Sign in to follow this  
Hypercapnic Tom

Florida Gun Ban Proposed

Recommended Posts

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
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

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.

For something that nearly all of you gun guys think is a good idea, why have so few U.S. States been able to pass Red Flag laws? Even my own weed-smoking lefty haven state couldn't get it passed.

How many States have managed to pass a Red Flag Law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 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.  

It could also be an act of intimidation, by a factor of 3:1.  Research was prevented which would have documented this, either way, for good or bad.

When Hemenway had a judge look at incidents submitted by gun nuts, the judge said 50% of these little SDU  victories were illegal. This whole report , from 2000, reads like comedy.

Quote

 

HOSTILE GUN DISPLAYS

On the 1996 survey, 122 respondents reported a hostile gun display against them. We eliminated over half of these for a variety of reasons (table 1), leaving 58 civilians who reported 112 hostile gun displays against them in the previous five years.2 

(...) While it is sometimes presumed that self defense gun use is beneficial for society, that notion has been viewed with increasing skepticism.10,11 It is noteworthy that in prison surveys, about half of convicted felons who have fired a gun claim to have done so in self defense.14

In our survey, the criminal court judges who rated the incidents determined that at least half were probably illegal—even after assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and carry a gun and described the incident honestly. We expect that the true percentage of reported self defense gun uses that are illegal is higher than 50% for at least two reasons.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263.full

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2018 at 10:50 PM, 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. 

Hemenway may have mentioned the figure, I dunno. But this is a typical Jeffie half-truth, slash strawman, slash falsehood.

What Hemenway says, overall, is that intimidations with a gun, public and private, far outweigh the rightful DGU activity. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
On 6/4/2018 at 9:50 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

ou 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. 

Hemenway may have mentioned the figure, I dunno. But this is a typical Jeffie half-truth, slash strawman, slash falsehood.

Yes, you DO know because I provided you the link and you not only acknowledged it, you thanked me for making my correction to the number from 500K to 100K.  So fuck you, you shitbag liar!  There were no falsehoods there.  This was the number of DGUs that Hemmenway hisself concedes likely occur each year.  

Sorry, but 100K DGUs is still > 11K murders no matter how you slice it and dice it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2018 at 2:34 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Do you have an opinion on the topic law, Cliff?

Yeah, I would have preferred that it pass. And it would have passed with cooperation. The text of the law would have read differently in several ways with that cooperation.

Since I don't see the same threat against the Second that you do, I don't notice the same problems with the wording. That's why the proposed law needed cooperation, to identify those weak spots. And yes, Florida passed it, but would it have passed without an armed psychopath shooting 34 people? Is that how many people will need to be shot in other states by armed psychopaths to get a similar law? Could we save the shooting victims with a little cooperation?

Out of 50 States, 7 of them have the law. And that's better than 6. Maybe soon it will 8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant the topic law of this thread, Cliff. The one banning .22's like these because they're too dangerous for civilians.

marlin-assault-rifles.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2018 at 12:38 AM, jocal505 said:

 

Golf Cart of Death.jpg

The fucking pistol on the floor of the golf cart, which has no cylinder, was left pointed at an area of human activity. Why?

It's next to a beer. Why?

The lever action carbine is yours, but is a second gun pointed at the activity area. Why?

Let's be careful out there.

Are those guns loaded? How will they fire if no one is touching them? 

Is the pistol drinking? 

You are assuming a lot of things here. 

How about the rifle on the ground, do guns really grow on trees in Florida?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2018 at 3:28 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. 

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.

In the last 30 years what has happened with the death statistics from guns? What has happened to the guns owned statistics. Its obvious that there are less and less deaths from more and more guns, why is that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2018 at 10:17 AM, mikewof said:

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?

If math makes things better, less then 0.00004% of all guns in the USA are involved in murders each year. Based on math, I think we are OK. There are only shootings at 0.00006% schools in the us per year, so are we OK? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2018 at 3:56 PM, 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.

Love me some simple to read charts, thats a good one.

Here is another one. 

guns_per_person_vs._gun_homicide_rate_1993_to_2013_0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2018 at 6:21 AM, 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.  

Good point, I have fired approximately 1200 rounds in the past year. Killed about 600 clay pigeons, zero real pigeons and no people. 

Share this post


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

Love me some simple to read charts, thats a good one.

Here is another one. 

guns_per_person_vs._gun_homicide_rate_1993_to_2013_0.jpg

Yeah, homicide rates

have fallen, what's your point? I do believe that it would take some majestic mental gymnastics to justify our wars on terror when terrorism is nearly nonexistent here, and concurrently ignore problem of mass shootings, which unlike the homicide rate, are not decreasing.

Share this post


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

If math makes things better, less then 0.00004% of all guns in the USA are involved in murders each year. Based on math, I think we are OK. There are only shootings at 0.00006% schools in the us per year, so are we OK? 

Yeah, we're good by that measure. We can and also end our war on terror, our war on drugs, and stop going after the tiniest minority of people who walk into banks to rob them. We can also get rid of the Secret Service and stop providing homeland security to nuclear reactors.

Share this post


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

Yeah, homicide rates

have fallen, what's your point? I do believe that it would take some majestic mental gymnastics to justify our wars on terror when terrorism is nearly nonexistent here, and concurrently ignore problem of mass shootings, which unlike the homicide rate, are not decreasing.

Bottom line is how many people are being shot, the number has fallen, a lot.

Further we are mainly talking about controlling the guns who have the lowest contribution to those numbers. And why? Because they are scary looking, because it's a good starting place and because once those are controlled the anti gun crowd will have figured out how to move incrementally toward the real goal of zero guns. 

Share this post


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

Bottom line is how many people are being shot, the number has fallen, a lot.

Further we are mainly talking about controlling the guns who have the lowest contribution to those numbers. And why? Because they are scary looking, because it's a good starting place and because once those are controlled the anti gun crowd will have figured out how to move incrementally toward the real goal of zero guns. 

Maybe the real goal is zero mass murders, rather than zero guns. But paranoia has it own agenda it seems.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Maybe the real goal is zero mass murders, rather than zero guns. But paranoia has it own agenda it seems.

So a whole bunch of single murders are better then some mass murders?  

 

Share this post


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

So a whole bunch of single murders are better then some mass murders?  

Huh? You were the one who pasted that chart!!!

We've made progress on single murders, they're usually down per capita each year. Lefty politics, social services, anti-gang services, education and some very good law enforcement has helped lower the homicide rate.

But we're going backwards on mass murders, the problem isn't improving. But if obstructionism is your goal, then I guess that's a good thing.

Share this post


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

Maybe the real goal is zero mass murders, rather than zero guns. But paranoia has it own agenda it seems.

That makes sense, and those mass murders are happening because of all the weapons of war on our streets.

You know, like this .22:

SWVictoryFlower.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't want to read about assault weapons, why do you keep clicking threads about assault weapons?

BTW, do you have an opinion on the flower color issue for my next assault weapon?

Share this post


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

Your latest post about 22s was after 5am so it’s a little lass disturbing...

Dude! I don't disturb little lasses in the early morning or any other time. You can get banned for such pedo accusations around here!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

We've made progress on single murders, they're usually down per capita each year. Lefty politics, social services, anti-gang services, education and some very good law enforcement has helped lower the homicide rate.

But we're going backwards on mass murders, the problem isn't improving. But if obstructionism is your goal, then I guess that's a good thing.

Thank you for that Mike, you are actually making our point for us in a YUGE way and you don't even realize it. 

Think about it, those things you said in bold are what drove down the murder rates - NOT banning guns.  It is EXACTLY what I and others here have been saying all along.  The answer to solving these issues is by attacking them at their root causes by addressing what causes people to murder others along with strict enforcement of the existing laws.  The single murder rate dropped significantly while at the same time more and more guns were introduced into the market.  Because we as a society correctly recognized that banning a tool would not solve anything and we instead took a holistic, MADD-style approach to that problem.  Just like we did for DUI.  

Why then would you and others completely ignore that successful model when it comes to mass murders and instead go right to a prohibition-based solution?  I have long said here that the way to address the rising scourge of mass murder is to figure out what has changed between now and when mass murder was rare to nonexistent in our very recent past.  And then go and tackle those root causes.  I believe the reason for the rise in mass murders is not because of AR-15s, but for a myriad of complex reasons such as cyber bullying, exposure to extreme and constant violent imagery from all types of media including social media, social isolation as a direct result of social media, the breakdown of family and community, the increasingly nomadic nature of our society which further creates social isolation, over-diagnosing and over-medicating for mental illness, increased pressure on children to perform at an early age, etc, etc.  Everyone of those things were not present back when mass murder was rare anywhere to the degree that they are present now.  Yet gunz were just as common and ubiquitous and far easier to get back then.  So the "prohibition-first" approach defies all logic and common sense.

I believe strongly that mass murder is indicative of the fact that our society is sick and becoming sicker by the day.  It is the canary in the coal mine.  We need to start treating the patient for the disease rather than focusing only on the outward symptoms.  

Share this post


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

That makes sense, and those mass murders are happening because of all the weapons of war on our streets.

You know, like this .22:

SWVictoryFlower.jpg

How do you thread a flower?

 

Share this post


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

How do you thread a flower?

 

I'm thinking I'll just get a plastic flower from MegaLoMart or a craft store and then hot glue it to the thread protector. With a hole for the bullet of course.

But I'm open to suggestions. I've never decorated an assault weapon before.

Share this post


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

I'm thinking I'll just get a plastic flower from MegaLoMart or a craft store and then hot glue it to the thread protector. With a hole for the bullet of course.

But I'm open to suggestions. I've never decorated an assault weapon before.

Maybe you could use flowers from a pepper plant. Then you would have an assault and pepper gun. 

Share this post


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

I'm thinking I'll just get a plastic flower from MegaLoMart or a craft store and then hot glue it to the thread protector. With a hole for the bullet of course.

But I'm open to suggestions. I've never decorated an assault weapon before.

Make sure you can still see the sights too.  What good is an assault weapon if you can't hit anything with it?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Maybe you could use flowers from a pepper plant. Then you would have an assault and pepper gun. 

 

Groan!!!!.............................:lol:

 

Image result for the gong show

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1719070657_Asaultandbattery.jpg.1e6a3293ddde320f4e6ecef2a2339aab.jpg

Assault and Battery

Share this post


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

1719070657_Asaultandbattery.jpg.1e6a3293ddde320f4e6ecef2a2339aab.jpg

Assault and Battery

 

Image result for stage hook gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2018 at 7:39 AM, chinabald said:

Are those guns loaded? How will they fire if no one is touching them? 

Is the pistol drinking? 

You are assuming a lot of things here. 

How about the rifle on the ground, do guns really grow on trees in Florida?

You would be considered careless around guns in my home town. I was taught that the unloaded guns shoot people all the time. I was taught to habitually, intentionally consistently, point gun barrels away from people, as a matter of awareness. YMMV.

Share this post


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

Make sure you can still see the sights too.  What good is an assault weapon if you can't hit anything with it?  

Well, the point of this one is more to be seen than to see, but I get your point. I don't want to ruin the aesthetic, though.

Maybe one of those laser dohickeys so I just have to make a laser beam sized hole through the flower?

Share this post


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

You would be considered careless around guns in my home town. I was taught that the unloaded guns shoot people all the time. I was taught to habitually, intentionally consistently, point gun barrels away from people, as a matter of awareness. YMMV.

Unloaded guns don't shoot people ever. People shoot people. And those guns are not being held by anyone.

Maybe those guns were sitting there and that guy put himself in front of them? Maybe he put himself in that position? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites