• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sign in to follow this  
Uncooperative Tom

Florida Gun Ban Proposed

Recommended Posts

Florida Gun Ban Proposed

 

 

After two mass shootings in the state, some Florida lawmakers want an all-out ban on assault rifles.

 

Florida would join a small handful of states in the Northeast and California if it passed a ban.

 

The legislation calls for banning assault-style automatic rifles.

 

...

 

"When I hear the debate, I'm usually pretty shocked because in Canada we don't have assault rifles. They're not allowed," said Chris Wilson

 

 

Eh?

 

The bill bans a variety of gun models by name. I support one of those: the shotgun called the Streetsweeper. My respect for first and second amendment rights has limits and those idiots deserve to have their gun banned just for giving it that name. Maybe I should be Streetsweeper Tom next? But I digress...

 

What the bill actually does is create a closed registry for lots of ordinary rifles, including two we own. If we get our certificate of possession in time, current voters could keep guns purchased before this coming July. But we would be the last generation of voters able to own these scary "assault style automatic rifles." <---FAKE NEWS

 

The proposed legislation is here.

 

This part covers my wife's Ruger 10-22, a pretty ordinary semi-automatic .22 caliber squirrel shooter. I don't know if Canadians are allowed to have those but I'm going to assume they are just for fun.

a. A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:

(I) A folding or telescoping stock;

(II) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon or any feature functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand...

 

 

 

And this part covers my dad's old .22 rifle because the tube magazine holds more than ten rounds.

 

d. Any semiautomatic pistol or any semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

 

 

Another part of the definitions specifically say that a tubular magazine on a .22 rifle is not a "large capacity" magazine, so it's not covered by that section, but it's still covered under the definition of an "assault weapon."

 

(3) POSSESSION.—
(a) Except as provided in subsection (5), any person who, within this state, possesses any assault weapon or large capacity ammunition magazine, except as provided in this section or as otherwise authorized by law, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, with a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 1 year.

 

 

I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt on what I believe is an error in that part. It's actually subsection (4) that covers legal possession by current voters (but not their descendants). Subsection 5 covers legal transfers to a dealer. Anyway, I assume that would be corrected if this had a snowball's chance in hell of passing, which, thankfully, it does not.

 

Anyway, it bans provides for a reasonable regulatory prohibition of assault weapons (as defined above) OR "large capacity" magazines. (You're welcome, Raz'r.)

 

Undeterred by the fact that the NY SAFE Act's provision banning magazines holding more than 7 rounds was thrown out as unconstitutional, this proposal contains that definition of "large capacity" magazine.

 

I don't really think of my wife's .22 gun as a scary "assault style automatic rifle." I don't even think of it as a scary assault style semi-automatic rifle, despite the black furniture she put on it. Yes, even though the factory supplied ten round magazine is defined as "large" so we could not avoid the ban just by putting the original wood furniture back on the gun.

 

I don't think of my dad's old .22 as an "assault weapon" either, despite the definition posted above. I guess it's nice that they acknowledge that the magazine is on a .22 and so is not "large capacity" but it could be excluded only by striking the word "rimfire" from the definition.

 

Maybe legislative compromise could result in excluding .22's from the definitions entirely. It would not matter because I'd buy lots of the guns and magazines that are covered. I'm deplorable that way.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a fair and balanced process.

 

The state rep from Sarasota wants tools to be carried everywhere.

 

The process means this bill will never get out of committee. I like that result but I'm not so sure I'd call what goes on up there fair or balanced.

 

But that applies to all bills. How about the substance of this one?

 

Do you think our .22 rifles are "assault weapons" that should be banned?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on the tube magazine, could you modify the magazine so it only can hold nine rounds? I know in some states they limit the number of rounds that can be loaded and the guys will put wooden dowels inside the spring such that it will only allow X number of rounds to be fed... should work on the dads 22

 

in theory you could do the same with a removable magazine. obviously the furniture work on your wifes 10-22 would have to be changed as well...

 

i'm sure over time the aftermarket folks will start making magazines or selling modification kits for magazines to get around the various laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on the tube magazine, could you modify the magazine so it only can hold nine rounds? ..

 

The law allows ten in a fixed magazine before it's defined as an "assault weapon" and yes, it does allow for permanent modifications to make a gun fall outside the law.

 

So I guess I could fuck up my dad's old gun to make it less scary to hoplophobes. It doesn't seem all that scary to me as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

welcome to

THE TUBE FEEDER MELTDOWN THREAD

 

First off, the OP is inaccurate. Highland Park, which is IL, also restricts AW's and LCMs'.

So yeah, AW's are presently banned on both coasts and the Midwest.

And they are not yet constitutionally supported in the South, or by any district court, anywhere.

 

I can't believe this is gonna be a thread. Someone has too much time on his hands, AND a woody about this subject.

The complaint is vapor itself. Only a useless person would repeat the claim, and Tom had carried this to four threads, for three weeks or so.

 

The gun I've owned for forty years fits this category. It is a deadly-ass piece. I shot TWO running rabbits with it, one shot one kill each. .

.

 

 

But it's no assault weapon. except to a masterbator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I already answered that. Hell yes.

Were you born a wanker?

How did you get tossed from TWO private high schools?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I already answered that. Hell yes.

 

No, our previous discussion was about the Washington State law, which is similar but not the same.

 

One difference is that changing the furniture back to wood would remove the evil features that make it qualify as an "assault weapon" under the proposal in your state.

 

You might want to tighten that up to Florida standards and lower the detachable magazine size limit to seven.

 

At least, you might if you want to watch me being entertained when it gets thrown out as unconstitutional again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Tom, it sounds like you have some major problems here. I hope they reach resolution with all the attention they merit.

Have you called the Major Crimes Unit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a battlefield-ready 10-22 TAKEDOWN assault rifle. It's badass black so it's scary as hell. I had a trigger job done making it even scarier, and some extra high capacity mags add even more cachet. I can see a rodent from a long fucking way away with my super sniper scope [details must be withheld] and death often rides the wind at 1000+ FPS [feet per second].

 

What's wrong with the world is city folk trying to make laws affecting country folk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tom,

 

yeah it would suck to have to permanently modify an old hand me down gun from pops....maybe a way to make it more easily reversible..

 

your wifes ruger is about as scary as my savage/anchutz with the scary big scope....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

The States appear to be able to write just about any gun confiscation law they want to, as California just did.

 

The start, # 1, then proceed:

 

1. Ban all semi auto weapons

 

2. Ban all centerfire repeating long guns

 

3. Ban all handguns

 

4. Limit ammunition possession to 10 rounds, with a yearly limit of 50 rounds

 

Never say never. Some here said Trump could not be elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

This is my scary assault .22, 10 plus 1

 

14396208_1.jpg?v=8CF9185C4BB81F0

 

Never underestimate the:

 

"We have to do something" crowd.

 

In California we have a Democrat Governor, & Democrat controlled State Assembly

& Senate, with Republicans making up about 28% of all registered voters. The Democrats are like "A kid in a candy store"

 

Trump may help on the Federal level, but the gun confiscation crowd is like rust, it never sleeps.

 

https://www.nraila.org/donate/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Tom, it sounds like you have some major problems here. I hope they reach resolution with all the attention they merit.

...

 

I think it will receive all the attention it merits from the legislature, which is a good thing.

 

We do have a bit of a fake news problem with the Fort Myers NBC affiliate, but we've been living with that problem for years.

 

I'd say you have a bigger problem. Did you see the scary battlefield .22's in post 12? Your elk have written your law to allow people to continue to own those! I'd panic if I were you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

This is my scary assault .22, 10 plus 1

 

14396208_1.jpg?v=8CF9185C4BB81F0

 

Never underestimate the:

 

"We have to do something" crowd.

 

In California we have a Democrat Governor, & Democrat controlled State Assembly

& Senate, with Republicans making up about 28% of all registered voters. The Democrats are like "A kid in a candy store"

 

Trump may help on the Federal level, but the gun confiscation crowd is like rust, it never sleeps.

 

https://www.nraila.org/donate/

 

 

Great isn't it? Must drive you nuts Troller! I love it!

 

 

Well, I don't have any "Assault" type weapons, nor do I want to buy any. It does concern me, however, that the

"camel's nose under the tent" or the "Boiling frog" concepts are still in motion. Just because Trump won, gun owners

should not become complacent.

 

The "Assault" weapon ban is just the first page in the book. Just ask the Australian gun owners how it all took place.

They have "Been there, done that"

 

"Nuts"? There are a number of things that concern me in the crime related & bicycle riding fields.

 

Going "Nuts" would be shooting the repeat violent crime criminal while he is terrorising the Mall, or running down a bicycle rider.

But I wouldn't go "Nuts" because it would complicate my day, & likely scratch my car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

local politicians looking at reasonable regulations.

 

But they won't pass.

 

 

So - meh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone in FL should write their legislators and suggest that rather than ban a gun based on its general characteristics (pistol grip, folding stock, etc) they look at what really matters.....muzzle energy. A .22LR that looks like an AR15 should not be banned because it has nowhere near the muzzle energy of a .223. If the intent of the law is to prevent real "assault weapons" from being sold, then muzzle energy and magazine capacity should be the real considerations. Something along the lines of "guns with magazines of X capacity and Y muzzle energy will not be sold." You could then make a FL legal AR with a 5 rd magazine, that has a special mag well that only accepts 5 rd magazines. Just an idea. A compromise if you will.

 

Though no matter how you stack it, banning guns is not the solution. It might appear to help, and it works in other countries where the number of guns was relatively small to begin with. But in the US, there are simply too many guns in circulation, legally and otherwise. The real solution is to create a society in which people don't want to kill other people. There is probably a Nobel Peace Prize for the first SA'er who figures out how to do that.

 

Aside from creating a really peaceful society, of which we are inherently not, I do think that some reasonable forms of gun control should be enacted. I am actually all for a waiting period before any center fire purchase can be made. It would prevent impulse buys based on fear and anger. Like the guy down the street's house was broken into. I need a gun NOW. Or those damn kids keep shouting into my windows at 10:00 at night. I need a gun NOW. I also fail to see why gun enthusiasts are against something reasonable like that. For example, a hunter is not going to buy a gun today for a hunting trip tomorrow, or at least not a good one. It takes time to sight in and develop a load for a hunting rifle. Same with a competitive or even sport target shooter. A 1000yd target competitor is not buying his rifle today for an event later in the afternoon, or the next day, or even the next week. It also might make those who are less well off think twice about an impulse buy. I once saw a guy in a local Gander Mountain brag about how they were going to be eating Ramen soup for the next two weeks because he just had to have the newest Glock. Not that there is anything wrong with Ramen soup, but C'mon, can we be reasonable.

 

So the bottom line, would a mandatory waiting period on centerfire purchases be one, constitutionally acceptable, and would it accomplish anything? I think it would. But I always like the thoughts from the other gunners on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Though no matter how you stack it, banning guns is not the solution. It might appear to help, and it works in other countries where the number of guns was relatively small to begin with. But in the US, there are simply too many guns in circulation, legally and otherwise. The real solution is to create a society in which people don't want to kill other people. There is probably a Nobel Peace Prize for the first SA'er who figures out how to do that.

 

 

 

 

 

I think we have. It's called responsibility. If there is a registration chain, and a universal background check process - the last legal owner needs to be held responsible for crimes committed with their tool. Some exceptions for reported theft, etc could be granted BUT that assumes significant security. you have a gun? Lock it up. In something secure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone in FL should write their legislators and suggest that rather than ban a gun based on its general characteristics (pistol grip, folding stock, etc) they look at what really matters.....muzzle energy. A .22LR that looks like an AR15 should not be banned because it has nowhere near the muzzle energy of a .223. If the intent of the law is to prevent real "assault weapons" from being sold, then muzzle energy and magazine capacity should be the real considerations. ...

 

So the bottom line, would a mandatory waiting period on centerfire purchases be one, constitutionally acceptable, and would it accomplish anything? I think it would. But I always like the thoughts from the other gunners on here.

 

"Assault weapon" is just a political term. It sounds scary, so the game then becomes to see how many guns you can slap the label on to ban them.

 

That's why it seems reasonable to the grabbers to call ordinary .22's "assault weapons."

 

I doubt a mandatory waiting period would prevent me from going postal. I could easily just do it with one of my other guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Though no matter how you stack it, banning guns is not the solution. It might appear to help, and it works in other countries where the number of guns was relatively small to begin with. But in the US, there are simply too many guns in circulation, legally and otherwise. The real solution is to create a society in which people don't want to kill other people. There is probably a Nobel Peace Prize for the first SA'er who figures out how to do that.

 

 

 

 

 

I think we have. It's called responsibility. If there is a registration chain, and a universal background check process - the last legal owner needs to be held responsible for crimes committed with their tool. Some exceptions for reported theft, etc could be granted BUT that assumes significant security. you have a gun? Lock it up. In something secure.

 

 

There is an answer every bit as reasonable as banning .22's as assault weapons being proposed.

 

Senate Bill 142 changes the language in the state’s safe storage law, deleting this line: “This subsection does not apply if the minor obtains the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry by any person.”

 

 

Grabbers don't give a shit if a criminal was the problem. The REAL problem is always the gun owner, so no need for that nonsense about exempting thefts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

Someone in FL should write their legislators and suggest that rather than ban a gun based on its general characteristics (pistol grip, folding stock, etc) they look at what really matters.....muzzle energy. A .22LR that looks like an AR15 should not be banned because it has nowhere near the muzzle energy of a .223. If the intent of the law is to prevent real "assault weapons" from being sold, then muzzle energy and magazine capacity should be the real considerations. Something along the lines of "guns with magazines of X capacity and Y muzzle energy will not be sold." You could then make a FL legal AR with a 5 rd magazine, that has a special mag well that only accepts 5 rd magazines. Just an idea. A compromise if you will.

 

Though no matter how you stack it, banning guns is not the solution. It might appear to help, and it works in other countries where the number of guns was relatively small to begin with. But in the US, there are simply too many guns in circulation, legally and otherwise. The real solution is to create a society in which people don't want to kill other people. There is probably a Nobel Peace Prize for the first SA'er who figures out how to do that.

 

Aside from creating a really peaceful society, of which we are inherently not, I do think that some reasonable forms of gun control should be enacted. I am actually all for a waiting period before any center fire purchase can be made. It would prevent impulse buys based on fear and anger. Like the guy down the street's house was broken into. I need a gun NOW. Or those damn kids keep shouting into my windows at 10:00 at night. I need a gun NOW. I also fail to see why gun enthusiasts are against something reasonable like that. For example, a hunter is not going to buy a gun today for a hunting trip tomorrow, or at least not a good one. It takes time to sight in and develop a load for a hunting rifle. Same with a competitive or even sport target shooter. A 1000yd target competitor is not buying his rifle today for an event later in the afternoon, or the next day, or even the next week. It also might make those who are less well off think twice about an impulse buy. I once saw a guy in a local Gander Mountain brag about how they were going to be eating Ramen soup for the next two weeks because he just had to have the newest Glock. Not that there is anything wrong with Ramen soup, but C'mon, can we be reasonable.

 

So the bottom line, would a mandatory waiting period on centerfire purchases be one, constitutionally acceptable, and would it accomplish anything? I think it would. But I always like the thoughts from the other gunners on here.

 

California has a waiting period, not sure how it affects criminals?

 

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#28

 

  1. "How is the waiting period for firearm purchases calculated?
    • The waiting period for the purchase or transfer of a firearm is ten (10) 24-hour periods from the date and time the DROS information is submitted to the DOJ."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone in FL should write their legislators and suggest that rather than ban a gun based on its general characteristics (pistol grip, folding stock, etc) they look at what really matters.....muzzle energy....

 

As you have seen, Raz'r and jocal would say that banning .22's as "assault weapons" is reasonable.

I'd be more inclined to write and suggest they read what noted gun control advocate Adam Winkler says about mean-looking weapons bans:

 

 

Magazine Ban Won't Help

 

Americans have tried over and over to outlaw things that some insist are objectionable and others enjoy. Prohibition was repealed when its supporters realized that the disobeyed laws against alcohol brought the whole legal system into disrepute. The war on drugs is widely recognized as an abject failure. We haven't even been able to stop music file-sharing, which despite a 10-year effort by the recording industry is as popular as ever.

 

Like alcohol, drugs and file-sharing, guns — including the ones with large magazines — are here to stay. Gun policy is going to be more effective when we stop fighting against that simple fact.

 

Asked in an interview about mean looking weapons bans:

 

My own view is that there's no way to make assault rifle bans effective. It's an ineffective law, it's an ineffective goal, it's an ineffective policy that's mostly about symbolism and not about substance. The truth is assault weapons are used very infrequently in crimes. I think there is a grand total of about 300 people a year who die from rifles of any sort––assault or otherwise.

 

...

 

When the assault weapons ban was in effect, there was only one credible study of its impact, and that study found that it was not associated with any significant reduction of violence.

 

 

Why banning assault rifles won't reduce gun violence

 

we already know that banning assault weapons won't reduce gun crime or deaths. Worse, the bans may make it harder to enact more effective gun control laws.

 

The problem starts with the term itself. The “assault weapons” for sale in the U.S. now aren't really weapons of war.

...

 

America's gun debate suffers because of unreasonable, extreme positions taken by the NRA. But gun control advocates who push for bans on one kind of rifle primarily because it looks scary also contribute to the problem. Such bans don't reduce gun crime, but they do stimulate passionate opposition from law-abiding gun owners: Gun control advocates ridicule the NRA's claim that the government is coming to take away people's guns, then try to outlaw perhaps the most popular rifle in the country.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure thing Liar Tom. I suggest local politicians are best to implement local solutions, and in this case it won't pass anyway.

 

Somehow that means I'm calling for a ban on .22s

 

You're a true POS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

local politicians looking at reasonable regulations.

 

So you think the banning of .22's as "assault weapons" is reasonable?

 

Or is it the change where a gun owner is responsible for his gun after it's stolen?

 

Exactly which regulations are you talking about as "reasonable" here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

local politicians looking at reasonable regulations.

So you think the banning of .22's as "assault weapons" is reasonable?

 

Or is it the change where a gun owner is responsible for his gun after it's stolen?

 

Exactly which regulations are you talking about as "reasonable" here?

The Supremes have said reasonable regulations are fine. These may be, or may not be, but they won't pass so it matters not. So Meh.

 

If you need a hug, call your buddy Zimmerman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure thing Liar Tom. I suggest local politicians are best to implement local solutions, and in this case it won't pass anyway.

 

Somehow that means I'm calling for a ban on .22s

 

You're a true POS

 

Your first comment on the ban on .22's was that it was reasonable.

 

I see you've now backed off on that a bit and don't know whether it is reasonable.

 

I never said you were calling for such a ban. I said Raz'r and jocal would say that banning .22's as "assault weapons" is reasonable.

 

And you did. The fact that you later backtracked doesn't make my original statement a lie like your claim that I said you were "calling for" anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sure thing Liar Tom. I suggest local politicians are best to implement local solutions, and in this case it won't pass anyway.

 

Somehow that means I'm calling for a ban on .22s

 

You're a true POS

Your first comment on the ban on .22's was that it was reasonable.

 

I see you've now backed off on that a bit and don't know whether it is reasonable.

 

I never said you were calling for such a ban. I said Raz'r and jocal would say that banning .22's as "assault weapons" is reasonable.

 

And you did. The fact that you later backtracked doesn't make my original statement a lie like your claim that I said you were "calling for" anything.

You should start a career in song and dance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the bottom line, would a mandatory waiting period on centerfire purchases be one, constitutionally acceptable, and would it accomplish anything? I think it would. But I always like the thoughts from the other gunners on here.

 

I would say this woman probably would disagree with waiting periods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Though no matter how you stack it, banning guns is not the solution. It might appear to help, and it works in other countries where the number of guns was relatively small to begin with. But in the US, there are simply too many guns in circulation, legally and otherwise. The real solution is to create a society in which people don't want to kill other people. There is probably a Nobel Peace Prize for the first SA'er who figures out how to do that.

 

 

 

I think we have. It's called responsibility. If there is a registration chain, and a universal background check process - the last legal owner needs to be held responsible for crimes committed with their tool. Some exceptions for reported theft, etc could be granted BUT that assumes significant security. you have a gun? Lock it up. In something secure.

 

 

I have suggested that numerous times as well. But I have an issue with the "significant security" mandate in order to get off the hook. Personally, I do use significant security for my tools. They are in a locked safe behind locked doors in a house with a German Shepard that will eat your face off if he doesn't know you. But that is a personal choice.

 

I believe that a locked house should be sufficient security against theft. Or even a closed door to a house should be sufficient protection against liability from someone stealing your tools. Last I checked, it was illegal to enter someone's house and take their stuff. I should not have to worry that if I report a theft of a weapon, that I will be held liable if my "security" doesn't meet the DA's standards.

 

Does that mean if my truck was stolen from my house because I left the keys on the kitchen counter and then the robber deliberately ran it into a crowd of shoppers at the mall and killed 20 - should I be held responsible for their murders? As evadent, vehicles are just as effective a mass murder tool as .22LR semi-auto "assault rifles" are. Probably more so. Are we going to need additional "significant security" for trucks now given they are the new mass murder weapon du jour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if we turn my wife's gun back into a woody, it still has a detachable magazine holding more than seven rounds.

 

Do you think it's an assault weapon?

 

Tell you what Tom. How about you give me your wife's harmless gun and I'll give you 10 secs start. Sound fair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Even if we turn my wife's gun back into a woody, it still has a detachable magazine holding more than seven rounds.

 

Do you think it's an assault weapon?

 

Tell you what Tom. How about you give me your wife's harmless gun and I'll give you 10 secs start. Sound fair?

 

 

No, I think I should have another battlefield weapon for defense.

 

How about my assault slingshot? I bet I could hit you twice, maybe three times, with 3/4 oz lead balls in those ten seconds. That's why slingshots, much like ordinary .22's, are too dangerous for anyone without a badge and/or a uniform to own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interest in banning battlefield .22's seems pretty thin.

 

The topic article notes that the murders in Fort Lauderdale are motivating the proposal to limit sales of tools, so perhaps it's time for a parade of the victims whose loss has made this a propitious time to talk about reasonable proposals to limit sales of tools and make tool owners responsible for what criminals do with stolen tools.

 

 

timmons1.jpg?quality=65&strip=all&w=474

 

Shirley Timmons, the Ohio woman killed in the Fort Lauderdale airport shooting, was warmly remembered by her family in a statement released Monday.

Timmons was slain, and her husband Steve Timmons was critically injured, during Friday's airport attack.

"Shirley Timmons was an amazing daughter, wife, mother and grandmother," her family said in a statement provided by Broward Health Medical Center. "For Shirley, it was all about family. She and her husband of 51 years met when they were in the 8th grade.

"They were high school sweethearts with the perfect love story. She was a cheerleader and Homecoming Queen with the man of her dreams. Together they built a close, loving family with their three daughters, three son-in-laws and eight grandchildren. For Shirley, family meant vacations, football games and holiday traditions.

The couple had flown to Fort Lauderdale on Friday to join the rest of their family for a cruise, WILE-FM reported over the weekend.

Timmons' grandson Steve Reineccius confirmed over Facebook that his grandmother was one of the victims and that his grandfather Steve Timmons was wounded. They were both 70 years old.

Timmons was shot in the head and underwent emergency surgery at a Fort Lauderdale hospital, the station reported.

Broward Health, citing patient privacy, isn't releasing the names of those hospitalized. So a Broward Health spokeswoman on Monday said she had no information about Steve Timmons' condition.

The couple's 51st wedding anniversary was in three weeks. They're from Senecaville, about 90 miles east of Columbus.

The Timmons family, in Monday's statement, said Shirley Timmons was the "most loving, passionate mother who had a love for life and truly sparkled. She will continue to sparkle through her husband, mother, three daughters and eight grandchildren. She touched many and was loved by all. She will live in our hearts forever and will be truly missed. We love you Mom and Grandma."

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fort-lauderdale-hollywood-airport-shooting/fl-shirley-timmons-airport-shooting-20170107-story.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They look like nice people. I'm sure they don't mind having their loss cynically exploited by gungrabbers.

 

How about this one?

 

 

Michael Oehme of Council Bluffs, IA had his second amendment rights taken away in Friday's violence incident. His wife kept her second amendment rights for now, despite being wounded by the violence Mr. Santiago wielded in such a deadly fashion. She suffered a shoulder wound, but is expected to recover fully, to be able to use her second amendment rights as she sees fit (and the others too, but they aren't that important).

 

 

Michael Oehme, 57, and Kari Oehme, 52, were at the airport preparing for a Caribbean cruise that was slated to begin Saturday, according to CNN affiliate WOWT. Kari Oehme suffered a shoulder wound and is expected to recover, her sister-in-law told WOWT.

Adam Angeroth, who has known the couple for eight years and is Kari Oehme's hairdresser, told the station that the couple went on cruises every year and that he had just done her hair and nails in preparation for the trip.
Kari Oehme works for CommScope, a telecommunications company, across the Missouri River in Omaha, Nebraska. The company released a statement saying it was doing everything it can to help the Oehme family.
"Our deepest sympathy goes out to everyone affected by this tragic event," the statement said.

michael+oehme+1280.jpg

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/07/us/fort-lauderdale-victims-profiles/

http://www.wowt.com/content/news/Shock-grips-friends-and-relatives-of-Council-Bluffs-couple-caught-in-Florida-gunfire-409978415.html

 


If that's not a reason to call ordinary .22's battlefield weapons and ban them I don't know what is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We get proposals like this all the time here in PA. They never go anywhere, it is always some rep from Philly looking for something to bring back to his constituents to show he is "doing something".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JB, good point about the woman killed by her ex while waiting for a gun permit. Clearly, she needed a gun for protection. What should strike all of us as interesting though is the underlying cause of that need. In this case, a hyper jealous violent ex romantic partner. What drove this guy to turn out the way he did? Did his parents not teach him right from wrong? Did he buy into some ideal he heard around some gas pump somewhere about relationships and women being property? How come he never learned the coping mechanisms that would allow him to deal with a breakup? That is the real problem. This woman should not have needed a gun because this guy shouldn't have been a flaming asshole.

 

So for now, in some cases I am sure there exists a need for a gun for protection, and gun control may prevent that need from being met. Fair enough. But what we really need to focus on more than anything is creating a society in which people don't feel the need or desire to kill people.

 

Of course, if people didn't feel the need or desire to kill people, or rob people, or any other shenanigans, it would be really hard to sell people on the idea that they need the latest and greatest in conceal/carry gear. Supply and demand and all that. But when the supply side is used to making very good profits, what is the incentive for them and their lobby body, the NRA, to decrease demand (decreasing demand by supporting legislators who support and promote mental health initiatives, child development initiatives, and other humanistic endeavors).

 

In reality is far easier and far better for business to say "yeah there is a bogeyman out there who might get you. Yes, we could fix the bogeyman, but then you wouldn't be afraid of him anymore. If you weren't afraid of him anymore, you wouldn't buy our guns to protect yourself. So in the interests of profit and running a business, the bogeyman stays." Perhaps a bit cynical, but is it really that far fetched?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JB, good point about the woman killed by her ex while waiting for a gun permit. Clearly, she needed a gun for protection. What should strike all of us as interesting though is the underlying cause of that need. In this case, a hyper jealous violent ex romantic partner. What drove this guy to turn out the way he did? Did his parents not teach him right from wrong? Did he buy into some ideal he heard around some gas pump somewhere about relationships and women being property? How come he never learned the coping mechanisms that would allow him to deal with a breakup? That is the real problem. This woman should not have needed a gun because this guy shouldn't have been a flaming asshole.

 

So for now, in some cases I am sure there exists a need for a gun for protection, and gun control may prevent that need from being met. Fair enough. But what we really need to focus on more than anything is creating a society in which people don't feel the need or desire to kill people.

 

Of course, if people didn't feel the need or desire to kill people, or rob people, or any other shenanigans, it would be really hard to sell people on the idea that they need the latest and greatest in conceal/carry gear. Supply and demand and all that. But when the supply side is used to making very good profits, what is the incentive for them and their lobby body, the NRA, to decrease demand (decreasing demand by supporting legislators who support and promote mental health initiatives, child development initiatives, and other humanistic endeavors).

 

In reality is far easier and far better for business to say "yeah there is a bogeyman out there who might get you. Yes, we could fix the bogeyman, but then you wouldn't be afraid of him anymore. If you weren't afraid of him anymore, you wouldn't buy our guns to protect yourself. So in the interests of profit and running a business, the bogeyman stays." Perhaps a bit cynical, but is it really that far fetched?

 

There are lots of reasons why people become dangerous and abusive. Some of it is mental health, some of it drug or alcohol abuse, some of it cultural or environmental, some of it is just that some people are dangerous assholes. That is not, or should not be, an NRA or gun owner problem, it is an all of us problem. I know the NRA is sometimes viewed as this all powerful entity, but if it were there would not be such onerous gun control in places like NY,NJ, and CA. However, if all of us, not just gun owners, but all of us lobbied for more effective ways to deal with dangerous or abusive people, then we might get somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Though no matter how you stack it, banning guns is not the solution. It might appear to help, and it works in other countries where the number of guns was relatively small to begin with. But in the US, there are simply too many guns in circulation, legally and otherwise. The real solution is to create a society in which people don't want to kill other people. There is probably a Nobel Peace Prize for the first SA'er who figures out how to do that.

 

 

I think we have. It's called responsibility. If there is a registration chain, and a universal background check process - the last legal owner needs to be held responsible for crimes committed with their tool. Some exceptions for reported theft, etc could be granted BUT that assumes significant security. you have a gun? Lock it up. In something secure.

I have suggested that numerous times as well. But I have an issue with the "significant security" mandate in order to get off the hook. Personally, I do use significant security for my tools. They are in a locked safe behind locked doors in a house with a German Shepard that will eat your face off if he doesn't know you. But that is a personal choice.

 

I believe that a locked house should be sufficient security against theft. Or even a closed door to a house should be sufficient protection against liability from someone stealing your tools. Last I checked, it was illegal to enter someone's house and take their stuff. I should not have to worry that if I report a theft of a weapon, that I will be held liable if my "security" doesn't meet the DA's standards.

 

Does that mean if my truck was stolen from my house because I left the keys on the kitchen counter and then the robber deliberately ran it into a crowd of shoppers at the mall and killed 20 - should I be held responsible for their murders? As evadent, vehicles are just as effective a mass murder tool as .22LR semi-auto "assault rifles" are. Probably more so. Are we going to need additional "significant security" for trucks now given they are the new mass murder weapon du jour?

If you have kids in the house, you should be on the hook for their use as well. No prosecutor should be able to say "they've suffered enough". Your kid shoots themselves or others by accident? Orange jumpsuit time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"However, if all of us, not just gun owners, but all of us lobbied for more effective ways to deal with dangerous or abusive people, then we might get somewhere." -Len P

 

And that should be our new national paradigm. Interestingly enough, its one I see frequently from those who are more left leaning than right. Perhaps if we can get the right on board, then we really could get something done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

JB, good point about the woman killed by her ex while waiting for a gun permit. Clearly, she needed a gun for protection. What should strike all of us as interesting though is the underlying cause of that need. In this case, a hyper jealous violent ex romantic partner. What drove this guy to turn out the way he did? Did his parents not teach him right from wrong? Did he buy into some ideal he heard around some gas pump somewhere about relationships and women being property? How come he never learned the coping mechanisms that would allow him to deal with a breakup? That is the real problem. This woman should not have needed a gun because this guy shouldn't have been a flaming asshole.

 

So for now, in some cases I am sure there exists a need for a gun for protection, and gun control may prevent that need from being met. Fair enough. But what we really need to focus on more than anything is creating a society in which people don't feel the need or desire to kill people.

 

Of course, if people didn't feel the need or desire to kill people, or rob people, or any other shenanigans, it would be really hard to sell people on the idea that they need the latest and greatest in conceal/carry gear. Supply and demand and all that. But when the supply side is used to making very good profits, what is the incentive for them and their lobby body, the NRA, to decrease demand (decreasing demand by supporting legislators who support and promote mental health initiatives, child development initiatives, and other humanistic endeavors).

 

In reality is far easier and far better for business to say "yeah there is a bogeyman out there who might get you. Yes, we could fix the bogeyman, but then you wouldn't be afraid of him anymore. If you weren't afraid of him anymore, you wouldn't buy our guns to protect yourself. So in the interests of profit and running a business, the bogeyman stays." Perhaps a bit cynical, but is it really that far fetched?

There are lots of reasons why people become dangerous and abusive. Some of it is mental health, some of it drug or alcohol abuse, some of it cultural or environmental, some of it is just that some people are dangerous assholes. That is not, or should not be, an NRA or gun owner problem, it is an all of us problem. I know the NRA is sometimes viewed as this all powerful entity, but if it were there would not be such onerous gun control in places like NY,NJ, and CA. However, if all of us, not just gun owners, but all of us lobbied for more effective ways to deal with dangerous or abusive people, then we might get somewhere.

There is no onerous gun control in California. Folks outside Cali may think it's unreasonable, too bad. Last time I was at a gun store there were lots of customers buying weapons. No issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Though no matter how you stack it, banning guns is not the solution. It might appear to help, and it works in other countries where the number of guns was relatively small to begin with. But in the US, there are simply too many guns in circulation, legally and otherwise. The real solution is to create a society in which people don't want to kill other people. There is probably a Nobel Peace Prize for the first SA'er who figures out how to do that.

 

 

I think we have. It's called responsibility. If there is a registration chain, and a universal background check process - the last legal owner needs to be held responsible for crimes committed with their tool. Some exceptions for reported theft, etc could be granted BUT that assumes significant security. you have a gun? Lock it up. In something secure.

I have suggested that numerous times as well. But I have an issue with the "significant security" mandate in order to get off the hook. Personally, I do use significant security for my tools. They are in a locked safe behind locked doors in a house with a German Shepard that will eat your face off if he doesn't know you. But that is a personal choice.

 

I believe that a locked house should be sufficient security against theft. Or even a closed door to a house should be sufficient protection against liability from someone stealing your tools. Last I checked, it was illegal to enter someone's house and take their stuff. I should not have to worry that if I report a theft of a weapon, that I will be held liable if my "security" doesn't meet the DA's standards.

 

Does that mean if my truck was stolen from my house because I left the keys on the kitchen counter and then the robber deliberately ran it into a crowd of shoppers at the mall and killed 20 - should I be held responsible for their murders? As evadent, vehicles are just as effective a mass murder tool as .22LR semi-auto "assault rifles" are. Probably more so. Are we going to need additional "significant security" for trucks now given they are the new mass murder weapon du jour?

If you have kids in the house, you should be on the hook for their use as well. No prosecutor should be able to say "they've suffered enough". Your kid shoots themselves or others by accident? Orange jumpsuit time.

 

An interesting idea, but what would that accomplish? Would it be a punishment to the parents who have lost a child? Would it serve as a deterrent to others? What exactly is the outcome to society if such a policy were implemented?

 

I am not saying I disagree, just questioning your reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JB, good point about the woman killed by her ex while waiting for a gun permit. Clearly, she needed a gun for protection. What should strike all of us as interesting though is the underlying cause of that need. In this case, a hyper jealous violent ex romantic partner. What drove this guy to turn out the way he did? Did his parents not teach him right from wrong? Did he buy into some ideal he heard around some gas pump somewhere about relationships and women being property? How come he never learned the coping mechanisms that would allow him to deal with a breakup? That is the real problem. This woman should not have needed a gun because this guy shouldn't have been a flaming asshole.

 

So for now, in some cases I am sure there exists a need for a gun for protection, and gun control may prevent that need from being met. Fair enough. But what we really need to focus on more than anything is creating a society in which people don't feel the need or desire to kill people.

 

Of course, if people didn't feel the need or desire to kill people, or rob people, or any other shenanigans, it would be really hard to sell people on the idea that they need the latest and greatest in conceal/carry gear. Supply and demand and all that. But when the supply side is used to making very good profits, what is the incentive for them and their lobby body, the NRA, to decrease demand (decreasing demand by supporting legislators who support and promote mental health initiatives, child development initiatives, and other humanistic endeavors).

 

In reality is far easier and far better for business to say "yeah there is a bogeyman out there who might get you. Yes, we could fix the bogeyman, but then you wouldn't be afraid of him anymore. If you weren't afraid of him anymore, you wouldn't buy our guns to protect yourself. So in the interests of profit and running a business, the bogeyman stays." Perhaps a bit cynical, but is it really that far fetched?

 

Well, you're either new here or you haven't been paying attention. The most vocal of us "gun nutz" here in SA - the SA Gun Club as joke-fuck calls us - have been saying for literally years that the focus of attention needs to be on behavior modification and societal change that makes this kind of violence unacceptable.

 

In other words, a MADD approach for gun violence or more precisely for violence in general. When the scourge of DUI was at its peak and MADD started up, they did not take a prohibitionist approach to the problem by banning or highly regulating alcohol and cars - they instead went after the behavior itself as the root cause. Naming and shaming, changing societal attitudes, and pushing for stricter enforcement and harsher penalties all combined to really change the game. It took a while to see these effects, and that is the problem here.... everyone wants the simple quick solution. Politicians, unfortunately, don't get elected making promises about something that will take a decade or more to see results. But that is absolutely what is needed here.

 

I'm an NRA lifetime member and I agree with this message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Though no matter how you stack it, banning guns is not the solution. It might appear to help, and it works in other countries where the number of guns was relatively small to begin with. But in the US, there are simply too many guns in circulation, legally and otherwise. The real solution is to create a society in which people don't want to kill other people. There is probably a Nobel Peace Prize for the first SA'er who figures out how to do that.

 

 

I think we have. It's called responsibility. If there is a registration chain, and a universal background check process - the last legal owner needs to be held responsible for crimes committed with their tool. Some exceptions for reported theft, etc could be granted BUT that assumes significant security. you have a gun? Lock it up. In something secure.

I have suggested that numerous times as well. But I have an issue with the "significant security" mandate in order to get off the hook. Personally, I do use significant security for my tools. They are in a locked safe behind locked doors in a house with a German Shepard that will eat your face off if he doesn't know you. But that is a personal choice.

 

I believe that a locked house should be sufficient security against theft. Or even a closed door to a house should be sufficient protection against liability from someone stealing your tools. Last I checked, it was illegal to enter someone's house and take their stuff. I should not have to worry that if I report a theft of a weapon, that I will be held liable if my "security" doesn't meet the DA's standards.

 

Does that mean if my truck was stolen from my house because I left the keys on the kitchen counter and then the robber deliberately ran it into a crowd of shoppers at the mall and killed 20 - should I be held responsible for their murders? As evadent, vehicles are just as effective a mass murder tool as .22LR semi-auto "assault rifles" are. Probably more so. Are we going to need additional "significant security" for trucks now given they are the new mass murder weapon du jour?

If you have kids in the house, you should be on the hook for their use as well. No prosecutor should be able to say "they've suffered enough". Your kid shoots themselves or others by accident? Orange jumpsuit time.

 

 

Yep, I 1000% agree with this and have said so numerous times here if you bothered to pay attention. But we are not talking about kids getting guns and having an "accident", now are we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is no onerous gun control in California. Folks outside Cali may think it's unreasonable, too bad. Last time I was at a gun store there were lots of customers buying weapons. No issues.

 

 

That's because there has never been a gun control law you have ever thought was unreasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If you have kids in the house, you should be on the hook for their use as well. No prosecutor should be able to say "they've suffered enough". Your kid shoots themselves or others by accident? Orange jumpsuit time.

 

An interesting idea, but what would that accomplish? Would it be a punishment to the parents who have lost a child? Would it serve as a deterrent to others? What exactly is the outcome to society if such a policy were implemented?

 

I am not saying I disagree, just questioning your reasoning.

 

 

Nope, I actually agree with mitch on this one. I don't think the gov't should mandate that you have a gunsafe or specific ways to store a weapon. But if you have kids, you'd better damn well make sure your tools are secure OR you completely trust them to always do the right thing. But that is a huge gamble. And if you roll the dice and they come up craps - then you go to jail for being stupid. Its child endangerment, pure and simple. If enough parents end up behind bars for being stupid, then the word will get out and gun owners with kids will buy safes and lock up their gunz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no onerous gun control in California. Folks outside Cali may think it's unreasonable, too bad. Last time I was at a gun store there were lots of customers buying weapons. No issues.

I think onerous is in the eye of the beholder. Every one of the Californians we met in Utah thought the laws there were unreasonable and onerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"However, if all of us, not just gun owners, but all of us lobbied for more effective ways to deal with dangerous or abusive people, then we might get somewhere." -Len P

 

And that should be our new national paradigm. Interestingly enough, its one I see frequently from those who are more left leaning than right. Perhaps if we can get the right on board, then we really could get something done.

 

 

As a left leaning gun owner living in a blue state that voted for Trump, I see it a bit differently. I think both parties have decided to tell everyone they disagree with to fuck off that they are not important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some very good insight there guys. I too am a left leaning gun owner, though not as much as I used to. Once the kids came along I parted with several of my tools. Competitive shooting is too expensive when one is raising a child on a teacher's salary, and still wants to sail. Not complaining at all. Just the finances would allow either sailing or shooting sports. Sailing won. Though I am starting to get back into some informal stuff. My basement has just enough free space to set up a 10m air gun range. There are a few decent plinkers out there for not much scratch, so I can at least get some trigger time. And while some readers may ask why do need trigger time...I find it relaxing and challenging all at the same time. The focus required to shoot well on the international 10m air rifle target is immense. That and the air rifle has only slightly (sarcasm) less report than my old .308 so I can shoot after the kids go to bed. I am fortunate enough to live about an hour from Camp Perry, and they host a 10m air gun shoot on a monthly basis, so there is an inexpensive (enough) competitive venue should I decide to go that route.

 

Keep on keeping on and fighting the fight. And thanks for being sane, or at least capable of sane discourse re. guns and gun control. So many people are nuts when it comes to guns, both left and right, it is almost depressing.

 

On another note, I think we should adopt a marksmanship program as part of phys ed curriculum. Just use air guns, both rifle and pistol. Teach every student how to respect them, use them, and shoot. Those who already like shooting will enjoy it. Those who don't know about shooting will learn something. And maybe, just maybe, people won't be as scared of guns as they are. Guns, by themselves don't scare me at all. It is some of the people that have/use them that I really worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Though no matter how you stack it, banning guns is not the solution. It might appear to help, and it works in other countries where the number of guns was relatively small to begin with. But in the US, there are simply too many guns in circulation, legally and otherwise. The real solution is to create a society in which people don't want to kill other people. There is probably a Nobel Peace Prize for the first SA'er who figures out how to do that.

 

 

I think we have. It's called responsibility. If there is a registration chain, and a universal background check process - the last legal owner needs to be held responsible for crimes committed with their tool. Some exceptions for reported theft, etc could be granted BUT that assumes significant security. you have a gun? Lock it up. In something secure.

I have suggested that numerous times as well. But I have an issue with the "significant security" mandate in order to get off the hook. Personally, I do use significant security for my tools. They are in a locked safe behind locked doors in a house with a German Shepard that will eat your face off if he doesn't know you. But that is a personal choice.

 

I believe that a locked house should be sufficient security against theft. Or even a closed door to a house should be sufficient protection against liability from someone stealing your tools. Last I checked, it was illegal to enter someone's house and take their stuff. I should not have to worry that if I report a theft of a weapon, that I will be held liable if my "security" doesn't meet the DA's standards.

 

Does that mean if my truck was stolen from my house because I left the keys on the kitchen counter and then the robber deliberately ran it into a crowd of shoppers at the mall and killed 20 - should I be held responsible for their murders? As evadent, vehicles are just as effective a mass murder tool as .22LR semi-auto "assault rifles" are. Probably more so. Are we going to need additional "significant security" for trucks now given they are the new mass murder weapon du jour?

If you have kids in the house, you should be on the hook for their use as well. No prosecutor should be able to say "they've suffered enough". Your kid shoots themselves or others by accident? Orange jumpsuit time.

An interesting idea, but what would that accomplish? Would it be a punishment to the parents who have lost a child? Would it serve as a deterrent to others? What exactly is the outcome to society if such a policy were implemented?

 

I am not saying I disagree, just questioning your reasoning.

Deterrence. It seems folks aren't all that deterred by risk to their kids. Maybe risk of jail will work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

If you have kids in the house, you should be on the hook for their use as well. No prosecutor should be able to say "they've suffered enough". Your kid shoots themselves or others by accident? Orange jumpsuit time.

 

An interesting idea, but what would that accomplish? Would it be a punishment to the parents who have lost a child? Would it serve as a deterrent to others? What exactly is the outcome to society if such a policy were implemented?

 

I am not saying I disagree, just questioning your reasoning.

 

 

Nope, I actually agree with mitch on this one. I don't think the gov't should mandate that you have a gunsafe or specific ways to store a weapon. But if you have kids, you'd better damn well make sure your tools are secure OR you completely trust them to always do the right thing. But that is a huge gamble. And if you roll the dice and they come up craps - then you go to jail for being stupid. Its child endangerment, pure and simple. If enough parents end up behind bars for being stupid, then the word will get out and gun owners with kids will buy safes and lock up their gunz.

 

 

We have such a law in Florida.

 

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.174.html

 

Typically, the grabbers want to amend it so that owners are responsible for stolen guns.

 

Sail611, you seem to have lots of ideas for what gun owners should do. What we're busy doing is fighting off nonsense from grabbers.

 

Nonsense like making owners liable for guns that have been stolen.

 

Nonsense like calling ordinary .22's, even ones with fixed magazines, "assault weapons" in order to ban them.

 

If we were a little less busy with such nonsense, we might be a bit more receptive.

 

You've seen what happens when someone like me asks that the nonsense stop: it just gets called "reasonable" and I get called names.

 

Obviously, someone who is not a gun nut is going to have to get their attention. I nominate you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not lose focus on the people whose loss the call for banning .22's is exploiting. Here's another:

 

 

 

 

Five people had their second amendment rights taken away from them in FLL, along with some other rights not as important as the 2nd. Among them was:

 

Olga Woltering

170107134404-02-olga-woltering-exlarge-1

 

 

Olga Woltering and her husband, Ralph, had traveled from their home in Cobb County, Georgia, outside Atllanta, to Fort Lauderdale for a cruise.

The 84-year-old great-grandmother and loyal church member died and her husband escaped serious injury, according to posts on social media.
"Olga was one of the most joyful, loving, caring and committed people I have ever met," the Rev. Fernando Molina-Restrepo of the Catholic Church of the Transfiguration in Marietta, Georgia, told CNN. The Wolterings had been members of the church since 1978, Molina-Restrepo said.
"This is a horrible tragedy for everyone here at Transfiguration, especially because Olga was so loved," he said.
A posting on the church's website said the couple "could always be found at 5 p.m. Mass," and it added, "Olga was so charming, calling everybody 'Lovey' or 'Love' in her unmistakable British accent."

 

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Ray, The .22 Caliber Wanker

The sky is falling as usual. Zzzzz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interest in banning battlefield .22's seems pretty thin.

 

The topic article notes that the murders in Fort Lauderdale are motivating the proposal to limit sales of tools, so perhaps it's time for a parade of the victims whose loss has made this a propitious time to talk about reasonable proposals to limit sales of tools and make tool owners responsible for what criminals do with stolen tools.

 

 

timmons1.jpg?quality=65&strip=all&w=474

 

Shirley Timmons, the Ohio woman killed in the Fort Lauderdale airport shooting, was warmly remembered by her family in a statement released Monday.

Timmons was slain, and her husband Steve Timmons was critically injured, during Friday's airport attack.

"Shirley Timmons was an amazing daughter, wife, mother and grandmother," her family said in a statement provided by Broward Health Medical Center. "For Shirley, it was all about family. She and her husband of 51 years met when they were in the 8th grade.

"They were high school sweethearts with the perfect love story. She was a cheerleader and Homecoming Queen with the man of her dreams. Together they built a close, loving family with their three daughters, three son-in-laws and eight grandchildren. For Shirley, family meant vacations, football games and holiday traditions.

The couple had flown to Fort Lauderdale on Friday to join the rest of their family for a cruise, WILE-FM reported over the weekend.

Timmons' grandson Steve Reineccius confirmed over Facebook that his grandmother was one of the victims and that his grandfather Steve Timmons was wounded. They were both 70 years old.

Timmons was shot in the head and underwent emergency surgery at a Fort Lauderdale hospital, the station reported.

Broward Health, citing patient privacy, isn't releasing the names of those hospitalized. So a Broward Health spokeswoman on Monday said she had no information about Steve Timmons' condition.

The couple's 51st wedding anniversary was in three weeks. They're from Senecaville, about 90 miles east of Columbus.

The Timmons family, in Monday's statement, said Shirley Timmons was the "most loving, passionate mother who had a love for life and truly sparkled. She will continue to sparkle through her husband, mother, three daughters and eight grandchildren. She touched many and was loved by all. She will live in our hearts forever and will be truly missed. We love you Mom and Grandma."

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fort-lauderdale-hollywood-airport-shooting/fl-shirley-timmons-airport-shooting-20170107-story.html

 

 

 

 

This is in poor taste, and in poor form as well.

Let them RIP you loathsome fool, don't use them to peddle the instrument that killed them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

If you have kids in the house, you should be on the hook for their use as well. No prosecutor should be able to say "they've suffered enough". Your kid shoots themselves or others by accident? Orange jumpsuit time.

 

An interesting idea, but what would that accomplish? Would it be a punishment to the parents who have lost a child? Would it serve as a deterrent to others? What exactly is the outcome to society if such a policy were implemented?

 

I am not saying I disagree, just questioning your reasoning.

 

 

Nope, I actually agree with mitch on this one. I don't think the gov't should mandate that you have a gunsafe or specific ways to store a weapon. But if you have kids, you'd better damn well make sure your tools are secure OR you completely trust them to always do the right thing. But that is a huge gamble. And if you roll the dice and they come up craps - then you go to jail for being stupid. Its child endangerment, pure and simple. If enough parents end up behind bars for being stupid, then the word will get out and gun owners with kids will buy safes and lock up their gunz.

 

 

We have such a law in Florida.

 

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.174.html

 

Typically, the grabbers want to amend it so that owners are responsible for stolen guns.

 

Sail611, you seem to have lots of ideas for what gun owners should do. What we're busy doing is fighting off nonsense from grabbers.

 

Nonsense like making owners liable for guns that have been stolen.

 

Nonsense like calling ordinary .22's, even ones with fixed magazines, "assault weapons" in order to ban them.

 

If we were a little less busy with such nonsense, we might be a bit more receptive.

 

You've seen what happens when someone like me asks that the nonsense stop: it just gets called "reasonable" and I get called names.

 

Obviously, someone who is not a gun nut is going to have to get their attention. I nominate you.

 

 

Tom, while hunting cats and rabbits with a semi-auto 22LR, we came across a few pigs. It took more than one shot, but a very large razorback was killed with that gun.

 

Those animals have armour plating around their shoulders and on examination, one 22 projectile was found embedded in the thickened skin of it's shoulder. Other rounds into the head killed it.

 

So in an urban environment, animals with no armour could be killed easily with a 22LR. They should be controlled, they are not toys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi random. Mine shot through three layers of plywood and chipboard, each 3/4". Not a toy.

 

And Tom is confusing the issue by tossing in his wife's ,22, which has an LCM setup.

 

 

But how about Pooplius posting pictures of the recently slain to peddle more gun mayhem, after how they died?

Priceless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Interest in banning battlefield .22's seems pretty thin.

 

The topic article notes that the murders in Fort Lauderdale are motivating the proposal to limit sales of tools, so perhaps it's time for a parade of the victims whose loss has made this a propitious time to talk about reasonable proposals to limit sales of tools and make tool owners responsible for what criminals do with stolen tools.

 

 

timmons1.jpg?quality=65&strip=all&w=474

 

Shirley Timmons, the Ohio woman killed in the Fort Lauderdale airport shooting, was warmly remembered by her family in a statement released Monday.

Timmons was slain, and her husband Steve Timmons was critically injured, during Friday's airport attack.

"Shirley Timmons was an amazing daughter, wife, mother and grandmother," her family said in a statement provided by Broward Health Medical Center. "For Shirley, it was all about family. She and her husband of 51 years met when they were in the 8th grade.

"They were high school sweethearts with the perfect love story. She was a cheerleader and Homecoming Queen with the man of her dreams. Together they built a close, loving family with their three daughters, three son-in-laws and eight grandchildren. For Shirley, family meant vacations, football games and holiday traditions.

The couple had flown to Fort Lauderdale on Friday to join the rest of their family for a cruise, WILE-FM reported over the weekend.

Timmons' grandson Steve Reineccius confirmed over Facebook that his grandmother was one of the victims and that his grandfather Steve Timmons was wounded. They were both 70 years old.

Timmons was shot in the head and underwent emergency surgery at a Fort Lauderdale hospital, the station reported.

Broward Health, citing patient privacy, isn't releasing the names of those hospitalized. So a Broward Health spokeswoman on Monday said she had no information about Steve Timmons' condition.

The couple's 51st wedding anniversary was in three weeks. They're from Senecaville, about 90 miles east of Columbus.

The Timmons family, in Monday's statement, said Shirley Timmons was the "most loving, passionate mother who had a love for life and truly sparkled. She will continue to sparkle through her husband, mother, three daughters and eight grandchildren. She touched many and was loved by all. She will live in our hearts forever and will be truly missed. We love you Mom and Grandma."

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fort-lauderdale-hollywood-airport-shooting/fl-shirley-timmons-airport-shooting-20170107-story.html

 

 

 

 

This is in poor taste, and in poor form as well.

Let them RIP you loathsome fool, don't use them to peddle the instrument that killed them.

 

 

I don't recall you admonishing Sol for using them to peddle his agenda in this thread or in the Charleston thread. Hypocrite!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't that Sol who posted those?

 

Yes, but that's inconvenient for joe's narrative.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Nonsense like calling ordinary .22's, even ones with fixed magazines, "assault weapons" in order to ban them.

 

If we were a little less busy with such nonsense, we might be a bit more receptive.

 

You've seen what happens when someone like me asks that the nonsense stop: it just gets called "reasonable" and I get called names.

 

 

 

 

Do they consider the Henry Golden Boy lever action an assault rifle because it holds 15 rounds? we are allowed to have these fearsome lever action assault weapons in Pusstralia.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Poll results in your link has 97.53% would not support another buyback.

 

Our 1996 laws didn't restrict lever action rifles or shotguns, if they have an integral magazine they're not restricted for magazine capacity under our 1996 laws.

http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0011/209477/FACT_SHEET_Firearm_Magazines_October_2012.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh 2012?

 

NMTB-DavidTennant-Laughing.gif

 

The only shotguns that were restricted in 1996 were pump action and self loading.

 

Pump action rifles were not restricted in 1996 for some reason the hoplophobes who praise our 1996 laws think pump action rifles are ok yet pump action shotties will turn you into a mass murdering terrorist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the categories are not to your liking?

 

How about no mass shootings in 20 fucking years?

 

Hard to argue with success!!!!

 

NMTB-DavidTennant-Laughing.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the categories are not to your liking?

 

How about no mass shootings in 20 fucking years?

 

Hard to argue with success!!!!

 

NMTB-DavidTennant-Laughing.gif

 

Lockhart was a mass shooting, hard to argue with liars who pretend that never happened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it is one? You're saying it was one? One in twenty fucking years?

 

Before that it was at least one a year!!!!!!!!!

 

NMTB-DavidTennant-Laughing.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Interest in banning battlefield .22's seems pretty thin.

 

The topic article notes that the murders in Fort Lauderdale are motivating the proposal to limit sales of tools, so perhaps it's time for a parade of the victims whose loss has made this a propitious time to talk about reasonable proposals to limit sales of tools and make tool owners responsible for what criminals do with stolen tools.

 

 

timmons1.jpg?quality=65&strip=all&w=474

 

Shirley Timmons, the Ohio woman killed in the Fort Lauderdale airport shooting, was warmly remembered by her family in a statement released Monday.

Timmons was slain, and her husband Steve Timmons was critically injured, during Friday's airport attack.

"Shirley Timmons was an amazing daughter, wife, mother and grandmother," her family said in a statement provided by Broward Health Medical Center. "For Shirley, it was all about family. She and her husband of 51 years met when they were in the 8th grade.

"They were high school sweethearts with the perfect love story. She was a cheerleader and Homecoming Queen with the man of her dreams. Together they built a close, loving family with their three daughters, three son-in-laws and eight grandchildren. For Shirley, family meant vacations, football games and holiday traditions.

The couple had flown to Fort Lauderdale on Friday to join the rest of their family for a cruise, WILE-FM reported over the weekend.

Timmons' grandson Steve Reineccius confirmed over Facebook that his grandmother was one of the victims and that his grandfather Steve Timmons was wounded. They were both 70 years old.

Timmons was shot in the head and underwent emergency surgery at a Fort Lauderdale hospital, the station reported.

Broward Health, citing patient privacy, isn't releasing the names of those hospitalized. So a Broward Health spokeswoman on Monday said she had no information about Steve Timmons' condition.

The couple's 51st wedding anniversary was in three weeks. They're from Senecaville, about 90 miles east of Columbus.

The Timmons family, in Monday's statement, said Shirley Timmons was the "most loving, passionate mother who had a love for life and truly sparkled. She will continue to sparkle through her husband, mother, three daughters and eight grandchildren. She touched many and was loved by all. She will live in our hearts forever and will be truly missed. We love you Mom and Grandma."

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fort-lauderdale-hollywood-airport-shooting/fl-shirley-timmons-airport-shooting-20170107-story.html

 

 

This is in poor taste, and in poor form as well.

Let them RIP you loathsome fool, don't use them to peddle the instrument that killed them.

 

I don't recall you admonishing Sol for using them to peddle his agenda in this thread or in the Charleston thread. Hypocrite!

 

 

I thought I was doing a good thing! I was using them to show why ordinary .22's should be called "assault weapons" and banned. That's exactly what the topic newspaper article said should happen.

 

It's also what happens every time there is a convenient mass shooting. As Mitch's thread is in the process of showing, most are gang shootings and are not considered convenient for advancing gun control.

 

But when a convenient one happens, Democrats are all over it, proposing to ban ordinary .22's, hold gun owners responsible for the actions of thieves, make it a felony to buy a whole box of ammo at once, and every other unreasonable thing they can think up to punish the enemy gun owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is no onerous gun control in California. Folks outside Cali may think it's unreasonable, too bad. Last time I was at a gun store there were lots of customers buying weapons. No issues.

I think onerous is in the eye of the beholder. Every one of the Californians we met in Utah thought the laws there were unreasonable and onerous.

 

 

That's the universal opinion of Californians that I see on gun forums. They want to be able to buy the guns that the rest of us are free to buy.

 

But look who you're trying to convince.

 

His initial reaction to the proposed .22 ban was that it was reasonable. Now he claims not to know. And what are the odds a guy from San Fran (where there are no gun stores any more) who doesn't like guns was really in a gun store?

 

I claim to know. Calling ordinary .22's battlefield weapons will continue to seem ridiculous to me until I see some soldiers carrying them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another reason to ban ordinary .22's.

 

 

 

 

Terry Andres was at the airport because he was vacationing with his wife, according to a close friend.

Andres, 62, died and his wife was uninjured, said the friend, who asked to remain anonymous.
"Terry was the kindest, sweetest and best kind of friend anyone could have. He was the ultimate family man," said the friend, who has known Andres since high school. "He and Ann were married for 40 years, and he absolutely adored his children and grandchildren."
Andres had two daughters, said the friend.
The New Jersey native and his family moved to Virginia Beach, Virginia, decades ago and raised their children in the coastal community, the friend said.
Andres worked at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, said Terry Davis, a spokesman at the shipyard. According to Andres' Facebook page, he had worked at the shipyard since 1996.
Andres and his wife were members of Virginia Beach United Methodist Church. The church's senior pastor, the Rev. Ralph Rowley, posted news of Andres' death on the church's official Facebook page.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/07/us/fort-lauderdale-victims-profiles/

 

170107114854-terry-andres-exlarge-169.jp

 

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the universal opinion of Californians that I see on gun forums. They want to be able to buy the guns that the rest of us are free to buy.

 

Sure, but that's not a reasonable sample to draw conclusions about California from. The universal opinion of folks from Utah that I encounter on atheist forums is that Mormonism is a freakish cult with little redeeming features. Anyone claiming that to be a representative opinion of Utah residents, however, would be wrong. *shrug*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These folks are not in favor of Tom's gun fetish.

You sailors and parents go mum as he repeatedly dis-honors mass shooting victims on our forums?

Either you are placating Tom Ray or you have poor standards where you hang out,

 

Very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

This is in poor taste, and in poor form as well.

Let them RIP you loathsome fool, don't use them to peddle the instrument that killed them.

 

 

I don't recall you admonishing Sol for using them to peddle his agenda in this thread or in the Charleston thread. Hypocrite!

 

 

A gun took their rights away, and their lives away.

Sol honored these folks beautifully, and honored me by attaching lives and faces to the deceased. Sol helped us focus on what actually happened, and the cost.

The families would be touched by Sol's poignant goodbye.

 

You, on the other hand, are using lives devastated by guns to peddle more gun mayhem.

These families would spit phlegm on you in a courtroom hallway.

 

Your mother may have failed somewhere in your FL upbringing.

 

No shame? This is the clarity of your reasoning? With your guns not even mentioned by name?

WTF TOM?

 

 

Pooplius:

,,, perhaps it's time for a parade of the victims whose loss has made this a propitious time to talk about reasonable proposals to limit sales of tools and make tool owners responsible for what criminals do with stolen tools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is no onerous gun control in California. Folks outside Cali may think it's unreasonable, too bad. Last time I was at a gun store there were lots of customers buying weapons. No issues.

 

 

Sure, but that's not a reasonable sample to draw conclusions about California from.

 

 

Fixerated.

 

I agree with Bent. A sample of one person is not enough. Even a sample of a few gun nuts from Cali would be better.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

 

Your mother may have failed somewhere in your FL upbringing.

 

No shame? This is the clarity of your reasoning? With your guns not even mentioned by name?

WTF TOM?

 

 

Pooplius:

,,, perhaps it's time for a parade of the victims whose loss has made this a propitious time to talk about reasonable proposals to limit sales of tools and make tool owners responsible for what criminals do with stolen tools.

 

 

Name calling and talking about my mother shows your usual class.

 

Here's the deal: after convenient mass shootings, we see Democrats call for gun control. Obama did it after Sandy Hook. That incident also caused a legislative emergency in NY, leading to the SAFE Act and caused Billy Backstay to sign up to have his scary magazine confiscated upon his death.

 

Every single one of these convenient incidents leads to grabbers exploiting the victims to pursue their agenda.

 

I'm holding a mirror up to your elk. If you don't like what you see, I can't help it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites