great outdoors is a description of "stand your ground." England got past that shit in 1285. Other civilized countries followed, they came to value the experience of domestic tranquility.

15 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Unfortunately, if your semi-auto .22 holds over 15 it is an assault weapon.

Cite the law, and the area and timeframe it applies, please. I live in Washington state.

 

15 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Since you are claiming that NYC is a gun crime free utopia

Cite this too. ^^^

 

15 hours ago, bpm57 said:

you should be able to tell us when all of these laws went in to effect.

This is the Dorado Gambit. The unargued argument. Guess what I am thinking, since it's better than what you are thinking.

If this is of interest to you, then present the info for us. Yo, get a coffee boy or girl to do your errands.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bpm57, you  got heart, and you want to discuss this. Our discussions need an informed baseline. Here is the best, non-propaganda writing of your side.

  • I suggest you study Eugene Volokh, IMO the most stable, and on paper the least racist, of the individual rights authors.
  • Your side gained big mojo in 1994 with a certain publication which was presented by (but not defended by) Pooplius. The work was was groundbreading, since Sanford "Sandy" Levinson is not a card-carrying Libertarian.  You will find strong, respected, vetted  academic support here. Let's discuss his strengths, his weakness is found in what he left out.

 

Quote

The Embarrassing Second Amendment Sanford Levinson. 1994 only 22 pgs

University of Texas at Austin School of Law     Reprinted from the Yale Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html

 

And here. These men make respectable presentations. I hope you read these guys and get back.

Quote

Implementing the Right To Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda

EUGENE VOLOKH Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law.UCLA L. Rev. 1443

 

Abstract

How should state and federal constitutional rights to keep and bear arms be turned into workable constitutional doctrine? I argue that unitary tests such as “strict scrutiny,” “intermediate scrutiny,” “undue burden,” and the like don’t make sense here, just as they don’t fully describe the rules applied to most other constitutional rights.

Rather, courts should separately consider four different categories of justifications for restricting rights: (1) Scope justifications, which derive from constitutional text, original meaning, tradition, or background principles; (2) burden justifications, which rest on the claim that a particular law doesn’t impose a substantial burden on the right, and thus doesn’t unconstitutionally infringe it; (3) danger reduction justifications, which rest on the claim that some particular exercise of the right is so unusually dangerous that it might justify restricting the right; and (4) government as proprietor justifications, which rest on the government’s special role as property owner, employer, or subsidizer.

I suggest where the constitutional thresholds for determining the adequacy of these justifications might be set, and I use this framework to analyze a wide range of restrictions: “what” restrictions (such as bans on machine guns, so-called “assault weapons,” or unpersonalized handguns), “who” restrictions (such as bans on possession by felons, misdemeanants, noncitizens, or 18-to-20-year-olds), “where” restrictions (such as bans on carrying in public, in places that serve alcohol, or in parks, or bans on possessing in public housing projects), “how” restrictions (such as storage regulations), “when” restrictions (such as waiting periods), “who knows” regulations (such as licensing or registration requirements), and taxes and other expenses.

https://www.uclalawreview.org/implementing-the-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-for-self-defense-an-analytical-framework-and-a-research-agenda/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2017 at 1:59 PM, Rockdog said:

Why would anyone believe children’s doctors are experts on illegal use of guns is beyond logic.

Doctors pick up the bloody bits. They deal with devastated families and destitute widows. They trace the exceptional tissue damage of guns in common use at the time. They deserve a place at the table. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Waah! I  had to go through a gun  permit proceedure.

Well, I'm not in favor of two errands as opposed to one errand, personally. The reason behind such a devastating excess may be that people are being careful about the gun mentality. GUns on the streets? You are setting up violence, justifying it, expanding it, and legalizing it. (Castile doctrine expanded to the great outdoors is a description of "stand your ground." England got past that shit in 1285. Other civilized countries followed, they came to value the experience of domestic tranquility.

Oh, just go fuck yourself, Joe. NJ law calls out a procedure that just results in more money being spent - by both sides - and the PD side of it can't even be relied on to follow the law.

Yes, Joe, a legal firearm owner in NJ cannot rely on the police to follow the law.

I'd comment on your "guns on the streets", but, well, you are part of the "problem" as well, since you have admitted to owning a firearm. Hypocrite.

 For a country that "solved" the problem in 1285, Joe, its pretty remarkable that "self defense" was a suitable reason to have a firearm certificate until 1937.

7 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Doctors pick up the bloody bits. They deal with devastated families and destitute widows. They trace the exceptional tissue damage of guns in common use at the time. They deserve a place at the table.

So a MD is also an expert in Law, Joe?

On 1/2/2018 at 10:24 AM, jocal505 said:

NY City is at a thirty year low in gun violence.

Q. Why? It was similar to Chicago three decades ago.

A. That area regulated guns as well as possible, as early as possible.

Please, cite for your A. You are claiming that current crime rates are due to gun control. NYC has had serious gun control since 1911, and it has only gotten more severe since then. The NYPD claims the rates have dropped for different reasons. Post your source.

The rest of your nonsense is due to your normal reading comprehension issues. I'm not sure how to explain it slower for you, but I'll try.

On 1/2/2018 at 10:24 AM, jocal505 said:

The East Coast and parts of New England, including NJ, are the gold standard of model gun control effectiveness and success.

NJ contains the cities of Camden and Newark. I suggested that you should pick one and move here, so you can live under your "gold standard".

As has been pointed out with quotes and links before in this forum, anything that holds more then 15 rounds in NJ is illegal. So if your plinker holds more then that? Assault weapon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2018 at 2:43 PM, bpm57 said:

I'd comment on your "guns on the streets", but, well, you are part of the "problem" as well, since you have admitted to owning a firearm. Hypocrite.

My gun doesn't travel the streets. And it isn't intended for conflict resolution.

 

On 1/3/2018 at 2:43 PM, bpm57 said:

As has been pointed out with quotes and links before in this forum, anything that holds more then 15 rounds in NJ is illegal. So if your plinker holds more then that? Assault weapon.


My guess is that sixteen rounds determines illegality, not AW status.

You are applying a NJ restriction to WA. It doesn't work that way.

You think just like Pooplius. Pinheaded, third-grade stuff.  Trained by him, are we?

 

Angst ridden much? Have fun in the dustbin of history.

Tea Party down with Tom.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

You are applying a NJ restriction to WA. It doesn't work that way.

Here's a Washington State assault weapon definition:
 

Quote

 

"Assault weapon" means:
...
(b)A  semiautomatic  pistol, or a semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;


 

Your grabberz are just like FL and NJ grabberz: all think that both of us own assault weapons. Still waiting for a pic of something like one of our guns on a battlefield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Here's a Washington State assault weapon definition:
 

Your grabberz are just like FL and NJ grabberz: all think that both of us own assault weapons. Still waiting for a pic of something like one of our guns on a battlefield.

The bill was mentioned Jan 5, 2017. Once informed by the Brietbart pc, you posted on the proposal days later. If it passed, I find no confirmation. I think this is tedious TR smoke, much of. Again, the local gun rights watchdogs here make no mention of your crisis.

After I asked you to up your game, you formed an extended thirteen month pre-occupation with exaggerated rimfire laws, in  two of fifty states, neither of which law has passed.

You have dumbed down our forum, buddy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
29 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

My gun doesn't travel the streets. And it isn't intended for conflict resolution.

Neither does mine.  Yet you seem intent on telling me that my gun is bad while your gun is good.  Why is that?  What makes you any less resistant to the call of the gunz telling you to commit murder or self-murder than the next guy???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites