Sign in to follow this  
Contumacious Tom

Florida Gun Ban Proposed

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, mikewof said:
14 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

 So the best way to avoid bans on (assault weapons, ordinary .22's) would be for those of us who oppose them to shut up and let them happen without comment, huh?

Sounds like a genius plan. Weird that so many grabberz here want me to shut up when I'm being so darn helpful.

No, the best way to avoid the gun control freight train that is coming your way is to acknowledge that many of the "gun grabberz" are gun owners who have had a belly full of the obstructionism you promote.


There are lots of people here who claim they actually oppose bans on (assault weapons, our .22's) but they mostly tell me to shut up when I object to them.

We have lots of Floridians here on the forum but supporters of this legislation are darn hard to find in this thread.

I don't care. I'm not JBSF and don't give a shit what the cool kids here think of me or whether they're tired of hearing about how fucking stupid TeamD gun bans are. They'll hear it from me until they quit being stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Publix Doesn't Want My Business
 

Quote

 

Moments before the protest began, Publix released a statement apologizing for putting its employees and customers "in the middle of a political debate" and announcing a suspension of corporate political donations as it reevaluates its donation process.

"At Publix, we respect the students and members of the community who have chosen to express their voices on these issues. We regret that our contributions have led to a divide in our community," the statement read.

 

Yeah, their contributions, not the TeamD effort to ban and confiscate (assault weapons, our .22's), are responsible for the divide. If only people like me would bend over and be quiet, the fucking could proceed without any divisions at all in our community.

If only...

Winn Dixie deli isn't as good but is a whole lot closer. Also, being not as good, it's not as crowded, so you're less likely to have three different employees walk into the back of the store without so much as looking at me standing at the Deli counter. That happened the other day and I told the manager about it on my way out. He said, "What kind of sandwich did you want, sir?"

I held up the bag of sandwich makings I had just purchased and said, "This kind, to go. Bye."

Too bad that was my last Publix experience. They've been a good store for a long time.

 

Share this post


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

Publix Doesn't Want My Business
 

Yeah, their contributions, not the TeamD effort to ban and confiscate (assault weapons, our .22's), are responsible for the divide. If only people like me would bend over and be quiet, the fucking could proceed without any divisions at all in our community.

If only...

Winn Dixie deli isn't as good but is a whole lot closer. Also, being not as good, it's not as crowded, so you're less likely to have three different employees walk into the back of the store without so much as looking at me standing at the Deli counter. That happened the other day and I told the manager about it on my way out. He said, "What kind of sandwich did you want, sir?"

I held up the bag of sandwich makings I had just purchased and said, "This kind, to go. Bye."

Too bad that was my last Publix experience. They've been a good store for a long time.

They're the best grocery in the country, your loss.

And you've cut off your nose to spite your face, but you probably don't know why yet, so I'll explain it to you ...

Publix is employee-owned. They're the largest employee-owned company in the USA. The political decisions that the company makes are representative of the past and present workers of the company, nobody else is allowed to own Publix stock. 

Rather than recognize the impending perception shift that is obviously brewing from regular people in their attitudes on guns, you've chosen to block that reality out of your head, and lose your chance to discuss it with the owners of that company, the baggers, cashiers and deli managers of Publix. They're the owners of the company, they can change the company's political policy.

Yes, Publix.screws up. But unlike Winn Dixie or some of the others, every employee owner has the ability and latitude to make you a happy customer. Your complaint with their political policies and their worker attitudes that left you with a bag of sandwich parts can be changed at the employee-level.

If you switch to a small, mom-and-pop grocery though, that could be even better than Publix, and they do still exist.

Share this post


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

... they're tired of hearing about how fucking stupid TeamD gun bans are. They'll hear it from me until they quit being stupid.

You've managed to convince yourself that you alone knows truth, and anyone who doesn't know your truth knows only lies. Good luck with that, it doesn't tend to end well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, mikewof said:
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

... they're tired of hearing about how fucking stupid TeamD gun bans are. They'll hear it from me until they quit being stupid.

You've managed to convince yourself that you alone knows truth, and anyone who doesn't know your truth knows only lies. Good luck with that, it doesn't tend to end well.

No I think at least one other person here on the forum gets it.

On 5/18/2018 at 9:42 AM, Lying Malarky said:

My opinion is obviously irrelevant but calling .22's 'assault weapons' is pretty stupid.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

No I think at least one other person here on the forum gets it.

I'm not sure that you really get it though.

The term "assault weapon" means nothing to me since it seems to be used out of convenience, the way a 20-cent automotive pencil becomes a $5 marine pencil and then becomes a $15 aviation pencil.

0.22 guns kill a lot of people, why not call the long 0.22 guns "assault rifles" and the shorter 0.22 guns "assault handguns" and call medical errors that kill some 250,000 people every year "assault medicine" and call drunk or texting drivers behind the wheel "assault drivers"?

You don't like the label because you seem to see the writing on the wall that certain guns are going to increasingly become regulated and you prefer the net be cast as narrowly as possible. Too bad, Normy. It doesn't matter how many people guns kill, the reality is that the new generation wants significantly increased scrutiny to them. You think that it's not accurate to call certain guns "assault" and others not, but the whole idea of even being selective with these definitions with guns is silly. Take yer medicine Normy, you helped build this "selective truth" nonsense.

The gun community and industry has blocked common sense from every turn for so long, that the chickens are now how to roost, and you guys have to deal with the nonsensical fallout from the nonsense bomb that you exploded high up in the profit atmosphere.

You want to know why the automotive and medical industries don't have to deal with this bullshit Normy? Because they insisted that their policies and their communications and direction be made by people qualified for the jobs. The gun industry preferred that down-home "gosh durn it, I'm a 'Murican" emotionalism define policy itself, and now you -- an intelligent gun consumer -- has to deal with that? Don't blame everyone else Normy, blame yourself for not keeping a lid on the stupidity in your own community. The fact that you're quoting some guy who goes by the moniker "Lying Malarky" should perhaps ring some little bell over that weathered piece of plywood that what I'm writing here has some merit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mikewof said:

You want to know why the automotive and medical industries don't have to deal with this bullshit Normy?

Probably because nobody wants to talk about the 35+K who die each year in MV crashes. Just call it an "accident" and all the carnage becomes acceptable.

Also, when somebody decides to drive a MV through a crowd, the only blame falls on the driver, not the maker of the vehicle, or the place that sold/rented the vehicle to that driver.

But guns? Somehow that doesn't apply. It is almost like the "unbiased" "news reporters" have an agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

Probably because nobody wants to talk about the 35+K who die each year in MV crashes. Just call it an "accident" and all the carnage becomes acceptable.

Also, when somebody decides to drive a MV through a crowd, the only blame falls on the driver, not the maker of the vehicle, or the place that sold/rented the vehicle to that driver.

But guns? Somehow that doesn't apply. It is almost like the "unbiased" "news reporters" have an agenda.

The car makers and medical device makers continuously work to improve the user-safety of their products, and it shows in the death statistics of their products. But the gun makers have no financial incentive to make a safer product. Rather their financial incentive is to make a deadlier product. 

When though the DGU stat apparently has no connection with DoJ stats, the industry does very well selling highly lethal products to buyers who have only the most remote chance of ever using them in an actual defensive way. If the lightning rod manufacturers sold personal lightning rods built to be strapped to the user's back all day, we would laugh. But the gun industry does it and we applaud them as uniquely American.

Share this post


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

The car makers and medical device makers continuously work to improve the user-safety of their products, and it shows in the death statistics of their products. But the gun makers have no financial incentive to make a safer product. Rather their financial incentive is to make a deadlier product. 

When though the DGU stat apparently has no connection with DoJ stats, the industry does very well selling highly lethal products to buyers who have only the most remote chance of ever using them in an actual defensive way. If the lightning rod manufacturers sold personal lightning rods built to be strapped to the user's back all day, we would laugh. But the gun industry does it and we applaud them as uniquely American.

Mike, what is inherently unsafe about a gun?  My carry gun like most of the guns that cops carry does not have a safety but a stiff trigger.  It is not going off accidentally.  Driving and any medical procedure have inherent risks.  How many shooting incidents are due to a design or manufacturing flaw?  People get shot because someone pulled a trigger.  I'm sure more kids are dying due to opioid abuse and how's that war going?  I have zero idea what point you are trying to make.   

How do you make a gun safer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Mike, what is inherently unsafe about a gun?  My carry gun like most of the guns that cops carry does not have a safety but a stiff trigger.  It is not going off accidentally.  Driving and any medical procedure have inherent risks.  How many shooting incidents are due to a design or manufacturing flaw?  People get shot because someone pulled a trigger.  I'm sure more kids are dying due to opioid abuse and how's that war going?  I have zero idea what point you are trying to make.   

How do you make a gun safer?

It's similar to medical instruments, that you're usually not making the instrument/gun itself safer, but that the manufacturers work with the industry to make the process around that instrument safer.

It seems that you're suggesting that the gun industry itself should be disconnected from the culture around their products, and that's a mistake because the culture IS their customers, in the same way that the users of medical instruments are the same people who can make their use safer.

A very simple example is the Red Flag Law proposals, one of which was just stalled in my own state and aimed to prevent emotionally ill people from having access to their guns. Some friendly PA gun guys looked at that proposal and said "yeah, but the problems with it are this, and that." Okay, then maybe those are real problems, but the bigger problem was that the laws had to be built in a vacuum without the active cooperation of the gun manufacturers and the gun communities. Yeah, the law failed because they didn't like it, even though they supported it in theory. Well, where the fuck were they in the beginning when the bill could have been written rationally, with broad support?

It doesn't take any particular talent to read a law and say "yeah, this isn't going to work because of X, Y, and Z." It takes work and talent to say "let's find a way to get guns away from emotionally ill people and do it in a way that doesn't remove rights from others."

Your question above, not the one in bold, but the one about "shooting incidents are due to a design or manufacturing flaw?" is what I'm describing here. Why look for loopholes of how you can't make this work? Why not work to find a way to decrease shootings across the board, from crimes, to law enforcement to eager-beaver homeowners who blast their children after sneaking in through a window or six years olds who accidentally shoot themselves?

This is what I'm describing ... the new generation just doesn't give a rat's ass about these fucking word games anymore. They're intelligent enough to know that the gun community should be working to fix these problems in a way that doesn't blame everyone else, and they have the organizational capacity to change these laws soon enough. If you don't find a way to work with them, they'll find a way to work without you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mikewof said:

It's similar to medical instruments, that you're usually not making the instrument/gun itself safer, but that the manufacturers work with the industry to make the process around that instrument safer.

It seems that you're suggesting that the gun industry itself should be disconnected from the culture around their products, and that's a mistake because the culture IS their customers, in the same way that the users of medical instruments are the same people who can make their use safer.

A very simple example is the Red Flag Law proposals, one of which was just stalled in my own state and aimed to prevent emotionally ill people from having access to their guns. Some friendly PA gun guys looked at that proposal and said "yeah, but the problems with it are this, and that." Okay, then maybe those are real problems, but the bigger problem was that the laws had to be built in a vacuum without the active cooperation of the gun manufacturers and the gun communities. Yeah, the law failed because they didn't like it, even though they supported it in theory. Well, where the fuck were they in the beginning when the bill could have been written rationally, with broad support?

It doesn't take any particular talent to read a law and say "yeah, this isn't going to work because of X, Y, and Z." It takes work and talent to say "let's find a way to get guns away from emotionally ill people and do it in a way that doesn't remove rights from others."

Your question above, not the one in bold, but the one about "shooting incidents are due to a design or manufacturing flaw?" is what I'm describing here. Why look for loopholes of how you can't make this work? Why not work to find a way to decrease shootings across the board, from crimes, to law enforcement to eager-beaver homeowners who blast their children after sneaking in through a window or six years olds who accidentally shoot themselves?

This is what I'm describing ... the new generation just doesn't give a rat's ass about these fucking word games anymore. They're intelligent enough to know that the gun community should be working to fix these problems in a way that doesn't blame everyone else, and they have the organizational capacity to change these laws soon enough. If you don't find a way to work with them, they'll find a way to work without you.

Mike, I'm not picking a fight and appreciate your thoughtful response.  

Do car companies sell cars to people that couldn't qualify for a gun?  What kind of background checks does a dealer do before I drive the new car off the lot?  I can kill a lot more people with my car than my gun.  I hope you can feel my frustration but I don't see an easy solution to any crazy person wanting to kill people.  Bombs, cars, guns, etc., it's hard to predict/prevent.  Cheers.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Mike, I'm not picking a fight and appreciate your thoughtful response.  

Do car companies sell cars to people that couldn't qualify for a gun?  What kind of background checks does a dealer do before I drive the new car off the lot?  I can kill a lot more people with my car than my gun.  I hope you can feel my frustration but I don't see an easy solution to any crazy person wanting to kill people.  Bombs, cars, guns, etc., it's hard to predict/prevent.  Cheers.  

The car industry is jammed with those kind of checks. My elderly relative lost his license when his eyesight wasn't good enough, my teenage daughters had to take extensive training, mandatory 1 years learner's permit, mandatory behind-the-wheel instruction, online tests, a verified log book and behind the wheel tests before they could drive. On the other hand, I bought a 7.62 x 54 rifle with nothing more than a credit card, a few days wait and my signature.

You could drive that new car off the lot without a license, because the dealer won't check, assuming you pay cash. But that's also because unlicensed drivers of new cars hasn't been a significant problem. Good luck renting a car without an active license, where unsafe drivers HAS been a problem.

And yes, let's not worry about a "crazy person wanting to kill people" yet ... instead let's go after the low-hanging fruit; things like children accidentally shooting themselves, domestic squabbles that break out the firearms, law enforcement shooing innocents, criminals that get hold of black market weapons.

What you've written above is equivalent to the nuclear power plant operator saying "there is no rational way that we can protect this nuclear power plant from a meteor strike, so let's not protect it from operator error either."

Share this post


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

The car industry is jammed with those kind of checks. My elderly relative lost his license when his eyesight wasn't good enough, my teenage daughters had to take extensive training, mandatory 1 years learner's permit, mandatory behind-the-wheel instruction, online tests, a verified log book and behind the wheel tests before they could drive. On the other hand, I bought a 7.62 x 54 rifle with nothing more than a credit card, a few days wait and my signature.

You could drive that new car off the lot without a license, because the dealer won't check, assuming you pay cash. But that's also because unlicensed drivers of new cars hasn't been a significant problem. Good luck renting a car without an active license, where unsafe drivers HAS been a problem.

And yes, let's not worry about a "crazy person wanting to kill people" yet ... instead let's go after the low-hanging fruit; things like children accidentally shooting themselves, domestic squabbles that break out the firearms, law enforcement shooing innocents, criminals that get hold of black market weapons.

What you've written above is equivalent to the nuclear power plant operator saying "there is no rational way that we can protect this nuclear power plant from a meteor strike, so let's not protect it from operator error either."

Ok, I resent your last two paragraphs.  You're very confused.  A domestic abuse convicted person  can buy a car and there's no check for that.  Can he buy a gun in my state, no.  A DUI offender assuming he has a license can buy a car, can he buy a gun, no.  Children shooting themselves or other children is on the owner of the gun.  Am I for mandatory and very strict penalties for gun owners who do not properly secure their weapons, FUCK YES!!  If you need it when you sleep/live, wear a holster and don't put it under the mattress or pillow.  Domestic abuse disqualifies you from buying a gun in my state, sorry if yours is in the dark ages.  Again, tell me how you propose to solve even the low-hanging fruit issues.  You impress me as someone who screams at the rain but isn't smart enough to put on a jacket.  Have a great holiday

I really wish you were as smart as you think you are and not so long-winded.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Ok, I resent your last two paragraphs.  You're very confused.  A domestic abuse convicted person  can buy a car and there's no check for that.  Can he buy a gun in my state, no.  A DUI offender assuming he has a license can buy a car, can he buy a gun, no.  Children shooting themselves or other children is on the owner of the gun.  Am I for mandatory and very strict penalties for gun owners who do not properly secure their weapons, FUCK YES!!  If you need it when you sleep/live, wear a holster and don't put it under the mattress or pillow.  Domestic abuse disqualifies you from buying a gun in my state, sorry if yours is in the dark ages.  Again, tell me how you propose to solve even the low-hanging fruit issues.  You impress me as someone who screams at the rain but isn't smart enough to put on a jacket.  Have a great holiday

I really wish you were as smart as you think you are and not so long-winded.

You wrote that you're not looking for a fight, but it reads that you're looking for a fight. I already gave you an example of the low-hanging fruit, the gun community could have been involved and proactive in my state's Red Flag Law proposal instead of just shooting it down in twelfth hour.

A domestic abuser can buy a car probably because there is scant evidence that keeping that person from driving is going to do f-all to keep him or her from abusing domestically, or from escalating his abuse. But a DUI offender is prevented from driving until his debt is paid, because there is a connection there. And yes, children "shooting themselves is on the owner of the gun" and that's exactly what I'm describing. Your community is so eager to shift blame that it often less-than-willing to address its community problems.

People wandering out of their lane and and causing an accident is "on the driver" but the industry addressed the problem anyway. Your approach above reminds me why my high school coach made the whole team run laps when anyone on the team didn't accept responsibility for a fuck-up, even if it actually had nothing at all to do with them, and the coach knew it. It's a team, not a collection of individuals. That gun owner that allows his child to shoot another child hurts all of you, it isn't just "on the owner" as you write.

And to your last graf, I've been shooting guns and for over forty years. I've probably given at least as much thought to this as you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mikewof said:

You wrote that you're not looking for a fight, but it reads that you're looking for a fight. I already gave you an example of the low-hanging fruit, the gun community could have been involved and proactive in my state's Red Flag Law proposal instead of just shooting it down in twelfth hour.

A domestic abuser can buy a car probably because there is scant evidence that keeping that person from driving is going to do f-all to keep him or her from abusing domestically, or from escalating his abuse. But a DUI offender is prevented from driving until his debt is paid, because there is a connection there. And yes, children "shooting themselves is on the owner of the gun" and that's exactly what I'm describing. Your community is so eager to shift blame that it often less-than-willing to address its community problems.

People wandering out of their lane and and causing an accident is "on the driver" but the industry addressed the problem anyway. Your approach above reminds me why my high school coach made the whole team run laps when anyone on the team didn't accept responsibility for a fuck-up, even if it actually had nothing at all to do with them, and the coach knew it. It's a team, not a collection of individuals. That gun owner that allows his child to shoot another child hurts all of you, it isn't just "on the owner" as you write.

And to your last graf, I've been shooting guns and for over forty years. I've probably given at least as much thought to this as you have.

And nowhere in all that text have you proposed a solution.  You're a joke.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

And nowhere in all that text have you proposed a solution.  You're a joke.  

I proposed a solution, you didn't read apparently.

As I wrote, (third time) my state's Red Flag Law was killed this year. That would have passed had the gun community been proactive about writing a Red Flag bill that they supported. How can you read what I wrote and not see a solution there?

Share this post


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

I proposed a solution, you didn't read apparently.

As I wrote, (third time) my state's Red Flag Law was killed. That could have passed had the gun community been proactive about writing a Red Flag bill that they supported. How can you read what I wrote and not see a solution there?

And what state and how the hell am I supposed to know what that is?  I likely would agree with it.  I am not a gun nut and would turn mine in if I thought it would make a difference, it won't. 

Share this post


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

The car industry is jammed with those kind of checks. My elderly relative lost his license when his eyesight wasn't good enough, my teenage daughters had to take extensive training, mandatory 1 years learner's permit, mandatory behind-the-wheel instruction, online tests, a verified log book and behind the wheel tests before they could drive.

That is nice, but none of that is required to 1) own a car or 2) drive a car on private property. It certainly doesn't stop the car from being stolen and then misused.

23 minutes ago, mikewof said:

That would have passed had the gun community been proactive about writing a Red Flag bill that they supported.

Well, if the anti-gun cheerleaders in your state are anything like they are in NJ, then they ignored anyone trying to make the bill acceptable.

 

Share this post


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

You don't like the label because you seem to see the writing on the wall that certain guns are going to increasingly become regulated and you prefer the net be cast as narrowly as possible.

I don't like the BS of calling my .22 a weapon of war when everyone knows it's not.

I'm amused by the TeamD taboo that keeps people from speaking the truth and keeps them reminding me that my .22 can kill.

An honest approach would be for TeamD to simply say they want to ban semiautomatic weapons. If that's not true and my .22 is somehow a special semiauto that deserves banning, I'd like to know why and I'd like to know which semiauto might be acceptable if mine is not. It seems to me to be just about the most innocuous semi-auto that anyone can own.

13 hours ago, mikewof said:

Don't blame everyone else Normy, blame yourself for not keeping a lid on the stupidity in your own community. The fact that you're quoting some guy who goes by the moniker "Lying Malarky" should perhaps ring some little bell over that weathered piece of plywood that what I'm writing here has some merit.

I blame TeamD to not keeping a lid on the stupidity of calling my .22 a weapon of war.

I don't put much stock in screen names and don't know who I was quoting. Another anonymous stranger gets kind of annoyed when I quote my agreement with him, but here goes anyway:

On 2/15/2018 at 12:06 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 2/15/2018 at 12:03 PM, d'ranger said:

Dear Clueless Tom - I don't know any reasonable person advocating banning anything 22lr.  That you use it makes you just as big a disingenuous fucktard as Jack.  


If you read the topic post, you might learn of a few legislators proposing to ban various .22's.

 

On 2/15/2018 at 12:23 PM, d'ranger said:

I would oppose restrictions on 22lr fwiw.


I agree with TeamD Ranger, even if he no longer agrees with me on that issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:
18 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:
18 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

Flooding the streets with guns is the only way to make us safe.

Who here is suggesting to flood the streets with gunz to make us safe????

All you people that are doing the bidding of the NRA instead of protecting our kids.


How would banning and confiscating my .22 protect our kids?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for starters we wouldn't have to listen to your continued bleating about it .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mid said:

for starters we wouldn't have to listen to your continued bleating about it .

You may be able to find some threads with other topics this morning...

But you'll probably continue to avoid them.

Share this post


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

You may be able to find some threads with other topics this morning...

But you'll probably continue to avoid them.

Pretty difficult, seeing has you decided to take a shit in a load of them this morning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mad said:

Pretty difficult, seeing has you decided to take a shit in a load of them this morning. 

I have offered links to a dozen or so non-gun threads to those who complain that I talk about nothing else.

I thought it would be funny to make them wade through a bunch of them to find a thread in which to launch their usual false complaint.

Don't worry. Those threads are all about things other than guns and will soon sink off the front page again.

Share this post


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

I have offered links to a dozen or so non-gun threads to those who complain that I talk about nothing else.

I thought it would be funny to make them wade through a bunch of them to find a thread in which to launch their usual false complaint.

Don't worry. Those threads are all about things other than guns and will soon sink off the front page again.

And managed to plaster them with references your to your never ending .22 campaign!

its like watching a petulant child let loose with a computer. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, mad said:

And managed to plaster them with references your to your never ending .22 campaign!

its like watching a petulant child let loose with a computer. 

Yeah that's really going to disrupt the flow of conversation among forum participants in the Kelo v New London thread or the asset forfeiture thread, to name a couple of examples.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2018 at 4:10 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

They'll hear it from me until they quit being stupid.

Tom will punish the stupid, about assault weapons, our ,22's, until they get smart.

 2 hours ago, mad said:

its like watching a petulant child let loose with a computer. 

Tom needs some new moves, he;s in a rut which suits him. He needs new reading material, IMO.

Share this post


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

Tom will punish the stupid, about assault weapons, our ,22's, until they get smart.

 2 hours ago, mad said:

its like watching a petulant child let loose with a computer. 

Tom needs some new moves, he;s in a rut which suits him. He needs new reading material, IMO.

Thanks for the constructive criticism, Joe.

Nice to hear from someone who can discuss a variety of subjects instead of just guns, isn't it, mad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

And what state and how the hell am I supposed to know what that is?  I likely would agree with it.  I am not a gun nut and would turn mine in if I thought it would make a difference, it won't. 

It wouldn't make a difference if you turned in your gun, it would make a difference if -- with your knowledge of your community -- you supported things like a Red Flag Law. It's unlikely that your state has one. The change I'm suggesting is one that comes from the gun community, not from the we-don't-want-to-get-shot community. I'm no longer part of your community, regardless my guns and my abilities. I lost that when this whole mess became political and I took the wrong/right side of the issue.

Share this post


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

It wouldn't make a difference if you turned in your gun, it would make a difference if -- with your knowledge of your community -- you supported things like a Red Flag Law. It's unlikely that your state has one. The change I'm suggesting is one that comes from the gun community, not from the we-don't-want-to-get-shot community. I'm no longer part of your community, regardless my guns and my abilities. I lost that when this whole mess became political and I took the wrong/right side of the issue.

I thought you were "neutral" on the main TeamD gun control goal of banning (assault weapons, ordinary .22's).

Which side are you on?

Share this post


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

I don't like the BS of calling my .22 a weapon of war when everyone knows it's not.

I'm amused by the TeamD taboo that keeps people from speaking the truth and keeps them reminding me that my .22 can kill.

An honest approach would be for TeamD to simply say they want to ban semiautomatic weapons. If that's not true and my .22 is somehow a special semiauto that deserves banning, I'd like to know why and I'd like to know which semiauto might be acceptable if mine is not. It seems to me to be just about the most innocuous semi-auto that anyone can own.

I blame TeamD to not keeping a lid on the stupidity of calling my .22 a weapon of war.

First off, I've no problem with your gun discussions, they're often interesting. It's just that you've become something of a one-note-sonata with this 0.22 thing. ("One-note-sonata", damn I'm a good writer occasionally.)

Second, please put the zero in front of the decimal. There is no reason why a love of small calibre weapons should have you violate effective math typography. The zero goes in front of the decimal for a specific reason. 

Third, the whole "TeamD" thing is new for you, you used to be somewhat more apolitical. I think that was one of your strengths.

Finally, a 0.22 is a highly lethal weapon. Mammas all over the planet are crying at this moment for their dead darling boys and girls who were killed by 0.22s. (I borrowed that line from Shane MacGowan.)

 

Share this post


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

Thanks for the constructive criticism, Joe.

Nice to hear from someone who can discuss a variety of subjects instead of just guns, isn't it, mad?

Let's discuss race relations, in depth. Let's discuss the hopeful, tranquil goals of the founding fathers. Let's discuss CATO's track record. 

Share this post


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

I thought you were "neutral" on the main TeamD gun control goal of banning (assault weapons, ordinary .22's).

Which side are you on?

You're rapidly de-neutralizing me. 

Assuming you aren't around to do that, here's my favored bans ... no legal concealed weapons except for special cases of law enforcement. No semi-auto handguns or rifles except for hunters who have a verified medical condition, and then there needs to be some kind few-second delay between shots. Open carry of long guns legal in all 50 states and territories. Ban on any concealable handgun.

There y'go, I'm right back where I was years ago, my views are mostly consistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, mikewof said:

First off, I've no problem with your gun discussions, they're often interesting. It's just that you've become something of a one-note-sonata with this 0.22 thing. ("One-note-sonata", damn I'm a good writer occasionally.)

Second, please put the zero in front of the decimal. There is no reason why a love of small calibre weapons should have you violate effective math typography. The zero goes in front of the decimal for a specific reason. 

Third, the whole "TeamD" thing is new for you, you used to be somewhat more apolitical. I think that was one of your strengths.

Finally, a 0.22 is a highly lethal weapon. Mammas all over the planet are crying at this moment for their dead darling boys and girls who were killed by 0.22s. (I borrowed that line from Shane MacGowan.)

 

Mike, you are entirely  correct that, all along, gun supporters needed to be a part of the solution. Since they made other choices, they now have credibility problems to overcome, plus the mayhem problem to overcome.

 

16 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

  I am not a gun nut and would turn mine in if I thought it would make a difference, it won't. 

How do you figure? Because ditching your gun is a basic. Were you going to store it beyond the ecology, or what?

Share this post


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

That is nice, but none of that is required to 1) own a car or 2) drive a car on private property. It certainly doesn't stop the car from being stolen and then misused.

Well, if the anti-gun cheerleaders in your state are anything like they are in NJ, then they ignored anyone trying to make the bill acceptable.

Given that probably less than 0.1% of traffic accidents occur from unlicensed drivers on private property, I think we're okay.

As for the "anti-gun cheerleaders", why did they need to champion the Red Flag Law alone? Why wasn't the gun community proactive in writing that bill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, mikewof said:

You're rapidly de-neutralizing me. 

Assuming you aren't around to do that, here's my favored bans ... no legal concealed weapons except for special cases of law enforcement. No semi-auto handguns or rifles except for hunters who have a verified medical condition, and then there needs to be some kind few-second delay between shots. Open carry of long guns legal in all 50 states and territories. Ban on any concealable handgun.

There y'go, I'm right back where I was years ago, my views are mostly consistent.

Sounds like you've been consistently on the grabber side with respect to the thread topic.

After all, I have no medical condition that requires me to use my .22, which hasn't ever been used for much hunting. So you're a consistent supporter of banning my assault weapon. And an assault weapon owner yourself. What's your medical condition again? Where do you hunt? And for what?

Your "few second delay" idea sounds a lot like a "smart" gun. Meaning: not all that smart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, mikewof said:

As for the "anti-gun cheerleaders", why did they need to champion the Red Flag Law alone? Why wasn't the gun community proactive in writing that bill?

Because in NJ, with (D) control of governor, house, and senate, if they want the bill they will pass it. The current goldman-sachs governor has said all along that he will sign any anti gun bill.

48 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Given that probably less than 0.1% of traffic accidents occur from unlicensed drivers on private property, I think we're okay.

That is your answer? After going on about how much training is required, you decide to attack my observation that way? Looks like the "training" isn't nearly enough.

For all the "improvements" in car safety, deaths are going up every year - millions of injuries - few hundred billion in costs - yet any talk about "doing something" (ie banning) is just met with a snort. I guess the car lobby is just that powerful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

Because in NJ, with (D) control of governor, house, and senate, if they want the bill they will pass it. The current goldman-sachs governor has said all along that he will sign any anti gun bill.

That is your answer? After going on about how much training is required, you decide to attack my observation that way? Looks like the "training" isn't nearly enough.

For all the "improvements" in car safety, deaths are going up every year - millions of injuries - few hundred billion in costs - yet any talk about "doing something" (ie banning) is just met with a snort. I guess the car lobby is just that powerful.

The auto safety increase has been measurably huge since the fifties. Something like thirty to fifty percent. So there's that.

And what's wrong with "doing something" in this situation?

Share this post


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

Because in NJ, with (D) control of governor, house, and senate, if they want the bill they will pass it. The current goldman-sachs governor has said all along that he will sign any anti gun bill.

That is your answer? After going on about how much training is required, you decide to attack my observation that way? Looks like the "training" isn't nearly enough.

For all the "improvements" in car safety, deaths are going up every year - millions of injuries - few hundred billion in costs - yet any talk about "doing something" (ie banning) is just met with a snort. I guess the car lobby is just that powerful.

Except that you made that up. The efforts of the industry and government have helped to cause vehicle fatalities drop most every year, even while total miles driven continues to increase every year.

USA_annual_VMT_vs_deaths_per_VMT.png

Your argument is awesome as long as it doesn't matter that it's based on a complete lie.

Share this post


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

The auto safety increase has been measurably huge since the fifties. Something like thirty to fifty percent. So there's that.

And what's wrong with "doing something" in this situation?

So the current losses are acceptable?

"Doing something" about cars? I'd be ok with it, I could actually ride my bike to work without the constant risk of death from these highly trained drivers Mike was talking about. Strangely enough, most of these drivers seem unaware of the rules concerning cyclists.

Share this post


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

Sounds like you've been consistently on the grabber side with respect to the thread topic.

After all, I have no medical condition that requires me to use my .22, which hasn't ever been used for much hunting. So you're a consistent supporter of banning my assault weapon. And an assault weapon owner yourself. What's your medical condition again? Where do you hunt? And for what?

Your "few second delay" idea sounds a lot like a "smart" gun. Meaning: not all that smart.

I don't use my assault weapon, it's useless for hunting bigger game. It was a gift from my dad. I might take it to the range at some point, but I'm not that into guns. I would willingly retrofit it if such a thing exists, or plug it up if the law demands. I have the bolt-action, it's all I need.

As to your guns, you're on your own. But don't expect the new generation you have a lot of interest in your hyperbole.

Share this post


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

Except that you made that up. The efforts of the industry and government have helped to cause vehicle fatalities drop most every year, even while total miles driven continues to increase every year.

USA_annual_VMT_vs_deaths_per_VMT.png

Your argument is awesome as long as it doesn't matter that it's based on a complete lie.

https://www.nsc.org/road-safety/safety-topics/fatality-estimates

We are not talking about deaths per mile, Mike. We are talking about the overall number, which has been over 40K the last couple years.

So who is lying? Am I supposed to feel better that we are going more miles between deaths?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bpm57 said:

So the current losses are acceptable?

"Doing something" about cars? I'd be ok with it, I could actually ride my bike to work without the constant risk of death from these highly trained drivers Mike was talking about. Strangely enough, most of these drivers seem unaware of the rules concerning cyclists.

The industry keeps working to lower traffic fatalities, regardless your fiction about them increasing. Lidar braking, lane departure warning, advanced ABS, advanced crumple zone, etc..

As for bikes, I ride. The change in my state has been enormous. Twenty years ago, I would have cars and buses graze me regularly. I was hit a couple times, one time I bounced off the guy's hood and he didn't stop.

Now the law requires a wide berth, at least three feet. The change was that the cyclists got political, and they forced a change. Many motorists hate having to slow down and leave the required space. Too bad, the law is the law.

Sound familiar?

Share this post


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

https://www.nsc.org/road-safety/safety-topics/fatality-estimates

We are not talking about deaths per mile, Mike. We are talking about the overall number, which has been over 40K the last couple years.

So who is lying? Am I supposed to feel better that we are going more miles between deaths?

Then that's just dumb, and you're being dishonest. That's like comparing traffic deaths in Tokyo to traffic deaths in Tuba City, Arizona.

Who is lying? You're lying. You can't rationally compare the efficacy of industry initiatives on a basis that isn't per capita. And if you actually believe what you've written then go get into a traffic accident in a 1972 Ford Pinto, you'll obviously be perfectly safe based on your crap statistics, right?

Hell, I can play the same stupid game as you if you like ... London has more total firearms than Marble Falls, Texas, therefore Britain must have less-strict gun laws than Texas, right? 

Share this post


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

The industry keeps working to lower traffic fatalities, regardless your fiction about them increasing.

https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/

2014 32744

2015 35485

2016 37461

You mean non-fiction about fatalities increasing, right?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Mike makes Cliff Claven look like a poser.  

It is amazing how defensive people get when you use gun control arguments but substitute cars.

 

Share this post


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

https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/

2014 32744

2015 35485

2016 37461

You mean non-fiction about fatalities increasing, right?

If you actually think that that total fatalities is actually more indicative than per-capita or per-mile, then please turn yourself in to your nearest third grade math teacher for remedial torture.

The vehicles industry has worked hard to make driving safer, and the actual statistics (i.e. not the idiotic statistics that you tout here) show that what they have done, works.

Share this post


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

It is amazing how defensive people get when you use gun control arguments but substitute cars.

This has nothing to do with cars or guns, but rather your mathematical stupidity. You have committed a crime against statistical logic.

To the gun community's credit, none of them seem as ignorant as what you're trying to sell here. If they were, they would probably all be dead of self-inflicted headshots from pointing the wrong end at the target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

Mike makes Cliff Claven look like a poser.  

And you make the illiterate look like Robert freaking Frost.

Thankfully neither of you giggleshits are indicative of the general intelligence of the gun community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, mikewof said:

And you make the illiterate look like Robert freaking Frost.

Thankfully neither of you giggleshits are indicative of the general intelligence of the gun community.

The woods are lovely dark and deep, 

But Mike has many inane posts to make before he sleeps.  

Mike, look up the word brevity, learn it, live it.  I shudder to think about how many pages you would need to answer a yes-no question.

Mike, who stole the strawberries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, mikewof said:

This has nothing to do with cars or guns, but rather your mathematical stupidity. You have committed a crime against statistical logic.

I guess you don't read this forum very much.

If you did, you would see every single controller on here using the same fucking argument.

It doesn't matter how many guns there are in private hands, in the US, the .001% that get misused is a basis for banning all of them.

Do you want another favorite line in here? "How many deaths are acceptable?"

Just don't apply the same language to cars. That is obviously going to far.

 

Share this post


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

As to your guns, you're on your own. But don't expect the new generation you have a lot of interest in your hyperbole.

What hyperbole are you talking about?

I look at (assault weapon, ordinary .22) bans and talk about how they apply to our arsenal of assault weapons. Which happens to include a couple of .22's that I consider pretty darn ordinary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2018 at 2:22 PM, mikewof said:

The term "assault weapon" means nothing to me since it seems to be used out of convenience

We agree on this, but if I'm not going to refer to the bills I'm talking about by the titles given to them by the legislators who write them, and I'm not going to talk about how they apply to our .22's, how can the discussion you say that you value proceed? What you're saying amounts to this:

"Let's talk! Just don't use the name of the bill and don't talk about how it applies to your arsenal."

Share this post


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

I have offered links to a dozen or so non-gun threads to those who complain that I talk about nothing else.

I thought it would be funny to make them wade through a bunch of them to find a thread in which to launch their usual false complaint.

Don't worry. Those threads are all about things other than guns and will soon sink off the front page again.

And managed to plaster them with references your to your never ending .22 campaign!

its like watching a petulant child let loose with a computer. 

See? I told you that non-gun topics by me would sink like a stone and they did.

Is there anything petulant or childish about reacting to the fact that I examine laws like the topic one and talk about how they apply to our arsenal of assault weapons by following me around and posting ".22" in response to anything I say, even if it's about the first amendment?

It seems that way to me. So my reaction is:

Yes, @SloopJohnB, you friggin' child, our arsenal of assault weapons includes a couple of .22's and I'm going to talk about the never ending TeamD campaign to ban them in the appropriate threads. And other stuff in other threads. And I might occasionally make you wade through a pile of proof that you're lying about the latter.

Share this post


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

Except that you made that up. The efforts of the industry and government have helped to cause vehicle fatalities drop most every year, even while total miles driven continues to increase every year.

USA_annual_VMT_vs_deaths_per_VMT.png

Your argument is awesome as long as it doesn't matter that it's based on a complete lie.

I wonder what the graph would look like for deaths from guns per Billions of rounds fired???

Share this post


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

I wonder what the graph would look like for deaths from guns per Billions of rounds fired???

Good point. The serious gun owners I know burn through ammo like Kleenex at a syphilis convention. The ratio is probably infinitesimal. 

Miles driven is a good metric for vehicles, but maybe number of guns owned or number of gun owners is a better metric for guns.

Share this post


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

We agree on this, but if I'm not going to refer to the bills I'm talking about by the titles given to them by the legislators who write them, and I'm not going to talk about how they apply to our .22's, how can the discussion you say that you value proceed? What you're saying amounts to this:

"Let's talk! Just don't use the name of the bill and don't talk about how it applies to your arsenal."

I don't understand what you mean.

0.22 weapons kills all kinds of people, they're highly lethal. And that's "pretty darn ordinary" for the capabilities of a deadly gun in the wrong hands, even a little 0.22. I wouldn't expect you to like the wording of titles of these bills, they don't express your will. That's my point, these bills need to express your will, and the way that they can do that is if you and the other gun owners get proactive about safety and legislation the way that the vehicles, aviation and medical industry got proactive about their own safety and legislation.

This shouldn't be a political issue. This should be about all kinds of people working to keep guns away from people who don't have the responsibility to handle them.

Share this post


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

Yes, @SloopJohnB, you friggin' child, our arsenal of assault weapons includes a couple of .22's and I'm going to talk about the never ending TeamD campaign to ban them in the appropriate threads.

Jon knows everything about US gun laws - including how they should be changed. Just don't ask him about Canadian laws, apparently knowing the laws of the country he lives in is to hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, mikewof said:
22 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

We agree on this, but if I'm not going to refer to the bills I'm talking about by the titles given to them by the legislators who write them, and I'm not going to talk about how they apply to our .22's, how can the discussion you say that you value proceed? What you're saying amounts to this:

"Let's talk! Just don't use the name of the bill and don't talk about how it applies to your arsenal."

I don't understand what you mean.

0.22 weapons kills all kinds of people, they're highly lethal. And that's "pretty darn ordinary" for the capabilities of a deadly gun in the wrong hands, even a little 0.22. I wouldn't expect you to like the wording of titles of these bills, they don't express your will. That's my point, these bills need to express your will, and the way that they can do that is if you and the other gun owners get proactive about safety and legislation the way that the vehicles, aviation and medical industry got proactive about their own safety and legislation.

This shouldn't be a political issue. This should be about all kinds of people working to keep guns away from people who don't have the responsibility to handle them.

It's not just the titles. It's the bullshit. From the topic post:
 

Quote

 

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


 

My wife's assault weapon is one of the most popular guns sold in Canada. And it's not automatic. And it's not usually a military weapon, though it is too lethal for the Israeli Defense Forces.

Unless you can offer some proof that I'm one of the "people who don't have the responsibility to handle them" then the topic legislation isn't about me. Yet it calls for banning and confiscating my .22. Because it's an "assault style automatic rifle" of the kind that you just can't find in a civilized place like Canada. Unless you look, well, all over the friggin' place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, mikewof said:
19 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I wonder what the graph would look like for deaths from guns per Billions of rounds fired???

Good point. The serious gun owners I know burn through ammo like Kleenex at a syphilis convention. The ratio is probably infinitesimal. 

Miles driven is a good metric for vehicles, but maybe number of guns owned or number of gun owners is a better metric for guns.

That makes no sense.  The whole point of your graph is that the number of miles driven is a metric to measure usage, not ownership.  What its trying to convey is that there are a small number of deaths compared to the vast amount of safe usage.  It would not look quite so rosy if you just compared vehicle deaths to amount of cars owned.

Why should that not also apply to gunz?  Guns are used safely everyday and billions of rounds are fired in a safe manner manner that does not result in an injury or death.  I suspect a graph plotting number of bullets fired vs number of deaths per bullet would look every bit as Utopian as the one you posted about carz.  

Share this post


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

That makes no sense.  The whole point of your graph is that the number of miles driven is a metric to measure usage, not ownership.  What its trying to convey is that there are a small number of deaths compared to the vast amount of safe usage.  It would not look quite so rosy if you just compared vehicle deaths to amount of cars owned.

Why should that not also apply to gunz?  Guns are used safely everyday and billions of rounds are fired in a safe manner manner that does not result in an injury or death.  I suspect a graph plotting number of bullets fired vs number of deaths per bullet would look every bit as Utopian as the one you posted about carz.  

No, it looks rosy to the number of cars owned too. Fatalities have plummeted with the introduction of things like crumple zones, ABS, rail crossings, traffic lights, seatbelts, integrated rollover cages, airbags, street camber, merge lanes, lane departure warnings, better tires, better headlights, and well engineered road surfaces.

It's the same with airliner deaths too. The aviation industry efforts have dramatically decreased fatalities in passenger airlines even as the number of planes and number of miles flown increases.

The deaths-per-bullet would be a silly metric. People are rarely killed at the firing ranges where the vast majority of ammo is used, and in fact, that's because the firing ranges have brought in a lot of safety measures to make the experience safer. Most gun killings happen with only a few rounds leaving the weapon, like family members mistaken for home invaders, crimes, psychopaths, bad cop shots, etc..

Applying a metric of deaths per bullets fired would be like applying vehicular deaths per rpm on a dynomometer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It's not just the titles. It's the bullshit. From the topic post:
 

My wife's assault weapon is one of the most popular guns sold in Canada. And it's not automatic. And it's not usually a military weapon, though it is too lethal for the Israeli Defense Forces.

Unless you can offer some proof that I'm one of the "people who don't have the responsibility to handle them" then the topic legislation isn't about me. Yet it calls for banning and confiscating my .22. Because it's an "assault style automatic rifle" of the kind that you just can't find in a civilized place like Canada. Unless you look, well, all over the friggin' place.

Again. Help come up with good laws. If you don't help your grandma make the breakfast, then you have no right to complain about the shells in your eggs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect to the topic law, no one has been more helpful, in terms of being willing to discuss the actual law, than me.

This thread is evidence of that fact.

And I still think that banning my .22 because it's some kind of weapon of war is stupid. Even if grabberz in your state have completely lost the trust of nutterz about some unrelated issue, it's still stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2018 at 6:52 PM, mad said:
On 5/29/2018 at 1:58 PM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So a leatherman or gerber multi-tool is illegal because (for safety) the blade locks open?  I honestly can't see the logic behind such a restriction. 

It’s not the locking, almost every knife that folds does (never had one that didnt).  It’s the quick, one handed deployment, and use for a quick stab attack that they don’t like. 

It’s called a compromise/common sense law..... somewhere the 2A will head to in a decade or 2 maybe. 


If you don't wish to discuss our second amendment, it might be a good idea to not bring it up.

Since you did, I think my comparison in the other thread was apt:

Calling my .22 a weapon of war is bullshit. I don't care about the TeamD tribal taboo against saying so. I shit on those taboos for fun.

Calling a Gerber or Leatherman multitool a weapon that features "quick, one-handed deployment" is also bullshit. That's the exact reason why I always keep my assault knife on me, even when wearing the multi tool. I already have a blade. I want one I can quickly deploy with one hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2018 at 11:49 AM, Sol Rosenberg said:

What can we do?  Use the power of technology.  All congressmen and Senators have a contact system set up on their webpage.  I write mine all the time, if only to let them know that they have some constituents that don't listen to what the boob tube says.  I make sure to let them know that I have left both parties in my lifetime, and that I vote on the basis of issues, before identifying the issue about which I am writing.  When DeSantis was my congressman (before our districts were ruled illegal because of gerrymandering, resulting in me ending up in YooHoo for Yoho's district), he always wrote back, and if he disagreed, he didn't pussyfoot around it (like Yoho does); he told me why he disagreed.  I wrote to Sen. Rubio about Puerto Rico relief after Maria, and he has been pretty good on that, but that was a no-brainer for anyone in a statewide office in FL, because Orlando (the vote-rich I-4 corridor) has a huge PR population and they can vote.  Sen. Nelson's office is the most responsive for me, especially when I needed help with Cuba issues. His staffers are all-stars in my book.   

I used to work on the Hill, so I know how much those guys love this stuff.  It falls into the category of "constituent service", that some staffer can handle.  Good public relations.  Write them often, regardless of your views.  Let them know that there are real people that think these things, not just pollsters making calls with skewed questions, and lobbyists writing checks and looking for favors. 


This makes me wonder whether you've communicated with your representatives about the important legislation that is the topic of this thread?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2018 at 3:20 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Calling my .22 a weapon of war is bullshit.

Yes. So why the sustained effort to confuse the two? The terms of Heller put your panties in great disarray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2018 at 11:28 PM, mikewof said:

The car makers and medical device makers continuously work to improve the user-safety of their products, and it shows in the death statistics of their products. But the gun makers have no financial incentive to make a safer product. Rather their financial incentive is to make a deadlier product. 

Mike, I see this argument continually used wrt gunz and it drives me nuts.  "safety" is not the issue here and never has been.  There is a minuscule number of accidental deaths with guns every year that the automobile industry would kill for (pun intended) that stat.  Guns rarely blow up, guns rarely go off accidentally, they are amazing well engineered to be as safe as possible.  And they are extremely safe.  The vast majority of the deaths and even the vast majority of the "accidents" are due to negligence, usually deliberate criminal negligence.  If gunz were just spontaneously exploding and killing children willy nilly, this argument would be valid.   But that's NOT what's happening.  People are taking a perfectly functioning and perfectly safe gun, making a conscious decision to point it at someone else's head (or most often their own) and pull the trigger knowing that will cause harm.  THAT is not a gun "safety" issue.  That is a human behavior issue.  

If you attempt to use that logic that the gun industry as not supposedly done enough to make their products safer - are you going to start demanding that car makers make cars safer so that psychos can't drive their car into a crowded market???  Are you going to hold the rental agencies accountable for renting vans to mass murderers?  Until that happens, calls to do the same for gun manufactures and dealers is just as stupid as it sounds when you say it about holding GM responsible for mass vehicular murder.  You DO see that, right?

Share this post


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

Yes. So why the sustained effort to confuse the two? The terms of Heller but your panties in great disarray.

I think the reason TeamD is deliberately confusing my gun with a weapon of war is obvious and I have stated it before:

When you have a scary label like "assault weapon" the political trick becomes to see how many guns you can slap the label onto and thereby ban them.

The terms of Kolbe mean that some unfortunate lawyer may one day have to explain in court how .22's like the one I own (and you used to own) are weapons of war that are unsuitable for civilians.

Share this post


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

I think the reason TeamD is deliberately confusing my gun with a weapon of war is obvious and I have stated it before:

When you have a scary label like "assault weapon" the political trick becomes to see how many guns you can slap the label onto and thereby ban them.

The terms of Kolbe mean that some unfortunate lawyer may one day have to explain in court how .22's like the one I own (and you used to own) are weapons of war that are unsuitable for civilians.

You are full of shit. The terms of Heller were quoted by Kolbe, and became your problem. Weapons "most useful is military service" have a problem now, based on Scalia;s parameters.  Heller sent you into twenty-two-ville, for the duration. But it all works out, since you don't mind being silly and irrelevant indefinitely. 

You go out of your way to disobey the XYZ gun laws, but your want your shrill voice respected. How is that supposed to work out?

Wanker.

Share this post


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

I haven't disobeyed any gun laws. Yet.

FFS, make up your mind (In other words, stop lying.)  I saw a new, disgusting post five minutes ago. You were embellishing the breaking of gun laws, and planning to buy  a gun  with a threaded barrel, to intentionally flaunt some law. Uncooperative is your middle name, etc.

Yer a fool and I spend my time elsewhere to avoid the constant .22 silliness.

Share this post


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

The terms of Heller were quoted by Kolbe

Why won't you actually quote in here that section of Heller, Joe? Is is because even you understand that the opinion in Kolbe was being dishonest? Or is it because none of your approved authors have told you what to believe yet?

Share this post


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

FFS, make up your mind (In other words, stop lying.)  I saw a new, disgusting post five minutes ago. You were embellishing the breaking of gun laws, and planning to buy  a gun  with a threaded barrel, to intentionally flaunt some law. Uncooperative is your middle name, etc.

Yer a fool and I spend my time elsewhere to avoid the constant .22 silliness.

Poor Joe, completely unable to understand how the courts or making laws work.

Your local community college could help with your understanding of both, Joe, maybe even work on reading comprehension.

Share this post


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

Mike, I see this argument continually used wrt gunz and it drives me nuts.  "safety" is not the issue here and never has been.  There is a minuscule number of accidental deaths with guns every year that the automobile industry would kill for (pun intended) that stat.  Guns rarely blow up, guns rarely go off accidentally, they are amazing well engineered to be as safe as possible.  And they are extremely safe.  The vast majority of the deaths and even the vast majority of the "accidents" are due to negligence, usually deliberate criminal negligence.  If gunz were just spontaneously exploding and killing children willy nilly, this argument would be valid.   But that's NOT what's happening.  People are taking a perfectly functioning and perfectly safe gun, making a conscious decision to point it at someone else's head (or most often their own) and pull the trigger knowing that will cause harm.  THAT is not a gun "safety" issue.  That is a human behavior issue.  

If you attempt to use that logic that the gun industry as not supposedly done enough to make their products safer - are you going to start demanding that car makers make cars safer so that psychos can't drive their car into a crowded market???  Are you going to hold the rental agencies accountable for renting vans to mass murderers?  Until that happens, calls to do the same for gun manufactures and dealers is just as stupid as it sounds when you say it about holding GM responsible for mass vehicular murder.  You DO see that, right?

I pointed that out in an earlier post in this thread. Gun safety doesn't mean making the weapon less deadly, it means making the culture and community safer.

For instance, the gun community and industry should be proactive in developing good laws, like an effective Red Flag law, that isn't killed in the State House. An effective gun safety community would have pounded that Connecticut mother's crappy gun storage at her daily gun range trips to -- for instance -- keep her weapons at the range. An effective gun safety community would have shown her that her chances of needing a gun for a home invasion in a wealthy suburban enclave were so remote that it was essentially nonexistent.

A safe gun community wouldn't use the nonsense of "DGUs" to justify ineffective home gun storage for people who are unlikely to ever need it.

And again, if the gun community and industry can't find a way to make these things happen, then the new generation will make it happen for them.

Share this post


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

A safe gun community wouldn't use the nonsense of "DGUs" to justify ineffective home gun storage for people who are unlikely to ever need it.

So now DGUs are "nonsense"

Are you next going to tell a fable about how the police are there to protect you? (Despite supreme court cases saying otherwise)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

So now DGUs are "nonsense"

Are you next going to tell a fable about how the police are there to protect you? (Despite supreme court cases saying otherwise)

DGUs, as I've seen them used here, seem to have little or no correlation to DOJ crime statistics. I've asked regularly for the source of these stats that show some 2,500,000 DGUs per year, and have yet to see them.

In the meantime, I'll use DOJ stats. Those show a nearly infinitesimal likelihood of an unknown home invader threatening a typical middle class suburban homeowner. Yeah, if you associate with drug dealers and live in downtown Gary, Indiana, I can understand why you might want to arm up. But if that bullshit DGU stat was used to justify that Connecticut mother to keep an arsenal in her lovely suburban home with her son the psychopath, or that Texas dad with accessible guns to a son that he said he knew was being bullied, then the community should consider some less-profitable truth-in-statistics.

Share this post


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

DGUs, as I've seen them used here, seem to have little or no correlation to DOJ crime statistics. I've asked regularly for the source of these stats that show some 2,500,000 DGUs per year, and have yet to see them.

In the meantime, I'll use DOJ stats. Those show a nearly infinitesimal likelihood of an unknown home invader threatening a typical middle class suburban homeowner. Yeah, if you associate with drug dealers and live in downtown Gary, Indiana, I can understand why you might want to arm up. But if that bullshit DGU stat was used to justify that Connecticut mother to keep an arsenal in her lovely suburban home with her son the psychopath, or that Texas dad with accessible guns to a son that he said he knew was being bullied, then the community should consider some less-profitable truth-in-statistics.

You might ask @jocal505 about those DGU stats.  Even he concedes that there are at least or around 100K DGUs per year at the low end of the scale as corroborated by his bestest gun researcher, hemmenway. 

Share this post


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

You might ask @jocal505 about those DGU stats.  Even he concedes that there are at least or around 100K DGUs per year at the low end of the scale as corroborated by his bestest gun researcher, hemmenway. 

Okay, 100k DGUs. Still seems a little high to the DOJ stats, but I'm willing to accept that.

Still most of them obviously have nothing to do with middle class suburbanites who don't associate with criminals, since the DOJ only shows a handful of situations like that. Assuming only 1/4 of the these people were armed, you're still only looking at about a thousand DGUs per year by people like us, and if you're actually only willing to shoot someone who is a likely threat to your life, rather than your property, then you're looking at well less than a hundred, even less than 25.

Yeah, if your brother-in-law is the local crack dealer and you live in a poor section of Carbondale, IL, you might want to arm up, because the DOJ shows that you're much more likely to be victim of a gun crime. But someone like you or me? Why not walk around with a lightning rod strapped to our back and a 6000 foot long grounding strap? Our chances of getting hit by lightning aren't that much more remote than ever needing a gun to protect ourselves.

No, we keep guns for other reasons. So let's stop lying to ourselves about this ridiculous DGU nonsense ... it's kind of like the CEO who buys a Hummer H1 just in case he needs to bug out town over the rocks, due to an impending apocalypse.

Share this post


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

For instance, the gun community and industry should be proactive in developing good laws, like an effective Red Flag law, that isn't killed in the State House.

You mean like the one Governor Skeletor signed this year?

It doesn't have a lot to do with the topic ban on our .22's.

As you can see, passing it has not resulted in grabberz stopping their campaign to ban and confiscate our .22's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2018 at 2:15 PM, Sol Rosenberg said:

Hey, you took a position!  Congrats.  That's gonna come in handy in the future.


People do that. Sometimes.

Share this post


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

Okay, 100k DGUs. Still seems a little high to the DOJ stats, but I'm willing to accept that.

Still most of them obviously have nothing to do with middle class suburbanites who don't associate with criminals, since the DOJ only shows a handful of situations like that. Assuming only 1/4 of the these people were armed, you're still only looking at about a thousand DGUs per year by people like us, and if you're actually only willing to shoot someone who is a likely threat to your life, rather than your property, then you're looking at well less than a hundred, even less than 25.

Sorry Cliffy, it doesn't work like that.  A DGU doesn't have to have the gun fired in order to qualify as a DGU.  If the presence of a gun stops an attack, it is a legitimate DGU.  

Share this post


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

Sorry Cliffy, it doesn't work like that.  A DGU doesn't have to have the gun fired in order to qualify as a DGU.  If the presence of a gun stops an attack, it is a legitimate DGU.  

Yeah, we've discussed this ad nauseum a few years ago. A legitimate "DGU" could be waving your gun in the air to induce your neighbor's hog to leave your garden.

But without actual statistics of what these DGUs are, you can't then use them to justify things like keeping a ready handgun under your bed, or justify it to get a concealed weapon to accompany you to buy a Sunday morning everything bagel with a schmear of jalapeno cream cheese.

No, if you want that Glock with you on your bagel run, or if you want that loaded handgun under your bed, then you'll probably need a better reason than this DGU nonsense. Maybe you like the feeling of a sidearm under your jacket. Or maybe you sleep better knowing that a cold gun can become warm in a moment.

But please don't use nonsense to justify deadly force. Michael Dunn did that, it didn't go well for him, and it went worse for Jordan Davis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites