• 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

Hey Jocal, are these ladies part of the violent "gun culture"? Are they promoting unhealthy gun violence mentality?

 

11351392_1058458747515550_99901608677826

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

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.

We have discussed how Aussies kill pigs using .22's on this forum before and I am impressed. Not impressed that it's generally done for lack of anything more powerful, but impressed with the ability to do it.

 

I'm an American and prefer to just shoot right through that armor plating. I believe it makes me less likely to require the "more than one shot" you mentioned and less likely to lose a wounded animal.

 

But there's no question that a .22 "assault weapon" can be deadly to hogs or humans.

 

I wanted Carol to see what a rainbow of brass looked like so I loaded up the 30 round magazine on my wife's squirrel assault rifle and let 'em all fly as quickly as I could at a paper target. I don't generally shoot paper nor waste ammo like that but thought it would be amusing.

 

27 rounds in the black, which is about the size of a human head.

 

But I still believe that in the event of invasion, insurrection, natural disaster, or some other reason to raise a local militia, people would laugh pretty hard if I showed up with her gun, let alone the old tube-fed .22 "assault weapon."

I'm curious how she would have felt if you had about 22 cantaloupe, with little faces on them, and set the around the yard, or better yet, in a classroom, and then shot each one with that little black circle precision in rapid succession. Instead of an aluminum can at a safe distance in a hygienic environment.

 

I would never do that.

 

I like cantaloupe and we have things called mushmelons that are inedible and make better targets.

 

I'm not into the faces or the classroom thing. Longing for deaths of school children to exploit for political gain is more of a grabber thing. As Eva Dent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

Let's let the bereaved families decide this matter.

Again, Sol honored those families, and their situation.

...

 

 

Very true. The depth of empathy is touching. It's almost like he knew the man.

 

 

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).

 

Why don't you show the depth of your concern, jocal?

 

Have that printed up and mail it to the family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

 

Let's let the bereaved families decide this matter.

Again, Sol honored those families, and their situation.

...

 

 

Very true. The depth of empathy is touching. It's almost like he knew the man.

 

 

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).

 

Why don't you show the depth of your concern, jocal?

 

Have that printed up and mail it to the family.

 

 

You need to quote your own elk on our forums. Not Sol (who dismisses you), and not the devastated victims of mass gun violence.

 

You are not well.

These families oppose guns this morning, for a very good reason.

 

Your own gun-foolishness is okay with you, so this is the end result of your Heller success:

 

Dick%20Heller%20this%20is%20my%20rifle_z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Jocal, are these ladies part of the violent "gun culture"? Are they promoting unhealthy gun violence mentality?

 

11351392_1058458747515550_99901608677826

 

In the course of your lifetime, at best, their caring nature will be needed to offset any of Jeffie's alpha male imbalances.

You will find that they come with their own tools, such as a natural understanding, and the power to endure, and the willingness to nurture.

They don't need to be alpha. or need to be armed, to do what they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

We have discussed how Aussies kill pigs using .22's on this forum before and I am impressed. Not impressed that it's generally done for lack of anything more powerful, but impressed with the ability to do it.

 

I'm an American and prefer to just shoot right through that armor plating. I believe it makes me less likely to require the "more than one shot" you mentioned and less likely to lose a wounded animal.

 

But there's no question that a .22 "assault weapon" can be deadly to hogs or humans.

 

I wanted Carol to see what a rainbow of brass looked like so I loaded up the 30 round magazine on my wife's squirrel assault rifle and let 'em all fly as quickly as I could at a paper target. I don't generally shoot paper nor waste ammo like that but thought it would be amusing.

 

27 rounds in the black, which is about the size of a human head.

 

But I still believe that in the event of invasion, insurrection, natural disaster, or some other reason to raise a local militia, people would laugh pretty hard if I showed up with her gun, let alone the old tube-fed .22 "assault weapon."

 

I'm curious how she would have felt if you had about 22 cantaloupe, with little faces on them, and set the around the yard, or better yet, in a classroom, and then shot each one with that little black circle precision in rapid succession. Instead of an aluminum can at a safe distance in a hygienic environment.

 

I would never do that.

 

I like cantaloupe and we have things called mushmelons that are inedible and make better targets.

 

I'm not into the faces or the classroom thing. Longing for deaths of school children to exploit for political gain is more of a grabber thing. As Eva Dent.

IF you wanted to show a person WHY some folks think the way gun grabbers do, having them shoot a can is not the way to do it. Show them used the way they are being used, as an agent of death. Then they would understand why there is an opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

We have discussed how Aussies kill pigs using .22's on this forum before and I am impressed. Not impressed that it's generally done for lack of anything more powerful, but impressed with the ability to do it.

 

I'm an American and prefer to just shoot right through that armor plating. I believe it makes me less likely to require the "more than one shot" you mentioned and less likely to lose a wounded animal.

 

But there's no question that a .22 "assault weapon" can be deadly to hogs or humans.

 

I wanted Carol to see what a rainbow of brass looked like so I loaded up the 30 round magazine on my wife's squirrel assault rifle and let 'em all fly as quickly as I could at a paper target. I don't generally shoot paper nor waste ammo like that but thought it would be amusing.

 

27 rounds in the black, which is about the size of a human head.

 

But I still believe that in the event of invasion, insurrection, natural disaster, or some other reason to raise a local militia, people would laugh pretty hard if I showed up with her gun, let alone the old tube-fed .22 "assault weapon."

I'm curious how she would have felt if you had about 22 cantaloupe, with little faces on them, and set the around the yard, or better yet, in a classroom, and then shot each one with that little black circle precision in rapid succession. Instead of an aluminum can at a safe distance in a hygienic environment.

I would never do that.

 

I like cantaloupe and we have things called mushmelons that are inedible and make better targets.

 

I'm not into the faces or the classroom thing. Longing for deaths of school children to exploit for political gain is more of a grabber thing. As Eva Dent.

IF you wanted to show a person WHY some folks think the way gun grabbers do, having them shoot a can is not the way to do it. Show them used the way they are being used, as an agent of death. Then they would understand why there is an opposition.

 

 

I think she's pretty well aware of why grabbers want to ban guns. She's actually supportive of those people. But she still didn't think our battlefield .22's were what her allies were talking about when they said, "assault weapon ban."

 

I know you're undecided on whether a tube-fed .22 is an assault weapon but that doesn't mean everyone is and some might just decide that the grabbers are being ridiculous. I know one who did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

We have discussed how Aussies kill pigs using .22's on this forum before and I am impressed. Not impressed that it's generally done for lack of anything more powerful, but impressed with the ability to do it.

 

I'm an American and prefer to just shoot right through that armor plating. I believe it makes me less likely to require the "more than one shot" you mentioned and less likely to lose a wounded animal.

 

But there's no question that a .22 "assault weapon" can be deadly to hogs or humans.

 

I wanted Carol to see what a rainbow of brass looked like so I loaded up the 30 round magazine on my wife's squirrel assault rifle and let 'em all fly as quickly as I could at a paper target. I don't generally shoot paper nor waste ammo like that but thought it would be amusing.

 

27 rounds in the black, which is about the size of a human head.

 

But I still believe that in the event of invasion, insurrection, natural disaster, or some other reason to raise a local militia, people would laugh pretty hard if I showed up with her gun, let alone the old tube-fed .22 "assault weapon."

 

I'm curious how she would have felt if you had about 22 cantaloupe, with little faces on them, and set the around the yard, or better yet, in a classroom, and then shot each one with that little black circle precision in rapid succession. Instead of an aluminum can at a safe distance in a hygienic environment.

I would never do that.

 

I like cantaloupe and we have things called mushmelons that are inedible and make better targets.

 

I'm not into the faces or the classroom thing. Longing for deaths of school children to exploit for political gain is more of a grabber thing. As Eva Dent.

IF you wanted to show a person WHY some folks think the way gun grabbers do, having them shoot a can is not the way to do it. Show them used the way they are being used, as an agent of death. Then they would understand why there is an opposition.

I think she's pretty well aware of why grabbers want to ban guns. She's actually supportive of those people. But she still didn't think our battlefield .22's were what her allies were talking about when they said, "assault weapon ban."

 

I know you're undecided on whether a tube-fed .22 is an assault weapon but that doesn't mean everyone is and some might just decide that the grabbers are being ridiculous. I know one who did.

I'm not undecided at all. I don't use the term "assault weapon". As you've rightly pointed out, it doesn't have a common definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish it were not in use but it's hard to state an opinion on things like the thread topic without using the words grabbers use. I frequently use "mean-looking weapons" instead but I have to tip my hat and admit that the grabbers have the better propaganda term. It fooled my wife's cousin, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think she's pretty well aware of why grabbers want to ban guns. She's actually supportive of those people. But she still didn't think our battlefield .22's were what her allies were talking about when they said, "assault weapon ban."

 

I know you're undecided on whether a tube-fed .22 is an assault weapon but that doesn't mean everyone is and some might just decide that the grabbers are being ridiculous. I know one who did.

I'm not undecided at all. I don't use the term "assault weapon". As you've rightly pointed out, it doesn't have a common definition.

 

 

This thread points out that problem but also something else that I see as a problem but you may not:

 

The grabbers want to ban ordinary .22 rifles. Ignoring what they want to call them, which we agree is silly, do you have an opinion on whether providing for the regulatory prohibition of .22 rifles is reasonable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish it were not in use but it's hard to state an opinion on things like the thread topic without using the words grabbers use. I frequently use "mean-looking weapons" instead but I have to tip my hat and admit that the grabbers have the better propaganda term. It fooled my wife's cousin, for example.

 

"Mean looking weapons" makes me want to puke. Call them what they are.

You come across like a freak to me, after I spend my day in the real world.

Your latest crisis is sweeping shit about .22's. They are all endangered assault weapons now, or something.

In spite of a legal exemption for tube feeders which is spelled out.

If one model .22 (such as your wife's) meets the criteria of an AW, then innuendo presto, and ALL .22's have been targeted. Right.

 

Pooplius VOLUNTEERS the following life-changing bits;

The states of FL and WA are conspiring to gobble up all tube feeder semi-automatic rifles under a magic AW clause.

A big panic. Extended coverage. A dedicated thread. Weeks of outrage. All .22's innuendo'd in.

 

I think the Badgeless Bang Bang has too much time on his hands, to get so silly, and then to sustain such silliness.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wish it were not in use but it's hard to state an opinion on things like the thread topic without using the words grabbers use. I frequently use "mean-looking weapons" instead but I have to tip my hat and admit that the grabbers have the better propaganda term. It fooled my wife's cousin, for example.

 

"Mean looking weapons" makes me want to puke. Call them what they are.

You come across like a freak to me, after I spend my day in the real world.

Your latest crisis is sweeping shit about .22's. They are all endangered assault weapons now, or something.

In spite of a legal exemption for tube feeders which is spelled out.

If one model .22 (such as your wife's) meets the criteria of an AW, then innuendo presto, and ALL .22's have been targeted. Right.

 

Pooplius VOLUNTEERS the following life-changing bits;

The states of FL and WA are conspiring to gobble up all tube feeder semi-automatic rifles under a magic AW clause.

A big panic. Extended coverage. A dedicated thread. Weeks of outrage. All .22's innuendo'd in.

 

I think the Badgeless Bang Bang has too much time on his hands, to get so silly, and then to sustain such silliness.

.

 

 

tumblr_obb66mx9WF1rbwn97o1_540_zpsbfjcqm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wish it were not in use but it's hard to state an opinion on things like the thread topic without using the words grabbers use. I frequently use "mean-looking weapons" instead but I have to tip my hat and admit that the grabbers have the better propaganda term. It fooled my wife's cousin, for example.

 

"Mean looking weapons" makes me want to puke. Call them what they are.

You come across like a freak to me, after I spend my day in the real world.

Your latest crisis is sweeping shit about .22's. They are all endangered assault weapons now, or something.

In spite of a legal exemption for tube feeders which is spelled out.

...

 

OK, I'll try one more time, Joe.

 

If a law bans X or Y, claiming that something is not covered by the ban because it's Y will not work. Because it's X.

 

Our .22's are assault weapons. They do not have large capacity magazines due to an exemption, but they are assault weapons.

 

The law bans assault weapons or scary magazines. Claiming that something is not covered because the magazine has been defined to be non-scary will not work. Because it's an assault weapon.

 

You seem to think that the law bans assault weapons WITH large capacity magazines. The problem with your view is that WITH and OR are different words. They mean different things. I have never taught first grade and don't know how to teach you what they mean so if this attempt fails I may give up.

 

Maybe a lawyer who is capable of being honest about firearms law and who understands what OR means will show up and help you out. I wouldn't count on it, but stranger things have happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figure that that if this law, taken as a unit, didn't want tube feeders exempted, it wouldn't have exempted them.


You have created a big uproar over a ,22 caliber non-issue.


Boring, Tom.


If you dumb down my life I will toss you from it, yer a joke. Try harder.



While you were wanking this week


The FBI is now reporting background checks on private sales, as of Jan. 1. No fear mongering over that bit?


Phillip Cook now recognizes the private gun market as 22%, not 40%. No strutting or posing?


A bill for reciprocity has been inked and submitted. It's the NRA's top priority.


While you are dis-respecting the mass shooter victims (in your own state) the big picture is escaping you.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if the law does pass, there is always the chance that some helpful law enforcement experts in his home state will explain it to him along with an explanation of his Miranda rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I figure that that if this law, taken as a unit, didn't want tube feeders exempted, it wouldn't have exempted them.

...

 

I figure that if the definition of assault weapon wanted tube feeders exempted, it wouldn't say this:

 

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;

 

 

But it does. And there's no exemption that covers it. There's only one that says the magazine is not large capacity.

 

(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.

 

 

 

 

If you think there's an exemption to the "assault weapon" definition, post it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

...

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.

 

 

I was hoping that would prompt a response from one of our Canadian posters but decided to look into it for myself since none spoke up.

 

Cabela's Canada is selling Ruger 10-22 assault weapons.

 

But you might not be able to buy magazines holding more than ten rounds.

 

From what we have been told at the moment, these large capacity magazines will fit certain specific handguns (pistols) thereby creating a situation where the pistol capacity now exceeds the 10 round limit on handguns. Individuals, who for an example, have a Butler Creek 25 round magazine for their 10/22 must now have the magazine “pinned” to 10 rounds, leave the magazine at home, or turn it in for destruction by the RCMP.

This does not affect those with Remington rim fire rifles or other manufacturers. Apparently this is unique to the Ruger 10/22.

 

 

I wonder whether the Canadian they interviewed for that news piece doesn't know that Canadians can own ordinary .22's or doesn't know that ordinary .22's are the scary "assault-style automatic rifles" he hears American fake news people talking about?

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.

 

 

 

Will MADD's successful formula make Chinese smog disappear too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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?

 

...

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.

 

 

I was hoping that would prompt a response from one of our Canadian posters but decided to look into it for myself since none spoke up.

 

Cabela's Canada is selling Ruger 10-22 assault weapons.

 

But you might not be able to buy magazines holding more than ten rounds.

 

From what we have been told at the moment, these large capacity magazines will fit certain specific handguns (pistols) thereby creating a situation where the pistol capacity now exceeds the 10 round limit on handguns. Individuals, who for an example, have a Butler Creek 25 round magazine for their 10/22 must now have the magazine “pinned” to 10 rounds, leave the magazine at home, or turn it in for destruction by the RCMP.

This does not affect those with Remington rim fire rifles or other manufacturers. Apparently this is unique to the Ruger 10/22.

 

 

I wonder whether the Canadian they interviewed for that news piece doesn't know that Canadians can own ordinary .22's or doesn't know that ordinary .22's are the scary "assault-style automatic rifles" he hears American fake news people talking about?

 

 

The .22 Caliber Wanker strikes again. This grave matter had garnered weeks of attention, for someone who needs attention.

I'd like to see Tom take the militia oath after presenting his non-laughable weapon.

His elk would make Larry Pratt their company's captain.

Their militia underoos would bear the name of the governor of FL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I figure that that if this law, taken as a unit, didn't want tube feeders exempted, it wouldn't have exempted them.

...

 

I figure that if the definition of assault weapon wanted tube feeders exempted, it wouldn't say this:

 

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;

 

 

But it does. And there's no exemption that covers it. There's only one that says the magazine is not large capacity.

 

(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.

 

 

 

 

If you think there's an exemption to the "assault weapon" definition, post it.

 

 

Read my lips. I don't really care about this matter.

I'm in a lawn chair, trolling for such foolishness.

You got yourself all in a dither.

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.

 

Will MADD's successful formula make Chinese smog disappear too?

That's one of the dumber things you've ever said here. And given the volumes of stupid shit you've posted here, that is an achievement.

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.

 

Will MADD's successful formula make Chinese smog disappear too?

Go start a thread about Chinese smog or about what MADD or a MADD-like program can or can't do for clean air.

 

Are you willing to address the concept that was stated? I've proposed similar programs (which, by the way, could be enacted WHILE continuing on other, more hoplophobic measures). I've never received a straight answer.

 

Would you mind very much answering JB's question, if only to weigh in on an honest proposal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that this thread is where you go to get people to weigh in on an honest proposal.

 

The topic proposal by legislators to ban "assault weapons" is an honest proposal.

 

The list of people willing to say whether a Ruger 10-22 is an assault weapon in their view is very short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so that we don't lose focus on the compelling reasons why we need to ban ordinary .22's and make gun owners responsible for the actions of thieves.


Mary Louise Amzibel had her second amendment rights taken away at the airport. Her husband still has his, but was violence-incidented in the face.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fort-lauderdale-hollywood-airport-shooting/sfl-fifth-victim-of-airport-massacre-identified-20170111-story.html

 

Those who feel so moved may want to print out this tribute and mail it to the family.

 

If you really want to make them feel good, print out the topic post of this thread and send that too so they know that someone wants to DO SOMETHING.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so that we don't lose focus on the compelling reasons why we need to ban ordinary .22's and make gun owners responsible for the actions of thieves.

 

 

 

Mary Louise Amzibel had her second amendment rights taken away at the airport. Her husband still has his, but was violence-incidented in the face.

 

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fort-lauderdale-hollywood-airport-shooting/sfl-fifth-victim-of-airport-massacre-identified-20170111-story.html

 

Those who feel so moved may want to print out this tribute and mail it to the family.

 

If you really want to make them feel good, print out the topic post of this thread and send that too so they know that someone wants to DO SOMETHING.

 

 

Yes, we know you find her sacrifice to the 2nd amendment to be honorable, even though she no longer has the ability to exercise the 2nd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just so that we don't lose focus on the compelling reasons why we need to ban ordinary .22's and make gun owners responsible for the actions of thieves.

 

 

 

Mary Louise Amzibel had her second amendment rights taken away at the airport. Her husband still has his, but was violence-incidented in the face.

 

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fort-lauderdale-hollywood-airport-shooting/sfl-fifth-victim-of-airport-massacre-identified-20170111-story.html

 

Those who feel so moved may want to print out this tribute and mail it to the family.

 

If you really want to make them feel good, print out the topic post of this thread and send that too so they know that someone wants to DO SOMETHING.

 

 

Yes, we know you find her sacrifice to the 2nd amendment to be honorable, even though she no longer has the ability to exercise the 2nd.

 

 

You flatter me, but obviously it's Sol who wants to comfort the families with thoughts of 2nd amendment rights and faces being violent incidented off. Give credit where due.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Just so that we don't lose focus on the compelling reasons why we need to ban ordinary .22's and make gun owners responsible for the actions of thieves.

 

 

 

Mary Louise Amzibel had her second amendment rights taken away at the airport. Her husband still has his, but was violence-incidented in the face.

 

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fort-lauderdale-hollywood-airport-shooting/sfl-fifth-victim-of-airport-massacre-identified-20170111-story.html

 

Those who feel so moved may want to print out this tribute and mail it to the family.

 

If you really want to make them feel good, print out the topic post of this thread and send that too so they know that someone wants to DO SOMETHING.

 

 

Yes, we know you find her sacrifice to the 2nd amendment to be honorable, even though she no longer has the ability to exercise the 2nd.

 

 

You flatter me, but obviously it's Sol who wants to comfort the families with thoughts of 2nd amendment rights and faces being violent incidented off. Give credit where due.

 

 

If only she had unpacked her gun from her bag first. Then she could have self-defended. I mean, it is in Florida after all. I know there are many blaming her for her poor choices in not being armed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Just so that we don't lose focus on the compelling reasons why we need to ban ordinary .22's and make gun owners responsible for the actions of thieves.

 

 

 

Mary Louise Amzibel had her second amendment rights taken away at the airport. Her husband still has his, but was violence-incidented in the face.

 

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fort-lauderdale-hollywood-airport-shooting/sfl-fifth-victim-of-airport-massacre-identified-20170111-story.html

 

Those who feel so moved may want to print out this tribute and mail it to the family.

 

If you really want to make them feel good, print out the topic post of this thread and send that too so they know that someone wants to DO SOMETHING.

 

 

Yes, we know you find her sacrifice to the 2nd amendment to be honorable, even though she no longer has the ability to exercise the 2nd.

 

 

You flatter me, but obviously it's Sol who wants to comfort the families with thoughts of 2nd amendment rights and faces being violent incidented off. Give credit where due.

 

 

If only she had unpacked her gun from her bag first. Then she could have self-defended. I mean, it is in Florida after all. I know there are many blaming her for her poor choices in not being armed.

 

 

The list of warm, loving thoughts to print up and send to the families just continues to grow.

 

Oddly, it never seems to come from someone willing to sign his real name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most gun laws are useless. Most of them are simply designed to be a political move to make the other oblivious scared people feel warm and fuzzy. My state bans many things for arbitrary (looks scary reasons). I can have a short stock on a rifle or a long stock but not an adjustable stock so my rifle cant be used comfortably by multiple shooters? Mind you this is a rifle in which the upper can be separated from the lower making it very easy to put in a smaller container so the hiding it argument is out the window. AR-15s just got banned... But there are other commercially available rifles that did not. They accept the same caliber and magazines but wood stock so not scary looking. Also i can purchase a semi-auto rifle that with the proper ammo can punch through 1" of steel, Wood stock (also no scary looking).

 

The biggest issues are mental illness and our CJR system.

 

No law makers want to look like they hate mental illness people or treat them unfairly. Look at a large amount of mass shooters, past mental health issues still got a gun. That's what we need to eliminate not certain scary looking firearms. Take MA for instance if i had a documented suicide attempt or make some disturbing threats all i need to do is have my DR. Sign a nice little slip and i can get my LTC back. Why because its the PC thing to do. Unfortunately as we know people with past mental health issues can be more prone to future ones.

 

We also have another "make the people with no clue feel good" law. If you are caught carrying a firearm without a permit its a mandatory minimum 1 year in jail. Real life you might get 1 year on your 2nd or 3rd offence. Most people even those with drugs on them during their arrest never serve any time unless the PD requests a dangerousness hearing and then you might get held while your case is processed. The court pleads this "Carrying" to "possessing" and sends the shithead on their merry way. There are a few murder cases that come to mind where the shooter should have still been in jail under his last firearms mandatory sentencing. But its easy for a lawmaker to stand up and say "look how tough i am on gun violence" and pass a "Mandatory" sentencing law, but its hard to actually do it. Easy to ban guns, hard to enforce it against the criminals.

 

I have been involved in a shooting at work where a friend of mine was shot with an AR-15. Im not against them, i can tell you hes not against them. The world is a shitty place and always will be, but its ludicrous to take weapons away from the 99.9% of law abiding good people. We all know the bad people wont actually be stopped no matter what the law says. They ship tons of Heroin into the US every day, the criminal element will always find firearms or a different method to act out violence, simple supply and demand.

 

Drinking water to EPA standard is estimated to kill more people per 100k than firearms. Vinyl chloride on its own is something like an estimated 14 deaths per 100k at "Clean standards" and that is only one of how many carcinogens monitored for? The FDA allows Gatorade to use flame-retardant for flavoring and we are not worried. Why are we not worried about that? Are miscarriages, brain cancers and terminal illness not scary enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most gun laws are useless. Most of them are simply designed to be a political move to make the other oblivious scared people feel warm and fuzzy. My state bans many things for arbitrary (looks scary reasons). I can have a short stock on a rifle or a long stock but not an adjustable stock so my rifle cant be used comfortably by multiple shooters? Mind you this is a rifle in which the upper can be separated from the lower making it very easy to put in a smaller container so the hiding it argument is out the window. AR-15s just got banned... But there are other commercially available rifles that did not. They accept the same caliber and magazines but wood stock so not scary looking. Also i can purchase a semi-auto rifle that with the proper ammo can punch through 1" of steel, Wood stock (also no scary looking).

 

The biggest issues are mental illness and our CJR system.

 

No law makers want to look like they hate mental illness people or treat them unfairly. Look at a large amount of mass shooters, past mental health issues still got a gun. That's what we need to eliminate not certain scary looking firearms. Take MA for instance if i had a documented suicide attempt or make some disturbing threats all i need to do is have my DR. Sign a nice little slip and i can get my LTC back. Why because its the PC thing to do. Unfortunately as we know people with past mental health issues can be more prone to future ones.

 

We also have another "make the people with no clue feel good" law. If you are caught carrying a firearm without a permit its a mandatory minimum 1 year in jail. Real life you might get 1 year on your 2nd or 3rd offence. Most people even those with drugs on them during their arrest never serve any time unless the PD requests a dangerousness hearing and then you might get held while your case is processed. The court pleads this "Carrying" to "possessing" and sends the shithead on their merry way. There are a few murder cases that come to mind where the shooter should have still been in jail under his last firearms mandatory sentencing. But its easy for a lawmaker to stand up and say "look how tough i am on gun violence" and pass a "Mandatory" sentencing law, but its hard to actually do it. Easy to ban guns, hard to enforce it against the criminals.

 

I have been involved in a shooting at work where a friend of mine was shot with an AR-15. Im not against them, i can tell you hes not against them. The world is a shitty place and always will be, but its ludicrous to take weapons away from the 99.9% of law abiding good people. We all know the bad people wont actually be stopped no matter what the law says. They ship tons of Heroin into the US every day, the criminal element will always find firearms or a different method to act out violence, simple supply and demand.

 

Drinking water to EPA standard is estimated to kill more people per 100k than firearms. Vinyl chloride on its own is something like an estimated 14 deaths per 100k at "Clean standards" and that is only one of how many carcinogens monitored for? The FDA allows Gatorade to use flame-retardant for flavoring and we are not worried. Why are we not worried about that? Are miscarriages, brain cancers and terminal illness not scary enough?

 

 

Guns are being taken away from the "99.9% of law abiding good people"

 

At most, a few law abiding good people will find that a specific gun or a specific accessory is not available.

 

So, to mix a metaphor, don't be the Chicken who cries Wolf. like Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you prefer if i said taking away options?

 

For instance in MA they have a 10 rnd magazine capacity limit and external safety requirements (i can explain to you Safe-action no saftey and holster safety for you if you have questions). Why 10? its makes you feel good, but your criminal wont care so he will get whatever he wants anyway even if it comes from libera in a shipping container loaded with human trafficking victims. So i have a pistol that could carry 15... A normal citizen cant have 5 extra shots in his gun? From experience i can tell you that when your adrenaline get jacked up you get block hands. Then you need to shoot chances are you wont have presence of mind to click that safety off. Safety will get you killed. if the distance is greater than 25 yards even in calm bench shooting most people struggle to hit a large target, when your lungs forget to breathe those 5 extra are not a laughing matter.

 

So what i can and cannot purchase/posses are determined by people who have no idea about the basics of firearms? To put that in perspective we will have a birdwatcher tell you what sail inventory you can have by eyeballing it without experience. Self-tailing winches? Banned because they allow a single person to sheet in the jib to easy. Radar looks scary spinning and may cause cancer. inflatable life jackets? Not safe enough.

 

Then you need to think about the mindset of people who want to ban something and hope the inevitable bad thing never happens to them rather than think about what they could do if that thing did happen. Why would i carry a gun, statistically im not likely to encounter an active shooter or terrorist in a box truck? Why would i wear a life jacket, statistically im not likely to fall overboard or get hit in the head with a spin pole?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you prefer if i said taking away options?

 

For instance in MA they have a 10 rnd magazine capacity limit and external safety requirements (i can explain to you Safe-action no saftey and holster safety for you if you have questions). Why 10? its makes you feel good, but your criminal wont care so he will get whatever he wants anyway even if it comes from libera in a shipping container loaded with human trafficking victims. So i have a pistol that could carry 15... A normal citizen cant have 5 extra shots in his gun? From experience i can tell you that when your adrenaline get jacked up you get block hands. Then you need to shoot chances are you wont have presence of mind to click that safety off. Safety will get you killed. if the distance is greater than 25 yards even in calm bench shooting most people struggle to hit a large target, when your lungs forget to breathe those 5 extra are not a laughing matter.

 

So what i can and cannot purchase/posses are determined by people who have no idea about the basics of firearms? To put that in perspective we will have a birdwatcher tell you what sail inventory you can have by eyeballing it without experience. Self-tailing winches? Banned because they allow a single person to sheet in the jib to easy. Radar looks scary spinning and may cause cancer. inflatable life jackets? Not safe enough.

 

Then you need to think about the mindset of people who want to ban something and hope the inevitable bad thing never happens to them rather than think about what they could do if that thing did happen. Why would i carry a gun, statistically im not likely to encounter an active shooter or terrorist in a box truck? Why would i wear a life jacket, statistically im not likely to fall overboard or get hit in the head with a spin pole?

Damn Taco, you just go with your bad self.

 

You are going to love Jocal!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully he has a good alternative in mind that the world can adopt.

Jumping over large cars in a single bound if I recall correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hopefully he has a good alternative in mind that the world can adopt.

Jumping over large cars in a single bound if I recall correctly.

 

He must do crossfit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...

 

At most, a few law abiding good people will find that a specific gun or a specific accessory is not available.

 

...

 

 

I doubt that will happen in this state but the proposal in the topic post goes far beyond a specific gun and proposes to ban two specific .22 rifles that we own.

 

I don't get it. The DO SOMETHING crowd has SOMETHING specific to talk about and won't talk about it.

 

Is banning .22's reasonable to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully he has a good alternative in mind that the world can adopt.

Negative.

 

However his passion runs deep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you prefer if i said taking away options?

 

For instance in MA they have a 10 rnd magazine capacity limit and external safety requirements (i can explain to you Safe-action no saftey and holster safety for you if you have questions). Why 10? its makes you feel good, but your criminal wont care so he will get whatever he wants anyway even if it comes from libera in a shipping container loaded with human trafficking victims. So i have a pistol that could carry 15... A normal citizen cant have 5 extra shots in his gun? From experience i can tell you that when your adrenaline get jacked up you get block hands. Then you need to shoot chances are you wont have presence of mind to click that safety off. Safety will get you killed. if the distance is greater than 25 yards even in calm bench shooting most people struggle to hit a large target, when your lungs forget to breathe those 5 extra are not a laughing matter.

 

So what i can and cannot purchase/posses are determined by people who have no idea about the basics of firearms? To put that in perspective we will have a birdwatcher tell you what sail inventory you can have by eyeballing it without experience. Self-tailing winches? Banned because they allow a single person to sheet in the jib to easy. Radar looks scary spinning and may cause cancer. inflatable life jackets? Not safe enough.

 

Then you need to think about the mindset of people who want to ban something and hope the inevitable bad thing never happens to them rather than think about what they could do if that thing did happen. Why would i carry a gun, statistically im not likely to encounter an active shooter or terrorist in a box truck? Why would i wear a life jacket, statistically im not likely to fall overboard or get hit in the head with a spin pole?

I'm sorry I don't share your faux outrage. I know that I could go to the gun store today, pass a background check and have enough lethality at hand in about 10 days to take on a hoard of the walking dead or a classroom, or a theater, or a gay bar....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

...

 

At most, a few law abiding good people will find that a specific gun or a specific accessory is not available.

 

...

 

I doubt that will happen in this state but the proposal in the topic post goes far beyond a specific gun and proposes to ban two specific .22 rifles that we own.

 

I don't get it. The DO SOMETHING crowd has SOMETHING specific to talk about and won't talk about it.

 

Is banning .22's reasonable to you?

You just keep on winding yourself up. You're good at it. Not good for your blood pressure though. Better watch that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the ad hominem cycle from Jeffie.

I used pics of gun tragedy victims to bash AW's? Are you sure? Where's your cite?

 

 

 

I speak up for non-violent approaches to conflicts. I speak against violent reactions to violence. I speak for leaving guns out of the picture as planned conflict resolution tools. I speak for the higher road and against vigilante mindsets.

 

My approach ^^^ is not very sociopathic, actually. On the other hand, shooting a shirtless tirechucker does seem sociopathic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm sorry I don't share your faux outrage. I know that I could go to the gun store today, pass a background check and have enough lethality at hand in about 10 days to take on a hoard of the walking dead or a classroom, or a theater, or a gay bar....

 

 

Could you buy a Ruger 10-22 squirrel assault rifle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Would you prefer if i said taking away options?

 

For instance in MA they have a 10 rnd magazine capacity limit and external safety requirements (i can explain to you Safe-action no saftey and holster safety for you if you have questions). Why 10? its makes you feel good, but your criminal wont care so he will get whatever he wants anyway even if it comes from libera in a shipping container loaded with human trafficking victims. So i have a pistol that could carry 15... A normal citizen cant have 5 extra shots in his gun? From experience i can tell you that when your adrenaline get jacked up you get block hands. Then you need to shoot chances are you wont have presence of mind to click that safety off. Safety will get you killed. if the distance is greater than 25 yards even in calm bench shooting most people struggle to hit a large target, when your lungs forget to breathe those 5 extra are not a laughing matter.

 

So what i can and cannot purchase/posses are determined by people who have no idea about the basics of firearms? To put that in perspective we will have a birdwatcher tell you what sail inventory you can have by eyeballing it without experience. Self-tailing winches? Banned because they allow a single person to sheet in the jib to easy. Radar looks scary spinning and may cause cancer. inflatable life jackets? Not safe enough.

 

Then you need to think about the mindset of people who want to ban something and hope the inevitable bad thing never happens to them rather than think about what they could do if that thing did happen. Why would i carry a gun, statistically im not likely to encounter an active shooter or terrorist in a box truck? Why would i wear a life jacket, statistically im not likely to fall overboard or get hit in the head with a spin pole?

Damn Taco, you just go with your bad self.

 

You are going to love Jocal!

 

 

Sounds like uninformed yammering Greever Man.

Like the cheap seaters on the TTAG forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm sorry I don't share your faux outrage. I know that I could go to the gun store today, pass a background check and have enough lethality at hand in about 10 days to take on a hoard of the walking dead or a classroom, or a theater, or a gay bar....

 

Could you buy a Ruger 10-22 squirrel assault rifle?

Why would I want to? I've no desire to kill squirrels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hopefully he has a good alternative in mind that the world can adopt.

Jumping over large cars in a single bound if I recall correctly.

 

 

Sports cars, mostly. Picture clearing the hood of an XKE. It felt grand.

I was clearing picnic benches, so why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm sorry I don't share your faux outrage. I know that I could go to the gun store today, pass a background check and have enough lethality at hand in about 10 days to take on a hoard of the walking dead or a classroom, or a theater, or a gay bar....

 

Could you buy a Ruger 10-22 squirrel assault rifle?

Why would I want to? I've no desire to kill squirrels.

 

 

I don't know why. You're the one talking about what you could buy. I have no idea why you might buy it.

 

They're OK against theater-goers and homosexuals as well, if those are your targets.

 

You might want a 30 round magazine or two. Can you buy those?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Would you prefer if i said taking away options?

 

For instance in MA they have a 10 rnd magazine capacity limit and external safety requirements (i can explain to you Safe-action no saftey and holster safety for you if you have questions). Why 10? its makes you feel good, but your criminal wont care so he will get whatever he wants anyway even if it comes from libera in a shipping container loaded with human trafficking victims. So i have a pistol that could carry 15... A normal citizen cant have 5 extra shots in his gun? From experience i can tell you that when your adrenaline get jacked up you get block hands. Then you need to shoot chances are you wont have presence of mind to click that safety off. Safety will get you killed. if the distance is greater than 25 yards even in calm bench shooting most people struggle to hit a large target, when your lungs forget to breathe those 5 extra are not a laughing matter.

 

So what i can and cannot purchase/posses are determined by people who have no idea about the basics of firearms? To put that in perspective we will have a birdwatcher tell you what sail inventory you can have by eyeballing it without experience. Self-tailing winches? Banned because they allow a single person to sheet in the jib to easy. Radar looks scary spinning and may cause cancer. inflatable life jackets? Not safe enough.

 

Then you need to think about the mindset of people who want to ban something and hope the inevitable bad thing never happens to them rather than think about what they could do if that thing did happen. Why would i carry a gun, statistically im not likely to encounter an active shooter or terrorist in a box truck? Why would i wear a life jacket, statistically im not likely to fall overboard or get hit in the head with a spin pole?

I'm sorry I don't share your faux outrage. I know that I could go to the gun store today, pass a background check and have enough lethality at hand in about 10 days to take on a hoard of the walking dead or a classroom, or a theater, or a gay bar....

 

Would you prefer if i said taking away options?

 

For instance in MA they have a 10 rnd magazine capacity limit and external safety requirements (i can explain to you Safe-action no saftey and holster safety for you if you have questions). Why 10? its makes you feel good, but your criminal wont care so he will get whatever he wants anyway even if it comes from libera in a shipping container loaded with human trafficking victims. So i have a pistol that could carry 15... A normal citizen cant have 5 extra shots in his gun? From experience i can tell you that when your adrenaline get jacked up you get block hands. Then you need to shoot chances are you wont have presence of mind to click that safety off. Safety will get you killed. if the distance is greater than 25 yards even in calm bench shooting most people struggle to hit a large target, when your lungs forget to breathe those 5 extra are not a laughing matter.

 

So what i can and cannot purchase/posses are determined by people who have no idea about the basics of firearms? To put that in perspective we will have a birdwatcher tell you what sail inventory you can have by eyeballing it without experience. Self-tailing winches? Banned because they allow a single person to sheet in the jib to easy. Radar looks scary spinning and may cause cancer. inflatable life jackets? Not safe enough.

 

Then you need to think about the mindset of people who want to ban something and hope the inevitable bad thing never happens to them rather than think about what they could do if that thing did happen. Why would i carry a gun, statistically im not likely to encounter an active shooter or terrorist in a box truck? Why would i wear a life jacket, statistically im not likely to fall overboard or get hit in the head with a spin pole?

I'm sorry I don't share your faux outrage. I know that I could go to the gun store today, pass a background check and have enough lethality at hand in about 10 days to take on a hoard of the walking dead or a classroom, or a theater, or a gay bar....

Really you also need to wait 6 months prior to get the LTC first. But either way...

 

So? I can sit outside a gas station and wait for an oblivious asshole to run inside with their car running in the next 5mins. I can run over how many people? I can walk into Olympia sports buy a 15gallon Gatorade jug and hand out paper cups of rat poison at a marathon. I can get 10 gallons of bleach and ammonia and dump them in the subway aum shinrikyo style. I, you, my dog can sit here all day and think of far worse and more effect ways to be an asshole..

 

To answer your question with a question, What are you going to do when I happen to be sitting in that church, gay bar, theater, or classroom when you walk in?

 

You cannot eliminate the .01% of assholes on this planet. Dreams are nice but reality bites. Would you give up your boat because deranged assholes started running over children at the beach? You do understand that corporations from sea to shining sea are knowingly killing more employees, neighbors and consumers to save $$$$ than guns ever could? From discharging xxxx Chem into your wells (wells G an H come to mind) or zonolite. Nothing but people are evil. If we ban procreation it would solve the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I'm sorry I don't share your faux outrage. I know that I could go to the gun store today, pass a background check and have enough lethality at hand in about 10 days to take on a hoard of the walking dead or a classroom, or a theater, or a gay bar....

 

Could you buy a Ruger 10-22 squirrel assault rifle?

Why would I want to? I've no desire to kill squirrels.

I don't know why. You're the one talking about what you could buy. I have no idea why you might buy it.

 

They're OK against theater-goers and homosexuals as well, if those are your targets.

 

You might want a 30 round magazine or two. Can you buy those?

When I hunted, Mn had a 3 shell limit in shotguns and I have a 4 round bolt action rifle.

 

Didn't need 30 round capacity then, wouldn't need it now, as I don't buy into the zombie apocalypse crap. Like you do, as Eva Dent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Would you prefer if i said taking away options?

 

For instance in MA they have a 10 rnd magazine capacity limit and external safety requirements (i can explain to you Safe-action no saftey and holster safety for you if you have questions). Why 10? its makes you feel good, but your criminal wont care so he will get whatever he wants anyway even if it comes from libera in a shipping container loaded with human trafficking victims. So i have a pistol that could carry 15... A normal citizen cant have 5 extra shots in his gun? From experience i can tell you that when your adrenaline get jacked up you get block hands. Then you need to shoot chances are you wont have presence of mind to click that safety off. Safety will get you killed. if the distance is greater than 25 yards even in calm bench shooting most people struggle to hit a large target, when your lungs forget to breathe those 5 extra are not a laughing matter.

 

So what i can and cannot purchase/posses are determined by people who have no idea about the basics of firearms? To put that in perspective we will have a birdwatcher tell you what sail inventory you can have by eyeballing it without experience. Self-tailing winches? Banned because they allow a single person to sheet in the jib to easy. Radar looks scary spinning and may cause cancer. inflatable life jackets? Not safe enough.

 

Then you need to think about the mindset of people who want to ban something and hope the inevitable bad thing never happens to them rather than think about what they could do if that thing did happen. Why would i carry a gun, statistically im not likely to encounter an active shooter or terrorist in a box truck? Why would i wear a life jacket, statistically im not likely to fall overboard or get hit in the head with a spin pole?

I'm sorry I don't share your faux outrage. I know that I could go to the gun store today, pass a background check and have enough lethality at hand in about 10 days to take on a hoard of the walking dead or a classroom, or a theater, or a gay bar....

 

Would you prefer if i said taking away options?

 

For instance in MA they have a 10 rnd magazine capacity limit and external safety requirements (i can explain to you Safe-action no saftey and holster safety for you if you have questions). Why 10? its makes you feel good, but your criminal wont care so he will get whatever he wants anyway even if it comes from libera in a shipping container loaded with human trafficking victims. So i have a pistol that could carry 15... A normal citizen cant have 5 extra shots in his gun? From experience i can tell you that when your adrenaline get jacked up you get block hands. Then you need to shoot chances are you wont have presence of mind to click that safety off. Safety will get you killed. if the distance is greater than 25 yards even in calm bench shooting most people struggle to hit a large target, when your lungs forget to breathe those 5 extra are not a laughing matter.

 

So what i can and cannot purchase/posses are determined by people who have no idea about the basics of firearms? To put that in perspective we will have a birdwatcher tell you what sail inventory you can have by eyeballing it without experience. Self-tailing winches? Banned because they allow a single person to sheet in the jib to easy. Radar looks scary spinning and may cause cancer. inflatable life jackets? Not safe enough.

 

Then you need to think about the mindset of people who want to ban something and hope the inevitable bad thing never happens to them rather than think about what they could do if that thing did happen. Why would i carry a gun, statistically im not likely to encounter an active shooter or terrorist in a box truck? Why would i wear a life jacket, statistically im not likely to fall overboard or get hit in the head with a spin pole?

I'm sorry I don't share your faux outrage. I know that I could go to the gun store today, pass a background check and have enough lethality at hand in about 10 days to take on a hoard of the walking dead or a classroom, or a theater, or a gay bar....
Really you also need to wait 6 months prior to get the LTC first. But either way...

 

So? I can sit outside a gas station and wait for an oblivious asshole to run inside with their car running in the next 5mins. I can run over how many people? I can walk into Olympia sports buy a 15gallon Gatorade jug and hand out paper cups of rat poison at a marathon. I can get 10 gallons of bleach and ammonia and dump them in the subway aum shinrikyo style. I, you, my dog can sit here all day and think of far worse and more effect ways to be an asshole..

 

To answer your question with a question, What are you going to do when I happen to be sitting in that church, gay bar, theater, or classroom when you walk in?

 

You cannot eliminate the .01% of assholes on this planet. Dreams are nice but reality bites. Would you give up your boat because deranged assholes started running over children at the beach? You do understand that corporations from sea to shining sea are knowingly killing more employees, neighbors and consumers to save $$$$ than guns ever could? From discharging xxxx Chem into your wells (wells G an H come to mind) or zonolite. Nothing but people are evil. If we ban procreation it would solve the problem.

Fortunately I'm better at math than you are. I know for a fact that a gun in my house is 3x more dangerous than the bad guy at the 7-11, for me and my kids. It's a risk I live with. I hope some kid doesn't find your poorly secured weapon and end someone's life.

 

And californias waiting period is 10 days, not 6 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry I don't share your faux outrage. I know that I could go to the gun store today, pass a background check and have enough lethality at hand in about 10 days to take on a hoard of the walking dead or a classroom, or a theater, or a gay bar....

 

Could you buy a Ruger 10-22 squirrel assault rifle?

Why would I want to? I've no desire to kill squirrels.

I don't know why. You're the one talking about what you could buy. I have no idea why you might buy it.

 

They're OK against theater-goers and homosexuals as well, if those are your targets.

 

You might want a 30 round magazine or two. Can you buy those?

When I hunted, Mn had a 3 shell limit in shotguns and I have a 4 round bolt action rifle.

 

Didn't need 30 round capacity then, wouldn't need it now, as I don't buy into the zombie apocalypse crap. Like you do, as Eva Dent.

 

 

You brought up zombies. I'm ovewwun with squiwwels and wascawy wabbits.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Would you prefer if i said taking away options?

 

For instance in MA they have a 10 rnd magazine capacity limit and external safety requirements (i can explain to you Safe-action no saftey and holster safety for you if you have questions). Why 10? its makes you feel good, but your criminal wont care so he will get whatever he wants anyway even if it comes from libera in a shipping container loaded with human trafficking victims. So i have a pistol that could carry 15... A normal citizen cant have 5 extra shots in his gun? From experience i can tell you that when your adrenaline get jacked up you get block hands. Then you need to shoot chances are you wont have presence of mind to click that safety off. Safety will get you killed. if the distance is greater than 25 yards even in calm bench shooting most people struggle to hit a large target, when your lungs forget to breathe those 5 extra are not a laughing matter.

 

So what i can and cannot purchase/posses are determined by people who have no idea about the basics of firearms? To put that in perspective we will have a birdwatcher tell you what sail inventory you can have by eyeballing it without experience. Self-tailing winches? Banned because they allow a single person to sheet in the jib to easy. Radar looks scary spinning and may cause cancer. inflatable life jackets? Not safe enough.

 

Then you need to think about the mindset of people who want to ban something and hope the inevitable bad thing never happens to them rather than think about what they could do if that thing did happen. Why would i carry a gun, statistically im not likely to encounter an active shooter or terrorist in a box truck? Why would i wear a life jacket, statistically im not likely to fall overboard or get hit in the head with a spin pole?

 

Damn Taco, you just go with your bad self.

You are going to love Jocal!

Sounds like uninformed yammering Greever Man.

Like the cheap seaters on the TTAG forums.

Cheap seats? Actually they are free!

 

Look on the bright side, you now have a new victim to torture...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fortunately I'm better at math than you are. I know for a fact that a gun in my house is 3x more dangerous than the bad guy at the 7-11, for me and my kids. ...

 

 

I know for a fact that gungrabby researchers only examine incidents in the home. If you go to the Defensive Gun Use thread, you can see the problem with this approach, and why it's a solution to them.

 

I also know for a fact that Mitch recklessly leaves his home while claiming to rely on this research for his safety. Makes no sense. If you're going to rely on it, stay home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry I don't share your faux outrage. I know that I could go to the gun store today, pass a background check and have enough lethality at hand in about 10 days to take on a hoard of the walking dead or a classroom, or a theater, or a gay bar....

 

Could you buy a Ruger 10-22 squirrel assault rifle?

Why would I want to? I've no desire to kill squirrels.

I don't know why. You're the one talking about what you could buy. I have no idea why you might buy it.

 

They're OK against theater-goers and homosexuals as well, if those are your targets.

 

You might want a 30 round magazine or two. Can you buy those?

When I hunted, Mn had a 3 shell limit in shotguns and I have a 4 round bolt action rifle.

 

Didn't need 30 round capacity then, wouldn't need it now, as I don't buy into the zombie apocalypse crap. Like you do, as Eva Dent.

 

 

Except for killing razor back pigs with a 22LR, what the fuck is the need for high capacity weapons?

 

Oh, forgot, killing cowering people in rooms they cannot run from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, when I read the term 'Gungrabbers' I hear it in a 'Deliverance' voice.

 

1972-Deliverance-01.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Except for killing razor back pigs with a 22LR, what the fuck is the need for high capacity weapons?

 

Oh, forgot, killing cowering people in rooms they cannot run from.

 

 

In the context of the proposed legislation that is the topic of this thread, "high capacity" means more than seven rounds.

 

So let's drop the pretense that "high capacity" means 30 rounds. It means 8.

 

That means that we could not buy my wife's squirrel assault weapon, which comes with a ten round magazine.

 

So why do we need a ten round magazine? So we can own a gun with such a YUUUUGE capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just stopped by to see what was bunching up Tom's panties today.

The .22 caliber panic is the problem du jour.

And Pooplius needs 8 bullets or more, his hands shake when the burglars come.

The burglars are life-threateners all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you prefer if i said taking away options?

 

For instance in MA they have a 10 rnd magazine capacity limit and external safety requirements (i can explain to you Safe-action no saftey and holster safety for you if you have questions). Why 10? its makes you feel good, but your criminal wont care so he will get whatever he wants anyway even if it comes from libera in a shipping container loaded with human trafficking victims. So i have a pistol that could carry 15... A normal citizen cant have 5 extra shots in his gun? From experience i can tell you that when your adrenaline get jacked up you get block hands. Then you need to shoot chances are you wont have presence of mind to click that safety off. Safety will get you killed. if the distance is greater than 25 yards even in calm bench shooting most people struggle to hit a large target, when your lungs forget to breathe those 5 extra are not a laughing matter.

 

So what i can and cannot purchase/posses are determined by people who have no idea about the basics of firearms? To put that in perspective we will have a birdwatcher tell you what sail inventory you can have by eyeballing it without experience. Self-tailing winches? Banned because they allow a single person to sheet in the jib to easy. Radar looks scary spinning and may cause cancer. inflatable life jackets? Not safe enough.

 

Then you need to think about the mindset of people who want to ban something and hope the inevitable bad thing never happens to them rather than think about what they could do if that thing did happen. Why would i carry a gun, statistically im not likely to encounter an active shooter or terrorist in a box truck? Why would i wear a life jacket, statistically im not likely to fall overboard or get hit in the head with a spin pole?

I'm sorry I don't share your faux outrage. I know that I could go to the gun store today, pass a background check and have enough lethality at hand in about 10 days to take on a hoard of the walking dead or a classroom, or a theater, or a gay bar....

 

 

Would you prefer if i said taking away options?

 

For instance in MA they have a 10 rnd magazine capacity limit and external safety requirements (i can explain to you Safe-action no saftey and holster safety for you if you have questions). Why 10? its makes you feel good, but your criminal wont care so he will get whatever he wants anyway even if it comes from libera in a shipping container loaded with human trafficking victims. So i have a pistol that could carry 15... A normal citizen cant have 5 extra shots in his gun? From experience i can tell you that when your adrenaline get jacked up you get block hands. Then you need to shoot chances are you wont have presence of mind to click that safety off. Safety will get you killed. if the distance is greater than 25 yards even in calm bench shooting most people struggle to hit a large target, when your lungs forget to breathe those 5 extra are not a laughing matter.

 

So what i can and cannot purchase/posses are determined by people who have no idea about the basics of firearms? To put that in perspective we will have a birdwatcher tell you what sail inventory you can have by eyeballing it without experience. Self-tailing winches? Banned because they allow a single person to sheet in the jib to easy. Radar looks scary spinning and may cause cancer. inflatable life jackets? Not safe enough.

 

Then you need to think about the mindset of people who want to ban something and hope the inevitable bad thing never happens to them rather than think about what they could do if that thing did happen. Why would i carry a gun, statistically im not likely to encounter an active shooter or terrorist in a box truck? Why would i wear a life jacket, statistically im not likely to fall overboard or get hit in the head with a spin pole?

I'm sorry I don't share your faux outrage. I know that I could go to the gun store today, pass a background check and have enough lethality at hand in about 10 days to take on a hoard of the walking dead or a classroom, or a theater, or a gay bar....
Really you also need to wait 6 months prior to get the LTC first. But either way...

So? I can sit outside a gas station and wait for an oblivious asshole to run inside with their car running in the next 5mins. I can run over how many people? I can walk into Olympia sports buy a 15gallon Gatorade jug and hand out paper cups of rat poison at a marathon. I can get 10 gallons of bleach and ammonia and dump them in the subway aum shinrikyo style. I, you, my dog can sit here all day and think of far worse and more effect ways to be an asshole..

To answer your question with a question, What are you going to do when I happen to be sitting in that church, gay bar, theater, or classroom when you walk in?

You cannot eliminate the .01% of assholes on this planet. Dreams are nice but reality bites. Would you give up your boat because deranged assholes started running over children at the beach? You do understand that corporations from sea to shining sea are knowingly killing more employees, neighbors and consumers to save $$$$ than guns ever could? From discharging xxxx Chem into your wells (wells G an H come to mind) or zonolite. Nothing but people are evil. If we ban procreation it would solve the problem.

Fortunately I'm better at math than you are. I know for a fact that a gun in my house is 3x more dangerous than the bad guy at the 7-11, for me and my kids. It's a risk I live with. I hope some kid doesn't find your poorly secured weapon and end someone's life.

And californias waiting period is 10 days, not 6 months.

In most places you need a firearms permit and it's takes time. I guess you guys just do a check every single time.

 

Do you have a road in front of your house? Do you take your children swimming? What sort of heat do you have, is it maintained? Where are your medications stored? Cleaning supplies? All probably more likely to kill your children than guns.You live in Cali? How close to a fault zone are you, will that tidal wave hit your home? As a responsible adult I'm willing to bet you may have some way of keeping those hazardous substances secure? Or did you ban cars on your street? Will you let your children drive/ride in a car with a friend?

 

Out of the endless list of thing in your house/life that can kill your children what do they have in common? Negligence. If you leave a gun out, negligent. If you leave your kid in the tub to answer your phone, negligent. If you have one to many beers at the yacht club and drive your family home, negligent. When you take you son suffering from psychotic behavior shooting as a pastime, negligence. A ban is a 4th graders responce to a complicated problem. But It may make you feel good to arbitrarily get rid of things your perceive as scary. You wish to see laws with no teeth passed for the perception of safety. Maybe we can make negligence unlawful?

 

 

If your math is correct that you don't need to worry about the chance encounter with a life ending threat, why do you want to ban guns? You must be just a safe not owning one? But here you are arguing to ban guns or accessories, so you are indeed worried about being a victim.

 

But seriously I do commend your for being Honest enough with yourself to understand you would be incapable of managing to secure a firearm therefore boycotting them. However myself I am not a careless person. I wear my seatbelt, I take my dogs to the vet, I go to the doctor, I keep my safe in a locked closet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Would you prefer if i said taking away options?

 

For instance in MA they have a 10 rnd magazine capacity limit and external safety requirements (i can explain to you Safe-action no saftey and holster safety for you if you have questions). Why 10? its makes you feel good, but your criminal wont care so he will get whatever he wants anyway even if it comes from libera in a shipping container loaded with human trafficking victims. So i have a pistol that could carry 15... A normal citizen cant have 5 extra shots in his gun? From experience i can tell you that when your adrenaline get jacked up you get block hands. Then you need to shoot chances are you wont have presence of mind to click that safety off. Safety will get you killed. if the distance is greater than 25 yards even in calm bench shooting most people struggle to hit a large target, when your lungs forget to breathe those 5 extra are not a laughing matter.

 

So what i can and cannot purchase/posses are determined by people who have no idea about the basics of firearms? To put that in perspective we will have a birdwatcher tell you what sail inventory you can have by eyeballing it without experience. Self-tailing winches? Banned because they allow a single person to sheet in the jib to easy. Radar looks scary spinning and may cause cancer. inflatable life jackets? Not safe enough.

 

Then you need to think about the mindset of people who want to ban something and hope the inevitable bad thing never happens to them rather than think about what they could do if that thing did happen. Why would i carry a gun, statistically im not likely to encounter an active shooter or terrorist in a box truck? Why would i wear a life jacket, statistically im not likely to fall overboard or get hit in the head with a spin pole?

Damn Taco, you just go with your bad self.

You are going to love Jocal!

Sounds like uninformed yammering Greever Man.

Like the cheap seaters on the TTAG forums.

Cheap seats? Actually they are free!

 

Look on the bright side, you now have a new victim to torture...

 

 

Did you get him from central casting? In he an NGS wannabe?

Cape_taco 12 seems short on sources, depth, and information.

Does he bring lost writings actually discussing individual rights?

Can HE quote the founding fathers proposing petty insurrections?

 

I welcome Cape_tace 12 to our forums and wish him the best here,

 

While I suggest that he is unaware that his shepherd is a weird Libertarian named Larry Pratt.

Be like Larry. Go for it.

 

12-2012 GOA by Huffpo, A Series

Gun Owners Of America Steals Newtown Gun Debate Spotlight While NRA Hides

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/gun-owners-of-america-newtown-gun-debate-_n_2318951.html>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fortunately I'm better at math than you are. I know for a fact that a gun in my house is 3x more dangerous than the bad guy at the 7-11, for me and my kids. ...

 

I know for a fact that gungrabby researchers only examine incidents in the home. If you go to the Defensive Gun Use thread, you can see the problem with this approach, and why it's a solution to them.

 

I also know for a fact that Mitch recklessly leaves his home while claiming to rely on this research for his safety. Makes no sense. If you're going to rely on it, stay home.

No, you recklessly endanger your family by having guns around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least we both know that we won't be able to change each other's opinions here. 👍

 

You haven't provided any data to warrant my deference either.

 

The issues that will actually make our world safer are the hard ones to correct. Cultural, mental, social, etc. (Letting your child who suffers from psychotic episodes have access to firearms to make him happy) Opiod related deaths are more common than firearms related ones. Heroin deaths outnumber gun deaths in the US. The ban isn't helping much. The only thing that is going to help is a change in culture and establishing some personal responsibility. The world is going directly the opposite way again if you haven't noticed, and it's likely to get worse and closer to home.

 

My life experience has taught me that you can't really know what to expect. I have seen the result of careless, stupid and evil people time and time again. Maybe your perspective would change if you have seen people with traumatic injuries as a result of being a victim of a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least we both know that we won't be able to change each other's opinions here.

 

You haven't provided any data to warrant my deference either.

 

The issues that will actually make our world safer are the hard ones to correct. Cultural, mental, social, etc. (Letting your child who suffers from psychotic episodes have access to firearms to make him happy) Opiod related deaths are more common than firearms related ones. Heroin deaths outnumber gun deaths in the US. The ban isn't helping much. The only thing that is going to help is a change in culture and establishing some personal responsibility. The world is going directly the opposite way again if you haven't noticed, and it's likely to get worse and closer to home.

 

My life experience has taught me that you can't really know what to expect. I have seen the result of careless, stupid and evil people time and time again. Maybe your perspective would change if you have seen people with traumatic injuries as a result of being a victim of a crime.

 

 

So don't be a crime victim.

 

Live in a safe hood

frequent safe hoods

 

your odds of random acts of violence are highly location dependent.

 

You can lower your risk much more by being aware than by having a gun lying around the house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you wanted cites. They've been shared over and over.

 

Here's a nice consolidated list. cites are embedded in the text. Knock yourself out. I can already tell you live in a fact-free world and aren't about to change your mind.

 

 

 

Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.

Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
43 percent of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.

Fact-check: In 2014, according to FBI data, nearly eight times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1 percent of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at these claims found that more than half involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A study in Philadelphia found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh, that damn Philly study again. It is complete BS and I showed why several times. I won't bother again, since it seems nobody really cares whether things are true anymore, just whether they support their views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh, that damn Philly study again. It is complete BS and I showed why several times. I won't bother again, since it seems nobody really cares whether things are true anymore, just whether they support their views.

 

 

10 other cites there LenP

 

Do you seriously think that my family would be "safer" if I had a gun locked up inside the house?

 

Think through it for a minute.

 

If it's truly secure, then it can't be used in self defense. As we know from Dabber's experience, he carries a sidearm at all times in the house. Sleeping, in the shitter, showering, whatever. It has to be available NOW if needed. So - I wouldn't do that. hell, i'd probably have an accidental shot when rolling over in bed.

 

So - it's not available for self-defense. And we know if it's not secure, it's a very high risk of accident/emotional use.

 

So - assuming it's all locked up nice and tight, how does it make anyone safer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ugh, that damn Philly study again. It is complete BS and I showed why several times. I won't bother again, since it seems nobody really cares whether things are true anymore, just whether they support their views.

 

 

10 other cites there LenP

 

Do you seriously think that my family would be "safer" if I had a gun locked up inside the house?

 

Think through it for a minute.

 

If it's truly secure, then it can't be used in self defense. As we know from Dabber's experience, he carries a sidearm at all times in the house. Sleeping, in the shitter, showering, whatever. It has to be available NOW if needed. So - I wouldn't do that. hell, i'd probably have an accidental shot when rolling over in bed.

 

So - it's not available for self-defense. And we know if it's not secure, it's a very high risk of accident/emotional use.

 

So - assuming it's all locked up nice and tight, how does it make anyone safer?

 

 

The risks you listed include self-murder, so I should probably take this reply to that thread. The American suicide rate is unexceptional despite our guns.

 

Do you think that being aware of your surroundings and having a gun are mutually exclusive? They're not.

 

Go ahead and act like quick-access safes haven't been mentioned before. You can probably act like you could still buy a gun with a bullet button, as if those were as good as guns available in free states, and make it seem like you're as free as we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ugh, that damn Philly study again. It is complete BS and I showed why several times. I won't bother again, since it seems nobody really cares whether things are true anymore, just whether they support their views.

 

 

10 other cites there LenP

 

Do you seriously think that my family would be "safer" if I had a gun locked up inside the house?

 

Think through it for a minute.

 

If it's truly secure, then it can't be used in self defense. As we know from Dabber's experience, he carries a sidearm at all times in the house. Sleeping, in the shitter, showering, whatever. It has to be available NOW if needed. So - I wouldn't do that. hell, i'd probably have an accidental shot when rolling over in bed.

 

So - it's not available for self-defense. And we know if it's not secure, it's a very high risk of accident/emotional use.

 

So - assuming it's all locked up nice and tight, how does it make anyone safer?

 

 

The risks you listed include self-murder, so I should probably take this reply to that thread. The American suicide rate is unexceptional despite our guns.

 

Do you think that being aware of your surroundings and having a gun are mutually exclusive? They're not.

 

Go ahead and act like quick-access safes haven't been mentioned before. You can probably act like you could still buy a gun with a bullet button, as if those were as good as guns available in free states, and make it seem like you're as free as we are.

 

 

 

Nope, Dabs has proven safes aren't quick enough. You gotta be packing, and aware. Those bad (usually black) guys are quick.

 

Hell, to be REALLY safe, you and the misses need to take watches through the night. We found 2 3on/3off at night, with 1 6on/6off during the day worked pretty well on the Transpac.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Safe and quick enough for me.

 

Speaking of which, you're a big safe storage fan.

 

If we have a law detailing safe storage requirements and people comply with that law, should they be held responsible if their tools get stolen anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Safe and quick enough for me.

 

Speaking of which, you're a big safe storage fan.

 

If we have a law detailing safe storage requirements and people comply with that law, should they be held responsible if their tools get stolen anyway?

Not if they report it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Safe and quick enough for me.

 

Speaking of which, you're a big safe storage fan.

 

If we have a law detailing safe storage requirements and people comply with that law, should they be held responsible if their tools get stolen anyway?

Not if they report it

 

 

At last we've found common ground.

 

Now, about the grabbers who want to eliminate that exemption from our safe storage law so that a compliant owner would be held responsible for a theft anyway... can we agree that they are being unreasonable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Safe and quick enough for me.

 

Speaking of which, you're a big safe storage fan.

 

If we have a law detailing safe storage requirements and people comply with that law, should they be held responsible if their tools get stolen anyway?

Not if they report it

 

 

At last we've found common ground.

 

Now, about the grabbers who want to eliminate that exemption from our safe storage law so that a compliant owner would be held responsible for a theft anyway... can we agree that they are being unreasonable?

 

 

I know of no grabbers like that. Must be a peculiar Florida problem. have fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know of lots of them.

 

My experience is that most grabbers are like this.

 

And most will ignore this behavior in other grabbers because it seems normal. Which might explain why you missed this reply.

 

 

 

 

 

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

This is Tom, his name is Tom.

 

He has a few jet skis and a lives in the Florida swamp. Tom entertains international guests by breaking out the beer and his armoury, at the same fucking time!

 

Smarten the fuck up Tom!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez, I politely answer your question about why we need the magazine that comes with the gun to be legal and I get lies?

This is Tom, his name is Tom.

He has a few jet skis and a lives in the Florida swamp. Tom entertains international guests by breaking out the beer and his armoury, at the same fucking time!

Smarten the fuck up Tom!


This is some lying cunt, allegedly from Australia, who won't tell those lies under his real name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

At least we both know that we won't be able to change each other's opinions here.

 

You haven't provided any data to warrant my deference either.

 

The issues that will actually make our world safer are the hard ones to correct. Cultural, mental, social, etc. (Letting your child who suffers from psychotic episodes have access to firearms to make him happy) Opiod related deaths are more common than firearms related ones. Heroin deaths outnumber gun deaths in the US. The ban isn't helping much. The only thing that is going to help is a change in culture and establishing some personal responsibility. The world is going directly the opposite way again if you haven't noticed, and it's likely to get worse and closer to home.

 

My life experience has taught me that you can't really know what to expect. I have seen the result of careless, stupid and evil people time and time again. Maybe your perspective would change if you have seen people with traumatic injuries as a result of being a victim of a crime.

 

So don't be a crime victim.

 

Live in a safe hood

frequent safe hoods

 

your odds of random acts of violence are highly location dependent.

 

You can lower your risk much more by being aware than by having a gun lying around the house.

So I should avoid churches, malls, holiday celebrations on main st? what about a company holiday party? I live in a very nice town, I hang out in nice places my house is .5 miles from my mooring. I'm not living in Mosul.

 

What is the probability of a nutcase traveling across county to harm someone he was obsessed with? What is the probability of him setting up IEDs all over the nice neighborhood, and shooting from random people's front porches? Probably lower than running into a mall slasher, but iv been there. My girlfriends family including her 9 year old niece were standing near the finish line of the 2013 Boston marathon.

 

But your right odds are in your favor, if you play it safe. You can try to mitigate risk in your life, but you can not eliminate it. Your arguing that you are perfectly safe by living in a nice place and guns are unnecessary? So why do you care if bubba is plinking critters in the swamp? Won't effect you why bother.

 

What do you eat? What do your kids eat? How many people a year die from food related illnesses? Are you afraid of the tuna in your fish market. Remember that tail-pipe tuna is illegal in china but perfectly acceptable here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites