Nailing Malarkey Too

Justin "I'm a pantywaist" Trudeau wants to take your gun.

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Laker said:

His point is that if you take away the gun related murders, the rate of murder is about the same across the developed world.  The high rate of murder in the US is attached to the prevalence of guns in American society. 

If he's right, you'd expect the highest murder rates among the demographic groups with the highest gun ownership rates. So he's wrong.

Share this post


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

If he's right, you'd expect the highest murder rates among the demographic groups with the highest gun ownership rates. So he's wrong.

Quite right, it's not the availability of guns alone.

It's a really toxic US culture combined with ready availability of guns. Frankly you lot have demonstrated that you can't be trusted to behave with sufficient self-control to have weapons capable of mass murder. Single-shot guns firing bean shot would be more appropriate.

I don't even trust your cops with guns.

FKT

Share this post


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

Frankly you lot have demonstrated that you can't be trusted to behave with sufficient self-control to have weapons capable of mass murder.

If you were right, you'd expect to see the most "toxic" behavior among the demographics with the highest gun ownership rates. So you're wrong.

Share this post


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

If you were right, you'd expect to see the most "toxic" behavior among the demographics with the highest gun ownership rates. So you're wrong.

What's " "toxic" behavior" dogballs?

Share this post


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

What's " "toxic" behavior" dogballs?

I dunno.

47 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

It's a really toxic US culture

I guess.

Share this post


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

I dunno.

I guess.

Change it to Dogballs, not dogballs Tom.

"I dunno" you say?  See your have no fucking idea. 

Share this post


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

If you were right, you'd expect to see the most "toxic" behavior among the demographics with the highest gun ownership rates. So you're wrong.

What's the First World country with the highest rate of mass murder by firearm outside a full-blown civil war?

FKT

Share this post


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

If you were right, you'd expect to see the most "toxic" behavior among the demographics with the highest gun ownership rates. So you're wrong.

I fail to see your jump in logic.  We are talking cultures here not demographics.  Whatever got you to demographics.  Demographics do not determine culture.  If you go country by country in the developed world and remove the gun crimes, the rate of murders per person, country by country, culture by culture, is about the same.  This is apparently, I checked again with someone who studies such things, an accepted statistic.  Correlation is not Causation, yes, but there are some good indications for Causation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

What's the First World country with the highest rate of mass murder by firearm outside a full-blown civil war?

FKT

I don't know, nor do I see what everyone else seems to see: how this question relates to confiscating our squirrel guns. Can you answer that question?

8 hours ago, Laker said:
On 9/22/2018 at 4:47 AM, dogballs Tom said:

If you were right, you'd expect to see the most "toxic" behavior among the demographics with the highest gun ownership rates. So you're wrong.

I fail to see your jump in logic.  We are talking cultures here not demographics.  Whatever got you to demographics.  Demographics do not determine culture.  If you go country by country in the developed world and remove the gun crimes, the rate of murders per person, country by country, culture by culture, is about the same.  This is apparently, I checked again with someone who studies such things, an accepted statistic.  Correlation is not Causation, yes, but there are some good indications for Causation.

Your post was about "the prevalence of guns" and said it's causal. If true, those who own the most guns would have the largest causal factor. And if it's really a causal factor, the most dramatic results.

The prevalence of gun ownership is high among people like Billy Backstay, Badlat, Joe Calhoun, Jeff, and me, among others.

Quote

The high rate of murder in the US is attached to the prevalence of guns in American society. 

Except that if you look at who actually owns the guns, instead of the country as a whole, you find that older white guys like we find here on the forum have a really, really low muder rate.

Share this post


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

I don't know, nor do I see what everyone else seems to see: how this question relates to confiscating our squirrel guns. Can you answer that question?

You won't answer that question because you know the answer and it's exactly on my point.

As for your toy squirrel guns, I've already told you I don't give a damn because you refuse to engage on any discussion of high magazine capacity centrefire semiautos, so having your favourite toy caught up in a sweep of much more dangerous firearms is simply collateral damage that you have richly earned. You're simply using it as a method of obfuscation and it isn't working. All you're achieving is alienating people like myself who actually own and use firearms and have a damned good knowledge of ballistics (and therefore what really determines lethality).

FKT

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

...so having your favourite toy caught up in a sweep of much more dangerous firearms is simply collateral damage that you have richly earned. You're simply using it as a method of obfuscation and it isn't working.

Fresh air, vs. dogballs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

prevalence: (noun) the fact or condition of being prevalent; commonness.

prevalent: (adjective) widespread in a particular area or at a particular time.

 

Prevalence is not about high concentration (i.e. "those who own the most guns"), it is about how widespread it is (i.e. "how many people own guns"). Tommy Dogballs knows this and so is stuck with his usual schtick of misrepresenting what people say so he can call them wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was listening on NPR the other day to a Canadian call-in show about the proposed gun legislation in Canada.  It was a half-hour show that may have been selective, but the only people not supporting the gun control initiatives seemed to be old white guys.  This bothers me that the loudest voice both in Canada and the US seem to be old white guys.  There are other voices, but other than the exceptions that prove the rule, the 2nd Amendment seems to be an old white guys prerogative and becomes a prime indicative of the cultural power landscape of the US.  Thank goodness the old white guys, even through the election of Trudeau, seem to be less of a cultural blanket in Canada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Except that if you look at who actually owns the guns, instead of the country as a whole, you find that older white guys like we find here on the forum have a really, really low muder rate.

I think you are right Dogballs.

These people are the problem .

image.png.830dd2208be855613196c8081c9d54de.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

You won't answer that question because you know the answer and it's exactly on my point.

As for your toy squirrel guns, I've already told you I don't give a damn because you refuse to engage on any discussion of high magazine capacity centrefire semiautos, so having your favourite toy caught up in a sweep of much more dangerous firearms is simply collateral damage that you have richly earned. You're simply using it as a method of obfuscation and it isn't working. All you're achieving is alienating people like myself who actually own and use firearms and have a damned good knowledge of ballistics (and therefore what really determines lethality).

FKT

I'll restrict the discussion of gun bans to centerfires with removable magazines the day AFTER that's all they cover.

You know your laws don't make sense but denigrate those who said so as they were being passed. You should have joined them and said so then and should shut up now since you didn't. You accepted shitty laws and denounced those trying to do what you know makes sense.

12 hours ago, Laker said:

I was listening on NPR the other day to a Canadian call-in show about the proposed gun legislation in Canada.  It was a half-hour show that may have been selective, but the only people not supporting the gun control initiatives seemed to be old white guys.  This bothers me that the loudest voice both in Canada and the US seem to be old white guys.  There are other voices, but other than the exceptions that prove the rule, the 2nd Amendment seems to be an old white guys prerogative and becomes a prime indicative of the cultural power landscape of the US.  Thank goodness the old white guys, even through the election of Trudeau, seem to be less of a cultural blanket in Canada.

Gee, could it be because that's who owns guns and we don't want them taken and we don't think our squirrel gun ownership is responsible for any real or imaginary murders?

Who did you think was going to complain? People who aren't having their property taken away? People who aren't being told they're responsible for murders?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one of the questions we have to ask ourselves is why there was NO looting after the tornados in Ottawa.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2018 at 2:45 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Gee, could it be because that's who owns guns and we don't want them taken and we don't think our squirrel gun ownership is responsible for any real or imaginary murders?

Who did you think was going to complain? People who aren't having their property taken away? People who aren't being told they're responsible for murders?

Victimized, are we? Yer pathetic, and dangerous, You are a vulture, still circling above Sandy Hook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2018 at 12:09 AM, random said:

Except that if you look at who actually owns the guns, instead of the country as a whole, you find that older white guys like we find here on the forum have a really, really low muder rate.

How is their suicide rate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2018 at 12:02 PM, Laker said:

I think one of the questions we have to ask ourselves is why there was NO looting after the tornados in Ottawa.  

I would imagine that if no one was home after the disaster, Canadian looters would politely knock and, finding no one, apologize to thin air and then go back home.

But they're Canadians.

There was no looting here after hurricane Charlie either.

But there were looters a few blocks from my house after hurricane Andrew.

I think one of the questions we have to ask ourselves is what were government employees in helicopters going to do about it? The answer was: nothing.

Another question we have to ask ourselves is what were government employees in helicopters going to do to prevent them walking a few blocks to find a neighborhood full of shattered houses and lootable valuables? The answer was: nothing.

Another question we have to ask ourselves is: what if we had a REAL natural disaster? You know, like Yellowstone's volcano blasting half the continent again? Or a solar flare frying everything electrical? Would government employees in helicopters be helpful? I doubt it.

People are social and looting is not, so most of us don't. That's nice and all, but does nothing to help with the problem of those who do loot. Much like government employees in helicopters.

Share this post


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

I would imagine that if no one was home after the disaster, Canadian looters would politely knock and, finding no one, apologize to thin air and then go back home.

But they're Canadians.

There was no looting here after hurricane Charlie either.

But there were looters a few blocks from my house after hurricane Andrew.

I think one of the questions we have to ask ourselves is what were government employees in helicopters going to do about it? The answer was: nothing.

Another question we have to ask ourselves is what were government employees in helicopters going to do to prevent them walking a few blocks to find a neighborhood full of shattered houses and lootable valuables? The answer was: nothing.

Another question we have to ask ourselves is: what if we had a REAL natural disaster? You know, like Yellowstone's volcano blasting half the continent again? Or a solar flare frying everything electrical? Would government employees in helicopters be helpful? I doubt it.

People are social and looting is not, so most of us don't. That's nice and all, but does nothing to help with the problem of those who do loot. Much like government employees in helicopters.

The takehome of the hurricane, for Tom,  was looters and useless government helicopters.

Can you cite the looting, "blocks" away, in a swampy area?

Share this post


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

The takehome of the hurricane, for Tom,  was looters and useless government helicopters.

Can you cite the looting, "blocks" away, in a swampy area?

No, that's the part that's relevant to the thread and to what Laker posted.

The "takehome" for me was that when there's no power for miles, a suburban Miami neighborhood (miles from any swamp) is VERY dark and quiet at night. When there's nowhere to go on obstructed roads after curfew, your world shrinks. We all got to know neighbors who had lived around us for years but to whom we had rarely spoken. They all learned to watch for my buddy's truck every day because he was working at the Jockey Club in Ft Lauderdale at the time. Everything was fine up there, including their YUGE ice machine, which he raided for us daily.

Share this post


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

No, that's the part that's relevant to the thread and to what Laker posted.

The "takehome" for me was that when there's no power for miles, a suburban Miami neighborhood (miles from any swamp) is VERY dark and quiet at night. When there's nowhere to go on obstructed roads after curfew, your world shrinks. We all got to know neighbors who had lived around us for years but to whom we had rarely spoken. They all learned to watch for my buddy's truck every day because he was working at the Jockey Club in Ft Lauderdale at the time. Everything was fine up there, including their YUGE ice machine, which he raided for us daily.

They didn't need to be shot at?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2018 at 9:20 AM, jocal505 said:

They didn't need to be shot at?

There was the one duel over ice. You didn't hear about it on the news?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2018 at 6:34 AM, Fah Kiew Tu said:
On 9/23/2018 at 5:46 AM, dogballs Tom said:

I don't know, nor do I see what everyone else seems to see: how this question relates to confiscating our squirrel guns. Can you answer that question?

You won't answer that question because you know the answer and it's exactly on my point.

As for your toy squirrel guns, I've already told you I don't give a damn because you refuse to engage on any discussion of high magazine capacity centrefire semiautos, so having your favourite toy caught up in a sweep of much more dangerous firearms is simply collateral damage that you have richly earned.

I have addressed your "point" repeatedly. I don't think we're going to "gun control" our way out of the rare incidents that concern you so.

I don't think so because our prohibition programs have never worked very well and you're imagining that programs that don't work well are going to somehow disarm the very few people who engage in whatever is called a "mass" shooting today.

I think our confiscation programs won't work in the way you think because so many of us are Uncooperative. CT is a relatively liberal state and they have "scores of thousands" of new felons who didn't sign up to have their property confiscated. We're seeing similar compliance rates in the NJ and Cali confiscation programs. The majority of gun owners simply won't comply, and it's not because we're mass murderers.

Having nonsensical gun laws that treat squirrel guns like the guns that concern you so is something you have earned because you didn't object when you had the chance. I'm trying not to earn the same nonsense.

 

Share this post


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

I'm trying not to earn the same nonsense.

Nonsense is when you reject peer-reviewed science, and when you present fictional history. Whatever you are peddling, it's not on the up-and-up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

I think our confiscation programs won't work in the way you think because so many of us are Uncooperative. CT is a relatively liberal state and they have "scores of thousands" of new felons who didn't sign up to have their property confiscated. We're seeing similar compliance rates in the NJ and Cali confiscation programs. The majority of gun owners simply won't comply, and it's not because we're mass murderers.

These guns are not in lawful use at this time. And you are a vulture, celebrating their lawlessness! Interesting.

You can't build upon some lawful group's behavior? You want to lead and give voice to a body of scofflaws, and criminals? You're going to feature an undesirable lot, IMO.

Share this post


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

And you are a vulture, celebrating their lawlessness! Interesting.

So you only support civil disobedience for Joe-approved topics?

Share this post


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

So you only support civil disobedience for Joe-approved topics?

Hiding a battle gun while voicing butthurt is not civil disobedience.

In real civil disobedience, one goes to jail, to make a statement upon one's own record. Have you read Thoreau? He was a practitioner of civil disobedience, and saw benefits of virtu and character in the Machiavelli model.

Share this post


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

Hiding a battle gun while voicing butthurt is not civil disobedience.

The new Joe-approved method of civil disobedience: Get yourself charged with a felony, go to jail, never worry about legally owning a firearm again.

I think your new approved plan is really your gun confiscation one..

Share this post


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

The new Joe-approved method of civil disobedience: Get yourself charged with a felony, go to jail, never worry about legally owning a firearm again.

I think your new approved plan is really your gun confiscation one..

Finally, an interesting insight. Karma may be coming home to roost: even  civil disobedience is out for you. How ironic, and what a bad bounce,  because non-violence is a powerful  weapon. It uses the forces of morality.

Tom and his elk don't have the fabric of MLK or Thoreau. You need to be grounded for real civil disobedience. 

Quote

Between 1958 and 1967, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was arrested 30 times for demonstrating and participating in non-violent protests against segregation. During his 1963 imprisonment, he wrote "Letter from Birmingham Jail," which became the manifesto of the civil rights movement. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2018 at 1:25 AM, jocal505 said:

Finally, an interesting insight. Karma may be coming home to roost: even  civil disobedience is out for you.

It is? Vermont and New York seem to show otherwise.

It isn't Joe-approved though, so it is wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2018 at 2:13 PM, jocal505 said:

In real civil disobedience, one goes to jail

No, one disobeys a bad law without harming anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

No, one disobeys a bad law without harming anyone else.

Wow. You live in a vacuum, eh? Your grandchild figure isn't watching, and wondering where you will hide your AW.

You didn't feed the bears. Dylann Roof didn't thrive on your words, or need your elk.

You are Tom Ray, the Libertarian, here to determine bad law, and legitimacy.

Share this post


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

Dylann Roof didn't thrive on your words, or need your elk.

No, mass murderers like him thrive on people like yourself, who strive to make them more famous.

4chan is a creepy place and it's why we can't have nice things. It's also where future mass murderers go to see how many times useful idiots like yourself have made previous murderers more famous.

Because that's what they want, and what you give them, and what will result in more convenient victims for your elk to use for gungrabbing in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike in Seattle said:

The civil disobediences of Illegal law is  foundational in the BoR .

 

Come on now, don't be feeble. 

Half-dressed or otherwise, Gandhi would get trained followers, standing in line by the thousands,  to lie down on factory driveway entries. Trucks couldn't come or go. Those arrested remained rubbery, and needed multiple officers to be carried away. The jails would fill up within hours. The newspapers would love it.

Don't be a poser Mikey, and show some character.

Share this post


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

Half-dressed or otherwise, Gandhi would get trained followers, standing in line by the thousands,  to lie down on factory driveway entries. Trucks couldn't come or go. Those arrested remained rubbery, and needed multiple officers to be carried away. The jails would fill up within hours.

So I guess that ended the civil disobedience, right?

I mean, the jails were full. Any remaining protesters couldn't go to jail, so couldn't be engaged in civil disobedience in your view, right?

Share this post


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

No, mass murderers like him thrive on people like yourself, who strive to make them more famous.

4chan is a creepy place and it's why we can't have nice things. It's also where future mass murderers go to see how many times useful idiots like yourself have made previous murderers more famous.

Because that's what they want, and what you give them, and what will result in more convenient victims for your elk to use for gungrabbing in the future.

wtf? what is this?

The free press is saving the day. The free press keeps us connected with the situation. Knowledge is our friend, mate.

Quote

GVA 2017, Gun Violence Archives Summary

Total documented gun incidents (61,091) Up 18% over four years

Gun deaths (excluding 22,000 suicides/yr average) Up 23% in four years

Number of Gun Injuries (31,059 )Up 29% over four years

Mass Shootings  (345) Up 26% over four years

Teens killed or injured ages 12-17, not incl suicides (3,222) Up 38% over four years

Number of Children age 0-11 Injured (727)  Up 19% over four years

Accidental Shootings (2,003) Up 25% over four years

Officer involved fatalities(1'9010 Up  21% over four years

Suspect/shooters killed by cops (2075) Up 17% over four years

 

Share this post


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

So I guess that ended the civil disobedience, right?

I mean, the jails were full. Any remaining protesters couldn't go to jail, so couldn't be engaged in civil disobedience in your view, right?

No guns were fired, as they got to the finish line. A moral force drove the British from the sub-continent. To be continued.

Share this post


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

wtf? what is this?

An uncomfortable truth about the people who perpetrate politically convenient killings.

 

19 hours ago, jocal505 said:

To be continued.

That's nice. When you continue, tell me whether civil disobedience is possible after jails get full.

Share this post


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

An uncomfortable truth about the people who perpetrate politically convenient killings.

 

That's nice. When you continue, tell me whether civil disobedience is possible after jails get full.

The jails aren't full of gun rights activists.

 

Go get your dogballs and Noel from Australia. Go smarmy for the cameras, have sound bites ready. Do a PR stunt where you defy your Sheriff, and "transfer" the dogballs to Noel all over your yard, without the paperwork, from town. You have your  two dog-bitten friends and your brother to do the filming (so three camera angles). Get in the sheriff's face (you can use your subtle and edgy race-baiting skilz), and get arrested. This will go viral, Shirley, because transfer abuse is so intolerable.

 

"TOMMIE DOGBALLS" RAY, THE MISSING PLAINTIFF

Once you go viral, you will get on Fox News, on 4chan, and on Twitter. Howard Stern himself will be paddling your swamps, you'll be serving boat drinks to Ollie North, strolling the new bridge over the jetski creek

Soon you will be the well-prepared, missing plaintiff for Gottlieb's next transfer lawsuit. Next, with Noel aboard, in jail beside you (whoops, no passport), you can exploit the international opportunities here, the way you do carry on.

The masses will protest the shit out of the travesty of your trial. The jails, mainly in Florida,  will just fill up, you first.

Golf Cart of Death.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, yes, I know that you like to make up lies about me and for some reason have to lie about my dogs as well.

But can you tell me whether civil disobedience is possible after jails get full?

Share this post


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

Yes, yes, I know that you like to make up lies about me and for some reason have to lie about my dogs as well.

I am quoting Tom Ray about his own dogs, mate.

You have had about five opportunities to better explain how your dogs bit a couple of your friends. The questions I have about it would simply relate to how you trained and guided these dogs when you were their master. Bear in mind how you love it when I get off the topic of guns. 

37 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

But can you tell me whether civil disobedience is possible after jails get full.

 

I gotta call third grader trail on this. Mind games are not my thing.

What you are employing here is that if you don't "believe in" a law, you needn't follow it. What you are proposing is not civil disobedience, it is nullification. John C. Calhoun took us down that trail. He was VP to a president who later wishes he had hung Mr. Calhoun.

You need to get "in lawful use at the time" to work in your favor. Being an outlaw for violence is not a "constitutional" move. It is common insurrection.

Going to jail for non-violent change, being arrested thirty times while proposing equity in legislation, thus demonstrating virtu, now THAT is more like the Thoreau ideal. MLK was more mature and less volatile than others.

Share this post


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

MLK was more mature and less volatile than others.

I guess you consider it good that he didn't get that carry permit. We all know how you feel about blacks legally owning firearms.

Share this post


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

I guess you consider it good that he didn't get that carry permit. We all know how you feel about blacks legally owning firearms.

We can face this together.

MLK needed a gun, pretty badly, to fight off rednecks, hopefully legally. It was a sad, dangerous, tough situation. Having been denied, I bet he packed a gun anyway, when he felt he had to. But thanks for the crocodile tears.

This guy needed a gun because of race-baiting, and because of what is behind race-baiting. So sad. We need to address the root causes of race-baiting, and all the future MLKs will not need gun permits.

Are you on board?

Share this post


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

This guy needed a gun because of race-baiting, and because of what is behind race-baiting.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race-baiting

It is safe to say it went far beyond verbal attacks, Joe.

10 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Having been denied, I bet he packed a gun anyway, when he felt he had to.

He probably did. Oddly enough, you have nothing to say about it.

10 hours ago, jocal505 said:

But thanks for the crocodile tears.

And you have lost me, Joe. I'm not hypocritical on the topic of CCW.

You, on the other hand, can't even bring yourself to condemn the racism that led to his carry denial.

I can understand why you don't:

1) It would be an admission that "shall issue" is better;

2) It is well known that you fear blacks with guns.

Share this post


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

Tom, just to make it 110%, nobody fucking cares about your obsession. Just go shoot your dick off and be done with it.


Actually, lots of powerful legislators do care and they want to ban it.

You have lots of thoughts about American gun control. Do you support banning semiautomatic guns like mine in Canada?

Or are these too dangerous for Canadians, forcing you to go the Aussie way and give them up?

marlin-assault-rifles.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2018 at 2:35 PM, bpm57 said:
On 10/22/2018 at 4:09 AM, jocal505 said:

But thanks for the crocodile tears.

And you have lost me, Joe. I'm not hypocritical on the topic of CCW.

You, on the other hand, can't even bring yourself to condemn the racism that led to his (MLK's) carry denial.

 

Sure I can, effortlessly. But then I entertain you in your rut. You only discuss MLK in terms of guns, which is like discussing the Papal theology only in terms of condom use

Quote

I can understand why you don't:

1) It would be an admission that "shall issue" is better;

Am I getting this correctly? You think "shall issue"is better because it defeats racism.

Quote

2) It is well known that you fear blacks with guns.

Wrong. We only have one community member who went out, for five years, and confronted black kids and their guns, on their turf, in night duty.

Share this post


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

Am I getting this correctly? You think "shall issue"is better because it defeats racism.

Are you now claiming that you don't understand the difference between "may" and "shall" issue?

Get some help, Joe. The dementia is getting bad.

Or should I just call you Disingenuous hypocritical vigilante Joe?

Share this post


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

Wrong. We only have one community member who went out, for five years, and confronted black kids and their guns, on their turf, in night duty.

Then why did you say you fear black people with a gun?

Share this post


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

Then why did you say you fear black people with a gun?

Quote it. Half-truths sit well under your name, you could do better.

Share this post


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

Quote it. Half-truths sit well under your name, you could do better.

Keep running from your own words, Joe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the truth is that I, on a really visceral level, do not trust anyone brandishing a gun.  I changes the level of power on any interaction.  Someone brandishing a baseball bat could be using it to hit a home run until I see differently, usually on a baseball diamond.  Someone brandishing a firearm is using it to hide behind its power until I see differently, usually somewhere out in the bush.  It may be my background in having an exposure to guns mainly a military setting and or for hunting.  I have never really had exposure to them for recreation, but I still work on that feeling.  And it gets my back up.

Share this post


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

I think the truth is that I, on a really visceral level, do not trust anyone brandishing a gun.

I share that feeling and support FL's laws against brandishing guns. But brandishing and owning are different things, at least to me.

Share this post


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

I think the truth is that I, on a really visceral level, do not trust anyone brandishing a gun.  I changes the level of power on any interaction.  Someone brandishing a baseball bat could be using it to hit a home run until I see differently, usually on a baseball diamond.  Someone brandishing a firearm is using it to hide behind its power until I see differently, usually somewhere out in the bush.  It may be my background in having an exposure to guns mainly a military setting and or for hunting.  I have never really had exposure to them for recreation, but I still work on that feeling.  And it gets my back up.

Which is natural. I feel the same way. And the carrier of the weapon gets a rush off the power or he would have left it home.

We are discussing "the weapons effect."

The presence of deadly weapons created terror among his majesty's subjects, so open carry and concealed carry were bamed long ago.

The Unbroken Timeline of Gun Control: the Non-Evolution of the Statute of Northampton

.http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/143566-2nd-amendment-in-the-home-only/&page=6#comment-5844180

Share this post


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

I share that feeling and support FL's laws against brandishing guns. But brandishing and owning are different things, at least to me.

YOU BRANDISH GUNS A LOT.

You brandish guns in your brain, and in your posts. You brandish guns in Hawaii. You brandish guns for cripples, and for women exiting showers. You brandish guns for hurricane survivors. You brandish guns for no-knock raids. You brandish guns  in five states where they are against the law. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2018 at 6:40 AM, dogballs Tom said:

It will be interesting to see whether our Canadians support banning  squrrel shooters like this one in their country. Some sure seem to think I shouldn't object if it's banned here. So will they think banning it there is a good idea too? None have said.

I didn't know when I wrote this that Canadians already have an assault weapon ban covering Ruger 10/22's.

26 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:
12 hours ago, HuronBouy said:

here is what the law says 

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun-control-rifle-rcmp-1.4606237

It seems that the mounties don't think they have the jurisdiction to enforce (for reasons I do not understand and haven't thought about) so the law although on the books is in limbo.

From the article:
 

Quote

 

As many as a million large-capacity rifle magazines that were declared prohibited in 2016 remain in the hands of Canada's gun owners — the fallout of a simmering legal dispute over the RCMP's authority to ban weaponry.

Since the 1960s, owners of the popular 22-calibre Ruger 10/22 long rifle have been able to buy magazines with no limit on the number of rounds they can hold.

That changed in May 2016 when the RCMP, in response to a border-seizure incident, declared as prohibited any 10/22 magazines that can hold more than 10 cartridges.

Also in limbo: the felons in possession.

The vast majority of whom never hurt anyone and won't. But they need to have their property taken away because...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Also in limbo: the felons in possession.

Do a morning tap-dance around this one, mate. Let us consider the big picture in play here...

 

Quote

Creation of the “Relief” Program

Under federal law, those convicted of a felony are forbidden from purchasing or possessing firearms and explosives. Yet as the result of a 1965 amendment to the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, convicted felons were allowed to apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) for “relief” from the “disability” of not being able to buy and possess guns.

 

“Relief” Program Becomes Felons’ Second-Chance Club

Although created to benefit one corporation, the program quickly became a mechanism by which thousands of individuals with felony convictions had their gun privileges restored.

__In the 10-year period from1982 until 1992, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms processed more than 22,000 applications.

--Between 1985 and 1990 ATF granted “relief” in approximately one third of those cases.

--ATF estimated that approximately one third of those not granted “relief” chose to drop out of the process, while

--the remaining one third were denied “relief.”)

NRA Expands the Program to Include Gun Criminals  For 20 years, however, felons convicted of crimes “involving the use of a firearm or other weapon” or of violations of federal firearm laws were ineligible to apply for “relief.” This changed in 1986, when a law backed by the National Rifle Association took effect. The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (also known as FOPA or McClure/Volkmer for the bills’ Senate and House sponsors) expanded the program to allow felons convicted of gun crimes to obtain “relief.”3 And gun criminals certainly took advantage of the program. Of the 100 sample cases obtained by the Violence Policy Center, eight were for firearm violations, including two convictions for illegal sales of machine guns.

 

Felons Granted “Relief” Commit New Crimes  The VPC found that of those granted “relief” from 1985 to 1992, 69 were subsequently re-arrested for crimes that included: attempted murder; first degree sexual assault; abduction/kidnapping; child molestation; illegal possession of a machine gun; trafficking in cocaine, LSD, and PCP; and, illegal firearms possession or carrying.

“Relief” Program De-Funded In 1992, after the Violence Policy Center publicized the details of the program, Congress added language to ATF’s annual appropriations bill prohibiting the agency from using federal funds to review “relief” applications from felons ... The NRA opposed efforts to close down the program, testifying before Congress in support of it

1995 Republicans and NRA Try to Revive “Relief” Program  The funding ban was renewed each year until 1995 when Republicans on the subcommittee overseeing ATF’s budget voted to lift the spending ban. The Republicans put forward a plan that would have charged applicants a fee—with the National Rifle Association championing Republican efforts.

The NRA’s usual tough-on-crime rhetoric softened substantially when talking about felons eligible to apply to the “relief” program. “We’re talking about individuals who may have run afoul of federal law but paid their debt to society,” the NRA’s spokesman stated to the Washington Post in 1995. The Republicans backed down when the proposal was heavily criticized by law enforcement organizations, gun control advocates, and congressional Democrats.

1996 NRA Launches Second Attempt to Resuscitate “Relief” Program In 1996, there was yet another attempt by the NRA to revive the “relief” program, this time for “non-violent” felons. This effort was undertaken despite plentiful examples of felons who had been granted “relief” for non-violent felonies who then went on to be re-arrested and convicted of violent crimes.

NRA, A LIE FOR FELONS   An NRA alert to members of Congress stated falsely that Representative Durbin’s amendment would remove restrictions on violent felons and drug traffickers and “put the public at the mercy of the unfettered discretion of liberal judges.” The Durbin amendment was defeated because of the NRA’s tactics. Then-Senator Paul Simon (D-IL)—the Senate sponsor of Durbin’s amendment—issued a scathing press release in which Simon stated, “The NRA lied—and that’s the only word for it—to score this temporary victory for these felons.” Rep. Durbin was quoted in the same press release stating, “The NRA has stooped to a new low in its effort to help make sure convicted felons can purchase firearms.”

NRA Forces Courts to Run “Relief” Program Representative Durbin and Senator Simon were unsuccessful in adding language to the funding prohibition to prevent felons from resorting to the courts for “relief.” Moreover, the NRA-backed FOPA had added an amendment to federal law in 1986 that further expanded the rights of convicted felons. That provision explicitly provided for judicial review in cases in which ATF denied a felon “relief.” Therefore, the federal courts have been forced to grapple with applications for “relief” from individual felons.

 

Conclusion   The current status of the “relief from disability” program is already resulting in the expenditure of significant judicial resources to make determinations as to whether individual felons are entitled to restoration of firearms privileges—resources that might better be spent hearing gun prosecution cases.

This result was clearly not the intent of Congress when it zero-funded the “relief” program

The history of the guns-for-felons program proves the blatant hypocrisy of the National Rifle Association. The NRA calls for tougher enforcement of gun laws and swift, sure, and final punishment for criminals. But the NRA has worked harder to re-arm convicted felons than it ever has to keep guns out of criminals’ hands.

Congress should eliminate the “relief from disability” program once and for all.

 

Share this post


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

I didn't know when I wrote this that Canadians already have an assault weapon ban covering Ruger 10/22's.

Also in limbo: the felons in possession.

The vast majority of whom never hurt anyone and won't. But they need to have their property taken away because...

because there is no need for assault rifles, hand guns and large clip magazines in normal society. The fear that people have of felons is disproportionate to the threat. There is no need for this kind of arsenal and saturating your country with guns makes it easier for said felons to get guns. Sort of a viscous circle isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the fear that people have of someone like me (or thousands of your now-felonious countrymen) plinking away with a Ruger 10/22 is vastly disproportionate to the threat. There is no need to try another failed prohibition program targeting people like me in the hopes that notoriously failure-prone prohibition programs can finally succeed against those most motivated to circumvent them. Turning to big government prohibition programs that target people who are not a problem is a vicious cycle. When it fails, and it will, the answer is always to $pend more on it and increase government power at the expense of personal liberty some more. Because just a bit more will work this time.

Bah.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

17 hours ago, HuronBouy said:

Let me get this straight you want to limit free speech so everyone can have a gun that they don't need? 

If and others think like this then it indicates that your society as devolved to the point where "responsible gun ownership" is an oxymoron

You have thousands of felons in possession of Ruger 10/22 squirrel assault weapons and can't seem to figure out how to end the situation.

The article indicates part of the problem is unawareness, as if people did not want to advertise the fact that they were also banning squirrel assault weapons when the talked about banning scary guns.

Why would people not want to talk about banning and confiscating something as dangerous as a squirrel assault weapon? You all need to have this discussion and get that banning and confiscation done before pointing any fingers about responsible gun ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is banning and confiscating American guns a topic of so much more interest to Canadians than banning and confiscating Canadian guns?

It's weird. The ones I have met in person are not meddlesome that way.

Share this post


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

American society is simply not civilized to the point where wide spread gun ownership can be condoned. 

 

And neither is Canadian society, but at least you guys are a bit ahead of us, having passed a law banning squirrel assault rifles.

We're eagerly awaiting your demonstration of how to get the confiscation part done with typical Canadian politeness.

Keeping all the thousands of felons in possession waiting in limbo all this time seems a bit rude, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

And neither is Canadian society, but at least you guys are a bit ahead of us, having passed a law banning squirrel assault rifles.

We're eagerly awaiting your demonstration of how to get the confiscation part done with typical Canadian politeness.

Keeping all the thousands of felons in possession waiting in limbo all this time seems a bit rude, eh?

I agree we are no more civilized, so gun control is "more a thing" in recognition of this. Hand guns and assault rifles (squirrel guns and others ) are not abundant so confiscation would be a futile exercise.   I don't give a rats ass if you guys want to arm yourself to the teeth and have at er.  My comments are just that comments. Like I said I have sympathy for the victims at a personal level but none for US society as long as they continue this gun lust.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2018 at 3:53 AM, dogballs Tom said:

From the article:
 

Quote

 

As many as a million large-capacity rifle magazines that were declared prohibited in 2016 remain in the hands of Canada's gun owners — the fallout of a simmering legal dispute over the RCMP's authority to ban weaponry.

Since the 1960s, owners of the popular 22-calibre Ruger 10/22 long rifle have been able to buy magazines with no limit on the number of rounds they can hold.

That changed in May 2016 when the RCMP, in response to a border-seizure incident, declared as prohibited any 10/22 magazines that can hold more than 10 cartridges.

A million?

4 minutes ago, HuronBouy said:

I agree we are no more civilized, so gun control is "more a thing" in recognition of this. Hand guns and assault rifles (squirrel guns and others ) are not abundant so confiscation would be a futile exercise. 

A million is more than a handful, but I guess it's all relative.

Why pass a law mandating a futile exercise and then leave the felons in possession in limbo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just checked (Wikipedia I know I know but the numbers are probably not too far off.  

120 guns per hundred US 

34 per hundred Canada 

Gun Murder rate

11.5/ 100,000 US 

2.3/100,000 Canada

so a 1/3 less guns  and 5 times less murder rate. 

Maybe I should reconsider my equally uncivilized  comment above as being too kind. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, HuronBouy said:

Just checked (Wikipedia I know I know but the numbers are probably not too far off.  

120 guns per hundred US 

34 per hundred Canada 

Gun Murder rate

11.5/ 100,000 US 

2.3/100,000 Canada

so a 1/3 less guns  and 5 times less murder rate. 

Maybe I should reconsider my equally uncivilized  comment above as being too kind. 

 

America is not a big, uniform blob.

The people who own those guns are people like Billy Backstay, Jeff, (until recently) Badlat, and me. We're not the big crime demographic. And those who are have a low gun ownership rate.

Idaho is pretty darn similar to Canada. This song could be about either place:

 

And Idaho has a very high gun ownership rate. And yet, it has a lower gun murder rate than Canada.

If a high gun ownership rate and lots of trees and rocks and rocks and trees and water leads to a high gun murder rate, how come that didn't happen in Idaho?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That there is variability in gun violence rate that does and does not correlate with ownership does not change that change the fact that in general that there are too many guns  floating around that should not be available to folks that want to use them. So you have a choice, limit availability or change the people.   I figure the latter is more easily accomplished than the former. We have speed limits on highways not because everyone would drive at 120 mph its because there is a small % that would do so and they fuck it up for everyone. 

Newfoundland has a rate of 0.4/100,000 and has very high ownership albeit mostly for hunting. There are very few hand guns and no semiautomatic guns with 5000 bullets in the clip. So there is an example of a correlation between low availability and low violence.  In Toronto where hand gun availability has risen recently,the murder rate has spiked.

I don;t need to tell you that in the US has gun ownership is a constitutional right and  guns ownership is equated with personal freedom but the level of gun violence has now risen to the point that your freedom is being threatened. So choose your poison.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If a high gun ownership rate and lots of trees and rocks and rocks and trees and water leads to a high gun murder rate, how come that didn't happen in Idaho?

Go to Kelo Tom, for any deep analysis like this. He can really sort the details out. Sometimes.

Share this post


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

That there is variability in gun violence rate that does and does not correlate with ownership does not change that change the fact that in general that there are too many guns  floating around that should not be available to folks that want to use them. So you have a choice, limit availability or change the people.   I figure the latter is more easily accomplished than the former.

So is the confiscation of a million guns from your thousands of felons in possession a futile thing that can be ignored or "easily accomplished" or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

So is the confiscation of a million guns from your thousands of felons in possession a futile thing that can be ignored or "easily accomplished" or what?

I want to hear about this "limbo" arrangement.

Share this post


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

I want to hear about this "limbo" arrangement.

I doubt anyone is going to read the links cited in this thread to you.

If you were to read them yourself, you'd learn things like this:
 

Quote

 

The 2016 decision was not broadly or well communicated. Three months later, the RCMP posted a question-and-answer communique on their website after gun sellers and owners repeatedly asked about the rumoured change.

But almost two years later, tens of thousands of the problem magazines remain in private hands, in regulatory limbo.

The 22-calibre long rifle, widely owned in Canada, is frequently a beginner's firearm. It's often used to hunt small game, to control pests or for target practice.

 

As the article Huron posted says, the magazines are "in regulatory limbo." And if the magazines are, so are their owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

I doubt anyone is going to read the links cited in this thread to you.

If you were to read them yourself, you'd learn things like this:
 

As the article Huron posted says, the magazines are "in regulatory limbo." And if the magazines are, so are their owners.

Oh, so limbo is a regulatory state. Not a spiritual pause. Not dancing to the Belafonte. I do try to keep up.

Share this post


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

Oh, so limbo is a regulatory state. Not a spiritual pause.

I think it might be a bit of both.

Faced with the reality of what they have passed, Canadians seem reluctant to take  the next step and enforce their law.

Possibly because Canadians are generally sensible and know it's stupid? I don't know, but if so, that's a kind of spiritual pause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear. Canadian gun laws seem to be having a negative effect on boating safety.

 
Quote

 

meateater5000 wrote: Can never have enough 10/22s!!

Haven't kept up with the news, but what's the outcome with the butler creek mags? Uh.. I lost some in a boating accident a while ago and wondering if I should try retrieving them.

Seems like everyone lost theirs during some boating accident lol

 

And a few other similar comments. I'm not sure why the one guy thinks boating accidents are funny. Canadians are not usually that insensitive, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2018 at 5:36 AM, dogballs Tom said:

So is the confiscation of a million guns from your thousands of felons in possession a futile thing that can be ignored or "easily accomplished" or what?

Where do you get the millions of guns number it was sited as thousands of owners and  the main goal of the law is to get rid of large ammo clips for these guns. I am unsure how from a practical point of view the confiscation could be done systematically. 

Perhaps this is the reason the RCMP is stalling. I honestly don't know.  Toronto recorded its 90th homicide yesterday A guy was shot dead. This is a new record. 

 This muder rate has lead to the mayor to ask for more money to help fight illegal guns and limit ownership 

Share this post


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

Where do you get the millions of guns number it was sited as thousands of owners and  the main goal of the law is to get rid of large ammo clips for these guns. I am unsure how from a practical point of view the confiscation could be done systematically. 

Sorry, magazines, but I guess not the guns that go with them. And I said a million, not millions.

 

On 11/15/2018 at 6:57 PM, dogballs Tom said:
  On 11/9/2018 at 3:53 AM, dogballs Tom said:

From the article:
 

Quote

 

As many as a million large-capacity rifle magazines that were declared prohibited in 2016 remain in the hands of Canada's gun owners

As for your uncertainty, I'd offer that it might be a good idea to figure out how to systematically do such things prior to enactment of the law or face the resulting apparent epidemic of boating accidents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also offer that there probably really isn't a boating safety problem, banning those magazines has had no effect other than to turn peaceful people into felons who own scary magazines, and letting the owners go back to admitting they own them would also have no effect on crime.