Shootist Jeff

A Constitutional Dilemma - unintended consequences

A Constitutional Dilemma - unintended consequences  

13 members have voted

  1. 1. The 2nd Amendment "enables" gun murders and suicides

    • Agree
      10
    • Disagree
      3
  2. 2. The 4th Amendment "enables" pedophiles and drug criminals

    • Agree
      7
    • Disagree
      6
  3. 3. The 1st Amendment "enables" nazis and other fascists

    • Agree
      9
    • Disagree
      4


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Then you must have some statistics showing an increase in crime in the cities. Right?

Where did I say crime is increasing. What point or side are you trying to argue here? 

Share this post


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

Where did I say crime is increasing. What point or side are you trying to argue here? 

OK, so you have no position. Glad to clear that up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

OK, so you have no position. Glad to clear that up.

So I ask what your position is and that is your response? I think I've been pretty clear on what I believe causes crime (and it isn't gun ownership).

Share this post


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

So I ask what your position is and that is your response? I think I've been pretty clear on what I believe causes crime (and it isn't gun ownership).

Why did you bother weighing in? My position is that A_Guy's platitudes add nothing to the conversation. Any more than "Get off my lawn"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Why did you bother weighing in? My position is that A_Guy's platitudes add nothing to the conversation. Any more than "Get off my lawn"

A_Guy has a very valid point.  Broken families, family values, absentee parents, and the compounding of that as it's passed down to children plays a very large part in the crime that's going on.  Waving your hands and saying "no it doesn't" isn't an argument.  You can quite literally find thousands of articles confirming the linkages.

Share this post


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

You sound concerned.

Aren't you?

Share this post


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

A_Guy has a very valid point.  Broken families, family values, absentee parents, and the compounding of that as it's passed down to children plays a very large part in the crime that's going on.  Waving your hands and saying "no it doesn't" isn't an argument.  You can quite literally find thousands of articles confirming the linkages.

How about we start with 1? But to be clear, it needs to address A_guys point that the loss of society mores is causing mass shootings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the loss of societal mores is less pronounced in states with fewer guns per capita and tighter gun laws. An armed society isn’t really all that polite.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll "confirm some linkages."

Of the mass killings in Orlando, Las Vegas, New York, Sutherland Springs, and Rancho Tehama, the two committed by ISIS-invoking Muslims are categorized as terrorist acts; the three committed by white men are “domestic,” a “mystery,” or, in the case of the Rancho Tehama shooter, Kevin Neal, “bizarre.” Donald Trump has used these categories to justify a double standard of responses: terrorist acts are justification for an immigration crackdown, but for a “domestic issue,” mental illness, or “pure evil,” as the President classified the Las Vegas shooting, there is no remedy. As the Governor of Kentucky, Matt Bevin, tweeted, in response to calls for gun regulations after Las Vegas: “You can’t regulate evil.”

The mass-shooting epidemic is, without question, an urgent call for gun control. It’s also an invitation to think about why so many Americans are trying to shoot up night clubs, churches, and schools in the first place. (Research suggests that a lack of gun regulation is the major, but not the only, determining factor in gun-related deaths: the average American is three hundred times more likely than the average Japanese to die by gun homicide or by accidental shooting—but only a hundred and fifty times more likely to own a gun.) It’s an invitation to tell one story about a shared problem that affects every American.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/searching-for-motives-in-mass-shootings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another one:

America’s gun homicide rate was 33 per million people in 2009, far exceeding the average among developed countries. In Canada and Britain, it was 5 per million and 0.7 per million, respectively, which also corresponds with differences in gun ownership.

Americans sometimes see this as an expression of deeper problems with crime, a notion ingrained, in part, by a series of films portraying urban gang violence in the early 1990s. But the United States is not actually more prone to crime than other developed countries, according to a landmark 1999 study by Franklin E. Zimring and Gordon Hawkins of the University of California, Berkeley.

Rather, they found, in data that has since been repeatedly confirmed, that American crime is simply more lethal. A New Yorker is just as likely to be robbed as a Londoner, for instance, but the New Yorker is 54 times more likely to be killed in the process.

They concluded that the discrepancy, like so many other anomalies of American violence, came down to guns.

More gun ownership corresponds with more gun murders across virtually every axis: among developed countries, among American states, among American towns and cities and when controlling for crime rates. And gun control legislation tends to reduce gun murders, according to a recent analysis of 130 studies from 10 countries.

This suggests that the guns themselves cause the violence.

-- https://nyti.ms/2j79rRs

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, lasal said:

Here's another one:

America’s gun homicide rate was 33 per million people in 2009, far exceeding the average among developed countries. In Canada and Britain, it was 5 per million and 0.7 per million, respectively, which also corresponds with differences in gun ownership.

Americans sometimes see this as an expression of deeper problems with crime, a notion ingrained, in part, by a series of films portraying urban gang violence in the early 1990s. But the United States is not actually more prone to crime than other developed countries, according to a landmark 1999 study by Franklin E. Zimring and Gordon Hawkins of the University of California, Berkeley.

Rather, they found, in data that has since been repeatedly confirmed, that American crime is simply more lethal. A New Yorker is just as likely to be robbed as a Londoner, for instance, but the New Yorker is 54 times more likely to be killed in the process.

They concluded that the discrepancy, like so many other anomalies of American violence, came down to guns.

More gun ownership corresponds with more gun murders across virtually every axis: among developed countries, among American states, among American towns and cities and when controlling for crime rates. And gun control legislation tends to reduce gun murders, according to a recent analysis of 130 studies from 10 countries.

This suggests that the guns themselves cause the violence.

-- https://nyti.ms/2j79rRs

 

This (correlation between increase in gun numbers causing increase in murders using a gun) may be the case in the USA but it's not the case in Australia.

http://www.crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/1_trends/

The number of firearms in Australia dropped dramatically immediately post the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. Since then there has been a steady increase to the point where the numbers in private hands are now pretty much equal to the pre-1996 figures. The *mix* is different, but the numbers aren't.

Yet firearms use in murders and indeed the murder rate overall hasn't increased in line with the increase in firearm numbers.

Ergo, there is no simplistic link between the 2. At least, not in Australia.

Personally I think the prevailing USA culture is toxic.

FKT

Edited by Fah Kiew Tu
Clarification
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, lasal said:

Here's another one:

America’s gun homicide rate was 33 per million people in 2009, far exceeding the average among developed countries. In Canada and Britain, it was 5 per million and 0.7 per million, respectively, which also corresponds with differences in gun ownership.

Americans sometimes see this as an expression of deeper problems with crime, a notion ingrained, in part, by a series of films portraying urban gang violence in the early 1990s. But the United States is not actually more prone to crime than other developed countries, according to a landmark 1999 study by Franklin E. Zimring and Gordon Hawkins of the University of California, Berkeley.

Rather, they found, in data that has since been repeatedly confirmed, that American crime is simply more lethal. A New Yorker is just as likely to be robbed as a Londoner, for instance, but the New Yorker is 54 times more likely to be killed in the process.

They concluded that the discrepancy, like so many other anomalies of American violence, came down to guns.

More gun ownership corresponds with more gun murders across virtually every axis: among developed countries, among American states, among American towns and cities and when controlling for crime rates. And gun control legislation tends to reduce gun murders, according to a recent analysis of 130 studies from 10 countries.

This suggests that the guns themselves cause the violence.

-- https://nyti.ms/2j79rRs

 

Stop with the data. It causes righty snowflakes to melt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

This may be the case in the USA but it's not the case in Australia.

http://www.crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/1_trends/

The number of firearms in Australia dropped dramatically immediately post the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. Since then there has been a steady increase to the point where the numbers in private hands are now pretty much equal to the pre-1996 figures. The *mix* is different, but the numbers aren't.

Yet firearms use in murders and indeed the murder rate overall hasn't increased in line with the increase in firearm numbers.

Ergo, there is no simplistic link between the 2. At least, not in Australia.

Personally I think the prevailing USA culture is toxic.

FKT

So the Aussie gun count has gone up, but crime lethality has not? Interesting. what are the one to one comparisons to the USA, number of guns, number of lethal crimes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Stop with the data. It causes righty snowflakes to melt.

Sorry, it's my values. The same values that were passed onto me and that I try to pass onto my kids. We're a family. With values. But I'll try to be more accommodating for righty snowflakes.

Share this post


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

So the Aussie gun count has gone up, but crime lethality has not? Interesting. what are the one to one comparisons to the USA, number of guns, number of lethal crimes?

Not sure what you're asking - crime figures are reported as number per 100K as far as I know, so should be directly comparable. Our murder rate has historically been at least 60% lower than yours, all methods considered. Murder by knife exceeds murder by firearm here. There was a long-term decline in the murder rate prior to Port Arthur, it caused a spike, long-term decline has continued.

Firearms here are more strictly regulated WRT training, licensing & safe storage so murders of strangers is pretty much restricted to the criminal element with illegal/unregistered guns. Murders of relatives by firearm happens but other methods predominate.

There was one case recently where the perpetrator went to great lengths to obtain a pistol permit specifically to kill his kids & himself. It took him well over a year IIRC to get his hands on the gun. Not sure anything is going to stop people like that but at least we do make it a lot more difficult for them.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Not sure what you're asking - crime figures are reported as number per 100K as far as I know, so should be directly comparable. Our murder rate has historically been at least 60% lower than yours, all methods considered. Murder by knife exceeds murder by firearm here. There was a long-term decline in the murder rate prior to Port Arthur, it caused a spike, long-term decline has continued.

Firearms here are more strictly regulated WRT training, licensing & safe storage so murders of strangers is pretty much restricted to the criminal element with illegal/unregistered guns. Murders of relatives by firearm happens but other methods predominate.

There was one case recently where the perpetrator went to great lengths to obtain a pistol permit specifically to kill his kids & himself. It took him well over a year IIRC to get his hands on the gun. Not sure anything is going to stop people like that but at least we do make it a lot more difficult for them.

FKT

Thanks. I guess I didn't understand your first post when you said, "This may be the case in the USA but it's not the case in Australia." You explained it, but maybe spell out the first sentence, define 'this'. so i can follow.

Honestly interested in the difference you seen between the two countries.

Share this post


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

Everyone needs to climb out of entrenched positions and start looking at the major socio-economic factors that have resulted in an inreased propensity to use violence to express one's dissatisfaction.   

Everyone needs to climb out of their entrenched positions and start looking at things my way. :rolleyes:

Still can't see the issue, try this on for size: "Everyone needs to climb out of entrenched positions and start looking at how we can reduce the number & accessibility of guns that  violent people use to kill people". Roll that around your mouth, perhaps try the line out on a few of your neighbours, see how it feels and perhaps you'll see the problem with your position.

Share this post


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

Everyone needs to climb out of their entrenched positions and start looking at things my way. :rolleyes:

Still can't see the issue, try this on for size: "Everyone needs to climb out of entrenched positions and start looking at how we can reduce the number & accessibility of guns that  violent people use to kill people". Roll that around your mouth, perhaps try the line out on a few of your neighbours, see how it feels and perhaps you'll see the problem with your position.

People need to do BOTH.

Guns without people to operate them aren't a problem (let's skip over 'intelligent' weapons for the nonce).

People without personality defects that result in them causing harm to others won't abuse guns regardless of type.

Unfortunately in *this* world people can & do abuse almost anything imaginable, so harm reduction is in order. Removing large magazine capacity centrefire semiautos is exactly that - it won't solve the problem but it will reduce the damage a nutcase can inflict when they lose the plot. That's about the best we can hope for, absent the perfection of the human race (and I'm not holding my breath).....

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

People need to do BOTH.

Guns without people to operate them aren't a problem (let's skip over 'intelligent' weapons for the nonce).

 People without personality defects that result in them causing harm to others won't abuse guns regardless of type.

 Unfortunately in *this* world people can & do abuse almost anything imaginable, so harm reduction is in order. Removing large magazine capacity centrefire semiautos is exactly that - it won't solve the problem but it will reduce the damage a nutcase can inflict when they lose the plot. That's about the best we can hope for, absent the perfection of the human race (and I'm not holding my breath).....

We're not in disagreement. You're making the same argument I've been making to @A guy in the Chesapeake for quite some time.

My point in the post you quoted is that Chesapeake is saying that everyone needs to give up their entrenched position and adopt his entrenched position.... which is no better than my tongue-in-cheek counter proposition to him. I've always explicitly stated that Chesapeake should pursue his goal of addressing the fact humans have violent impulses that need to be controlled in some fashion rather than indulged at the expense of others. Mental health, cultural change, addressing poverty, etc are all worthy goals that I have openly supported.

I simply don't bury my head in the sand and pretend that we can solve that problem in the foreseeable future and, as such, I don't neglect the potential for harm mitigation. And it's not even like gun nutters are against the concept of harm mitigation. They just don't like it when they are required to have some skin in that game. Haven't seen Chesapeake or Jeffie ever say we should leave Iran alone to develop all the nuclear weapons they like. Not once have they piped up to say "All but one country with nuclear weapons have never used them. Stop hassling Iran until we solve the causes of violence!"

Share this post


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

What you seem to be missing is if you ban the .223 for "being too deadly", you are ALSO banning any rifle that could possibly be used to hunt anything bigger than a squirrel. The .17 and .22LR would be about all that would be left.

What you seem to be missing is that all the talk about .223's is just a distraction, as the bans I have read already cover rimfire guns. I'm not sure why you think they would be left unbanned? Can you cite an assault weapon ban or proposed one that does not include rimfire guns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Removing large magazine capacity centrefire semiautos is exactly that - it won't solve the problem but it will reduce the damage a nutcase can inflict when they lose the plot.

No, it's a distraction used while they ban rimfire guns as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2018 at 3:34 AM, lasal said:

Well, your honor, they can try to prevent mass murder. I hereby assert it. Is there a law preventing you from making a point, or are you limited to semantics by some force of nature?

Poll the still living persons who got shot if the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted to allow the sale of weapons capable of shooting 480 people from 490 yards distance in a 10 minute period by ONE person. And do that root cause analysis thing you do on this, please.

I'm fine with banning bump stockas.   Now what?

Share this post


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

I'm fine with banning bump stockas.   Now what?

Now you read an actual bump stock ban and discover that it covers that fancy trigger kit you bought, because it bans anything that can have the effect of increasing rate of fire.

 

Share this post


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

It's also the insane accuracy. The .223 is a varmint round but any idiot can kill troublesome wild animals or country music fans at 400+ yards.

So now the answer is to make rifle rounds LESS accurate or ban all the ones that are too accurate?  Really?  Good luck with that.

Share this post


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

No, it's a distraction used while they ban rimfire guns as well.

That may be true if people like you don't make any alternative suggestions and point out what might actually have an effect.

Since all you want to do is piss & moan over a 22RF potential ban instead of addressing real issues with large magazine capacity semiauto centrfires, frankly, I don't give a damn. I wouldn't give a damn even if I were a US voter, because your default position reduces to no changes or restrictions on anything, anywhere, any time. 

OK, that's marginalised you to irrelevance. That's your choice so live with it.

FKT

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

No, it's a distraction used while they ban rimfire guns as well.

That may be true if people like you don't make any alternative suggestions and point out what might actually have an effect.

Since all you want to do is piss & moan over a 22RF potential ban instead of addressing real issues with large magazine capacity semiauto centrfires, frankly, I don't give a damn. I wouldn't give a damn even if I were a US voter, because your default position reduces to no changes or restrictions on anything, anywhere, any time. 

OK, that's marginalised you to irrelevance. That's your choice so live with it.

FKT

I don't just bitch about the potential bans on 22RF guns. I bitch about the ones that have been enacted too.

I've also commented on the "large" capacity magazine issue, noting that "large" means anything over 5 rounds for US citizens in Puerto Rico, anything over 7 in lots of states, and anything over 10 to federal grabberz.

Missing from this exchange: folks here on the other side who might begin the discussion you want by allowing that maybe, just maybe, our squirrel guns should not be banned. And maybe, just maybe, 5 rounds is a bit too small. Instead, the response of the chorus is to try to shout me down for suggesting such things.

Here's an alternative suggestion: assault weapons bans that don't include rimfires and that allow 6 round magazines.

 

Share this post


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

semi auto rifles, like I said, with perhaps a bone to throw to militia freaks. if you own a semi auto shotgun you're a tool, so keep it. Three shots at a duck, that's full-on cornball.

What's your idea? Think anything should be done?

I was thinking more along the lines of 5 shots, fixed mag. No way to let loose like the Las Vegas shooter did.

Share this post


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

Here's an alternative suggestion: assault weapons bans that don't include rimfires and that allow 6 round magazines.

But the political reality is that six rounds are too many.

6 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I was thinking more along the lines of 5 shots, fixed mag.

Thanks for illustrating that point.

Would that be

1 hour ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

addressing real issues with large magazine capacity

to you, FKT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Raz'r said:

clearly both. I'd like to see housing for the homeless, and mental health watches for certain behaviors. neither of which will happen.

And since we need to outfit every student and teacher with a glock, addressing lethality won't, either.

So lock up your daughters, lock up your wife, lock up your back door and run for your life.

 

I think that that's part of it. What are your thoughts w/r/t societal conditioning impacting those things? 

Share this post


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

But the political reality is that six rounds are too many.

Thanks for illustrating that point.

Would that be

to you, FKT?

Or 3 or 6 or 7..........

Share this post


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

Here's an alternative suggestion: assault weapons bans that don't include rimfires and that allow 6 round magazines.

 

Here's an alternative alternative suggestion:  Banning ANY semi-automatic assault is fucking stupid.  Because it goes against the 2nd amendment principles far more than banning your rimfire dogballs shooters for the same reason that Dick Heller's 9-shot dogballs pistol is not a great militia weapon.  Your ordinary dogballs rifle is less effective of a militia weapon than my scary AR-15 is.  

Share this post


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

I think that that's part of it. What are your thoughts w/r/t societal conditioning impacting those things? 

Kent Island is very heavily armed. Gun crime is almost nonexistent here. Our guns are in the same closet as the fishing rod and crab net, they are part of outdoor sporting activity.

Baltimore is well armed and their sport is shooting each other. If you could invent a magic ray that would make them act like us, we could forget gun control. But you can't and we can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Why did you bother weighing in? My position is that A_Guy's platitudes add nothing to the conversation. Any more than "Get off my lawn"

I provided you some studies that I've read that do a much better job of explaining what I think than I can.   To demean those as "platitudes" makes me think that you're not really interested in looking at or addressing causality. 

Share this post


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

I think that that's part of it. What are your thoughts w/r/t societal conditioning impacting those things? 

Kent Island is very heavily armed. Gun crime is almost nonexistent here. Our guns are in the same closet as the fishing rod and crab net, they are part of outdoor sporting activity.

Baltimore is well armed and their sport is shooting each other. If you could invent a magic ray that would make them act like us, we could forget gun control. But you can't and we can't.

So what you're admitting is that guns themselves are not the problem.  Instead it's that some people can't be trusted with them to behave responsibly, so therefore we have to take them away from EVERYONE to address the tiny % who are abusing them???  Do I have that right?

If Baltimore is the issue and their sport is shooting each other, it sounds like there is a deeper problem than just toolz.   Maybe if the city addressed those problems you wouldn't have a murder issue.  

Or here's another idea.....  Set up checkpoints into ALL the city entrances - land, water and air and search everyone who goes into the city to stop guns from being smuggled in as I presume Baltimore already has very strict gun laws within the city limits.  I would then do a one time house to house search in the affected neighborhoods and get rid of the existing gunz in the city.  Problem SOLved and it doesn't even affect Kent Island.  

Share this post


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

To demean those as "platitudes" makes me think that you're not really interested in looking at or addressing causality. 

Ya think????  :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

We're not in disagreement. You're making the same argument I've been making to @A guy in the Chesapeake for quite some time.

My point in the post you quoted is that Chesapeake is saying that everyone needs to give up their entrenched position and adopt his entrenched position.... which is no better than my tongue-in-cheek counter proposition to him. I've always explicitly stated that Chesapeake should pursue his goal of addressing the fact humans have violent impulses that need to be controlled in some fashion rather than indulged at the expense of others. Mental health, cultural change, addressing poverty, etc are all worthy goals that I have openly supported.

I simply don't bury my head in the sand and pretend that we can solve that problem in the foreseeable future and, as such, I don't neglect the potential for harm mitigation. And it's not even like gun nutters are against the concept of harm mitigation. They just don't like it when they are required to have some skin in that game. Haven't seen Chesapeake or Jeffie ever say we should leave Iran alone to develop all the nuclear weapons they like. Not once have they piped up to say "All but one country with nuclear weapons have never used them. Stop hassling Iran until we solve the causes of violence!"

Not at all - but, if you expect a very large percentage of the population to accept an infringement on their legal activities, you also have to be willing to address the other factors that apply - that's YOUR "skin in the game".  You haven't been actively participating in these discussions for very long, but if you were to query my comments, you'd see that I , and yeah, Jeff too, have proposed many restrictions.  I *never* hear anyone on the prohibition side of the discussion ever being willing to discuss or offer ideas for ways to control the PEOPLE side of the problem - and IMHO, that's the more problematic component. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Kent Island is very heavily armed. Gun crime is almost nonexistent here. Our guns are in the same closet as the fishing rod and crab net, they are part of outdoor sporting activity.

Baltimore is well armed and their sport is shooting each other. If you could invent a magic ray that would make them act like us, we could forget gun control. But you can't and we can't.

You're quite right. 

So - do we just ignore the differences between the two demographics and say "it is what it is", or try to figure out ways to adjust the factors that contribute to the unwanted behaviors?   

I think that we need a holistic approach, and one that doesn't unduly penalize the 99.99 something % of people who aren't doing anything wrong.  If the prohibitionists would stop pushing for any restriction to be merely a stepping stone to more, and would also start to address the human causal factors, you'd see more of us who oppose prohibitions be more accepting.  

I'll ask any of you who advocate for increased restrictions to do this little bit of homework:  If you advocate for a change, tell me what specific objective that change will accomplish, how and when.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Blue Crab said:

Them and us. We're going to have to face that music eventually.

Indeed.  There are *lots* of those situations, along political divisions, race, religion, urban/rural, economic.  I think when we look at which "side" we're on, we'll all likely find ourselves straddling several lines. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So now the answer is to make rifle rounds LESS accurate or ban all the ones that are too accurate?  Really?  Good luck with that.

Not at all. I think reasonable regulations, like allowing gun nuts to only bag two country music fans and one first grader per season, should reduce the overpopulation. Lawyers being the vermin that they are, you can kill all the lawyers. However, in order to enact these modest reforms you’d have to get rid of the 2A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

,,,

I think that we need a holistic approach, and one that doesn't unduly penalize the 99.99 something % of people who aren't doing anything wrong.  If the prohibitionists would stop pushing for any restriction to be merely a stepping stone to more, and would also start to address the human causal factors, you'd see more of us who oppose prohibitions be more accepting.  

,,,

Chesapeake has brought  "human causal factors" point forward on several occasions, as have others.

I would like to hear the prohibitionists points of view

 

 

 

 

41 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Not at all. I think reasonable regulations, like allowing gun nuts to shoot "endangered" wolves on sight should reduce the overpopulation. Antifa being the vermin that they are, you can kill all the antifa. However, in order to enact these modest reforms you’d have to supply ammunition to the wolf hunters

:) 

 

Share this post


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

Not at all. I think reasonable regulations, like allowing gun nuts to only bag two country music fans and one first grader per season, should reduce the overpopulation. Lawyers being the vermin that they are, you can kill all the lawyers. However, in order to enact these modest reforms you’d have to get rid of the 2A.

I disagree.  The 2A is perfectly in harmony with your proposal.  

Share this post


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

Kent Island is very heavily armed. Gun crime is almost nonexistent here. Our guns are in the same closet as the fishing rod and crab net, they are part of outdoor sporting activity.

Baltimore is well armed and their sport is shooting each other. If you could invent a magic ray that would make them act like us, we could forget gun control. But you can't and we can't.

Furthermore, Kent Island is heavily very white.  Baltimore city is heavily black.  Maybe the issue isn't gunz.  Maybe we should just outlaw blacks from having gunz.  It statistically makes more logical sense than banning certain types of gunz from everyone in the country when a tiny fraction of the gun owning population is committing crime and violence with gunz.  

I wish we could invent your magic ray gun but my reasonable proposal is well.... more reasonable and logical.  But it has about as much chance of happening.  Instead, just to keep from getting melanin enhanced folk's feelings hurt, your SOLution is to take gunz away from everyone.  

I'm am not a fan of padding the corners of society.  As Chessie says - address the root causes of the violence first - IOW the causal factors such as poverty, drugs and lack of opportunity among many other factors.  When you've exhausted that with an honest effort, then you can take my AR-15(s) away from me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, back to the Poll....  a fairly high % think that both the 1A and the 2A enable undesirable and/or criminal behavior.  I'm actually heartened by that.  That shows a good consensus for what I'm getting at. 

But a minority thinks the 4A "enables" the same.  I'm honestly curious why you think that is?   For those of you who answered DISAGREE to the 4A question, why do you not think our privacy laws don't allow criminals and other deviants to get away with bad things?   Why is the 4th different from the 1A or 2A "enablement"???

Share this post


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

Furthermore, Kent Island is heavily very white.  Baltimore city is heavily black.  Maybe the issue isn't gunz.  Maybe we should just outlaw blacks from having gunz.  It statistically makes more logical sense than banning certain types of gunz from everyone in the country when a tiny fraction of the gun owning population is committing crime and violence with gunz.  

I wish we could invent your magic ray gun but my reasonable proposal is well.... more reasonable and logical.  But it has about as much chance of happening.  Instead, just to keep from getting melanin enhanced folk's feelings hurt, your SOLution is to take gunz away from everyone.  

I'm am not a fan of padding the corners of society.  As Chessie says - address the root causes of the violence first - IOW the causal factors such as poverty, drugs and lack of opportunity among many other factors.  When you've exhausted that with an honest effort, then you can take my AR-15(s) away from me.  

fiddlesticks.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe if the black populations of inner cities were relocated to suburban neighborhoods with verdant well trimmed lawns, or rolling pastoral rural communities,and given college degrees, and good paying jobs, and all the white people from those places were crammed into hot, smelly, concrete and steel city environments with few job opportunities, and an oppressive criminal justice system, the gun stats might be different...

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I don't just bitch about the potential bans on 22RF guns. I bitch about the ones that have been enacted too.

I've also commented on the "large" capacity magazine issue, noting that "large" means anything over 5 rounds for US citizens in Puerto Rico, anything over 7 in lots of states, and anything over 10 to federal grabberz.

Missing from this exchange: folks here on the other side who might begin the discussion you want by allowing that maybe, just maybe, our squirrel guns should not be banned. And maybe, just maybe, 5 rounds is a bit too small. Instead, the response of the chorus is to try to shout me down for suggesting such things.

Here's an alternative suggestion: assault weapons bans that don't include rimfires and that allow 6 round magazines.

 

I won't shout that down. I still don't like suppressed guns, but allowing your plinkers doesn't bother me with 6 round magazines. The AR nuts can join militias if they want to keep their centerfire semiautos.

So, you live in Punta Gorda and shoot squirrels with your dognutz guns? Like squirrels in trees? Wouldn't a pellet rifle be a better choice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Maybe if the black populations of inner cities were relocated to suburban neighborhoods with verdant well trimmed lawns, or rolling pastoral rural communities,and given college degrees, and good paying jobs, and all the white people from those places were crammed into hot, smelly, concrete and steel city environments with few job opportunities, and an oppressive criminal justice system, the gun stats might be different...

Might be - but, rather than insisting on a swap in which case the verdant lawns would more than likely soon look like the alleys and vacant lots, isn't the operative question to figure out what's keeping people there if they want to go someplace else? 

It's the people and the things they do that make a place nice or not.  Look at Federal Hill in Baltimore as an example - in the 70s, the place was decrepit, a neighborhood in ruin.  The city of Baltimore condemned blocks upon blocks, and sold the properties to people for $1, with the requirement for purchasers to refurbish and reside in the properties for a period of time (5 years?) afterwards.  Now? It's a highly desirable, vibrant neighborhood.   What changed to make it like that? 

Share this post


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

Anyway, back to the Poll....  a fairly high % think that both the 1A and the 2A enable undesirable and/or criminal behavior.  I'm actually heartened by that.  That shows a good consensus for what I'm getting at. 

But a minority thinks the 4A "enables" the same.  I'm honestly curious why you think that is?   For those of you who answered DISAGREE to the 4A question, why do you not think our privacy laws don't allow criminals and other deviants to get away with bad things?   Why is the 4th different from the 1A or 2A "enablement"???

I think that for me, I have a general respect for authority, as long as that authority has well defined and understood limits.  Your point that suspending the 4th would enable the authorities to find LOTS of lawbreakers is valid.

You & I have been in places where the concept of 4th amendment like protections for the civilian populace don't exist, and I don't want to see that happening here.  Laws only work when civilians and authorities both understand and respect them - suspending the 4th eliminates the limits that we expect the authorities, who already have the powers of arrest/deadly force, to exercise in their interactions with civilians. 

Share this post


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

Anyway, back to the Poll....  a fairly high % think that both the 1A and the 2A enable undesirable and/or criminal behavior.  I'm actually heartened by that.  That shows a good consensus for what I'm getting at. 

But a minority thinks the 4A "enables" the same.  I'm honestly curious why you think that is?

I'll take a shot at it:

Because they don't talk to many prosecutors nor cops, who complain a great deal about the exclusionary rule and the requirements to get a warrant and to use evidence in court. Bottom line: they want the guilty walk daily because of the fourth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

Maybe if the black populations of inner cities were relocated to suburban neighborhoods with verdant well trimmed lawns, or rolling pastoral rural communities,and given college degrees, and good paying jobs, and all the white people from those places were crammed into hot, smelly, concrete and steel city environments with few job opportunities, and an oppressive criminal justice system, the gun stats might be different...

No, they wouldn’t. They would be exactly the same. The whites crammed into dense urban environments would kill at the same rates as blacks do now. Hence it’s neither a race issue or a gun issue. But rather a class issue. 

Thanks for helping my prove my point.  It’s a class issue.   And until you address the class and poverty problem and the underlying root causes - no amount of gun control is going to fix this problem. 

And I’ll be fucking dammned if I’m going to give up my constitutional rights to “pad the corners of society” if we are not willing to address the underlying root causes of this issue. 

Share this post


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

Furthermore, Kent Island is heavily very white.  Baltimore city is heavily black.  Maybe the issue isn't gunz.  Maybe we should just outlaw blacks from having gunz.  It statistically makes more logical sense than banning certain types of gunz from everyone in the country when a tiny fraction of the gun owning population is committing crime and violence with gunz.  

I wish we could invent your magic ray gun but my reasonable proposal is well.... more reasonable and logical.  But it has about as much chance of happening.  Instead, just to keep from getting melanin enhanced folk's feelings hurt, your SOLution is to take gunz away from everyone.  

I'm am not a fan of padding the corners of society.  As Chessie says - address the root causes of the violence first - IOW the causal factors such as poverty, drugs and lack of opportunity among many other factors.  When you've exhausted that with an honest effort, then you can take my AR-15(s) away from me.  

Meanwhile in Chiraq:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/08/07/chicago-gun-violence-homicide-clearance/925630002/

"Young’s no-snitching outlook sheds light on the complicated dynamic in Chicago’s neighborhoods plagued by persistent gun violence, one in which few residents are willing to assist police and even fewer perpetrators are held accountable."

"Over the weekend, at least 72 people were shot in the city, including 12 fatally, but police did not record a single arrest in any of the incidents."

"Most of the killings, largely fueled by gang-fueled conflict, take place in a smattering of low-income, predominantly black and Latino neighborhoods on the South and West Sides of the city."

"...the same neighborhoods that have some of the city’s highest poverty rates also have the highest homicide rates."

                      

For those of you who want to ban gunz (and let's get real here, that's the outcome many 2nd amendment opponents want), please outline how that's gonna work in the inner cities, when most folks in the most crime ridden areas won't cooperate with authorities to get the shooters off the streets. 

Share this post


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

No, they wouldn’t. They would be exactly the same. The whites crammed into dense urban environments would kill at the same rates as blacks do now. Hence it’s neither a race issue or a gun issue. But rather a class issue. 

Thanks for helping my prove my point.  It’s a class issue.   And until you address the class and poverty problem and the underlying root causes - no amount of gun control is going to fix this problem. 

And I’ll be fucking dammned if I’m going to give up my constitutional rights to “pad the corners of society” if we are not willing to address the underlying root causes of this issue. 

Yep, you won't give your rights up for that.

But you WILL give them up for a paycheck. As Eva Dent.

Once a mercenary, always a mercenary.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Yep, you won't give your rights up for that.

But you WILL give them up for a paycheck. As Eva Dent.

 Once a mercenary, always a mercenary.

Jealous, Flash?  

 

Share this post


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

Jealous, Flash?  

 

Not in the least. I live in the country that has these rights, and send my kids into battle every school day. 

Jeffie? Talks a good game, but traded those rights for a paycheck and safety. 

In my book, he shouldn't even have a seat at the table. He's just a monkey flinging shit from the sidelines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Not in the least. I live in the country that has these rights, and send my kids into battle every school day. 

Jeffie? Talks a good game, but traded those rights for a paycheck and safety. 

In my book, he shouldn't even have a seat at the table. He's just a monkey flinging shit from the sidelines.

Do you really understand what is entailed in being a military contractor overseas?  What rights did he trade? For a "paycheck and safety"?   

You "send your kids into battle" every school day?  Have you taught them how to move using cover and concealment?  Tactical threat assessment? E&E?   

I find it funny that you're complaining about anyone else flinging shit.  You make decent points every once in a while, but, it's usually after a shovelful has had to be scraped off the wall.   

Just to be clear - I was talking being jealous because you never took advantage of the chance to do the things Jeff and others have.  It's a common enough thing among guys in our rough age group to experience a little jealousy/sense of lost opportunity.   I know *I* am jealous of the people who took a few years to be a kid after school instead of just jumping in with both feet to a commitment that you couldn't walk away from - and when I try to make up for it now? My wife and kids love reminding me that acting like Peter Pan @ 52 really isn't cool. 

Share this post


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

Do you really understand what is entailed in being a military contractor overseas?  What rights did he trade? For a "paycheck and safety"?   

You "send your kids into battle" every school day?  Have you taught them how to move using cover and concealment?  Tactical threat assessment? E&E?   

I find it funny that you're complaining about anyone else flinging shit.  You make decent points every once in a while, but, it's usually after a shovelful has had to be scraped off the wall.   

Just to be clear - I was talking being jealous because you never took advantage of the chance to do the things Jeff and others have.  It's a common enough thing among guys in our rough age group to experience a little jealousy/sense of lost opportunity.   I know *I* am jealous of the people who took a few years to be a kid after school instead of just jumping in with both feet to a commitment that you couldn't walk away from - and when I try to make up for it now? My wife and kids love reminding me that acting like Peter Pan @ 52 really isn't cool. 

I know someone our age that gave his wife a pile of cash, a paid for house, said goodbye to the family, and took off to Thailand to do drugs and screw hookers. Kind of sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the original sort-of topic, if you visited a country where the right to buy nitroglycerin was part of their foundation myth and they killed themselves at an amazing rate chucking bottles of nitroglycerin at each other, dropping them, leaving them out for the kids to find and take to school, bringing them to church, and carrying a bottle wherever they went, you just might decide they were all bat-shit crazy :wacko:

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Do you really understand what is entailed in being a military contractor overseas?  What rights did he trade? For a "paycheck and safety"?   

You "send your kids into battle" every school day?  Have you taught them how to move using cover and concealment?  Tactical threat assessment? E&E?   

I find it funny that you're complaining about anyone else flinging shit.  You make decent points every once in a while, but, it's usually after a shovelful has had to be scraped off the wall.   

Just to be clear - I was talking being jealous because you never took advantage of the chance to do the things Jeff and others have.  It's a common enough thing among guys in our rough age group to experience a little jealousy/sense of lost opportunity.   I know *I* am jealous of the people who took a few years to be a kid after school instead of just jumping in with both feet to a commitment that you couldn't walk away from - and when I try to make up for it now? My wife and kids love reminding me that acting like Peter Pan @ 52 really isn't cool. 

Jealous? not really. I do wish I had flown fighters, I solo'd on my 16th, had my private pilot's license on my 17th, and had a Navy ROTC scholarship - but I passed as my eyes suck. took up sailing instead.

I've been to 35 countries at last count. Lived in Hong Kong. As many countries as a flyboy? probably not. but more than the average MAGA wearing troglodyte who cannot afford a passport.

And I sail.

Married, have a couple kids.

 

And while I don't train my kids for battle, the schools do. they have lockdown drills, duck and hide drills, etc.


They get a lot of crying kids those days.

 

AmeriKa, Fuck Yeah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I know someone our age that gave his wife a pile of cash, a paid for house, said goodbye to the family, and took off to Thailand to do drugs and screw hookers. Kind of sad.

really sad, uncommon, but not unheard of.

Share this post


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

Not at all - but, if you expect a very large percentage of the population to accept an infringement on their legal activities, you also have to be willing to address the other factors that apply - that's YOUR "skin in the game".

Read my post again. I am more than willing for people to address the "other factors". Have at it. You have my complete support in addressing them, as I have repeatedly stated every time you try this angle. My position has never been the "only gun control factors need to be addressed" strawman you continually beat upon. Happy to have my skin in the game and have told you so many times.

 

Quote

You haven't been actively participating in these discussions for very long, but if you were to query my comments, you'd see that I , and yeah, Jeff too, have proposed many restrictions.

Which is not what I said about you and him. It's also not the problem with the post I was referring to with FKT in the quote you chose to reply to. You have the oft-repeated proposal of dealing with & discussing the "causes of violence" problem, not dealing with & discussing the "access to firearms" problem. Whilst I don't ever tell you that you cannot / should not address the problem from your angle, you frequently complain about people trying to address the problem from mine.

You state that you want everyone to give up their entrenched position only to adopt your entrenched position. That is the very kind of one-sided hypocrisy that you used to decry in these discussions. It is both sad and amusing that you both complained about it and indulged in it in the same post. Hence my response pointing that out. 

 

Quote

I *never* hear anyone on the prohibition side of the discussion ever being willing to discuss or offer ideas for ways to control the PEOPLE side of the problem - and IMHO, that's the more problematic component. 

That would be because you ignore the fact that addressing the issues you discuss is discussed every day without referring to guns. Addressing the issue of poverty and the income inequality issues doesn't need Tom complaining about the ban on his dogballs to be looking at a root cause. Addressing the costs and availability of healthcare, including mental health, doesn't need Jeffie's lashing out with comments about bikies raping my wife to be addressing a root cause of violence. And so on. Despite Tom's best attempts, not every thread is specifically mentioning guns, and we can address some of the root causes you mention without having to do so.

On the other hand, harm mitigation through gun control kind of has to mention guns - which is a trigger for some folks. Tom talks about dogballs, Jeffie reveals his inner shit-stick, and you complain that people should stop talking about gun control because you'd prefer to talk about other things but won't take the simple effort of starting a thread to discuss them in.

Share this post


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

I know someone our age that gave his wife a pile of cash, a paid for house, said goodbye to the family, and took off to Thailand to do drugs and screw hookers. Kind of sad.

I worked with a guy who took up a coke habit, then used coke to seduce his neighbor's 16 year old daughter, and took her on a trip tat turned out not as long as he planned, leaving wife and kids etc etc.

I have no idea what kind of life-wish regrets he was trying to deal with, but he has worse ones now.

Kind of sad, yeah. Too bad the girl's dad didn't have a gun to solve the problem

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Raz'r said:
9 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

ealous, Flash?  

 

Not in the least. I live in the country that has these rights, and send my kids into battle every school day. 

Jeffie? Talks a good game, but traded those rights for a paycheck and safety. 

In my book, he shouldn't even have a seat at the table. He's just a monkey flinging shit from the sidelines.

I haven't given up anything.  Last I checked, as an American citizen and a taxpayer, I still have all of those rights.  I still own gunz.  Just because I'm not currently co-located with them means nothing.  It's no different that the US soldier who gets stationed in Commiefornia and leaves their gunsafe behind in a free state until their temporary assignment is over.  I'm nothing more than a "guest worker" over here.  A well paid guest worker for sure, but nothing more than the Mexican tomato picker in AZ.  There is no "path to citizenship" here, not that I'm even slightly interested in it even if there was.  I haven't given up anything by working overseas anymore than @B.J. Porter has giving up by cruising the world and living in AUS for these past several years.  

So nice try, but the usual flashdance FAIL, as evadent.  My seat at the table is just as firmly rooted as yours is.  And my daughter went to school every day just like yours did and she's in University now.  In a state awash in gunz with practically no gun lawz.  So my skin is just as much in the game as yours is.  Suck it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Kent Island is very heavily armed. Gun crime is almost nonexistent here. Our guns are in the same closet as the fishing rod and crab net, they are part of outdoor sporting activity.

Sounds like

11 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Back to the original sort-of topic, if you visited a country where the right to buy nitroglycerin was part of their foundation myth and they killed themselves at an amazing rate chucking bottles of nitroglycerin at each other, dropping them, leaving them out for the kids to find and take to school, bringing them to church, and carrying a bottle wherever they went, you just might decide they were all bat-shit crazy :wacko:

Is the nitrocloset lined with titanium?

Or maybe having a gun in your closet doesn't indicate craziness? Maybe putting a telescoping stock on your squirrel gun doesn't make you a scourge on the country?

Sorry, that last question just went too far.

DiFiScreenshotTruth.jpg

Share this post


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

I haven't given up anything.  Last I checked, as an American citizen and a taxpayer, I still have all of those rights.  I still own gunz.  Just because I'm not currently co-located with them means nothing.  It's no different that the US soldier who gets stationed in Commiefornia and leaves their gunsafe behind in a free state until their temporary assignment is over.  I'm nothing more than a "guest worker" over here.  A well paid guest worker for sure, but nothing more than the Mexican tomato picker in AZ.  There is no "path to citizenship" here, not that I'm even slightly interested in it even if there was.  I haven't given up anything by working overseas anymore than @B.J. Porter has giving up by cruising the world and living in AUS for these past several years.  

So nice try, but the usual flashdance FAIL, as evadent.  My seat at the table is just as firmly rooted as yours is.  And my daughter went to school every day just like yours did and she's in University now.  In a state awash in gunz with practically no gun lawz.  So my skin is just as much in the game as yours is.  Suck it.

You’re a taxpayer? That’s funny! Ha, good one.!

Share this post


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

I know someone our age that gave his wife a pile of cash, a paid for house, said goodbye to the family, and took off to Thailand to do drugs and screw hookers. Kind of sad.

Yeah, Jeff’s story is one to ponder. 

Share this post


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

I know someone our age that gave his wife a pile of cash, a paid for house, said goodbye to the family, and took off to Thailand to do drugs and screw hookers. Kind of sad.

Kind of?  Sounds pretty flippin' pathetic to me. 

Share this post


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

Read my post again. I am more than willing for people to address the "other factors". Have at it. You have my complete support in addressing them, as I have repeatedly stated every time you try this angle. My position has never been the "only gun control factors need to be addressed" strawman you continually beat upon. Happy to have my skin in the game and have told you so many times.

 

Which is not what I said about you and him. It's also not the problem with the post I was referring to with FKT in the quote you chose to reply to. You have the oft-repeated proposal of dealing with & discussing the "causes of violence" problem, not dealing with & discussing the "access to firearms" problem. Whilst I don't ever tell you that you cannot / should not address the problem from your angle, you frequently complain about people trying to address the problem from mine.

You state that you want everyone to give up their entrenched position only to adopt your entrenched position. That is the very kind of one-sided hypocrisy that you used to decry in these discussions. It is both sad and amusing that you both complained about it and indulged in it in the same post. Hence my response pointing that out. 

 

That would be because you ignore the fact that addressing the issues you discuss is discussed every day without referring to guns. Addressing the issue of poverty and the income inequality issues doesn't need Tom complaining about the ban on his dogballs to be looking at a root cause. Addressing the costs and availability of healthcare, including mental health, doesn't need Jeffie's lashing out with comments about bikies raping my wife to be addressing a root cause of violence. And so on. Despite Tom's best attempts, not every thread is specifically mentioning guns, and we can address some of the root causes you mention without having to do so.

On the other hand, harm mitigation through gun control kind of has to mention guns - which is a trigger for some folks. Tom talks about dogballs, Jeffie reveals his inner shit-stick, and you complain that people should stop talking about gun control because you'd prefer to talk about other things but won't take the simple effort of starting a thread to discuss them in.

You are ignoring that I *have* proposed and do support changes to our firearms laws.  That support does come with some caveats, as I have been around long enough to understand our government's propensity to apply restrictions beyond the originally intended application, and I think that its prudent to ensure that any new restrictions aren't misapplied.   I do indeed oppose restrictions that are based in emotion, that when analyzed, don't appear to address the problem for which they were proposed, are arbitrary, etc....   So - when you say "You state that you want everyone to give up their entrenched position only to adopt your entrenched position" - that's completely false.  What would be more accurate would be to say that I want any implementation of a restriction to be accompanied by changes that also address the people side of the issue, and that I oppose restrictions without such accompanying changes. 

So tell me Bent - what suggestions/proposed legislation have been recently proposed to address the people side of the problem?   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

You’re a taxpayer? That’s funny! Ha, good one.!

Yeah - only a portion of foreign earned income is exempt, he still pays FICA, and still has to pay property taxes.  Did you think that being overseas exempted you from everything? 

Share this post


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

Sounds like

Is the nitrocloset lined with titanium?

Or maybe having a gun in your closet doesn't indicate craziness? Maybe putting a telescoping stock on your squirrel gun doesn't make you a scourge on the country?

Sorry, that last question just went too far.

 

You totally failed to understand my post.

Country A has fetishized easy access to something dangerous. They suffer at a rate unknown in the rest of the developed world from injuries and death caused by their dangerous object. They howl with righteous anger when there is even a hint of controlling these dangerous objects.

Looked at from outside, this seems utterly nuts to everyone else. Get it now ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

,,, fetishized ,,,

  nitroglycerine 

I think Tom totally understood your post as the Strawman it is.

OR

If you want to store some nitro yourself, it would be prudent to keep it safely contained in a Ti6-4 closet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If airplanes crashed in the USA 10x more often than the EU, would we do something about it?

If cars crashed in the USA 10x more often than the EU, would we do something about it?

If dams collapsed in the USA 10x more often than the EU, would we do something about it?

If nuclear reactors exploded in the USA 10x more often than the EU, would we do something about it?

The answer is of course we would.

 

Share this post


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

... If cars crashed in the USA 10x more often than the EU, would we do something about it? ...

10X? It took one Jayne Mansfield. She crashed into the rear of tractor trailer which had slowed down. Rear reflector bars are now mandated and even called Mansfield Bars.

image.png.d2fdeab2319904f0d4f4af575254432b.png

One Jayne Mansfield. But not 20 children cuz guns are special.

Share this post


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

If airplanes crashed in the USA 10x more often than the EU, would we do something about it?

If cars crashed in the USA 10x more often than the EU, would we do something about it?

If dams collapsed in the USA 10x more often than the EU, would we do something about it?

If nuclear reactors exploded in the USA 10x more often than the EU, would we do something about it?

The answer is of course we would.

 

That depends.

Are all these things killing more than 10X as many people, including children, all part of the COST OF FREEDOM !!!!!

-DSK

Share this post


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

You totally failed to understand my post.

Country A has fetishized easy access to something dangerous. They suffer at a rate unknown in the rest of the developed world from injuries and death caused by their dangerous object. They howl with righteous anger when there is even a hint of controlling these dangerous objects.

Looked at from outside, this seems utterly nuts to everyone else. Get it now ;)

What do you do to fetishize easy access to the guns in your closet?

Is the suicide rate exceptionally high on the Island?

What does it sound like when you howl?

Share this post


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

So - when you say "You state that you want everyone to give up their entrenched position only to adopt your entrenched position" - that's completely false.

Read the post I was commenting on again. that post, the one I commented on, did not have the balance you present yourself as having over time. I was commenting on the post and your position as expressed in it. As I have repeatedly stated and as you have repeatedly ignored. 

 

8 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 So tell me Bent - what suggestions/proposed legislation have been recently proposed to address the people side of the problem?   

More accessible healthcare (especially in regards to mental health). Better support & more funding for education, to allow those in poverty to find a way clear of needing/wanting to a life where illegal firearms (& shooting one another) is normal. Better childcare options for single mothers to help families escape the welfare cycle. Community outreach programs to help kids without role models (or with poor ones) And so on. All of them address underlying causes of violence as you have claimed to exist in past discussions. They continue to be supported by politicians and those politicians continue trying keep them funded and/or get them funded in the first place.

Just because they don't tag their efforts as being about "guns" doesn't negate them. After all, isn't that kind of your point - that efforts shouldn't have to be about guns to solve the problem?

Share this post


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

Read the post I was commenting on again. that post, the one I commented on, did not have the balance you present yourself as having over time. I was commenting on the post and your position as expressed in it. As I have repeatedly stated and as you have repeatedly ignored. 

 

More accessible healthcare (especially in regards to mental health). Better support & more funding for education, to allow those in poverty to find a way clear of needing/wanting to a life where illegal firearms (& shooting one another) is normal. Better childcare options for single mothers to help families escape the welfare cycle. Community outreach programs to help kids without role models (or with poor ones) And so on. All of them address underlying causes of violence as you have claimed to exist in past discussions. They continue to be supported by politicians and those politicians continue trying keep them funded and/or get them funded in the first place.

Just because they don't tag their efforts as being about "guns" doesn't negate them. After all, isn't that kind of your point - that efforts shouldn't have to be about guns to solve the problem?

Let's not forget the easy availability in both access and cost to abortion so young women who get pregnant have the option of terminating that pregnancy and avoid becoming single mothers.....

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Let's not forget the easy availability in both access and cost to abortion so young women who get pregnant have the option of terminating that pregnancy and avoid becoming single mothers.....

FKT

, which, of course, brings up the easy availability in both access and cost of the Pill so young women can choose to not get pregnant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites