2A MEGA thread
so we do not alarm others of a massacre
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orhxbI7yphY
post here instead of the massacre thread
Skippy I always offered to take non-gun owners to the range.
Only had one taker from here... she now owns a gun.
Mark Mc. Bulgarian Makarovs at AIM Surplus. $299.95 w/ 2 mags, holster, lanyard, original & import grips
http://www.aimsurplus.com/product.aspx?item=F1MAKBULG&name=Bulgarian+Makarov+Pistol+9x18+Pistol+Package&groupid=6
http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/22/hillary-clinton-is-wrong-about-gun-laws-in-australia-and-the-uk/
I think it's hilarious that the gun banners have decreed that Lott is evil and wrong. All they while they have this guy ( http://www.salon.com/writer/d_watkins/) on a major "progressive" website who wants all gun owners to be shot.
If Hillary is elected, I have no doubt that she'll eventually push for Australia style gun confiscation to finish what her husband started.
Very considerate Skippy :)
I myself have only had one opportunity to shoot. Recreational, of course. Skeet shooting and target (pistol). I did enjoy it.
maja "she'll eventually push for Australia style gun confiscation to finish what her husband started."
yes , i think this is true, just one more reason (among many) to not vote for her
BrotherDog No worries - shooting sports are fun stuff - kind of like mixing bowling and fireworks :)
Wait --- we renamed it and Maja still opened the thread? Me thinks the lady doth kvetch too much :>) Or that mass shootings occur with the frequency of 100 years storms, every few months or so..... :<)
Nice way to punt on your rebuttals Skippy :>)
I used to hunt when I could do so from the back porch and the land surrounding our house. It was enjoyable fall activity to walk the land after a cup of coffee and I could always scare up a bird before covering the 500 acres or so. Over the decades as civilization encroached it just seemed too much trouble versus doing other things. Plus, to be honest, I prefer cold things in my shopping cart to warm, dead things, in my hunting jacket pocket.
Remember the wife trying to kill the last remaining corn stalk in the field from 10 feet with a 12 gauge. Kept missing. Laughing our heads off about missing with a 12 gauge, just couldn't bring myself to tell her the issue with a modified choke at 10 feet for a few rounds.
My issue with guns is not in people having them, it's with getting them too easy, giving them easily to the wrong people, and not being able to track them when used in a crime. I have come to my own conclusion that there is a problem with guns in America as evidenced by the statistics on how we rate against other developed nations as well as the sheer magnitude of occurrence in America.
I do not want to ban guns; I just thing that we need to set national levels for who can purchase and we should expedite tracking guns used in crimes. So, once again, what I support is universal background checks, universal mental health tracking and automated crime gun tracking.
I would also like to see people who illegally carry or illegally use guns face the harshest of penalties. The statistical evidence of this helping is also lacking but what the heck. Whether it's a crime gun or leaving your gun on the table for junior, put em away for a long, long, time. And two strikes and you're out with judicial override versus mandatory to protect those used in legally questionable defense. As for the lady shooting out the tires of a shoplifter in a public parking lot, put her away too. It was a shoplifter lady, act responsibly.
I would also like the NRA to quit blocking CDC research into guns on the same level that the CDC conducts research into other consumer goods that potentially cause harm. The report Skippy mentioned, which is actually a merger of the data from all existing studies, many of which are less that statistically valid, has a long list of recommended research to be conducted, none of which has been funded since the report came out in 2013.
The report Skippy highlighted, "Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence" is available on line or I can email it to you. Basically, that's my thread; I think Skippy has uncovered some real good reading.
UBCs, UMHT, and ACGT are not new or new laws per se; it's taking existing laws and making them national while fixing any loopholes.
The rest is fun to discuss about but who controls the NRA, good guy/bad guy/kid's die anecdotes, are guns a major cause of death, does the NRA lobby successfully, are hammers/cars/spoons worse than guns, would mass murders/wife murders/kids killing kids/murders/crime/government takeovers decrease if guns disappeared, do guns protect more than they harm, etc. etc. etc. is all somewhat noise since there are no real quantitative statistical analyses to support conclusions. So we can continue to toss the beach balls around but until the NRA helps free legislators to free the CDC to conduct real, meaningful, statistical studies, it's all just a revolving debate.
But because the raw numbers readily point to a potential problem, IMHO the universal deployment of the three recommendations I noted above is warranted.
Start shooting kids :>) No, I mean starting firing back. No, I mean feel free to disagree. No not that way, use your words..... :>)
strangerdanger I have met who Mark took, and she was VERY well informed on fire arm safety, and had all great things to say as well as very much appreciated Mark's advice and assistance.
Darrin Mark is very knowledgeable and would make an excellent instructor from the discussions we have had
Spent a couple hours at the range yesterday... it had been too long. Have to try to get in some more before the weather gets too cold....
JeffersonRepub Wow, sd, those cutesy terms "methinks" and "doth" remind me so much of someone else who used to post around here. Haven't seen him around in a while, though. Wonder why.
Come to think of it, he probably developed a debiliating case of carpal tunnel syndrome. Careful. These things can sneak up on you.
Rebecka strangerdanger -
Great article in today's Sunday edition of the Star Ledger:
'The NRA Will Fall'
hapiest girlAnd it's a good thing to have a sense of humor and be able to take a little joshing. :-P
thanks SD - always love reading your posts and the intellectual debate!
I love data and would definitely like to see research into the subject.
In re the NRA:
Josh Sugarmann and the VPC seem receive about 30% of their total money from Joyce ($250K), which almost covers Josh's and Kirsten Rand's salaries ( $150k ea.)
Works Cited:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=10167#.Vijycn1_c1g
http://ar2013.joycefdn.org/grant/index.html
The 'New Venture Fund' has seen their monies go from about $450K to over $1m/year under various grants. The NVF seems to be a hub for money distribution to other sources and essentially hides the fact that there is little public support gun control has and that most of the funding comes from elites like the Joyces, Soros, and Bloomberg and their "astro-turf" movements.
The Chicago Mayor's office has gotten $150K/year for the last several years to push gun control along w/ another $250K to the ICHV.
Harvard has gotten about $500K for the last few years.
the CSGV's 'Educational Fund' $150K and Bloomberg's Everytown $350K and the WI 'WAVE over $300k/year.
Overall nearly $5.5 million dollars is being dumped into gun control efforts every year just by the Joyce Foundation alone. So while the accusations that the NRA blocks legislation is dubious, the fact remains that anti-gun activism is paid for almost exclusively by a few rich philanthropists and is not a grass roots movement.
Work Cited:
http://www.joycefdn.org/programs/gun-violence-prevention/gun-violence-prevention-grantees/
I don't disagree with universal background checks in principal. What I have an issue with is the fact that every bill that would implement them is coupled with universal registration of firearms. Public trust in the government is pretty much shot already with the NSA monitoring email and google searches and law enforcement agencies running roughshod over the 4th amendment.
So I ask:
1. Why would anyone feel comfortable with providing a data set like this to a government who has been proven time and time again to use this type of information to harm it's citizens?
2. Why should the choice to exercise my Second Amendment rights put me on a government "watchlist"? Historically These registries have in the past led to confiscations. (See New Orleans, post Katrina. People in New Orleans are still trying to get their property back from the police ten years later.)
I would love it If NICS was opened up so that I could run checks on potential buyers, I would do it even if there wasn't a law mandating me to do so because I want to ensure that I am not essentially committing a "straw purchase" and subject myself to 10 years in jail. I think most gun owners would similarly use this service. None of us wants to sell firearms to a prohibited person and be pulled into a tragedy.
Will this stop straw purchases? - NO But with access to the NICS system, you would no longer have anyone accidentally doing so. The only people selling to prohibited people would be the people who are intentionally selling the gun to a prohibited person. You know, people who would have ignored the UBC law anyway and deserve to hang.
SD if we can create a law mandating universal background checks along with opening NICS so that everyone can run background checks and not tie it to a registry I would be all for it and I honestly believe most gun owners would not argue with this law.
Any law that includes a registry immediately alienates almost the entire gun community.
Yes, Shongum. Only 10 minutes from my house :)
Nothing like getting bullseye's at 100 yards with iron sites :)
(well, only a FEW bullseyes.... I won't lie lol, the rest were all on the paper) Suffice it to say you don't want me shooting at you from 100 yards or less. You'll have a very bad day :)
and HG - as to the NRA will fail article ( which I cant find - were you refering to a wapo article? https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/19/the-nra-will-fall-its-inevitable/)
You can out opinion us all you want - but you cant out vote us. If another 'gun ban' Democrat is elected President, we'll see the NRA swell to 8 million members. If a Republican wins, we'll see 10 million members as Democrats join with the intent of another Cincinnati Revolt.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-nras-true-believers-converted-a-marksmanship-group-into-a-mighty-gun-lobby/2013/01/12/51c62288-59b9-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_story.html
The current Democratic party is so fixated on extremists (Tea Partiers) that they don't understand that there are literally millions of Americans who don't give a hoot about the Tea Party, extreme conservatism or politics for that matter and just want to keep their rights and will oppose Democrats to do so.
Because it's definitely the 5 million NRA members and not the 100 million gun owning Americans who are ensuring no new gun laws pass - LOL
http://www.people-press.org/2015/08/13/gun-rights-vs-gun-control/#total
nice - they have an awesome outdoor range.
I will even propose a solution - Have a national registry of people that are not allowed to own guns (similar to "no fly") with judicial review and a process to restore rights.
The seller would then use a web site that would encrypt/hash the buyer's SS# and submit the encrypted value for comparison with the registry. Since the number is encrypted, the government would not be able to create a list of buyers. (similar to password technology where the encrypted password is stored - but not plain text)
If the transaction completes successfully, the encrypted value and a transaction number would then be printed as a 2D bar code on the bill of sale that would be retained by both parties as proof that the transaction was checked. This system would allow anyone to sell a weapon, check that they weren't selling it to a felon, and give the buyer proof that they were checked. It will not give the government any information about the buyer other than the fact that they were not on the list.
http://www.darkreading.com/safely-storing-user-passwords-hashing-vs-encrypting/a/d-id/1269374
Like I already said, Skippy.
Today's Sunday edition of the Star Ledger.
Dream on all you want about the NRA.
lol
"Today's Sunday edition of the Star Ledger."
Today is Saturday. Am I missing something?
Calico696 
jd2 Actually from the same PEW report Skippy, most gun owners want a gun for protection (49%); only a teeny tiny fraction (2%) own a gun because of the 2A. In regards to not liking control laws, it again is not the 2A but because folks think it would make home protection harder (58%). Amazingly almost the same majority say gun control laws would reduce crime and the number of deaths in mass shootings (54%). Go figure on that. And yet 57% say more gun controls gives the government too much power. The majority of Americans also say the state should follow Federal gun laws (60%).
83% favor UBCs for private and gun show sales; 56% approve of assault weapon bans and 53% approve of a ban on large capacity magazines. Maybe they just want to do it without "control."
OK, here's the fun part: most gun owners are middle aged white rural southerners who have not gone to college and are Independents who lean right. Think Mark hits about 80% of the profile now :>) (I may have read this wrong since there seem to be two similar sections and the demographics change in the second. But I am just joking, the South is only a couple points higher than the Midwest. Wait, isn't the Midwest just the South without all the kid deaths by gun?)
Thanks Skippy once again for the statistical sound byte that once again leads to even more
You're missing something alright, Calico!
You too Darrin....... laugh's on you.
lol
"SD if we can create a law mandating universal background checks along with opening NICS so that everyone can run background checks and not tie it to a registry"
The *only* way UBC's will work is if there is a registry.
Admiral Ackbar would be proud of SD's attempts to state otherwise...
We have background checks today I think in 50 states. I think it's a Federal Laws.
There is no national database.
I don't thing we have gun registration in that many states.
How many states require registration of all guns? Some guns?
How many states actually have laws on the books prohibiting gun registration?
Hey it makes us both read and try to come up with a solution :-)
Good research SD As always
Background checks for guns purchased from FFL's... each completed with a 4473 form indicating make/model/SN...
I you don't think that info is in a database, I have a bridge to sell you.
UBC's would basically add 4473's to private sales (except those still sold out of the back of someone's trunk - you still have yet to explain how you would enforce any of this).
Here's a tidbit... once I get my SC permit, I won't be subject to background (NICS) checks while purchasing guns at an FFL. But, I will still have to fill out a 4473... wonder why...
http://smartgunlaws.org/registration-of-firearms-policy-summary/#state
SD the data to many of your questions is here
Same in NC - Because you had to prove yourself Safe, Sane, and sober submit to fingerprinting for your CCH and that exceeds the federal requirements. How about this - in NC I can get as many permits to purchase firearms as I want (for $5) with nothing more than a NICS check at the sheriffs department.
on a lighter note - stranger danger parody https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZZ6wPdcYG4
I completly disagree about having a "database" of guns.....lets em know right where to come and get em when it comes time to change the laws.....nope, not for it at all.....they did it in NY....cold hard proof right there, made a database and immediatly changed the laws
agreed I am with you - registration is not the answer nor will any bill pass that includes it.
CraftBeerBob "Even if they agree that there is no database there will still be a database."
What, you don't trust your own government? You must be some kind of kook.... or worse, a tea-partier ;)
CraftBeerBob... apologies, I guess you don't know me that well, lol. Yes, it was MAJOR sarcasm.
My goodness Skippy; you actually have me doing the research again.......
Mark said: "The *only* way UBC's will work is if there is a registry. Admiral Ackbar would be proud of SD's attempts to state otherwise..."
And then Mark couldn't answer which states actually register guns before Skippy jumped in with a link for me to do the work. PS Skippy, rumor has it if you advocate guns and go to that site you will turn blind :>)
So Mark, Skippy's answer is there are background checks in 50 states, not universal on all purchases though, since all you have to do is go to a gun show or have someone gift you a gun. And registration on all guns in only two places: Hawaii and DC; NY. Handguns only in NY. MD and CA require consumer reporting. That's five states and to them you can add CT to that list of six states that require registration of some assault weapons.
So yes, universal background checks equal registration he said sarcastically.
But wait, there's more. The fact that so far background checks have not equaled registration apparently is not good enough...... Because the kids think:
Mark: "I(f) you don't think that info is in a database, I have a bridge to sell you."
CraftBeerBob "Even if they agree that there is no database there will still be a database."
JR "What, you don't trust your own government? You must be some kind of kook.... or worse, a tea-partier ;)"
Darrin "they did it in NY....cold hard proof right there, made a database and immediatly changed the laws"
OK, bear in mind we are talking adding private sales, gifting, and gun show sales ony which the gunny boys have oft said don't amount to a hill of beans in terms of sales volumes. Apparently even that minimal trade-off versus the current existing illegal database(s) which you presume state and federal governments already have is wrong. You can't have it both ways: either the volumes are low and it really dones not matter or the volumes are high and it's important (to have UBCs in my book, you have other ideas).
I am sorry, I would have responded last night but suffered a LOL episode taking me off-line when thinking about you realizing there is a gun owner database.
OK, first Darrin NY does not have a database of all guns, just handguns and assault weapons.
With regards to the secret Federal database some of you believe exists:
- This the same Federal government that can't manage any process effectively. Somehow, they created, established and maintain a secret database with hidden data links, hidden hardware, and hidden people.
- There is no proof that said database has ever been used even in high profile shootings like mass murder. So I guess they have another agenda.
- How would they find the people to write the code, operate and maintain said database without getting a whistleblower. First they would have to only hire Democrats from the North and vet them for not only anti gun zealotry, but also to find people willing to break the law. How do you find these people willing to break the law and not say anything?
- Then they would have to secret the budget and the servers from prying eyes.
- The equipment would have to be purchased, set up, and be off the network.
- They just couldn't put this database on the government intranet somewhere.
- They would need space to operate in and to keep the servers.
- They would need a lot of people because, after all, they are the government.
- They would need a good amount of budget because, after all.........
- They would have to secretly tap the NICS database pulling incoming forms as they passed by. This would have to be on-net computers and not the database ones.
- They would have to access ATF databases for failed FFLs; these are scanned documents, not data per se. Another program to convert scans to data.
All in secret.
But the best part is you. If you strongly believe that said database exists and your duty is to stand ready to protect yourself and us from government takeover; why do you buy guns from an FFL? You have over and over told us how easy it is to obtain guns off the grid and how more laws are useless because it is so easy do. Why are you playing into the government's hands?
And if you believe the database exists and you already readily get your guns loaded to said database, why would it matter if we add a few more versus the value of the UBC?
Aw come on it wasn't a lot of research :)
Also there is no gunshow loophole - pursuant to batfe guidelines a gun show is considered a. Extension of an ffl's primary place of business and private sales trades etc are illegal on the premises.
SD "And then Mark couldn't answer which states actually register guns before Skippy jumped in with a link for me to do the work."
Here we go again.....what makes you say Mark "couldn't" answer??? How do you know Mark was not just out living his life, away from the computer? How was the question even directed at Mark to begin with? Do you always have to add sarcastic remarks?
SD " first Darrin NY does not have a database of all guns, just handguns and assault weapons. "
and apparently .22s are considered assault weapons?
And what your point? Because mine is they had everyone register their guns, told everyone that it was in good measure, and as soon as they built a database and knew where everything was, changed the laws and demanded the guns be removed from the state, turned in, or deemed unusable. So phewy to your "it won't be used against you" theory!
Classic case of the government tricking people to do what they thought was the right thing, and then when they had people by the balls, changed the laws.
What makes you think they won't do the same anywhere else IF they were to make registration mandatory?
You do realize the 4473 is a Federal form, not a state form, right?
And the gun show "loophole" doesn't exist. FFL's at a gun show are bound by the same requirements that they are at their own place of business. What you are referring to are simply private sales between two private citizens. Not sure how the Federal government thinks they can inject themselves into such a transaction whether it happens at a gun show, a Walmart parking lot, or your own private residence, unless the citizens reside in two different states, in which case (you guessed it) Federal law *already* applies.
Buy a handgun in NJ and see if it isn't registered. Hint - look carefully at the title of the purchase permit. If you don't want it registered there are plenty of sellers in Camden and Newark for you... they perform a background check of sorts ("Are you a cop?") and the punishment for answering incorrectly will be swift and severe.
...and SD, *you* still haven't answered how UBC's will work without registration AND how you'll compel criminals to comply to begin with.
You also obviously haven't heard of "fusion centers" if you think the government isn't tapping into any/every database they can. The ACLU doesn't even like these, and they couldn't care less about the 2nd Amendment.
Funny, even with such "weak" gun laws, criminals still steal a bunch of guns in SC.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/10/daniel-zimmerman/thousands-of-stolen-guns-found-in-south-carolina-raid/
"Deputies have found no evidence that he ever sold any of the guns."
No s**t... Wonder if he was on his way to catch up on those missing background checks for his customers in various states... If only there was a law.
Well then Skippy; there should be no issue with requiring background checks and closing the loophole, if one does not exist.
Your website differs on the loophole although point taken re FFLs: http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-shows-policy-summary/
Not to be flip Mark, but the same way BCs work without registration today. Since you are the one indicating UBCs will force a change, I believe the explanation is in your court. Permits are not registration but to be honest, I don't know what happens to NJ handgun permits which are taken at the local municipality level. I can find no local or state data base however the information is precluded from the public even if there is one.
Darrin said: "Here we go again.....what makes you say Mark "couldn't" answer??? How do you know Mark was not just out living his life, away from the computer? How was the question even directed at Mark to begin with? Do you always have to add sarcastic remarks?"
How dare you speak for Mark and put words in his mouth; the nerve of some people :>) And then to pull a part of my sentence out of context in your second paragraph when I clearly stated: "And then Mark couldn't answer which states actually register guns before Skippy jumped in." Why I never.
Darrin it is clear Mark couldn't answer before Skippy did. As to the reason, "frankly Scarlet....." It was just a simple statement of fact, not meant as sarcasm. If you choose to read something else in to that and somehow tie it to some modus operandi, that's your prerogative.
I mean I have a 4 on 1 tag team to begin with and now you're speaking for Mark. It gets confusing :>)
As to the rest of your "facts," just show us a link confirming any of that. I have yet to find one. The last one I looked up for you regarding your statements on NY SAFE Act turning out to be New York City only following up on an existing 1990's NYC law, not the NY SAFE Act for shotguns with more than 5 rounds. They did not confiscate but offered users the choice of turning them in, modifying, selling or moving them out of the city. And yes, NYC does require residents to register long guns as a local ordinance. I did not cover those, just state and federal.
I know of no other New York State registration list beyond that from Skippy's suggested web site; and you have not shown one. So yes, would love to see some confirmation on your allegations about New York State.
I know of no other registration list beyond that from Skippy's suggested web site and you have not shown one. Obviously major metros like NYC can have more registrations.
Even if by magic we did away with all background checks, what makes you think that a government with capabilities you believe it has, could not create a database anyway? Can't they just monitor everything, everywhere, all the time? You know, NSA tracking of all communications, hidden cameras in each FFL, cash register downloads, hidden gps tracking on each weapon, xray pictures of your house to see what you have. Oh yeah, they had a database before NICS and they didn't even need to use the forms.
Bottom line: thus far there is no connection with background checks and states requiring registration. None. The thought that the Federal government already has a secret database seems ridiculous on so many levels. And your belief it has one really makes one question why you even ever by a gun from an FFL.
Be proud to be part of the 17% that is against Universal Background Checks with the rationale that UBC = registration, a gun owner database already exists, and that adding a few more names would be wrong and detrimental to your freedom.
Here you go mark, snapped a pic....
"Permit to purchase a handgun & Form of register"
Back up a few steps SD... what are you hoping to do by making what you feel to be "better" measures for "crime gun" tracing?
Are you hoping to be able to trace a gun back to the original owner and punish them for the crime? How does this help stolen guns? How does this help crime on the streets? How do laws stop criminals at all?
Cars have individual VIN numbers, registration cards, titles, licence plates, individualized keys both locking them and keeping them from being used, hell some have GPS trackers.....yet they too are stolen all the time, actually one every 44 seconds in the US......so I am not quite sure what you are trying to accomplish by tracking guns, "smart" guns, or any of those other ideas that in the end of it, just end up looking good on paper, and locking down law abiding citizen's rights.
Because without registration how do you know that a background check was performed for the all of the guns in my safe, especially those manufactured before UBC's are mandated and may have passed through several private hands in the meantime?
I'm not asking how the UBC is performed. That's obvious, you go to an FFL and pay an extra $25-50 for the privilege of selling your gun.
I'm asking how you enforce UBC's to be performed on the 300 million firearms currently in circulation. It requires you to know who is "allowed" to have exactly what guns, so you can cross reference that to a BGC record should law enforcement look up the "history" of that firearm.
"Be proud to be part of the 17% that is against Universal Background Checks"
That's the beauty of a Constitutional Republic... enumerated rights are not subject to the whims of mob rule.
Don't be so proud of these "creative" ideas you try to keep pushing. They are lockstep with the Democrats agenda/talking points, and we've seen how well we can trust them with gun legislation (Darrin has done a good job describing their backstabbing tactics).
SD "Darrin it is clear Mark couldn't answer before Skippy did. As to the reason, "frankly Scarlet....." It was just a simple statement of fact, not meant as sarcasm. If you choose to read something else in to that and somehow tie it to some modus operandi, that's your prerogative"
Oh quit with the BS SD, I know how you meant it, and I bet everyone else does too.
No words were put in his mouth, instead, possibilities were presented to you ;-) some that if you were really not being sarcastic, you would of never reacted in such a way.
And here is what you have asked for, yet again, there is tons of more info out there, maybe time to start opening your eyes, despite your claims to finding nothing
http://bearingarms.com/gun-confiscation-begun-new-york/
Multiple resources say NY STATE....I do not see anything saying it is JUST in the city like you claim, yes also happening in the city, but I do not think it is JUST the city, can you find otherwise?
Have we also forgotten about Connecticut?
http://www.infowars.com/connecticut-gun-owners-revolt-refuse-to-register-firearms-magazines/
http://www.truthandaction.org/connecticut-gun-confiscation-letters-now-confirmed-by-fox/
Also interesting:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/14/buffalo-police-search-for-firearms-at-home-after-funerals/
As I said, plenty of it is out there, unless during your name change you have decided to no longer be willing to use google to find info yourself, or maybe it is just because it does not fit your agenda?
Now that I began looking, that is two states, where mandatory registration was used against gun owners.
"Screw the constitution"
http://eaglerising.com/14383/sandy-hook-commission-says-screw-constitution-confiscate-guns/
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2013/02/12/in-the-matter-of-ending-private-transfers/
"Those who think “universal” background checks are an acceptable compromise should keep in mind that the government, meaning BATFE, already considers that any change of possession of a firearm constitutes a “transfer.” Unless universal background checks are limited to permanent change of ownership of a firearm, simply loaning a gun to someone, sharing a gun with someone in your family (such as a family heirloom) or agreeing to store someone’s guns (such as a family member who needs to leave guns behind during a military deployment or a temporary business transfer), would all require a background check, and the resultant fees, each time the guns change hands."
If you guys are going to continue to post blogosphere links without summarizing, I will have to being doing the same.
Darrin, paper does not refuse ink; find me the NJ registry based on the permit.
" I know how you meant it." I see. If I summarize your thoughts in my own words, I face the wrath of the demon; but you get to guess what I meant beyond what I said.
Automated crime gun information you are looking for is posted in the other link.
Speaking of sarcasm, have you read JR or Mark lately; I thought it was acceptable.
For your NY confiscation story, the first one is for an adjudicated mental defective as ordered by the court. Are you against confiscating mental defective's guns? I thought you wanted to focus on people problems and mental heath? The undersheriff said "As you are aware, a component of the (anti) Safe Act requires mental health providers to notify the State Police regarding individuals with firearms who are deemed to have mental health issues. The State Police then make a request for the court with jurisdiction to issue an order requiring the surrendering of all firearms pending a hearing. In our two cases here in Delaware County we received an order from the court directing this enforcement. Since the State Police was the initiating agency in this matter we respectfully requested the court to direct the order back to the State Police instead of us (Sheriff’s Office) and the court graciously complied. To insinuate the court is somehow an active participant in confiscations is inappropriate… "
I did not go farther since the first one seemed right and let's focus on NY. We can do CT after you see if you can show us New York State confiscation based on registration......
With regards to Buffalo, yeah that's a bit strange but basically all estate items are "seized" one way or another until probate has completed. You can't open safety deposit boxes; all assets are frozen, so "freezing" guns with the police frankly is not that much different. A bit weird but they did explain why and it's not that much different than any other estate asset. And certainly nothing to do with the SAFE Act.
Darrin, who cares what Sandy Hook Commission says; should I print everything the gunnies say?
Skippy, so far we have a lot of background checks and not sure the loaner issue has come up. Are you sure it exists today?
Mark, don't know. maybe grandfather the past and UBC the future? Lockstep: Not likely. I don't see many with a three point agenda constrained to making current laws universal (or federal) including UBCs, Universal Mental Health Tracking and Automated Crime Gun Tracking.
And I would love to see the Democratic recommendation for the NRA to manage UBCs.
As far as responsible gun owners who are NRA members wanting to know the statistical truth and telling the NRA to stand down and let the CDC perform the analytical studies noted in the report Skippy referenced; yeah, that's basically true for a decade or so.
Also if we put the $250K somebody listed for Good Guys Against Guns Funded by One Guy. against gun manufacturer and gun manufacturer personnel contributions, dues, grants, and donations, I am sure we would find as notable inputs to the NRA and other gun lobbies. Because the NRA is so much more than the pie Mark highlighted.
Mark, the NRA funding chart you show only details one entity for the NRA; it is incomplete for the other myriad NRA organizations of which there may be up to a dozen. Your pie is only a piece of the entire NRA pie.
In reality the NRA is not a single organization but a collection of a number of legal entities which receive large amounts of funding from places like Koch Industries, Citizens United and other personal, industrial, and political pockets. The tax form I think Mark noted before covers just the grass roots side of the house known as The National Rifle Association of America and may not include the NRA Foundation: grants and education and most certainly does not include the NRA Institute of Legal Action (ILA): the lobbying arm or the NRA Civil Defense Fund. The NRA-F and NRA-CDF are separate entities, not 100% sure of the NRA-ILA. There's also a few more NRAs as well like the NRA PAC, I’ll let you guess who supports their Super Pac and how much political leverage it has..
From factcheck.org: "The foundation calls its program “Shooting for the Future,” and it includes 20 participating retail companies. The foundation says the money donated by gun customers goes “to support firearms safety education, wildlife conservation and other firearms related public service programs via The NRA Foundation.” Without being specific, the foundation says that “millions of dollars have been raised in this manner.” The NRA-F is also sponsored by gun manufactures to the point that the grass roots does not really fund much for any of the training programs.
The NRA Foundation’s 990 form filed with the IRS for 2010 shows it raised nearly $23.4 million in total revenue and provided more than 2,200 in grants for community programs for hunters, competitive shooters, gun collectors, law enforcement, and women and youth groups, including the Boy Scouts and 4-H clubs. In all, $21.2 million went for grants — most of it (nearly $12.6 million) to the NRA itself for “[e]ducation, training, range development, youth programs, [and] equipment,” while the rest went to the community programs and groups.
The NRA Foundation has no staff and pays no salaries.
The NRAF has no staff and it is not funded by grassroots but instead funded entirely by contributions. Fundraising operates at a loss. I believe the NRA Foundation is predominately funded by gun manufacturers. As a side note, many of the NRAF grants require said grants to be spent on NRA merchandise --- sweet kickback deal for the NRA..
From factcheck.org: "The NRA-ILA, which is the lobbying arm of the NRA, operates a “round-up” program with fewer participating companies, although it has been in existence for longer. Its program was the brainchild of gun store owner Larry Potterfield, the founder and CEO of Midway USA in Missouri. In a video on his website, Potterfield says he started the program in 1992 and the money raised from his customers goes into the “Endowment for the Protection of the Second Amendment.” A few other companies have since joined the program, but Midway customers are still the largest contributors by far. In a Dec. 7, 2012, press release, the company said its customers have donated $7.6 million to the NRA lobbying group since 1992. The program has a balance of nearly $9.5 million, including contributions from gun customers at other stores, the press release says.
Potterfield says very little of that money has been spent to date. In his video, he says the NRA-ILA spends just 5 percent of the fund’s balance each year “to fight anti-gun legislation,” allowing the endowment fund to grow each year."
Grass roots sort of puts in to the ILA but mostly through slick marketing on gun sales. Without gun sales, the ILA funding would dry up even if NRA membership remained high.
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/01/do-assault-weapons-sales-pay-nra-salaries/
So when you say the NRA is a grassroots organization, I say which NRA or are you talking all of the NRA entities together? Because together including basic services, training and lobbying ---- the manufacturers are the 800-lb gorilla for funding the organization. For just plain gun folks, the NRA is very good at hiring lawyers and CPAs. To be successful in this world it's been suggested all you need is lawyers, guns, and money ---- these boys got Bloomberg on that one.
Next we'll go over how the NRA rigs the game to allow gun manufacturers to hand pick the board of directors even with a grass roots vote. Man these guys are some slick willys.
"Darrin, paper does not refuse ink; find me the NJ registry based on the permit.
Seriously? That form is used for EVERY handgun purchase in NJ, and it states right on it that it is a *Form of Register* and you still don't believe us?
Do you think we have the link/password to the actual database?
"Mark, don't know. maybe grandfather the past and UBC the future?
So you agree that it is unenforceable without a registry going forward. That's all I asked you to acknowledge.
And the NRA round-up is still a voluntary, private donation from individual citizens. Sure, Midway asks if you want to donate the last few cents of each transaction, but that is evil to you somehow? And who cares if the gun companies donate money to the NRA. The gun companies wouldn't HAVE that money if there wasn't a market for guns, which is driven by, you guessed it, private individuals.
So on one hand you claim the NRA is the "solution" to the registry/database, but then you turn around and basically hop on board the "NRA is a domestic terrorist" bandwagon. And then we're supposed to accept that fact that you wouldn't yank the database ownership rug right out from under them the first chance you got?
While its not proof - this author offers anecdotal evidence the 4473 forms are centrally collected and used for trace info.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/01/06/run-in-atf/
"They were both in plain clothes, both introduced themselves kindly, and both provided credentials and business cards before I let them in. I sat the two men down in my office as I was legitimately curious as to what was going on. The men had lists of every firearm I had ever received from an FFL where I had done multiple long guns/hand guns."
You are right SD - you can temporarily borrow a gun for sporting purposes only - but any other "transfer" is illegal.
"A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes". - [18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]
Section 479.11 of the National Firearms Act defines a Transfer as: This term and the various derivatives thereof shall include selling, assigning, pledging, leasing, loaning, giving away, or otherwise disposing of.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/aprqtr/27cfr479.11.htm
(j) Transfer
The term “transfer” and the various derivatives of such word, shall include selling, assigning, pledging, leasing, loaning, giving away, or otherwise disposing of.
26 U.S. Code § 5845
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845
so if a UBC were to be instituted - any time you loan or rent a firearm - even for an instant a background check would be necessary..
How about a gun song!
Sing it to the tune of "If I only had a heart" from the Wizard of Oz.
When a man's an empty holster,
No courage does he bolster
No confidence is won
What a difference he'd be makin',
He could finally stop his quakin'
If he only had a gun!
He could stand a little straighter
with that ultimate persuader
And wouldn't that be fun?
He could put an end to static
with a semiautomatic
If he only had gun!
Can't you see, how it would be?
Woe would avoid his door
The crazy guy would pass him by
Or else he'd shoot----and shoot some more!
Oh, the shootin' he'd be doin',
and all the ballyhooin'
The way the folks would run
His life would be so merry
In a world of open carry
If he only had a gun!
Music by Harold Arlen, words by Leonard Pitts Jr.
Private sales in nj require a permit to purchase pistol / revolver and once the sale is completed a copy of the pistol purchase permit must be returned to the issuing department within 5 days.
There most certainly is a handgun registry in New Jersey
Universal Background checks treat all firearm owners as criminals and adds a "usage" tax for exercising an inalienable right. There were 70-80 million firearm owners in the country in 2010 and yet only 8583 instances of murder using a firearm. Out of 70-80 million people.
Hell, let's throw the argument even more in the favor of anti-gunners. There were 1214104 instances of violent crime in the country. Let's say every single one of those was committed with a firearm (they weren't). That's 1.7% of the firearm owners in the country, if every single violent crime was committed by one. So 98.3% of us would be innocent in the WORST POSSIBLE CASE scenario.
Of the violent crime, in (estimating off of FBI data again) 15748 murders, with ~ 67% committed with firearms. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Of the 754025 assaults, only 21.2% were with firearms..
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/aggravated-assault-table
So actually we're at what, 168727 violent crimes with firearms... Can't calculate rapes, but let's go ahead and call it 250k to account for any misses, more than adequate given other averages.
250k of 70 million firearm owners, or 0.357%.
So I ask you: Why the should 99.643% of firearm owners, whose boomstick is not used in any illegal or violent way, be subject to this due to blatantly unreasonable taxation and harassment?
Oh and BTW felons are exempt from any registration..
See: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/85/
"Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968) - The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself"
Just a little comic relief that I admit contributes nothing to this otherwise serious debate. Fun to sing though!
SD "Darrin, paper does not refuse ink; find me the NJ registry based on the permit."
You want me to find you what I could definitely assume to be classified information???? What I can tell you, is that I need that form to purchase a handgun in NJ, be it from a store, or private party. If a store, then they return a copy to the police. If it is a private party, then I have to return a copy to the police, as well as the seller gets a copy to prove they sold it to me.
SD "I see. If I summarize your thoughts in my own words, I face the wrath of the demon; but you get to guess what I meant beyond what I said. "
When you constantly fill your comments with sarcastic remarks and seemingly unending innuendos....yeah! Difference is, I didn't put words in your mouth like you constantly do for others
SD "I did not go farther since the first one seemed right and let's focus on NY. We can do CT after you see if you can show us New York State confiscation based on registration......"
LMAO, yet another attempt to ignore the facts hu?
............SD "Darrin, who cares what Sandy Hook Commission says" Yup there too
I get it, when in doubt, dismiss "facts" provided to you.....we cannot have a debate if you ask for me to provide you with facts, but then just dismiss them all instead of looking at them, I will no longer waste my time with getting you information, it's that simple.
And you did not answer one of my questions, or maybe you did, but I just didn't read your whole post, I dismissed it after the first thing I read that I did not like :->
But in all seriousness, you did not answer a single question I asked
Here I will re-post it, since you are having such a hard time finding info since your name change
Back up a few steps SD... what are you hoping to do by making what you feel to be "better" measures for "crime gun" tracing?
Are you hoping to be able to trace a gun back to the original owner and punish them for the crime? How does this help stolen guns? How does this help crime on the streets? How do laws stop criminals at all?
Cars have individual VIN numbers, registration cards, titles, licence plates, individualized keys both locking them and keeping them from being used, hell some have GPS trackers.....yet they too are stolen all the time, actually one every 44 seconds in the US......so I am not quite sure what you are trying to accomplish by tracking guns, "smart" guns, or any of those other ideas that in the end of it, just end up looking good on paper, and locking down law abiding citizen's rights.
Well guns purchased since the 4473 became mandatory can always be traced to their first owner - hence why I don't understand why we need a registry and automated trace system - btw a $50 angle grinder kills that theory as well
http://www.gallup.com/poll/186284/despite-criticism-nra-enjoys-majority-support.aspx?g_source=Politics&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles
58% in the U.S. have a favorable opinion of the NRA per new gallup poll
yeah, yeah , yeah, changing the questions, re-defining the terms , misapplying the facts, dismissing things out of hand, making things up out of whole cloth, jamming words never written into other posters posts, then complaining about them,
all straw, , all.the.time.
typical behavior for the gun control fanatics (yes, fanatics) who want to remove, reduce, or ortherwise interfere with free citizens free choices.
i am so tired of the nonsense coming from the anti-gunnies out there. they will not stop until they get their way. (just review a few posters on here, they want to keep taking things away)
btw, the funny satirical song lyrics were written by a guy who has a pistol in his house for his own protection, (f-in hypocrite) , a well known , 'let's confiscate them and melt them all down' advocate who keeps a firearm for the protection of himself and his family because of the death threats he has received from writing his opinions in the newspapers
Darrin, I answered every one of your questions.
For the NJ gun registry that you can't prove exists except because of the title of a form, the current form STS-033, does not say Registration so I guess the database has been erased. The form has an issue date of 2009. http://www.njsp.org/firearms/forms.shtml
If you feel the registry can't be found because it is classified, I can find every other legal registry. There's a big difference in finding its existence and printing out the contents. If the case of your NJ registry, you can't find it's existence.
These forms are mostly issued and received by the local municipalities; there are over 550 municipalities in NJ. The forms are paper, many are filled out in ink. Now of you think 550 municipalities are each loading a data base or sending them to the state where keyboarders input the information from the hand-filled out forms and then put them in a secret registry that you can not find any info as to it's existence, a secret registry in Chris Christie's state, well you would believe anything if it suits you.
Gun trace backgrounder - asked and answered, look it up.
"When you constantly fill your comments with sarcastic remarks and seemingly unending innuendos....yeah! Difference is, I didn't put words in your mouth like you constantly do for others." Almost everyone here uses sarcasm. Constantly, constantly, give me a break. Summarizing other's thoughts and playing them back to them is part of a discussion, a dialog, a duologue. Its how humans more fully understand each other. And actually if you are attempting to define my supposed innuendo, you are literally by definition putting words in my mouth. Especially when you insist after I tell you no. The innuendo is unintended or fabricated in your mind. I just hate guys who keep coming on after I repeatedly say no (sarcasm and innuendo alert and perhaps a double entendre or two)
I stopped reading the link because the first example of NYS SAFE Act = registration = wholesale confiscation turned out to be nothing of the sort. It was one occurrence of "an adjudicated mental defective case of gun removal as ordered by the court" as told by the sheriff and having nothing to do with registration, mass confiscation, or the NYS Safe Act. It was exactly what I think the progunites have been calling for -- more action on mental health.
Now if you are not going to read your own posts and links, then certainly I am not going to do it for you. It was not that I didn't like it, it just had absolutely nothing to do with your claim except the work confiscation in the title.
As for your last tome: "Are you hoping to be able to trace a gun back to the original owner and punish them for the crime? How does this help stolen guns? How does this help crime on the streets? How do laws stop criminals at all?"
Really. Your just messing with me now aren't you? What's next, why is there air?
And for Skippy who posted: "While its not proof - this author offers anecdotal evidence the 4473 forms are centrally collected and used for trace info." I too found an anecdote like yours that proved something I just knew to be true for so long.....
"Dear Penthouse,
It was a cold and rainy evening when the door bell sounded announcing my pizza delivery from Hooters................:>)
(Darrin: sarcasm/innuendo alert but no double d entendre's (or is there?)) :>)
Ahh... free America... where you can buy a gun with cash and a handshake.
Not that I would know anything about that...
So apparently this is answering my questions?
@SD
"As for your last tome: "Are you hoping to be able to trace a gun back to the original owner and punish them for the crime? How does this help stolen guns? How does this help crime on the streets? How do laws stop criminals at all?"
Really. Your just messing with me now aren't you? What's next, why is there air?"
Way to side step the question, and not answer
I am really starting to agree with BrotherDog here, not that I ever didn't...But jeze strangerdanger, your "game" is getting a bit old.....demand answers, post a bunch of stories, get mad when people don't read your stories, demand links for stories you can find yourself, then, on the flip side, when given answers, asked questions, or presented links, act like they are a big joke and not worthy of your time.
My questions are quite simple. Multiple times you have made reference to "better" gun tracking, and I want to know how that will help, what you expect the outcome to be
I am surprised that nobody has mentioned that at the side of the road an officer can do an NCIC check and an ATF "forward trace" and find out the history of any firearm to its original purchaser. Why is any additional registration needed
Skippy, I think you are giving way too much credit to the existing trace system. In the previous massacre post detailed the system, provided a link describing it as well as answered all of Darrin's relevant questions. Try that for some background.
Specifically to you lasts; the NCIC database is pretty much limited to bad guys and bad guns. For the area you are looking at, the gun the database, according to the FBI includes:
- National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Denied Transaction File—Records on individuals who have been determined to be “prohibited persons” according to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and were denied as a result of a NICS background check. (As of August 2012, records include last six months of denied transactions; in the future, records will include all denials.)
and
- Gun File—Records on stolen, lost, and recovered weapons and weapons used in the commission of crimes that are designated to expel a projectile by air, carbon dioxide, or explosive action.
There's lots on bad guys too: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ncic/ncic_files
"Well guns purchased since the 4473 became mandatory can always be traced to their first owner - hence why I don't understand why we need a registry and automated trace system - btw a $50 angle grinder kills that theory as well"
Well, I wouldn't want to be behind you at DMV if you register a pick-me-up :>) Again, read the post on the process but the 4473 is retained in paper at the FFL. If the FFL goes belly up or if Katrina hits, the records go to the ATF who freakin scan them to protect from destruction but they do not database.
To give you an idea of how a gun trace starts, the ATF starts at the manufacturer, who finds the wholesaler, who finds the retailer, who goes to a dark room of file cabinets.......... All of this is done by phone calls and emails..... If that's the NRA's version of responsible, then responsibility and insanity and synonymous.
Darrin, like I said all of your answers are in the previous massacre thread. As you have told me many times when I have asked you questions., go back and reread the original work, I do not plan to cut n paste it for you. And don't give me crud about not answering, you didn't answer jack in that thread.
For your current machine gun volley of questions:
"Are you hoping to be able to trace a gun back to the original owner and punish them for the crime?" Yes, quickly.
"How does this help stolen guns?" I do not want to help stolen guns. If it's a crime gun and it's stolen, it's after the fact. Many crime guns have absolutely nothing to do with stolen guns. However many other crimes are often discovered, investigated and prosecuted from a crime gun search not associated with the current crime. That does seem to be a good thing. I really need clarification here since I am sure you are getting at something and want me to take the bait, but I really don't know what you me.
"How does this help crime on the streets?" I do not want to help crime on the streets; I am not even sure what you mean. Is crime on the streets different from crime in a building? Really need some sort of clarification for what you are looking for here.
"How do laws stop criminals at all?" OK, here's where the wheels come off the wagon. This question deserves another thread, perhaps in the philosophy section of HL. I am sorry but this one is just plain ridiculous. Or is it sarcasm, innuendo, or...... Really, open up a new thread for this one and I would be glad to respond.
Forward trace:
https://www.atfonline.gov/etrace/
http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/pdfs/GVR_page-8_ATF-National-Tracing-Center-brochure-2005.pdf
https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/pr/etrace-internet-based-firearms-tracing-and-analysis
The ATF has a substantial call center and database dedicated just for this purpose SD - It looks pretty substantial. I understand that they can only track the first purchaser of a firearm allegedly but it is a substantial part of the ATF operation. Ten years ago they were able to correlate firearms data.
New question - anyone wonder what happens to the test fired bullet from every new firearm purchased?
There is no bait to my questions SD, I am trying to understand exactly what you want to see done, and what you hope the outcome of these new doings are. You have been so two sides of the fence every time i have talked to you about this topic, it is sometimes hard to follow. I do not have a clear cut definition of what you want, and every time I think I do, it seems to change.
The thing that has me most confused, is everyone I have ever talked to has a base reason or want, be it pro gun or anti-gun, you just seem all over the place with your wants and concerns....first registration, then background checks, smart guns was a topic of the past, and magazine limits. All in the while claiming to only want stronger background checks and claiming to not be anti-gun? You have me very confused
Some interesting Facts, no reason for me to cherry pick data, you will read it if you want to read it:
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/
The thing I do find most interesting is the list of references created when putting together such a list:
You will have to look at the bottom of that link for it, tried to post it here but it said post is too long, how many times have you seen that SD :->
There is actually a bunch of myth busters for you:
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/assault-weapons/
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/availability-of-guns/
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/children-and-guns/
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/accidental-deaths/
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/
So much data packed into this site, read it, if you are in fact interested in looking at some facts. There is more to choose from on the top bar
SD it's clear that your a gun guy and a liberal and that's ok we accept you - guns are a fun toy / tool for putting holes in apart and corn stalks and that is ok too. You can have your political alignment be wherever and still like shooting sports and defend your self if necessary we don't discriminate :-)
Etrace: lipstick on a pig Skippy.
You can front end a manual, time consuming, email/telephone/paper file process all you want, it does not change the process as noted. All that's happened is that you have sped up and simplified the fastest part of the process....asking for a trace. Performing the trace is still handled with 1960's technology and methods.
But leave to The Truth of Guns to print an anonymous report, oooooh must be true, claiming: "Only two steps remain for The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to accomplish full registration of all firearms and firearms owners in the United States: 1) Require all firearm sales to go through a licensed dealer. 2) Require dealers to periodically report all firearm sales to the National Tracing Center . . ."
No duh donut-head. I just got an anonymous report: "Only two steps remain for me to take over the world. 1) require all people to give me whatever I want whenever want it. 2) repeat.
Bunch of noids.
Darrin: I don’t think I ever advocated registration but said arguing it is useless since IMHO it can’t pass as law. As for LCMs, I said in the last thread I still support reducing the LCM capacity but have decided I should focus on what I think responsible gun owners should be responsible for in making existing laws work across the nation. Specifically UBCs, Universal Mental Health Checks, and Automated Crime Gun Traces. Of the first two I think most responsible gun owners polled agree. I indicated in this thread other stuff is interesting to talk about but without in-depth, deep-dive quantitative statistical analyses that the NRA lobbies against using CDC funds for (and has been successful) our pro's or con's are really noise.
The thread will devolve quickly if you continue to paste without reviewing much less adding value to the links you post. The latest link seems to be a “and see if it sticks” sort. Let’s start:
“71% of gunshot victims had previous arrest records.
64% had been convicted of a crime.
Each had an average of 11 prior arrests."
This is not a US average. Some of the data is from a Charlotte study, some Milwaukee. One a gunshot study (is that homicide?), the other a homicide. Do they include urban only or suburban and rural? One is an old study. You can't extend a single city experience to the nation much less another city.
“63% of victims had criminal histories and 73% of that group knew their assailant (twice as often as victims without criminal histories).”
This time San Fran but ask how did they determine the dead victims knew their assailant? Just saying.
“74% of homicides during the commission of a felony involve guns.”
Since 68% of all homicides are gun, did you expect anything less?
To mix sometimes outdated, mixed demographics, definitions, without a national picture and present it as if its a general truth seems to beg stricter scrutiny for legitimacy if not outright deception.
Then we hit the first chart and the wheels fall off the wagon. One line for handgun supply rising, a second for property crime rate wavering and then falling. Provided to bust the myth: “Guns are not a good deterrent to crime.”
Besides the chart title stating “Proptery” the first question is why do property crime rates waver up and down for the first 20 years? Then can you compare a percentage rate against a volume number? I mean the rate was falling but the total number of crimes was rising. In 1960 there were 3.1M property crimes. In 2014, 8.3M. It is down from the high of 12.9M in 1991 but has been wavering before and after. So the total for property crimes generally is a rising line. (FBI UCS database). Meanwhile the opposite is true for handguns: the rate of ownership is falling. BUSTED.
Today’s word is correlation.
For fun, and to explain the correlation, imagine your chart and remove the handgun line. Now replace it with let’s say: U.S population. Conclusion: more people equals less property crime. Better yet, illegal aliens reduce property crime. Or how about: internet usage reduces property crime (hmmm, that one may be true).
Or erase the property crime line and put in one for the size of the polar ice caps. Conclusion: handguns are shrinking the polar ice cap. Or, one for number of outhouses. Conclusion: increase in handguns reduces need to go outdoors.
The rest of the points surrounding the chart are sourced to Wright/Rossi/Aldrine and of course, Gary Kleck. These are better statistical analyses but not without a lot of critique. Most of these were discussed in the report Skippy posted and I recommended reading. There is a fair amount of criticism of the statistical technique and results. You can read the report or google Kleck criticism to see the commentary. Remember the question is not right or wrong but quality deep-dive statistical work which I say has not really been done for any of the questions regarding guns. I would love to see Kleck’s work confirmed.
I would question what you posted in this area though from two of the points though:
“Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year or 6,849 every day.”
“Every day 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.”
Houston, I think we have a problem here. I think life-threatening crimes is a subset of crimes so which one is it? And if 400,000, that’s 8,000 per day per state average. Wow, there’s something huge you don’t hear about.
I can continue Darrin but so far the data, except for the Kleck etc. reports, is very weak and the data support for the conclusions is weaker. In some cases, laughable. I really wish you could provide a higher level of quality governance before you post these links as gospel. Otherwise it will appear you are flinging to the wall to see what sticks. This one does not. I do not think we want our back and forth to devolve to this level.
Europeans wish they had a 2nd amendment:
"I just returned from a gun rights meeting in Belgium, and I can attest that all over Europe people now want the means to defend themselves,” Gottlieb told WND. “Self-defense is no longer a dirty word. In countries like Austria, where it is still legal to own a firearm, gun sales are at record levels. I can tell you first-hand that people in Europe now wish they had a Second Amendment.”
Austrians are arming themselves at record rates in an effort to defend their households against feared attacks from Muslim invaders.
Tens of thousands of Muslim “refugees” have poured into Austria from Hungary and Slovenia in recent months on their way to Germany and Sweden, two wealthy European countries that have laid out the welcome mat for migrants. More than a million will end up in Germany alone by the end of this year, according to estimates from the German government.
Obtaining a working firearm and ammunition in Germany, Britain, Denmark and the Netherlands is practically impossible for the average citizen. Germany, for instance, requires a psychological evaluation, the purchase of liability insurance and verifiable compliance with strict firearms storage and safety rules. And self-defense is not even a valid reason to purchase a gun in these countries.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/islamic-invasion-pulls-trigger-europeans-scramble-for-guns/#JSHvuRPVgeDHoxJs.99
registration leading to a gun confiscation scheme in NY:
What authorities will do is go to the family if someone with a pistol permit has died and confiscate the gun or guns.
“The idea that police would peruse the obituaries and compare the names of recently deceased persons with their pistol permit records, and then send officers to take those guns while a family is still grieving their loss is simply unconscionable,”
“This is tantamount to dancing on someone’s grave, and it amounts to taking property without due process or probable cause.”
Buffalo Police Commissioner Daniel Derrenda announced at a recent news conference that his department will be sending agents to collect (sic: 'confiscate')guns that belong to pistol permit holders who had died so “they don’t end up in the wrong hands,” according to the report.
Derrenda said authorities will check the names of those who die against the records of those holding state pistol permits.
Then the guns will be collected, the report said. (sic: collected means 'confiscated')
Gottlieb said it’s “not simply cold-hearted, it is ghoulish.”
“This is the kind of behavior one might expect in a police state, but not the United States,” Gottlieb said.
“But it proves that the anti-gun mindset knows no boundaries. From now on, no gun control zealot will be able to dismiss and ridicule the concerns of law-abiding firearms owners that there is no reason to fear gun registration, no matter what form it takes."
This explains why gun owners are opposed to registration and other forms of record-keeping and permit laws.
http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/plan-to-grab-guns-when-owner-dies-labeled-ghoulish/#w6cCyGWxICPs31z3.99
BDog: deja vu all over again... We did this and I noted that "freezing" assets during probate is not unusual. In many places, the bank will not let you in the safety deposit box for example without a lawyer and legal inventory present. Doing so by using registration followed by confiscation is strange though. Unless there are rampant thefts in this manner, it seems to be a bit thuggish versus informing the executor as to their duties to secure weapons and allowing them to use police lock-up if they choose. However this is one local urban police and not necessarily wide spread and does not have anything to do with the SAFE Act.
Meanwhile back to untangling the NRA cabal.
Is the NRA a manufacturer front controlled by gun maker or grass roots? In all honesty, I guess I really have to say both although the manufacturers are the 800-lb gorillas at the table. If the membership did not agree with what the manufacturers wanted, they would quit. When you follow the money, the larger portion probably comes from grassroots yet a huge portion comes from manufacturers. To say manufacturers don’t have a voice is like saying a million $1 users are equal to 1 $1m user. Which phone call would you answer first?
The NRA has constructed a byzantine empire to shield cash inflows while routinely using one organization as a vendor for another and even having grassroots grant recipients return said grants in NRA-only purchases. Many of the "organizations" pay little to no salaries but “insource” instead to other NRA entities. When you follow the voting “power,” of the grass roots side of the house, it is still basically manufacturer shills, even at the grassroots.
The NRA Super Pac is a separate entity from the grassroots NRA and is called NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND. Their funding was not included in the pie chart shown before. Legally, the PAC is not funded by corporations. This is the political electioneering side of the house with a revenue stream that adds about 10% to the pie chart.
According to OpenSecrets, The NRA Super Pac for the 2014 cycle spent $20,785,386 with receipts being about a million more. Individual donations at $200 or more totaled 1.4M. Most of the donations are under $200, $20,000,000 of them?
A total of $13M was spent on media, mostly negative ads. Less than $300K was spent on salaries and administration. Close to $3M was spent on the NRA as a vendor.
But what might be missed in all the meanderings of NRA funding, entities, and kickbacks, is that the NRA may have spent $37M PAC-ing, not $21M and may have received millions of “donations” illegally funneled to the PAC from the NRA-ILA or vice-versa. Some of these may be manufacture dollars.
Given the NRA legal and accounting powerhouses proven by the organization set-up and lobbying efforts, I find it hard to believe they screwed up like this. Apparently the NRA may be too sneaky or too egostistical for its own good:
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-nras-deceptive-shell-game-with-donations-a-116744915796.html
Is the NRA truly grassroots or something else. Who really leads the decision and policy making of the group?
The NRA decision team, known as the NRA board, is a 76-person grassroots elected body each serving three years. About 1/3 is up for election every year. While it may be elected by the grassroots, it most certainly is not selected by anyone but the gun manufacturers. The board almost entirely consists of people selected by “the nominating committee.” There can be and have been write in candidates but the grassroots vote is usually a confirmation of the nominating committee’s candidates.
Who is the nominating committee?
It’s a ten person group who includes or has included: George Kollitides II, CEO of Freedom Group aka Mr. Bushmaster, Pete Brownell, aka Mr. Internet Gun Superstore, Ronnie Barrett, Mr. Civilian Sniper Outfitter, and Stephen Hornady, Mr "Accurate/Deadly/Dependable" armor piercing bullet boy. One of the committee members at least was an outsider: Joseph P. DeBergalis Jr., a multi-decade veteran New York State Police Officer and competitive shooter. Oh wait, he is also touted as Brownell's shill on Brownell’s website…..
The NRA nominating committee has had some notable folks not affiliated with gun shops like Patricia Clarke, Newtown CT competitive shooter and legal eagle Charles Cotton who also serves as the NRA’s trustee of its Civil Rights Defense Fund as well as taking cases working on behalf of gun manufacturers. Oops.
It’s the nominating committee, a pretty tight club of manufacturers or close affiliates, that selects the decision making body of the NRA and clearly not grassroots that controls the appointments to the NRA governing board.
Good research - I still think the millions of other people who legally own guns that are NOT in the NRA have a lot to do with the current trend towards loosening gun laws and blocking studies as well. There are 30 million gun owners in this country that we KNOW about - 6 times the NRA's membership
But private individuals who quietly vote for and successfully elect representatives that agree with their views do not make a good boogey-man.
Agreed but I think the VAST majority of gun owners are in different but willing to vote out anyone who proposes new firearms restrictions - the democrats are foolish to make this part of their platform. This is why we have a republican super majority
That's what happens when the proposed laws affect nobody but the law abiding.
The Democrats couldn't help themselves after a few victories in states that were already a lost cause. They kept poking at it to reduce the number of guns and clamp down on carry laws, but it backfired and there are more guns than ever with less restrictive carry laws in most places.
I guess in a way it worked because violent crime is down...
Actually because there are more guns there are less typewriters. (See correlation discussion above)
Mark, you have as much correlation as I do t make your claim on violent crime.
Note that in reality there are more gun in less hands. Perhaps violent crime is down because each gun owner gives a gun to each family member to keep each other in check :>)
Guns are not why Republicants have a majority in the house and senate. Guns are the reason however that once in power, Republicants can't get anything done.
"But private individuals who quietly vote for and successfully elect representatives that agree with their views do not make a good boogey-man" Why would they? Wouldn't it be boogey-men?
However the massive millions the NRA spends in negative ads does help gun owners outside the NRA make up their independent minds in an independent fashion without mad dog propaganda influencing them.
The point was that the NRA is a very successful lobbying group not only in making law, but selecting elected officials and stopping Federal funding into a product that is one of our major influencers of death. While touting themselves as a grass roots organization, they are actually a byzantine organizational cabal where manufactures exert much power even in the grassroots selection of NRA leaders and policy makers.
If the NRA truly listened to gun owners at large, perhaps they would proactively push for Universal Background Checks and do more than window-dressing lobbying on Universal Mental Health tracking.
Note that's just the NRA; there's some more major gun groups for those who have different ideas than the gun manufacturers express through the NRA.
the anti-gunnies have no governor on their demands; they are relentless in their OCD drive to tell others what hey can and cannot own. and now as the confiscation schemes in NY and Connecticut have shown, none of the gun control fanatics will be able to convince firearms owners that there is nothing to fear from gun registration.
they have shown their true colors, just as the anti-gunnery 'confiscate and melt them all down' posters on these threads have done, over and over and over again
look, if you don't want to keep and bear arms, then you don't have to, but stop trying to dictate to others who make a different choice than you,
but note they are the only organization - as I showed you on the other thread that wants to fix NICS and are spending money on it. and how about this legislation they sponsored
NRA Members' Gun Safety Act of 2013 - to extend the Brady Law background check procedures to all sales and transfers of firearms. Impact: Expanded background checks to all purchases and transfers; AG can deny transfers to 'terrorists'; Reporting of stolen firearms w/in 48 hours; Requirements on how states issue CHL's including local PD approval.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:h.r.00021:
Brotherdog,
You bring up a good point, and I often wondered if these same people who offer up laws, some ridiculous, would be offering the same laws if they actually affected them?
Lets make a law that cars can only go 65, since after all that is the speed limit in this state and no roads in NJ are over 65, so that will be the max speed for cars. Sound good? Cars can be programmed that when they go into other states they automatically obey that states speed limit....to the t, because anything over is in fact breaking a law, so who is with me?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hyQDQPEsrs
This presentation presents the available evidence regarding gun prevalence, gun homicides, gun control laws and much more in an attempt to get to the bottom of this complicated issue. What is the Truth About Gun Control?
Et tu Skipitus?
Clue 1: the NRA Gun Safety Act of 2013 was introduced by a Democrat with 2 Democratic co-sponsors.
The day the act was introduced in the House, the act was immediately thrown to the House Judiciary Committee. Within a month, they threw it to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, And Investigations where it's been under consideration for close to three years.
" The NRA is a terrorist organization itself, as far as I'm concerned" said the bill's sponsor who is no longer in office; want to guess who paid for negative ads?
The NRA did not pursue this law through Democrats and they do not support it; quite the opposite.
And then you fall to a core dump of same old story, same old bad analysis, comparisons and correlations. You usually add value to your posts..... :>( 26 minute rant, really? Can't listen but
We'll let the first chart go since I can't imagine a pro gun theory there.
Second chart showing US suicide mostly by gun, UK mostly by hanging no doubt proving that even without guns where there's a will there's a way. Left out: US suicide rate of 12.1 per 100K ranking 50th amongst nations; UK 6.2 ranking 105th. Let's see the talk track to that explaining how guns don't promote suicide (which they may not, who really knows without statistical studies).
Third chart showing gun sources: 40% criminal, 60% legal (shows three sources). Unless he's asking for UBCs not sure what pro gun stance you can take on this one.
Fourth chart showing Australian gun ban effect: knives up is the summary while weasel wording homicide down as "world effect." Amazingly in Australia it's a world effect, in the US it's due to more guns......
Fifth chart showing US guns up, homicide rate down. See, in US it's a gun effect!! See two threads re: correlation above. On this one you get a "the wheels come off the wagon" statistical grade and I stop.
Skippy, you usually don't fling the stuff against the wall to see what sticks. Instead you usually add some value, perhaps minimal like your NRA legislation which took one minute to debunk the NRA affiliation. Once again, I enjoy a good discussion twixt Mark, Darrin, yourself, and JR. I do my best to not just cut n paste lengthy pieces of low quality data and conclusions without some level of vetting, governance and commentary. Perhaps that makes my posts longer, but at least the links should add value, which is not what this link added.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/25/us/oklahoma-car-into-crowd/
Adacia Chambers Killed 4 and injured may others with a car - no gun necessary.
the NRA is a grass roots funded and run organization,
all of this 'who shot john' stuff doesn't change the fact that the issues NRA members are concerned about are championed and addressed by the NRA leadership, who come from the NRA rank and file members.
NRA is the oldest civil rights organization in the country and defends the individual freedoms as enumerated in the constitution.
the NRA has done more for firearm safety and education than any other organization you can name, period. the NRA has done more to promote shooting skills and shooting sports than any other organization you can name, period.
. period .
ask any NRA member and they will agree; that's it's grass roots run, organized and effectuated
these attempted (but failed) criticisms are coming from people who are not NRA members, but rather NRA haters, funded by billionaires who have armed guards with them 24/7/365, can anyone else see the total hypocrisy in that? (yes, Bloomberg and Soros i'm talking to you)
Skippy - good point, anything can be (and often is) used to kill with, the determination to kill comes from the individual not the inanimate device. (cars, etc.) the car did not kill those people, but the person driving the car did. that's the operative point, accept no substitutes, strawmans or emotional baiting, they are all non-starters and should be called out whenever they rear their illogical ugly heads.
We have to get those assault Elantras off the streets as quickly as possible.
Who else owns one?
"including 11 victims younger than 13"
4 dead, 44 injured, some still in critical condition
and there is is "driving under the influence"
So sad for those people
My heart goes out to those suffering the Oklahoma tragedy.
It currently appears to be intentional mass murder, suicidal, with UI still TBD although charged as such. To use this to make the point "no gun necessary" and then jokingly suggest banning certain models of cars is shameful. No one has ever said other weapons are not used for mass murder and that products beyond guns do not have dangers and safety issues.
To somehow equate mass murder by car with mass murder by gun seems kind of dumb numerically speaking but if you do then follow the comparison through. Let's look at registration, insurance, training, licensing, under the influence laws, legal limits on products, tracking ownership when used in a crime, etc. etc. etc. Then let's talk specific comparisons for track record for safety designs and the statistical beneficial effects. Your guns come up short in every category balanced against the preponderance of mass murders being accomplished with a gun.
Or laws. What happens when you leave your kid in a car alone and something bad happens? How about when you leave them with your gun? There's some strange dichotomies if you compare guns against cars.
BDog, with regards to the NRA they actually did not do anything for civil rights until 1934 however they are the oldest if you overlook that. Yes, I agree they are a grassroots organization with a vast majority of grass roots members. On the money, the grass roots may donate the majority, but gun manufacturers give a huge amount, perhaps the majority, but if not, pretty darn close. Again, which call do you answer first: Joe six gun or Marcus millionaire.
It's hard to track dollars accurately since the NRA is a byzantine collection of affiliated organizations used to promote and shield donations. Accused of illegal transfer of funds between organizations, I really doubt they were dumb enough to make that mistake.
In terms of control, gun manufacturers own the Nomination Committee which selects the Board members which are rubber stamped voted in by the grass roots. You don't need Soros conspiracy, you can look it up as to who's one the NC, what the process is, and what the voting looks like. Clearly the decisions and policies are dictated those selected by the gun manufacturers.
On the NRA safety courses, you can look it up in the report Skippy posted but statistically there is no proof as to the success of this training. I am sure that all training is good but there is no statistical measurements as to the benefits of what the NRA is doing. Clearly if you were to base it on the numbers of gun homicides and mass murders the NRA training would be a failure. But I for one would love to see someone actually study the benefits. One would think the NRA might want to as well or is just saying it good enough. But "look how many we trained" does not answer the quality question.
I can't shake your feeling that this is all a Soros propaganda campaign, never will, but I do suggest you follow up on the NRA money, how the organization's decision-making group is selected, and any real metrics beyond quantity for it's training.
Lastly, and of course I can not statistically prove this, guns do kill people. The US has the highest homicide rates versus almost any other developed nation on the planet. The preponderance of these homicides are by gun leading some to believe that guns do kill people.
46,471: Drug Overdoses Killed More Americans Than Car Crashes or Guns
Drug overdose deaths are the leading cause of injury death in the United States, ahead of motor vehicle deaths and firearms (deaths)," the Drug Enforcement Agency announced on Wednesday.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/dea-drug-overdoses-kill-more-americans-car-crashes-or-firearms
"To use this to make the point "no gun necessary" and then jokingly suggest banning certain models of cars is shameful."
As is suggesting *I* need to give up certain models of firearms or more freedoms because of something *someone else* does with theirs.
Regarding your tracking and licensing analogies with cars... I didn't see anywhere that the car dealership or previous owner of said Elantra was questioned for their part in this crime, and if licensing prevents misuse/accidents then you've got some 'splainin to do to ~33K dead people a year and ~2.2M injured people a year (from automobiles).
It's quite amusing to watch your mental gymnastics to try and reconcile this mass killing (where the sole blame is rightly placed on the driver) and other mass killings (where the blame is illogically placed on the gun).
"46,471: Drug Overdoses Killed More Americans Than Car Crashes or Guns"
Clearly the solution is to make heroin possession/use and prescription drug abuse (false prescriptions) more illegaler.
Because to a junkie for whom the risk of losing their life means nothing, those ink blots in NJ 2C:35-10 will sure scare them straight... just like adding UBC's to the lawbooks will then ensure the Bloods and the Crips head over to Dick's or Cabela's for all of their firearm needs.
Most automobile-related deaths are unintentional while very few gun related deaths are. No amount of licensing, training, or testing is going to affect suicides or homicides and it will have very little effect on actual unintentional shootings beyond what non-mandatory education is already doing.
Think about that for a moment. Cars kill more people by accident than are killed intentionally, unintentionally, or self-inflicted by the hundreds of millions of firearms owned by private citizens.
Even with gun suicides, Prescription drugs still kill more people than gun deaths. Suicide by gun is 21000 a year. (It's 65% of the 32,000 gun deaths/year) along with the fact that out of the remaining 11,000 deaths, 80% of those are gang/criminal on gang/criminal deaths with over 95% of those committed with illegal guns.
95% of guns used are illegal...DoJ http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF
80% number is from CDC http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf
65% of gun deaths are suicide...CDC http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm .
.
So let's break this down factually and without any emotions, feelings or "shaming" involved. Just simple common sense, facts and logic:
32,000 gun deaths a year.
21,000 are suicides.
------------------------------------
11,000
8800 of that 11,000 are due to gang/criminal violence...that leaves 2200
2200 a year that include accidental deaths, non criminal murders, self defense shootings and police involved shootings.
So when you look at the actual statistics, you find quite a different story than what the anti-gun groups, politicians and media have been spinning and blatantly lying about.
oh, that 2200 - if you want to break that 2200 down even further we can.....
385 deaths by police shooting
550 accidental deaths (negligent discharge, kids playing with guns, hunting accidents) etc.
Maybe we should be focusing on helping people who feel suicidal homicidal instead of bickering about the particular means they're using?
Well this proves one thing for sure; if you want to get press for a problem like drugs, just say it's worse than guns and the blogs light up! This guy gonna get a big budget this year :>)
Yes Skippy, drugs deaths, both from legal and illegal drugs are skyrocketing and affecting all sectors of our nation. You should open a thread and we can discuss. And against the world stage the US ranks 3rd against 172 nations in drug-overdose deaths. And like guns, the issue includes both legal and illegally obtained pointing to issues in both those segments.
Does this diminish our gun violence problem somehow giving us a mulligan for having the most guns and gun deaths of any developed nation on the planet? Clearly no, we have more than one problem and the problems are different. Can we not work to improve more than one issue? Or does the fact that Iran might get the bomb mean we should desist in all global warming reduction efforts?
For example, a wise man said: "Most automobile-related deaths are unintentional while very few gun related deaths are. " So true and a huge difference in cause and, most certainly effect probably indicating different improvement approaches needed. I mean drugs are mostly a very personal and family tragedy like gun suicides. Gun homicide acts are often very public affairs. But yet automobile licenses have Universal Background Checks but guns don't. Hmmmm.
But a not so wise man said: "No amount of licensing, training, or testing is going to affect suicides or homicides and it will have very little effect on actual unintentional shootings beyond what non-mandatory education is already doing." Unfortunately he has not a shred of proof that this is true and every other developed nation on the planet has better results. Clearing everyone else is doing something different and usually with better results.
Or should we take away from that there is no amount of whatever that will affect our drug death rates?
For cars, just a brief note because the comparison is silly. If you look above, the post revealing that in 2015, gun deaths should exceed auto deaths; does that change your analysis? If we look at your chart, you can see the effect of additional safety measures in cars leading to less deaths. And yes, there is statistical evidence for this. However guns have had little safety improvements whatsoever over the years. As a product, safety improvements have not been a design priority at all. Given Skippy's opinion why bother, it's not a responsible gun owner customer need.
On the facts: obviously the suicide/homicide ratios have been like that for awhile, most have copped to that fact but so what? US homicide rates lead the developed world and our suicide rate is middle of the road, not good. Both have been linked to the ease of accomplishment via the gun versus other more cumbersome and failure-prone methods. But the fact remains.
From the 1995 report Skippy claims proves "95% of guns used are illegal." comes the quote "No national collection of data contains detailed information about all of the guns used in crimes." Darn, probably need to automated that crime gun trace system to really know your conjecture Skippy. I can't find confirmation of your 95% in the report; perhaps you can direct.
I do find a lot of 1995 information on the amount of stolen guns which, as the report states: "all stolen guns are available to criminals by definition." For the decade preceding 1995, on average, responsible gun owners lost 275,000 guns per year to theft. That's a little more than half the volume of stolen cars so we probably don't have to worry. The better news is your assault rifles are pretty safe, most thefts are handguns. One of the values of a gun trace is for thefts where multiple guns are stolen. Many times the traces for individual guns triangulate back to the criminal of the original theft. You know, they just Facebook friend each criminal to link to the common friend :>)
As far as legal guns used in crime, most find no real answer: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/05/joe-scarborough/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-tiny-fraction-crimes-commit/
And yet another view: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
I also can not source the "80% of those are gang/criminal on gang/criminal." There's lots of numbers in that 2012 report but I can not find this one. Again, if you could direct. The 80% number first surfaced in the 90's and have been circulating ever since. The real number is probably under 20%. According to the National Gang Center: " These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually."
https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/measuring-the-extent-of-gang-problems
"But yet automobile licenses have Universal Background Checks but guns don't. Hmmmm."
What the heck are you talking about?
Working on a detailed response but I agree the gun cat analogy is flawed on many levels
It's not just a flawed analogy, it's completely non-sensical to say licenses have universal background checks... UBC'S are for *transfers* not licenses (in which case, cars have *no* requirements to buy/sell except having cash in hand).
Not to mention, the government can set whatever requirements they want for driver's licenses, as they are not a Constitutionally protected right (firearms are).
Thought these 46 were sworn to uphold the Constitution. I guess there word is worthless. What a surprise.!!!
HOORAY – A 53-46 vote
The U.N. Resolution 2117 lists 21 points dealing with firearms control, but perhaps of most interest is point number 11:
“CALLS FOR MEMBER STATES TO SUPPORT WEAPONS COLLECTION and DISARMAMENT of all UN countries”.
In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
The Statement of Purpose from the Senate Bill reads: "To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty." The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry, now get this, on all private guns and ammo.
Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.
Old Gent 44 out of 46 of those opposed were Democrats (2 were Independent)...
But no... Democrats haven't made anti-gun legislation a part of their agenda/platform at all...
If you believe they'll think twice before crapping on any of your other rights, there are plenty of bridges to sell you.
Old Gent,
The UN Arms Trade Treaty would place controls on export of arms for the purpose of preventing the international trade of arms from supporting illicit markets and terrorist activities. Your statements that it would effectively place "a ban on import and export of small firearms" is patently false. Also false is the the statement that the treaty would "[implement] an international gun registry....on all private guns and ammo."
You should "cut and paste" from more reliable sources. The effect legal domestic gun ownership in the US would be almost non existent.
Gadfly 
Yep, the UN has nothing against typical privately owned firearms...
So many terrorists packing Smith and Wesson revolvers...
If Obama is for it, you can guarantee it would have had domestic implications on private ownership or commercial (legal) availability of foreign made firearms. The only terrorist import/export I can recall was either carried out by his administration (Fast & Furious) or his Democrat cronies in California (Leland Yee).
However, the measure voted upon was not the treaty itself, but a non-binding test amendment expressing opposition to the ATT which was tacked onto an unrelated congressional budget resolution. The record of the U.S. Senate Roll Call Vote confirms that all the senators who voted against the amendment were Democrats ( From Snopes)
Yes, But it shows the trend of thought, on arms. Like everything in government, You give an innocent inch it soon becomes a mile when the lawyers play with the words.
We lost the constitution when it is interpreted by intent instead of what it says. There is a way to change the words. They seldom take that route because this is working well for the powers that be, the way things are.
Old Gent, Mark, et al. A 10-second search would indicate how off-da-wall you are re: the UN, Democratic vote, whatever. Bogus, busted, blatant lies.
International agreement, does not affect 2A rights. Congress did not vote on UN agreement, it was a test amendment slapped onto the Federal Budget bill expressing opposition to the UN agreement. So essentially Republications voted to add dislike of the UN bill to the budget and Democrats voted to say that's just crazy. Guess those Republicans do believe in "guns and butter."
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp
Please do your homework. This was beneath you. This was a 2013 occurrence with portions of the rumor starting in 2010. 10-seconds and a handful of sources proving the lie.
Mark,
I was specifically said licenses, not transfers, and was alluding to the multiple forms of identification needed to secure a license. Perhaps the use of caps was wrong, but it is universal across all 50 states, there is a background in the majority of the different forms of ID, and it is checked. No it is not the same Universal Backgound Check as for guns because, of course, that actually does not exist....... :>)
Oh by the way, by law, it gets more universal and deeper into your background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act
Post getting a license, it can be used at any time to perform a background check automatically and instantaneously unlike a gun which is not automated and takes days even to conduct a high profile trace and often weeks just to find out who the owner is. After that we can background check the owner using the same system as we use for driver's licenses.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/12/what_do_the_cops_have_on_me.html
It's not a way "around" the 2nd Amendment, as Snopes shows.
It's just more little cuts... make things a bit more difficult... track firearms possession a little bit more. As Old Gent stated, we're done even giving an inch, because time and time again, it's just followed by another inch, and another...
I am not perfect, I accepted an email from a trusted friend. He is not perfect either. but I look at the big picture more than details, as I explained above.
"Treaties can not supersede the constitution." Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/354-001a.htm
" . .no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. . . ."
I am all for regulating guns like cars:
(1) No federal licensing or registration of car owners.
(2) Any person may use a car on his own private property without any license or registration.
(3) Any adult — and in most states, 16- and 17-year-olds, as well — may get a license to use a car in public places by passing a fairly simple test that virtually everyone can pass.
(4) You can lose your license for proved misuse of the car, but not for most other misconduct; and even if you lose your driver’s license, you can usually regain it some time later.
(5) Your license from one state is good throughout the country and sometimes internationally.
not to mention:
Abundant and almost mandatory use of mufflers (suppressors)
I can sell my car / firearms outside the state without an FFL transfer or background check
I can ship cars / firearms directly to other peoples houses/businesses.
There would be no laws regarding the aesthetics vs functionality of the firearm (SBRs, AOWs, SBSs) like cars.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/23/why-not-regulate-guns-like-cars/
The comparison between guns and automobiles seems to be an inevitable one, but is often called on by both sides of the argument because individuals pick and choose only comparisons which are convenient to their point. I would avoid making the comparison unless you are prepared to recognize all of the appropriate counterarguments which essentially render the argument moot - lets agree to drop the car argument. It is a no win for either side.
As far as other first world nations and the effect on banning guns - lets look at one of my favorites:
Australia.
This country is brought up frequently as a result of gun-control working, but what failed to be mentioned is that gun homicides, general homicide and suicide rates were all on a trending decline in Australia well before the 1996 buyback.
So did the buyback work? Here's a couple of really good studies on it:
http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf - A structual battery test. Arguably the best study on the buyback out there.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/GunLawsSudden%20DeathBJC.pdf - Another study.
- Hangings increased post ban (Method substitution. Same thing happened in Canada.)
- Suicide rates among Australian youth examined post-NFA.
- Did it really stop mass shootings? A comparison to New Zealand which has far laxer laws.
The head of the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, comes out and states that the NFA had no effects on crime rates and gun homicides. Such declines were well observable prior to the buyback.
So in regards to my shred of proof for this statement:
"No amount of licensing, training, or testing is going to affect suicides or homicides and it will have very little effect on actual unintentional shootings beyond what non-mandatory education is already doing"
there you go -and of course I cant post that many links to studies in either Private or Forum message - so if anyone wants the links - please send me a PM and I will email you.
Skippy, don't what to junk yard dog you but:
"I can't find confirmation of your 95% in the report; perhaps you can direct.
I also can not source the "80% of those are gang/criminal on gang/criminal."
I figure since you linked it, sourced it, that you know exactly where the confirmation is.
Car argument agreed is silly for either side; usually I just respond rather than initiate.
Likewise, "not giving an inch" or steadfastly believing that Universal Background Checks equal registration which equals confiscation is just as silly. Nowhere have I recommended bans on any gun model or registration or confiscation. At most I recommended limitations on LCM's which I agree would not have a statistically positive result.
At the same time, and somewhere many threads ago I mentioned it, I would love to see registered militias gain additional freedoms to arm members, at the militia, to limits well beyond current legal limits. I think, through militia registration, that we could create a win-win for militias to protect the country, protect themselves and have some fun with really big guns. I think responsible gun owners could get a real win-win here.
Australia --- Wow. At one level you dismiss the fact the U.S. has more guns and more gun deaths than any other developed nation as unimportant, but when Australian gun ban and buy-back does not have overwhelming success, it's important.
And worse yet, in America many say less homicides is due to more guns, but in Australia it's just a world-wide trend having nothing to due with less guns.
Homicides may not decreased due to gun bans in Australia. Then again they did
not go up either. Australia has a homicide rate of 1.1/100K. That's not a lot to work with if you want to prove a downward correlation due to the gun ban. Hard to be statistically significant correlated to a specific action no matter what happens downward. Even harder against an existing downward trend due to other reasons.
The U.S. however with a 4.7/100K homicide rate has much, much more murder by gun to work with, statistically speaking. That's more than 4 times Australia's rate remembering that then have a gun ban......
Want to compare mass murders by gun in these two countries?
Suicides however statistically look to have been affected by the gun ban in Australia. Those despondent did not find another way, by the numbers. And it seems to be correlated to Australian states who affected the ban faster. I know, world-wide trend.... However this one looks to be statistically valid. Guns do kill people.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/
Mark:
"It's just more little cuts....make things a bit more difficult...track firearms...a bit more..."
No, like you said when you quoted Snopes: "It's not a way "around" the 2nd Amendment." This treaty has nothing to do with the 2A except to reaffirm it.
"we're done even giving an inch, because time and time again, it's just followed by another inch, and another." Yeah, putting some barriers up for international terrorism with zero effect on the US 2A is giving an inch. And adding condemnation of that to a budget bill is the honorable way to express Republican opinions.
I think you said it all. As a gun owner you are against giving an inch which puts you outside the preponderance of responsible gun owner beliefs on many aspects of reducing gun violence in America like Universal Background Checks. By not desiring any change you seem to embrace the status quo for gun violence in America or categorize it as some sort of human malfunction.
"I can't find confirmation of your 95% in the report; PP 3. "Stolen guns are a source
of weapons for criminals" also see this much more recent report - http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1 P 33 - Sources of Guns
"80% of those are gang/criminal on gang/criminal." - Pg 19 table 2 ". Deaths, death rates, and age-adjusted death rates for 113 selected causes, Injury by firearms, Drug-induced Injury at work, and Enterocolitis due to Clostridium difficile: United States, final 2010 and preliminary 2011—Con."
"This treaty has nothing to do with the 2A except to reaffirm it"
Except that part about tracking "end users" of firearms... Buy a nice Italian Benelli shotgun, and guess what list you go on that gets reported back to the Italian government? So many terrorists using over-under duck guns, eh?
"As a gun owner you are against giving an inch which puts you outside the preponderance of responsible gun owner beliefs"
It's more than a bit insulting to claim I'm not a responsible gun owner simply because I don't agree with your *politics* on firearms.
I've never had a negligent discharge... I've never shot anyone (purposefully or accidentally)... I've never had a gun stolen... I've never allowed any untrained child to have access to my firearms... I've brought several people to the range and safely educated them on how to handle firearms (one of which went on to buy her own gun, with similar results as to the above)... I've taken at least three voluntary firearms training courses (at 4 to 8 hours each) even though that does nothing to appease NJ's carry standards...
So go pound sand on your assertion that I'm somehow irresponsible. Your side has adulterated that term so far as to be meaningless coming from your lips. Just like "gun safety" where you actually mean "gun control" and "common sense" where you actually mean "anything I say".
I believe that the 2nd Amendment means EXACTLY what it says. 27 simple words that mean the government cannot make ANY conditions on its exercise.
The NFA (bans/control on automatic weapons, suppressors, etc.) is unconstitutional.
"Prohibited persons" (except those currently incarcerated) are unconstitutional.
"May Issue" carry laws (in fact carry permits in general) are unconstitutional.
Any of the other 1,000's of gun control laws are unconstitutional.
If you don't agree with THOSE politics, well then, you are simply an irresponsible citizen of this constitutionally *limited* democratic republic.
To somewhat answer Skippy's question from a week ago:
"New question - anyone wonder what happens to the test fired bullet from every new firearm purchased?
In Maryland, they just scrapped the program that tried to track crime scene casings to known firearms (via the first round fired at the factory), because it was a colossal waste of money and failed to solve a single crime.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/11/foghorn/maryland-scraps-firearms-ballistic-fingerprinting-effort-admits-it-was-a-complete-waste-of-time/
And on a lighter note... you gotta love living in a place where the local grocery store has no fewer than 18 gun magazines on the shelf, not even counting the hunting/outdoor titles...
Lol, and there is a conclusion that strangerdanger has wanted to make about all of us "gunnies" for quite some time............Damn you Mark, you irresponsible person (extreme sarcasm)
What I want to know is, was it you who decided what a "responsible" gun owner should be SD, when you said "which puts you outside the preponderance of responsible gun owner beliefs"
I am with Mark 100%
The point is stranger, what is you plan to get a criminal to go through your golden key universal background checks? I asked this before but you refused to answer.....how does ANY of this you are offering affect the CRIMINALS we are trying to stop? Your ideas only further hurt those who are already following MULTIPLE laws. Until you can figure out how to stop the criminals, then we will talk. Until then, I am not reading anything that will not fit on one screen
The real strategy is multi-pronged as I see it - on no particular order:
1. Expand the list of prohibited persons : Maybe the list of crimes that disqualify a person from gun ownership gets extended. Maybe all of this mental health talk results in people with mental health problems (including people who are non-violent or suffer from minor issues and saw a doctor once 5 years go, veterans who sought counseling when they first returned home but are now fine, etc.) being excluded. Maybe simply being accused of domestic violence, not convicted, will be enough to make you a prohibited person. They have options and I'm not trying to pin point exactly how they expand the prohibited person list. The point here is that they do it somehow. If you are a prohibited person, then your guns can be legally confiscated today.
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/04/nj_man_accused_of_domestic_violence_can_be_denied.html
2. Pass "Assault Weapons Bans and make them increasingly strict and without expiration dates or grandfather clauses - New York and California are already attempting this. The NY SAFE act is suffering from being unenforceable and from a low compliance rate (but still, some did comply), but I'm sure that version 2.0 will work on that issue. Regardless, even if a person doesn't comply the law, they can now never been seen at a range with their gun, and they would be in all kinds of trouble if they actually used it for self defense. Non-compliance is great, but it doesn't nullify the entire effect of the law. Anyone caught violating an AWB will legally have their guns confiscated.
3. Pass magazine capacity restrictions and other restrictions - Enforcement is difficult, but you will be in all kinds of trouble if you actually use your gun for defensive purposes and it is loaded with an illegal magazine. Again, if you do happen to get caught violating this law, then your guns can legally be confiscated.
4. Pass universal background checks and a gun registry, possibly combined with points #2 and #3 above - Make is so that certain guns, such as the greatly expanded category of "assault weapons" and guns with "high capacity" magazines cannot be legally transferred to another individual, even as part of an inheritance. This is already in effect in NY as part of the NY SAFE act. When those law-abiding citizens who did comply and registered their assault weapons die, their guns will be confiscated.
5. Once a gun is taken for any reason, never give it back - Let's say you live in an anti-gun place and legally use your gun for self defense. The police "temporarily" take it for evidence. Now, try to get it back. Many places will destroy it, lose it, or flat out not give it back. Even if you do get it back, it very well might cost you as much in legal fees as it would for you to just go and buy a new gun. In many cases, the effect is that that gun was confiscated, even if it was done so illegally.
It's gun confiscation by 1,000 cuts. The Anti's are trying to make it so that it any little thing, even things that are not the fault of the person in question, results in a person's gun rights being revoked.
Great points as usual Skippy, I am amazed with your devotion and time spent to research, time that it seems only SD had until now.
Keep up the good fight brother!
Wow, nice plagiarism Skippy. https://www.reddit.com/r/progun/comments/3r8epm/yes_they_want_to_take_your_guns_away/
"It's more than a bit insulting to claim I'm not a responsible gun owner simply because I don't agree with your *politics* on firearms."
Oh Mark did you knee-jerk react to this one without reason. If you read what I wrote, no where can you find the word irresponsible. I did not call you irresponsible. I merely confirmed your own words about being outside the main stream of a number of gun owner beliefs with the example being Universal Background Checks. And yes, I believe most gun owners are responsible. But being outside those beliefs does not necessarily make you irresponsible and I never said anything of the sort.
You might have asked for clarification before going off half-cocked.
======================
"Guns don’t kill people, children do. Cassie Culpepper, age 11, was riding in the back of a pickup when her 12-year-old brother pointed his father’s pistol at her. He believed he had removed the bullets, and so jokingly pulled the trigger. He was wrong.
Since January 1st, 2013 there have been 11 reported gun fatalities involving preschool children as the shooter. Ten more toddlers have accidentally shot themselves or somebody else this year. And this statistic represents only data for which a toddler is the shooter in a death (MotherJones reports that 71 children have been killed by guns since Newtown).
The BBC originally reported on this phenomenon in 2009 when, in the span of 24 hours, two children were shot by their toddler siblings. In both cases, the deaths were a result of improperly secured weapons. A New York Times’ piece added to the controversy showing that, due to idiosyncrasies over what constitutes a ‘homicide’ or an ‘accident’, child firearm accidental killings happen roughly twice as much as they are reported in national databases.
These deaths, quite obviously, could have been avoided had any adult, at any point in time, exercised even a modicum of discretion concerning the availability of their firearm. Our outrage towards these deaths should be proportional to how senseless they are, how utterly avoidable they were. We put child-locks on our medicine cabinets, secure our pools with gates, put on helmets during bike rides, and we give our 12-year-old boys a rifle to play with in the backseat of a truck. Wouldn’t want him to get bored. After all, the only way to stop a bad child with a gun is a good child with a gun."
http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-guns-dont-kill-people-people-kill-people-myth/
i am still waiting to hear from the gun control folks which firearms they will allow me to own? which types of ammo they will allow me to purchase and use? and which clip capacities they will allow me to own/use?
I have asked several of them repeatedly and not one of them has given me a response.
i have also asked the gun control people over and over again why they are against a woman's right to choose? they have so far declined to answer that specific question as well, they support a woman's right to terminate the life of their unborn baby while at the same time refusing to support a women's right to carry hr own firearm with her to defened herself, so it seems they are are more anti-life than anything else. the baby can be killed because it's a personal choice, but their own lives are subject to forfeit because there is no support for a woman's right to choose to keep and bear arms for her own protection.
well, that's truly is subscribing to a party platform position of death if you ask me.
"Her body, her choice", correct? come on now all you 'tolerant' ones, be consistent at least. "Her body, Her choice" ought to include the choice to carry her own firearm with her for her own protection. Sadly, the State of New Jersey won't allow a woman to make her own personal choice. (why not??)
and skippy is right as rain, the confiscation schemes creep along, step by step, inch by inch, until the control freaks get what they really want, total disarmament of the individual. keep up the good work mr. skip.
the control freaks keep saying things like; ' well, you don't really need a gun' ; and things like; 'if you feel that you do, then there is something wrong with you, something sick about you, something that society needs to fix in you'. Their collective need to manage others around them who think differently then they do reeks of intolerance. i wonder how many of them who support equal rights for gays, (like i do) also support equal rights for gun owners. I keep asking them for the same kind of tolerance they show so readily to others who may not be quite the same as themselves
still waiting for it . . . . . . .
It's a good thing Mark has been trained. Wonder how many people aren't.
"Consider a 1998 study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery that found that “every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.” Pistol owners' fantasy of blowing away home-invading bad guys or street toughs holding up liquor stores is a myth debunked by the data showing that a gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault, an accidental death or injury, a suicide attempt or a homicide than it is for self-defense. I harbored this belief for the 20 years I owned a Ruger .357 Magnum with hollow-point bullets designed to shred the body of anyone who dared to break into my home, but when I learned about these statistics, I got rid of the gun.
More insights can be found in a 2013 book from Johns Hopkins University Press entitled Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis, edited by Daniel W. Webster and Jon S. Vernick, both professors in health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. In addition to the 31,672 people killed by guns in 2010, another 73,505 were treated in hospital emergency rooms for nonfatal bullet wounds, and 337,960 nonfatal violent crimes were committed with guns. Of those 31,672 dead, 61 percent were suicides, and the vast majority of the rest were homicides by people who knew one another."
"Another myth to fall to the facts is that gun-control laws disarm good people and leave the crooks with weapons. Not so, say the Johns Hopkins authors: “Strong regulation and oversight of licensed gun dealers—defined as having a state law that required state or local licensing of retail firearm sellers, mandatory record keeping by those sellers, law enforcement access to records for inspection, regular inspections of gun dealers, and mandated reporting of theft of loss of firearms—was associated with 64 percent less diversion of guns to criminals by in-state gun dealers.”"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gun-science-proves-arming-untrained-citizens-bad-idea/
It's clear that the gun zealots are just as irrational and unreasonable as the anti-gun zealots, and maybe more so. I don't have a use for either, as neither group adds anything constructive to national discussion.
That post makes absolutely no sense
so you don't have a use for either because neither adds anything to discussions you are interested in?
I must add, what part of the constitution and our rights are not part of "national discussion"?
Whats there not to like? You don't care for the discussion either way yet you are posting on the discussion for.....?
I like going into topics I don't like, just so I can post about how much I don't like the topic I'm posting on.
Wow, thanks for proving my point guys. Irrational and unreasonable. I should have added immature.
So may I ask why you did click on this topic?
The title never implied that it was to be an argument between the "pros" and the "cons" and in fact just started out as a few of us talking about good trips to the range or sales on some desirable models.
I don't go into sports topics, because I'm not a huge sports fan.
I don't go into recipe topics, because I don't really care how to make a better peanut butter cookie.
At the same time, I really don't care if the people who DO decide to go into those topics have vastly differing opinions, some "immature" jokes, etc. Especially to the point where I go into that topic specifically to point that out (without adding anything of value to the topic myself).
Personally I thought it was quite rational, completely reasonable, and very mature that I don't go onto posts that I have zero interest in and ridicule the participants, but maybe that is just me?
I'm not sure what point you think you're making. This topic obviously does interest me, and I have certainly added to the conversation. You may recall that I was the one that bothered to actually do the research when Old Gent posted his false "cut and past" job a few days ago. I'm constantly reading gripes about anti-gun people on this and other threads, and so I thought I'd add my thoughts about the zealots on both extremes of this topic.
I think the vast majority of gripes towards the anti-gun posters isn't the fact that they are anti-gun (everyone is entitled to their opinion), it's when they decide to make a personal attack rather than just state their opinion (on the topic, not other posters) or link to impartial facts.
There's no problem with "I disagree with you and here's why"...
There IS a problem with "You are a [insert adjective here] gunnie/nutjob and I think your point is stupid/irresponsible/crazy so why don't you just go buy more ammo"... (Note, this is a conglomeration of several poster's attitudes towards us gun owners but sums up a lot of the comment we have to deal with).
okay, that makes more sense, you should of worded that first post a little differently. It sounded like you were claiming both groups add nothing to national discussion so why are you wasting your time...actually that's pretty much exactly what you said, even though you meant something different.
I completely agree bantering adds nothing to the discussion, and making lame jokes and poking at people calling them names adds nothing. I admit, sure I have done it too.
I think what it is, is that this has been such a long running debate, with the same people involved, and the other side (goes both ways) doesn't seem to be listening to things being posted. Cherry picking data to ignore, or cherry picking data to post, and it gets quite tiresome as well as aggravating to be seeing repeating info with the same people (again goes both ways). People get aggravated, and when they do, they stoop to that level. Many have refrained from this, others do it sometimes, and some you have learned to expect it from.
"There IS a problem with" putting words in people's posts to imagine they are calling you names and then lashing out before asking for clarification.
"to be seeing repeating info" is spot on. Early on in this thread I said: "If you guys are going to continue to post blogosphere links without summarizing, I will have to being doing the same." And now we have even stooped to the parade of funny
pictures.
A wise woman said: "And it's a good thing to have a sense of humor and be able to take a little joshing."
Now I also started this post with "So we can continue to toss the beach balls around but until the NRA helps free legislators to free the CDC to conduct real, meaningful, statistical studies, it's all just a revolving debate.
But because the raw numbers readily point to a potential problem, IMHO the universal deployment of the three recommendations I noted above is warranted."
And we quickly went to cut n paste tomes without any added value, summary or analysis moving off the three recommendations looking at Australia, cars, utube ranters, and even Mark getting personal: " I've never had a negligent discharge..." I don't even want to imagine what he meant.
I suggest we get back to "what does the 2A really mean" for awhile and leave the rest of the garbage aside. We all know that there is not enough statistical evidence to conclude much of anything besides the fact that the US has more guns and more gun death that any other developed nation on the planet which leads some to conclude, for one thing, that we have a problem that laws can change and others to conclude that laws will not help.
Otherwise, enjoy the picture.
"How much of that difference should be chalked up to the presence of guns? Well, gun-rights advocates often argue that there's no point taking away people's guns, because you can kill someone with a knife. This is true, but in practice people are nowhere near as likely to get killed with a knife. In America, of those 14,022 homicides in 2011, 11,101 were committed with firearms. In England and Wales, where guns are far harder to come by, criminals didn't simply go out and equip themselves with other tools and commit just as many murders; there were 32,714 offences involving a knife or other sharp instrument (whether used or just threatened), but they led to only 214 homicides, a rate of 1 homicide per 150 incidents. Meanwhile, in America, there were 478,400 incidents of firearm-related violence (whether used or just threatened) and 11,101 homicides, for a rate of 1 homicide per 43 incidents. That nearly four-times-higher rate of fatality when the criminal uses a gun rather than a knife closely matches the overall difference in homicide rates between America and England.
Then there's the related argument that people have a right to defend themselves against aggressors carrying firearms, and that if you criminalise gun ownership, only criminals will have guns (which is perhaps what Ice-T was getting at). That may be valid in the abstract. In practice, 0.8% of victims of gun violence say they responded to their attackers by either using or threatening to use a gun. Not much of a risk for the criminal, it seems. Perhaps that was because too few Americans own guns or carry them on their persons to have a substantial effect, but it's hard to imagine driving those numbers up much higher; Americans already own twice as many guns per person as any other nation. How many more Americans would need to carry weapons in public in order to create a serious criminal deterrent? Five times as many? Ten? Is this even possible, let alone desirable?
None of this should be particularly surprising. We know that overall, firearm deaths are lower in states with stricter gun-control laws. More recently, we've learned that the expiration of America's assault-weapons ban was responsible for a substantial portion of the subsequent increase in gun deaths in northern Mexico. It's really not terribly shocking that making it harder to get your hands on machines designed to kill people results in fewer people being killed. But we've worked very hard over the past few decades to convince ourselves otherwise."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/09/gun-control
" this has been such a long running debate, with the same people involved, and the other side (goes both ways) doesn't seem to be listening to things being posted."
The good thing is *other* people are listening, and it doesn't look good for the anti-gun folks. Over the years that we've been debating, several posters have expressed (or followed through) a desire to become a gun owner or asked some of us for more details on training, sports, etc. To my knowledge nobody has decided to turn in their guns or downsize their magazines.
I've always said my goal isn't to change the minds of those I'm directly debating, but instead to present information for those watching on the sidelines.
Good post Mark - and I think it's important to show the same people that we can be reasonable articulate and we are all not "nut jobs"
you both are very correct. I have had many people approach me that have had false info, and it has been a learning experience by following this thread, and I am able to present the correct information.
same here Darrin, we speak to teach, and it is having a positive effect, so thanks for that.
"There IS a problem with" putting words in people's posts to imagine they are calling you names and then lashing out before asking for clarification"
I think it was very clear what you were implying. Don't try and back pedal on it now.
It's also golden that you are against putting words into other people's posts, because there have been numerous times where you claim to know what we're thinking or try to assert that you speak for such-and-such a group...
"I think it was very clear what you were implying. Don't try and back pedal on it now. "
Back peddle on what you imagine I am saying when in reality I did not say it? That's a tough one even for me :>)
"I've always said my goal isn't to change the minds of those I'm directly debating, but instead to present information for those watching on the sidelines."
I know what you really meant here :>)
I'm going to try to hit Shongum when I'm back for Thanksgiving. My brother in law has a new 10/22 to sight in.
Question for ya, now that I own property in PA, can I legally transport fire arms over state boarders to go shoot on my property in PA?
Absolutely. You just have to comply with transport rules in both states (NJ being worse, obviously).
I thought so, what I do now is buy my ammo, or leave ammo in PA and just transport the firearms (no ammo) figured it was the safest bet.
There is just so many "grey" areas when it comes to these types of things
I wouldn't worry about anything in PA as long as they are unloaded/in a case. In NJ you're still bound by the "directly to/from" rules if you have a handgun or hollow point ammo (even .22's).
There is nothing illegal in PA as far as features, magazines, etc. so if you have any standard mags leave them there. If you have a house/gun safe you could even leave an "evil" (by NJ standards) rifle there, since you own the property.
Interesting stats to show that firearm ownership (actual owners) is up between 33% and 66% in at least two states over the last 5 years.
Because IL and MA require license/ID cards to be a gun owner, comparing that growth (versus raw NICS checks or unreliable telephone polls) disproves the myth that it's simply more guns in fewer hands.
I would expect that this trend isn't limited to IL and MA (it is possibly even *higher* in other states without the licensing infringements)...
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/11/dean-weingarten/ma-legal-gun-ownership-has-increased-by-66-in-5-years/
"disproves the myth that it's simply more guns in fewer hands."
yep to that, don't buy the BS from the resident liar in chief, he has no idea what he is talking about, just pushing his spinning perspective, which is full of holes, out right lies and misinformation
regular everyday people all across the united states are finding out for the first time in their lives that they can actually exercise their fundamental freedoms. the msm, hollywood elites (who elected them anyways?) and the entrenched pols don't want you to know that and they don't want you to empower yourself to exercise your god given individual rights.
prove them wrong, petition your state legislators in NJ today to vote into law a 'shall issue' CCW permit process.
(" - Hillary for prison 2016 - " )
I think in MA, gun ownership is up but does having a license mean you have a gun? I think not. I have a FID and the handgun permit but have not purchased a new gun.... yet.
Given 50 states, not sure this disproves the myth, but certainly is a trend for two states.
Today's Ledger. The best comment in the article.
"Because New Jersey makes it harder for you to get a gun, it makes people more determined to get a gun," Teodorczy said.
http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2015/11/home_gun_shops_in_nj.html#incart_most-read_camden_article
Right... so ID/license counts are up (in states that track and release the data)... NICS checks keep shattering monthly records (across the nation)... firearms businesses are reporting many first time buyers (lots of women, too)... and you're still clinging to the notion that it's all just an anomaly because of "polls".
BTW - Better get a move on... permits expire in 90 days... or are you waiting for a smart gun?
Has anyone ever fired a Rhino? Just wondering if the bottom centered barrel has as much impact on muzzle rise as they claim.
ianimal I've fired one but do not own one - the recoil between that and my wifes j-frame smith with .38 plus P is remarkable - that and the flat cylinder make it and excellent carry firearm
That's not a gun....THIS is a gun!
Size comparison is a 44 mag
460 xvr for those wondering, true definition of a "hand cannon"
Same with the xvr, that xvr has a 8.38" barrel, they make them up to 14" ;-) With a bi-pod too!
Let's see you conceal carry that Darrin!
On another note... Academy is cool... literally a barrel full of standard cap mags. ;)
If gunnies post pictures of gun junk, are they posting their gunk? :>)
Mark, is that Rhino on the bottom with the scope a .22?
It's a Ruger Mark III Target with a red dot sight (no magnification). Yes, it's 22LR.
The Mark I/II/III series are good guns. Very accurate, easy to shoot, and aren't picky on ammo brands (at least thats my experience).
Mark III added lawyer stuff (magazine disconnect and loaded chamber indicator) that I have uninstalled. Can't get rid of the internal lock, but I don't use that anyway.
You don't like to know if you have a round in battery? And we're posting our gats that go blat! Rather be "innawoods" :-)
Why would you ever NOT know if you loaded a gun? That's why you do a slide check (multiple times). Relying on an add on device (that not all guns have) creates bad habits and a false sense of security.
I'd rather assume a gun is loaded and physically check, than assume it's unloaded because a tiny plastic flag isn't sticking out 1/16".
Oh I agree with you - never been a fan of press checks but always treat everything as it was loaded unless the action is open and a flag is in the barrel - I would just think it leaves a hole on your slide if removed. I also don't like to modify my guns so much - if you end up in a defensive situation and you removed something that is perceived to be a safety feature a prosecutor could use that to illustrate "frame of mind". Hence why my carry guns are all stock except for trijicon sites etc. just a personal preference - by all means you do you brother
There is a stainless filler plate where the LCI used to be.
Those features "prevent" accidental discharges. If I *intend* to shoot an attacker, the lack of a magazine disconnect has no impact (assuming it's an otherwise justifiable shooting). In fact a magazine disconnect makes the gun less suitable for self defense as a magazine failure/ejection renders the entire gun useless.
Not that I would ideally use a Mark III for self defense, but the mag disconnect slightly affects the trigger feel (drag on the hammer/sear) and magazine ejection force as well. The LCI is just ugly.
"Looks cool."
That (to me) is a requirement for a firearm. Not the primary one, and I may buy something wacky in the future, but I think Rugers generally have pretty sleek looks, unlike bricks, I mean Glocks. ;)
Yeah it's definitely gorgeous - what's the magazine disconnect ? Is that the button that drops the magazine from the well? How do you eject an empty magazine? It definitely gives it a cleaner look I like it
A magazine disconnect is a "feature" that prevents a gun from firing a chambered round unless there is a magazine fully seated in the firearm.
Supposed to be a "safety" item, but losing a magazine in a self defense situation turns the gun into a brick, and relying on that mechanical device in lieu of actual safety practices (don't touch the trigger unless you intend to shoot) is a bad idea.
It's an attempt to idiot proof a gun from people who think that a gun is safe/unloaded just because there is no magazine inserted, which is obviously not true.
Yep, it's a very common modification. Most guns don't even have them unless the manufacturer wanted that model to be eligible for sale in California.
Now that most manufacturers have said F U to California, I expect the feature will be in decline across the board.
My SIG P229 used to have that - thought it was rediculous - you couldn't even eject a round
I like the 22/45 LITE model - I want one with a Picatinny Rail and threaded barrel for the suppressor - in the middle of getting my gun trust started for class III stuff
http://www.cabelas.com/product/Ruger-Mark-III-and-Semiautomatic-Rimfire-Pistols/1260846.uts
I believe 22/45's are all polymer lowers, and the grip angle is different than the Mark series. Nothing wrong with that, just different strokes for different folks ;)
Once I buy another house down here (instead of renting) I may start looking into NFA stuff... short barrel rifle with suppressor in 300 Blackout sounds kinda cool! Of course, that's $400 just for the tax stamps, let alone the cost of the gun and $500 to $1000 for the can...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl0Vng0qMFo
I realize this won't affect us here in NJ, but there's a tide turning across the country...
Ohio passes bill to REMOVE many "gun-free" zones... vote was 68 to 29.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/house-passes-sub-hb-48-eliminate-many-no-guns-victim-zones-update-vote-tally
more from Ohio:
40 School Districts now allow teacher carry:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/more-40-ohio-schools-authorize-and-train-teachers-carry-guns-protect-students-class
whoops... my bad... that Ohio bill about the gun free zones has passed the house, now on to the senate. Landslide in the house tho!
Wow they are actually doing something "for the children" that isn't security theater.
"Bill Would Allow Texas Teachers To Kill Students"
They need to take the next step like that started in Texas: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/01/29/3617031/deadly-force-in-texas-classrooms/
Brings up so many questions that you don't have to answer mostly because you can't.
Are we certain that more people carrying more guns in more places at more times results in less gun homicides? Or do we feel that more good guys with guns results in less homicides?
Or since many bad guys were good guys just moments before being bad, are we just creating more bad guys?
I wonder how many bad guys with guns were good guys with guns gone bad with the outcome being very different if they were armed with a knife or limp noodle instead?
Or do more guns in general mean less homicides except in Australia where less guns leading to less homicides is a world-wide trend and not due to guns?
And if good guys with guns go bad and get busted what should we do? After paying their time, are they good enough to get guns again?
"After paying their time, are they good enough to get guns again?"
Absolutely yes. If you are too dangerous to be trusted with a gun, you are too dangerous to be released from prison. Felons (actual rehabilitated persons) have just as much a right to lawful self defense as anyone else.
Are you condoning the attitude that they are somehow less of a person or their life is less valuable after having served their sentence?
Lol I love how all you have to do is mention more people having the right to carry and it sets SD off
Ohio it is, lets pack our bags hun!
My aunt live in Ohio, she and my uncle have CCW permits. Must be nice to be able to live with the constitution and have actual rights we are all suppose to have....
"Absolutely yes. If you are too dangerous to be trusted with a gun, you are too dangerous to be released from prison. Felons (actual rehabilitated persons) have just as much a right to lawful self defense as anyone else."
Per current laws (federal and state), there is very little truth to this statement. Except for a very limited set of exceptions, the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms.
Bemused That doesn't mean they don't have the right, only that it is being infringed upon.
No. By legal definition, they do not have the right. It was forfeited by their own actions. They can regain the right by petitioning the court for an expungement of their conviction(s), but until then, they do not have the right.
I believe in the 2nd amendment and I'm a firearm owner. However, I do not support the idea of felons possessing firearms.
So if someone kills another with a bat, are they barred from entering Sports Authority or joining a soaoftball league?
Do we cut the genitals off rapists?
The punishment is incarceration and possibly a probation period afterwards. After that, full rights should be restored.
So I'll ask you, if someone is a felon from a drug charge in their youth why does that bar them tools for self defense if an attacker breaks into their house 25 years later?
The 2nd Amendment doesn't contain the words "but" or "except for" certain people not currently removed from society.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/house-votes-to-let-nonviolent-ex-felons-restore-gun-rights/article/2565685
This passed the house in June - not sure if it got killed in the senate
"So if someone kills another with a bat, are they barred from entering Sports Authority or joining a soaoftball league?"
Stupid ass question... Not going to bother to answer.
"Do we cut the genitals off rapists?"
We should.
"The punishment is incarceration and possibly a probation period afterwards. After that, full rights should be restored.
So I'll ask you, if someone is a felon from a drug charge in their youth why does that bar them tools for self defense if an attacker breaks into their house 25 years later?"
There is a remedy for this, it's called expungement.
"The 2nd Amendment doesn't contain the words "but" or "except for" certain people not currently removed from society."
The Supreme Court has the mandate to interpret the constitution and its amendments. Neither they or I agree with you.
"Stupid ass question... Not going to bother to answer."
Nice dodge... what's the difference? It's barring them access to the object they used to commit a previous crime.
"We should."
But we don't. We send them back out into public fully capable of repeating the same crime.
Either prison is effective at rehabilitating someone, in which case they should re-enter society with the same rights as everyone else, or it's not, in which case they shouldn't be trusted with so much as a rock in their hand (or not released at all).
Treating felons like 2nd (or worse) class citizens, infringing on their rights indefinitely, making it hard to get jobs, etc. only increases the likelihood of recidivism. Another counter-productive result of government policies...
"" Felons (actual rehabilitated persons) have just as much a right to lawful self defense as anyone else." Actually not. Both legally and statistically, giving a gun to a felon is like letting kids play with dynamite. 70% of Felons go back to jail. Perhaps it would erase one punishment if we made their crime gun legal. Give em a free gun upon release, either reduce recidivism or increase the turn rate to get them behind bars.
"After that, full rights should be restored." And let's get the drunk driver's their license's back ASAP too.
Next, remove sexual offenders from the list, they served their time.
"If you are too dangerous to be trusted with a gun, you are too dangerous to be released from prison." WHAT?????
" Felons (actual rehabilitated persons) have just as much a right to lawful self defense as anyone else."
And move all these people to Mark's neighborhood and don't tell him. (I bet Mark's tougher on Syrian refugees that he can't prove a darned thing about than he is of felons that he has a complete record of and can bet the chance of future success with a high degree of accuracy......)
Sometimes black and white principles just don't make common sense.
But Mark, your view contradicts the current societal mindset that everyone is guilty first and must prove their innocence second. Nearly every law these days makes that assumption! Don't so this, mustn't do that because someday, somewhere, maybe a person will cause harm and this new law will prevent it!
It's all about control man, so what's your deal with thinking logically? Be careful doing that else you'll become a target too!
justintime "Be careful doing that else you'll become a target too!"
If you're not already on a "list" somewhere, you're not doing it right. ;)
All your diatribe proves, SD, is that prison (by itself) or the sentences imposed are not sufficient. Why are these people being released if they just jump right back into crime? How does that not jive with my statement that they are either fit to be released, and trusted, or they still belong in jail?
So you'd trust a murderer to have access to knives, hammers, bats, cars, rope, fire, etc. but not guns? (Not even mentioning that just because felons aren't "supposed" to have guns means absolutely nothing about them actually acquiring guns).
Also, why do you always post the hyperbole that we'll "give" people guns? Where do I sign up for all these guns that are being given away?
"And move all these people to Mark's neighborhood and don't tell him."
... and if/when they decide to break into my house (or turn out to be terrorists) they'll find out that I know what the 2nd Amendment means as well. I don't need to ask questions about motives or intentions. In SC if you illegally step one inch over the threshold of my home, deadly force is permissible.
At that point I don't care what their criminal past is, only their criminal present.
It's also amusing (but not surprising) that you *still* can't post a response on this forum without personal jabs thrown in.
https://theintercept.com/2014/07/23/blacklisted/
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/?p=2936
Some interesting factoids from the second link:
NICS "hits" are considered ENCOUNTERS and categorized as TERRORISM INFORMATION (even if later the firearm purchase is approved) (page 64)
Other categories of TERRORISM INFORMATION include "Gun show applications, firearms license, concealed weapons permit, shooting club memberships (page 68)
Now our friend Senator Feinstein pushes to strip civil rights without due process
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/11/19/in-response-to-paris-attacks-democrats-call-for-more-gun-control-for-those-on-terror-watchlist/
Yeah, no chance for abuse at all.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug19.html
U.S. Sen. Edward M. "Ted" Kennedy said yesterday that he was stopped and questioned at airports on the East Coast five times in March because his name appeared on the government's secret "no-fly" list.
Federal air security officials said the initial error that led to scrutiny of the Massachusetts Democrat should not have happened even though they recognize that the no-fly list is imperfect. But privately they acknowledged being embarrassed that it took the senator and his staff more than three weeks to get his name removed.
so - buy guns legally - end up on the "List" lose your guns.. stellar guys
http://thehill.com/regulation/healthcare/260606-dems-pushing-gun-storage-recommendations
Dems pushing gun storage recommendations; completely ignore efforts to promote firearms education
The number of children--actual 'children', not pre-adolescent teens and young adults all the way up to the age of 24--who are unintentionally killed by guns every year is statistically insignificant. It's on the order of something like 60 or 70 children under the age of 14 every year.
I'm all for promoting firearm education, but a big part of childhood safety with firearms as A) educating children directly and B) stripping firearms of their mystery and fantastical representation we're bombarded with through mass media. Promoting 'safe storage' is fine, but it doesn't address the root of the problem in much the same way that suggesting people keep matches locked up will prevent children from playing with fire.
We teach kids about the dangers of fire. To not play with fire. What to do in the event that they're engulfed in flames. But when it comes to guns, we like to jam our fingers in our ears and pretend that guns don't exist in the most heavily armed country on the planet.
"The senators are concerned about some 300 million guns in homes around the country. Not only are 46 people accidentally shot each day, they say, but another 55 people kill themselves with a gun. Locking up guns at home could prevent many of these deaths, the senators reasoned."
Is this an example of 'common sense'? The idea that unintentional shootings and suicides--the vast majority of happen with adults--can somehow be 'prevented' by suggesting those same adults lock up their guns? - Absolutely moronic.
Work Cited: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
See: Table 10 section W32-W34
I don't have a problem with gun storage recommendations. Provided they stay recommendations and not requirements. Especially not the kind of requirements that involve police coming to your home to decide if your guns are secure enough.
I agree that while they are doing this, they should also come up with a list of suggestions/best practices when it comes to firearm training and education. It would be great to see a whole public service campaign on gun safety in fact. Something along the lines of the NRA's Eddie Eagle for young people and stuff targeted at teens and adults. But with no political agenda, just common sense safety tips and warnings to children.
What personal jabs are you referring to Mark? Suggesting that we move felons and other convicted persons to your neighborhood without notice after you get your way and they have legal access to guns? Personal jab? Sounds like a reality if your opinion becomes law.
Blaming recidivism of prison term lengths is a simplistic conclusion. Why would longer incarcerations reduce recidivism? Just as much chance as increasing. And suggesting that there's a litmus test is as silly as suggesting we can test good guys with guns to see who will turn bad which apparently quite a few do.
I just don't see how allowing felons to legally own guns makes any common sense except for those who believe that the 2A should be unfettered by any limitations unlike any other Constitutional right. Why should gun rights have no limitations when free speech does?
Skippy:
Interesting stuff, nice pull. Really scary how much we gave up post 911 and the inception of the Patriot Act.
"NICS "hits" are considered ENCOUNTERS and categorized as TERRORISM INFORMATION (even if later the firearm purchase is approved) (page 64)" Close but not quite. You need to re-read to see the actual hit that is recorded, investigated, and data based. It is NOT a list the entire NICS database but a list based on specific pair-wise conditions. If the pair does not exist, the NICS data is not pulled I think the same is true for a number of the other elements you mention.
However, duly noted that we watch a lot of stuff since 9/11 and the Patriot Act having traded liberty and privacy for safety.
And yes, Ted Kennedy should not have a gun, even today.
"The number of children.... who are unintentionally killed by guns every year is statistically insignificant." Wow, like to hear you say that one in public. You want a "significance meter" for dead kids? What number gets your attention? I don't see where we can parse the insignificance of a kid killed by gun except to say it's generally classified as a tragic accident and no one is held criminally negligent. Don't leave that kid in a locked car though.
You also leave out shot but not dead, a much higher number. Generally that's a pretty tragic life altering event as well.
Suicide by gun: if guns did not exist in America, there would be less suicides based on a number of studies and existing statistics. We've done this before and beyond the knives, hammers and bats, oh my, no one has refuted the reports.
Amazingly it is much harder to kill someone with Marks's favorite alternatives of "knives, hammers, bats, cars, rope, fire, etc." which is one reason that other countries like Britan can have lower homicide rates but higher levels of violence. They're knifing, hammering, batting, driving, roping, and burning but not at the same levels of efficiency and effectiveness of the gun. Less death, less homicide. Just a lot of big bruises. Which is I am sure a good reason why you have guns. They really get the job done versus just a bump on the noggin.
IMHO, just get the "tragic accident" out of many of these kid death by gun cases and call it what it is: negligent homicide. Take the adult's freedom and their money away and they won't need Eddie Eagle to learn to put those guns out of reach.
But we have done all this before.
The other article you reference in your l o n g list is just looking for a list of "best practices." I agree, go.
However, there is no evidence that Eddie Eagle is of any benefit whatsoever, statistically speaking. I would love to see someone scientifically study what training really works but you know --- NRA, statistics, science, yech.
The NFL does more research on Football Injuries than the NRA conducts on guns.
Thanks - every death of a child is tragic but statistical and emotional significance are two different things - you know that :-)
I agree that we should absolutely tar and feather people who fail to secure a firearm and it gets in the hands of a child and also agree that it should be classified as a negligent discharge - I think most gun owners would agree.
Different yet inseparable to those close. That's the issue with child accidents and mass murder. The physiological effect to community goes much farther than the immediate family.
Yes, I was just amazed when I reviewed the accident reports how few were being charged with negligence. The word was appalled.
Hopefully I answered the NICS list or lack thereof question and the stuff being tracked is Orwellian but I guess necessary. Probably added crockpot by credit card now. But what you missed is the process of getting on these lists of which there are many all compiled upwards by the TSC. Basically anyone in the myriad of government organizations can "nominate" you, there is no court oversight, and then your nomination on a sub list moves up the chain to the TSC and then out to all the organizations watching and screening. You find out when you try to get on the plane, cross a border or do something else that demands screening. I can understand the need for secrecy but ouch.
ooops, forgot the link: http://www.democracynow.org/2013/12/2/watching_the_watch_list_landmark_case
SD Yet we can't profile which I think is cheaper and more practical. In the PC world, everyone is offended. If you did nothing wrong what the problem.This looks like another goverment program that was not thought out, like Obama care. Like Skippy said, scary but, I am to old to be scared as long as I am in the lords hands. All I have to offer is prayers for you all.
Profiling is akin to taking the easy way - it requires little in the way of thought. It inherently targets innocent people because those doing the profiling can't possibly know if their "hunches" are right or wrong and makes blanket assumptions that statistically will favor error over success. It's akin to throwing poop at the wall knowing that some will stick - but those not sticking will be subjected to the impact for no reason at all.
IMO profiling is NEVER a viable option for civilized societies and is a tool for those who favor expediency over individual rights. Investigative work is hard, but is necessary.
sd, I'm glad you are recognizing that many of the concerns that have been discussed over the years here had validity (Patriot Act concerns, for instance). Those things were once in the realm of "conspiracy" if you recall, and I think it's prudent to point out that there will be other items considered to be "conspiracy" that will also come to fruition. IMO if trends tell us what direction we're headed, "conspiracy" or not we will likely continue in those directions. Anyway, my point is that keeping an open mind an watching trends over time is a much better way to frame our interactions than some of the stuff that happens here (not you so much as others these days). Nice posts.
It's akin to throwing poop at the wall knowing that some will stick - but those not sticking will be subjected to the impact for no reason at all.
I sort of like DYF"s works.
thanks for the Prayers OG we need them - SD is a liberal that likes guns and has to resolve his cognitive dissonance by talking to us here. He is liberal but he is our liberal and writes some cogent stuff so we keep him around :) - I think he would be fun to take to the range and enjoy an adult beverage with after guns are cleaned and secured.
back to the debate:
http://www.nj.com/cumberland/index.ssf/2015/02/nra_safety_program_taught_to_kids_to_prevent_gun_v.html#incart_river
"We did not hear back from the NRA for this story, but several independent experts said they feel the NRA programs and others like it probably did help contribute to the decline in accidental gun deaths"
"Teaching safe and responsible gun ownership works, and the NRA has a long and proud history of doing exactly that," LaPierre said. "Our Eddie Eagle Child Safety Program has taught 25 million young people that if they see a gun, they should do four things: stop, don't touch it, leave the area, and call an adult.:"
How can that be bad SD? at least the NRA is spending money on education rather than fear mongering and outright bans.
Don't be putting thoughts in my head or I might have to go full Darrin on you :>) And lusting after Mark's 22 girlie gun is not exactly a love affair. More like a Jimmy Carter "in my heart" sort of thing :>)
OG: I don’t have a clue what you were talking about, you entry definitely needs clarification for me however rest assured that the TSC program is accused of profiling based on the search parameters. As far as not being well thought out, well I think it was. The AHCA or ACA has over a decade of planning by Republicans and Democrats alike. One problem with these programs is their huge span and scope. So to expect the AHCA to be perfect on day one is ridiculous. Not to mention the last minute tweaks needed to gain passage hastily slammed in to get the vote. Then the Republicans said xxxx-can it and very little improvement has occurred since inception. Like having a kid and immediately after birth exclaiming: “Works complete, we’re done!” The TSC program is a very different beast with an organic process allowing it to continually evolve and adapt unfortunately (I think) like a beast unto itself without oversight.
]Back to the debate: Eddie Eagle – helpful man in a bird suit, American’s answer to Godzilla, or Joe Camel for guns?
“several independent experts said they feel the NRA programs and others like it probably did help contribute to the decline in accidental gun deaths" Well, put me in a dress and call me Skippy, I believe, I believe. Thank the Lord they not secret about being independent by gum.
Peppy LePew said “"Our Eddie Eagle Child Safety Program has taught 25 million young people.” Wow and wow again. One has to figure that’s since 1988 when it all began over 27 years ago. With 50M kids under the age of 11, if Peppster did it all last year, he has a 50% hit rate. If he averaged it, that’s a 2% hit rate. I thin Peppy gonna need a bigger Eagle.
Eddie has an interesting history. Started in 1988 in FLA to help kill legislation that would subject, not mandate, adults to criminal penalties if they failed to reasonably store weapons AND death or injury occurs. And death occurs mind you. Eddie said behavior modification was the better way but not behavior modification by punishing gun buyer actions. You don't want to modify gun buying adults, just change the way the rug rats think. Fix the carpet crawlers. My God, it’s a tragic accident that Billy Bob left his Luger in his lunchbox and Jr’s behavior was just plain darn-flam wrong that little headless rascal. Eddie lost and the law was passed. Eddie has gone on to be included, by name and NRA branding, as school curriculum in a number of states. Eddie has also personally lobbied and even killed a number of child safety laws on the political scene. Gotta love the way that Eagle loves those kids.
Again there is no scientific evidence that Eddie Eagle training is of any value. There are a number of studies where children attend the course and then, especially the boys, are put in close proximity to a gun where upon they pick it up to play with it. Eddie’s focus is on the behavior modification of children rather than adults. It’s to ask the kids to cover for parents bad choices. It's after the bad act. For adults Eddie has consistently and continually since his birth lobbied against any punishment for their bad behavior of leaving the guns out if the first place.
And even if it was of value, Eddie Eagle enrollment numbers and the placement don’t cover the market. Think about it. They went to rural Lawrence Township, almost as white as Warren but having almost double the median income. Yeah, rural. If you're fighting gun violence in NJ, is that your choice?
”And lusting after Mark's 22 girlie gun is not exactly a love affair.”
Supposedly there have been more deaths from .22 than any other caliber (aside from military usage, etc.).
But if it makes you feel better I have a 357 Magnum too...
Oh I was just foolin; you have taught me that even hammers are death weapons.
We used to put .22's in a 357 Magnum to get the Dirty Harry feel without the kick. It was fun.
-stop
-dont touch
-leave the area
-find an adult
horrible things to tell kids about guns SD
it works better than doing nothing,
the nra has done more for gun safety than you will ever admit. That's a weakness you can work on in your next therapy session, :)
"We used to put .22's in a 357 Magnum to get the Dirty Harry feel without the kick. It was fun."
How?
Twas a million years ago and i thought for some reason these .22 bullets fit the 357. Something special?
If not, then maybe it was a 22 mabe to look like a 357. But i would swear we tried the 357 shells too. Like i said, a million years ago.
It's not just the size... .22 is rim fire and 38/357 is center fire. Not sure I'd want an undersize projectile bouncing down the barrel either.
I think there were some obscure revolver conversions, but it required a different cylinder to be installed. Conversion kits for semi autos are more common (still a different mag, bolt, and barrel).
If you don't think 38 can kick, try my LCR sometime. ;)
there as a .22 modified conversion kit available (i think) for the s&w .357 revolver. it was a cumbersome thing to install and use (had a barrel insert if i recall right) and yes, you had to swap out the cylinder.
going from memory on this one so don't roast me.
yeah I have seen some revolver 9MM conversions which required flaring the cylinder and the use of a "moon clip" but that is pretty old school
9mm is a lot closer in caliber to a .357/.38 than a .22 is. A .22 is somewhere between 5 and 6 mm.
I think there are some .357's that can be switched to 9mm with just a cylinders change. Same barrel diameter.
This is the fun thing with bullet calibers...
9mm (9x19) and .380 ACP (aka 9mm short) are actually 0.355" diameter.
38 Special and 357 Magnum are both 0.357" diameter.
Hey, it is not a huge mystery. It looked like a 357 and fired .22 shells. Probably a .22 but I seem to recollect that he said he got special .22 shells. If it was a real 357, he did not modify it and I thought we fired some 357 shells too since I remember laughing at the kick realizing Dirty Harry I would never be.
But it was circa 1983.
For the amount that I shoot the reloading equipment would not pay off. I do save all my brass though in case it was ever to come to that point
Very cool BD - I'm in the same boat as you Darrin - can't justify the expense yet but have tons of brass.
D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier is urging that civilians confronted by an active shooter in some cases try to stop the gunman before law enforcement authorities arrive, saying quick action could save lives.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/lanier-others-urge-civilians-to-sometimes-confront-active-shooters/2015/11/23/8757001e-91e4-11e5-a2d6-f57908580b1f_story.html
Shes just being completely honest and this has been the argument for gun rights for decades. The government cannot stop a person determined to commit mass murder, most of the deaths occur in the first 6 minutes and even the best police departments can't get there in time.
The NRA posted an article which addresses what the FBI already does with NICS checks to prevent terrorists from getting guns. The article goes into other details, but this is the relevant part
https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/terrorists-and-guns-the-nature-of-the-threat-and-proposed-reforms
Denying all gun purchases based on the Watchlist would only help terrorists determine if they are being watched, and would only shut down further investigation of potential terrorists, which the FBI already has protocols to handle.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20151120/anti-gun-politicians-media-exploit-paris-attacks-in-terrorist-gap-rehash
Well Lanier is a bit confused... because she is against CCW permits for most people...
She must mean we need to fight back with harsh words.
Kafkaesque laws in NJ cause man to lose 76 guns over domestic dispute he wasn’t a part of:
http://www.guns.com/2015/11/19/nj-man-loses-76-guns-over-domestic-dispute-he-wasnt-a-part-of/
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a0072-14.pdf
He lost the remainder not because of the illegal firearms, but because the illegal firearms were seized under the Domestic Violence Act. N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3c(8) is quite specific, and his situation would not likely fall under any of the other 3c enumerations.
Had his collection been seized for any other reason, he would have lost 5 firearms rather than 76: without the domestic violence claim, the government's inability to return the illegal firearms would not have automatically revoked his ability to obtain a purchaser card. Importantly, this is not a bootstrap issue related to his surrender of the card. Rather, because the illegal firearms were seized under 2C:25-21-3 the government's inability to return them triggered 2C:58-3c(8), which in turn revoked his ability to obtain a card, which in turn led to an order revoking the existing card regardless of whose possession it was in, which in turn meant he couldn't retake possession of his other firearms.
Though he bears the blame for his own violation, the resulting consequences are first and foremost an unintended interaction of two poorly-written laws - it seems pretty clear that 2C:58-3(8) didn't contemplate this type of situation, and the result is rather dissonant with the relevant seizure provision (2C:25-21-3). Even if you feel that this particular guy deserved it, consider that the same rationale might apply to a legitimate innocent who quite reasonably didn't realize that the 12-round tube magazine on his .22lr will happily accept 17 rounds of .22 short, that it may feed and fire if cycled manually despite the gun not being stamped for it, and that the law doesn't seem to give a damn - assault weapon..
"the resulting consequences are first and foremost an unintended interaction of two poorly-written laws"
That's a feature, not a bug...
At least in the eyes of anti-gun politicians... Vague, poorly written laws can be twisted to enforce/not enforce at their whim, depending on how "connected" you are.
So, is anyone taking advantage of Black Friday deals for a new gun - or planning a Christmas gift to yourself (or spouse - but don't give any surprises away)?
Dick's usually has a few specials on Friday.
I won't be shopping in any stores, but have my eyes on a used 10/22 Takedown if it's still available when I get back to SC. Always thought it was a cool idea ever since Ruger released them a few years ago.
I know. Not a big fan of them either.
Thankfully I don't have to step foot in there to get guns and ammo.
Just giving others a heads up if they are looking for something on sale.
I've been monitoring http://theblackfriday.com and http://slickguns.com for all the ads... I haven't seen ANYTHING that is a remotely good deal.
Dicks Sporting Goods, is gonna have Federal Chamion .22lr bulk packs (525rds) for $25, 5CPR.
BassPro - 325 rounds of 22LR for 19.99
http://m.basspro.com/Federal-Premium-Champion-Target-22-LR-Rimfire-Cartridges/product/1311201402/?URL= http%3A%2F%2Fwww.basspro.com%2FFederal-Premium-Champion-Target--22-LR-Rimfire-Cartridges%2Fproduct%2F1311201402%2F&hvarAID=vantage
$108 - amazon lightning deal - Frankford Arsenal Rotary Tumbler
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HTN4R6O
This weekend we picked out a decent spot on my PA property for a shooting range. It has a huge hill behind it for a backstop. We built the driveway to it from the main trail and started some clearing. Should be ready with a few more weekends work. I have to borrow my friends range finder and see how long of a shot we have.
I think it will currently be around 100 yards give or take, not sure though, it is hard to tell with all the brush. Future expandability will be 200+ yards
That's awesome Darrin!!!! While I love having Shongum so close, it would be so cool to have MY OWN range ... much more fun... reactive targets, soda bottles, steel, etc....
You've probably seen many of his demo videos, but check out Hickok45 on youtube... his private range is pretty cool.... also, his "woods walks" would be super fun!
https://www.youtube.com/user/hickok45
YES I have seen him, and that is what actually inspired me! I want to do something very similar with a long distance gong like he has.
JR, you have my number, I will let you know when it is done and we can go shooting!
I should of taken some pictures, I will get some when I go up this week
Oh look, SD is back from following Christine around like a little puppy :-O
Skippy, you know you are always invited
"Better abide by epa lead laws"
Don't worry too much... Obama just signed a law that prohibits the EPA from banning lead ammunition.
http://bearingarms.com/nra-thanks-obama-signing-pro-gun-legislation/
Thanks brother looking forward to it
Are you looking for shredded tires for a backstop ? I got a guy
Well that is quite surprising Mark! Has hell frozen over!?!?!
Skippy, The area I picked out backs to about a 50-60 foot almost straight up mountainside, I think the backstop is covered!
I will get some pics next time I am up. The road is wide enough to get a truck down it, although we were ripping the quads back and forth on it all day Saturday lol!
SD come out and play with your brothers and let the freedom ring - I know you're a gun guy at heart :)
Yawn. I have some wet paint to watch dry.
Besides Darrin is creepy. At least thats what I heard ;>)
And now he wants to check out my background. Sorry feller but leave my background alone.
One person, who is probably not even fit enough to operate a keyboard, makes a comment, and SDMG runs with it....now I have to see this everywhere? Sure seems like deformation of character, as well as name calling to me! Now we don't want to go back down that route do we?
OH, so now you are against background checks hu? Even if it means to shoot a gun hu?
Well how would I ever know if you were so fit to do so?
Uh, you decided to start down the road, I only responded in kid and kind. I thought you just wanted to play with the puppy.
And who is SDMG, who is John Galt.
you know who SDMG is strangerdangermistergoogle....you never did tell us why you changed your name
Hey, maybe if you took the liberty of ever meeting any of us in preson you could decide for yourself, but I guess the next best thing is to piggy back off people I assume you don't even know?
I will pull SD's post into here
"Clearly we are devolving quickly into the gun discussion.
If Detroit is safer because of armed citizens then why is it the number one murder capital in the U.S.? Clearly concealed carry has failed these citizens. If the police are saying this, then they have lost control and should be replaced.
http://lawstreetmedia.com/crime-america-2015-top-10-dangerous-cities-200000-2/
Violent crime in Detroit at 2,072/100K. NJ is 30th out of 52 most dangerous states at 289/100K. That's like seven times better than Detroit without concealed carry. Still need that gun?
Safest US cities in the top ten cities over 200K: Irvine CA, Fremont CA, and Santa Clara CA. Better to have strict gun laws than carry a gun I guess.
The San Bernardino shooting is a terrible crime that just happened but certainly not the norm in CA. Somehow saying "if only they had a gun" imagines a better outcome which might have been or might have made no difference like in Oregon or even spelt a worse outcome. No one knows and I think it's as rude to use this event to suggest that as I do to use this event to say if only we had stricter gun laws.
Most dangerous Metro areas, metro being defined MSA. In the top most dangerous MSA's in America, loose gun laws rule and FIVE of them are from the South; none are found in the Northeast. Memphis leads the list, then Jackson TN, then Hammond LA, then Odessa TX, then Alexandria LA, Anchorage AK, followed by Springfield IL, Saginaw MI, Albuquerque NM, Flint MI, Lawton OK, Rockford IL, and finally Stockdale-Lodi CA, Fairbanks AK, and Vegas/Henderson/Paradise NV.
http://lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/crime/crime-america-2015-slideshow-top-15-dangerous-metro-areas/
See any correlation between loose guns laws and danger? All of these MSAs or metros are from the loosest gun law states or what gunnies call free, except for Michigan and Illinois which aren't exactly strict but middle of the road. The tough gun control states, which gunnies call liberal, are generally safer. Unfortunately, not a hard and fast rule. There are exceptions both ways.
Clearly everyone arming themselves in a concealed fashion is not the panacea for crime, terrorism or the common cold.?
sd says "Violent crime in Detroit at 2,072/100K. NJ is 30th out of 52 most dangerous states at 289/100K. That's like seven times better than Detroit without concealed carry. Still need that gun? "
Is there any such thing as safe enough SD? NJ still made it about middle of the list for states, so who decides what "safe enough" is? I can tell you one thing, it's not you or me, and I do not believe it ever ends. So to answer your question. yes I want..."need" a gun because I would like to utilize my 2A rights to protect myself if the need ever came.
I do feel conceal carry would greatly help mass murders, heck many states have now authorized teachers to conceal carry.
SD, you are cherry picking data flat out....you state "Safest US cities in the top ten cities over 200K: Irvine CA, Fremont CA, and Santa Clara CA. Better to have strict gun laws than carry a gun I guess. "
Well news for you, the number two most dangerous city next to Detroit is #2 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA...which also has those strict gun laws you speak of.....care to explain? Heck Newark NJ comes in at 9, and we too have very strict gun laws. I think what we are seeing is cities with the most criminals (we will just leave it at that) and in other news......criminals do not follow laws!!!!!!
SD "See any correlation between loose guns laws and danger?" When I read your post yes, but when I actually take the time to read the article NO..... nice try
SD "Clearly everyone arming themselves in a concealed fashion is not the panacea for crime, terrorism or the common cold.?"
You don't have to arm yourself, but don;t tell others how they should be willing to protect themselves and their families because of your beliefs.
You tell me, lets paint a picture, if you are in a building you know was going to be attacked, would you want a gun to protect yourself, or a cell phone to call the police and have them protect you. Attacks are happening more and more all over, and they only seem to happen in areas where there are unarmed people. I say we change that!
This kid can read. Maybe there is hope.
http://www.youngcons.com/students-answer-to-question-about-gun-control-is-nothing-short-of-legendary/
Darrin2 "you never did tell us why you changed your name." hmmm. Hard to see any reason a sane responsible HL-er would ever do that.
"Hey, maybe if you took the liberty of ever meeting any of us in preson you could decide for yourself, but I guess the next best thing is to piggy back off people I assume you don't even know?" Took the liberty? Decide what for myself? Piggy back off what? I really am not sure what you are getting at with this one. Maybe another cup of coffee will help me. To answer your question though, it's an anonymous town chat forum, not matchmakers.com. "I just want to be alone."
Yup if you don't feel safe enough, grab that gun, lobby for cc, feel free. Well you got me on Oakland although not surprised although to conclude: "I think what we are seeing is cities with the most criminals" is sort of a chicken and egg thing. Probably more likely economy and lack of opportunity has a lot to do with it.
"See any correlation between loose guns laws and danger?" You may not see it but there is a pretty good correlation although not without anomalies like VT.
" but don;t tell others how they should be willing to protect themselves and their families because of your beliefs." Frankly, I will tell you whatever I want to although I never told you this. And I will force you legally upon occasion.
Answer: I would like the phone first. My chance of success with a gun is minimal. The real answer is I would like to thwart the attack before it happens. But we fetter our police from knowing where the guns are, who is stockpiling ammo, and the rest because somehow we feel knowing is tantamount to taking. So to protect the 2A, we are not allowed to see people building arsenals, stock piling gunpowder, bullets, and the like Probably have a better chance of tracking tactical gear purchases than semi-automatic weapons with LCMs.
How the 2A got misconstrued to mean we can't see who's buying the guns is beyond me. I didn't read that in those pretty, pretty, words.
And while we're droning on, isn't it interesting that in this recent tragedy, it appears so easy for the perpetrators to modify for LCM and full automatic operation to circumvent CA's stricter gun laws. "Making modifications to a gun “is not particularly difficult…and is really pretty common,” said Mark Jones, a former special agent with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives" Turns out the automatic modification was not successful probably due to a mis-calibration, during the alteration. Calibration is not a difficult process either; the jerks just didn't finish the process thank goodness.
Just seems that it is so darned easy not only to get a weapon but to redesign it for higher power. One would think it could be engineered not to be easy at least.
While one answer is to have everyone carry, another might be to limit the firepower available to begin with. Would rather be in front of the process than dealing with it after the fact. Then I can leave both my cell phone and gun at home and still feel safe.
Here is where we are at thus far on the range. Doesn't look like much, but we have a road built and did a bunch more brush clearing today.
"modify for LCM and full automatic"
I don't believe either were modified for full automatic fire, and doing so is (not suprisingly) illegal... so another law may have been ignored? Shocker...
Also, the media is stupid, there is no 30 round mag modification... magazines either fit or they don't, regardless of length (the latch is at the top). This goes into the "shoulder thing that goes up " category of ignorance
Difference is Darrin2 is obviously still me, and I openly admit it, unlike your mistergoogle to strangerdanger change that you still deny for whatever reason.....it is so obvious buddy.
Strangerdanger, do you have a link where the information is about them modifying the weapons, I have not heard that before.
Truth is, it is not that easy, on the older weapons yes it was easy, heck some of them even went full auto over time with wear on their own.... but the newer weapons have special provisions, just like you are requesting, to make this much, much harder. You would almost have to machine your own parts, basically build a gun from scratch, for it to be full auto.....while you are building you might as well just get a pressure cooker and some ball bearings.....point is, when there is a will there is a way.
sd says "While one answer is to have everyone carry, another might be to limit the firepower available to begin with. "
Again, you fail to realize there is a black market, as long as the military can get the weapons, there will be expensive ways to get the same. Just look at you fellow gun grabber Yee, he advocated hard against weapons, all while selling them illegally in the background....if you don;t think this goes on else where, it is time to come out from under a rock.
My point is, criminals will always have guns, there will always be a way for them to get them, even if you totally stop selling to civilians......so the best chance we have is to allow people to protect themselves, if they must receive training before being allowed to protect themselves, so be it, but the truth is, most responsible gun owners have probably already undergone some sort of training.
Why would Darrin2 obviously be Darrin? And why on an anonymous forum does it matter? I mean if you don't fess up who you are or what your other anonymous names might be or what your anonymous names might have been, what "law" of anonymity are you breaking? I mean you don't ask John Galt who he is.
"if you don;t (sic) think this goes on else where (sic), it is time to come out from under a rock." So if I don't agree with your unsupported claim then I must live under a rock? And then you have the gall to link me with Yee while calling me a "fellow gun grabber," a name you brand anyone looking to NOT grab your gun but perhaps put a few limitations on the types of guns you might own. Limitations that would be in full compliance with the Constitution and the 2A. Name caller.
And Darrin, once again you didn't answer the questions. Is this just because you're peeved that I won't meet you in person? Because this tack ain't helping your cause.
Mark et al, what I posted was press reported facts supposedly gleaned from ATF and FBI experts. It is what it is but most certainly I did not say the automatic portion worked. Quite the opposite it did not which is what I said.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/san-bernardino-guns-originally-bought-legally-later-modified-1449254384
Hmmm. Do I see the words: "Designs for these kinds of things are readily available on the internet." from your favorite gunny blog? http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/12/foghorn/atf-san-bernardino-attackers-firearms-were-legally-purchased-but-illegally-altered-and-illegal-in-california/
If you don't believe, just google the instructions. No don't I was just kidding. We want to keep you flying :>)
"Do I see the words: "Designs for these kinds of things are readily available on the internet." from your favorite gunny blog?"
What's your point? Designs/documents exist for plenty of illegal things. In this case he's referring to modifications that would convert a rifle to full auto without the typical holes, etc. needed to drop in a military trigger. This, in fact, *can be* legal if it's a pre-1986 firearm and you have the correct permit to own one.
None of that means the FBI/ATF statements are any less ridiculous about modifying the rifle to accept larger magazines. Perhaps they did get rid of the "bullet button" which is, you guessed it, illegal to do in California... those gun control laws are so infallible
Told ya I had the backstop covered Skippy LOL
This weekend we cut up to that first tree on the right, should of taken a after photo, but it was getting dark and I blew a tire on my woods truck on the way back down the hill.
Gee you guys are quiet today. Something supreme happen?
Or not!
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/us/supreme-court-will-not-hear-challenge-to-assault-weapons-ban-of-highland-park-ill.html?_r=0
Yeah, bad timing to rile up an emotional public. Acting like politicians instead of judges now it seems ;-)
'Or not!"
It's not like it was unanimous, or that the justices don't think the lower courts are ignoring their previous decisions. Who knows how they set the threshold for what cases they accept... maybe fishing for something more comprehensive rather than a narrow case...
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/12/johannes-paulsen/justice-thomas-dissents-scotus-refuse-gun-case-dec-2015/
Says Justice Thomas:
"Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons."
With waffling liberal justices still on the bench no outcome is guaranteed (for either side)... better to let a town here and there "burn" than set fire to the whole nation.
Keeping it in perspective... SCOTUS only grants cert in about 1% to 5% of petitions.
http://dailywrit.com/2013/01/likelihood-of-a-petition-being-granted/
Oh my, an anti-gun town in an anti-gun state passed an anti-gun law. The sky is falling!
Meanwhile how many states have expanded gun rights, legalized open carry, allowed firearms in schools (either teachers or parents), etc.
I'll worry about SC and Congress/Senate. Residents of Highland Park, Illinois can elect reps to fix their local laws, or not.
Well see if they are magically safer, or who they blame when nothing changes (or gets worse).
My feathers are fine...
This Chicago area LCM ban reminds me though... I have to buy some 17 round magazines for the SR9 that rides in my truck (no permit required).
I think Rugers sells a 2-pack on their website.
Police chiefs and Sheriffs all across the country are putting out a call to arms, asking those citizens who have CCW permits to carry their firearms with them as they go about their daily lives
they are doing this so that in the case of another attack someone will be able to defend themselves and others
sadly, the state of NJ doesn't allow citizens to defend themselves with their own carry firearm, New Jersey is behind the times and out of touch with the rest of the nation.
it's past time that this state pass a 'shall issue' permit law ( "My body, My choice" )
think about it.
http://www.nj.com/atlantic/index.ssf/2015/12/shore_mayor_wants_concealed_carry_to_be_legal_in_n.html
Egg Harbor Township Mayor James "Sonny" McCullough wants NJ gun laws relaxed
The comments on that article... the NJ masses are thoroughly brainwashed...
So glad I came down south. We can actually talk out loud about guns at work, and nobody bats an eye, they join the conversation. There are billboards for AR-15's, right next to the big signs for gun shows and fireworks.
I have no idea how many armed people I walk past on a daily basis... never had any problems, and no OK Corral shootouts on Main Street.
Seriously people... get out, Let NJ implode - and it's not just guns!
(Picture is from a shop one town over from where I live: http://wncn.com/2015/12/08/want-to-p-off-obama-buy-a-gun-sc-shop-sign-reads/ )
You're right about the SCOTUS decision being a non-decision. Yet it does affirm the right to limitations for the 2A and that's major. I had to laugh at "waffling liberal judges" against the fact that the Heller majority is still on the court, or acting politically (really, by not acting?), or Illinois as an anti-gun state (it is tougher but Illinois is not Chicago). It must have been somewhat important, the NRA spent millions on it.
When it comes to South Carolina being gunny heaven and therefore "never had any problems, and no OK Corral shootouts on Main Street." I am glad you haven't Mark.
Because South Carolina's gun laws are whacked. In 2014 SC allows guns in bars, loose restrictions on guns in cars to go along with no background checks on private sales, no requirement to report mental health adjudicated cases or any discretion by law enforcement on concealed carry permits. Somehow your ascertain that South Carolina gun owners are more sane than most belies the truth.
For one think South Carolina gun store owners feed criminals from many states. In NYC, according to the 2014 ATF trace report, most of the crime guns come from states with weak gun laws, specifically Georgia, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina. South Carolina is a leader in the exportation of murder on Main Street.
Death by gun is pretty prevalent in South Carolina, perhaps not where Mark lives, but overall in 2013 SC ranks 11th for the most deaths by gun per 100K amongst the states. But for gun murders, SC in 2010 ranked 4th, for murder 4th also. NJ ranks as the 4th to 6th safest state when it comes to gun death depending on the year.
Now when folks parsed out the death by gun data by gender, an interesting SC factoid appears. SC is the second most dangerous place for women being murdered by men, mostly by gun. http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20140908/PC16/140909496
In looking at kids, SC also rules but of course there's the argument about the range extending to the age 17. In a short sample I did and posted earlier this year based on news accounts: "So against NJ’s tough gun laws and a couple of children shot, SC with looser gun laws hits the target six times for the same period. Aim small, miss small. The anecdotes seem to point to stricter gun laws = less children shot, maimed or killed with guns. Of course it's not the gun, it's often just one of those terrible accidents." That's 3 times the volume of kid shootings in SC versus NJ without adjusting to "rate" due to population differences.
So again I am glad you feel safe in your part of SC; the state is not safer on average but it does have loose gun laws.
South Carolina also "wins" when it comes to children being killed by guns.
"Ohh, did MGSD just get insulted by the name gun grabber???" Actually I will give you this one; the grabber part just seems so untrue that it struck me. But you are right, it's fair.
http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/story/news/local/2015/12/07/homer-schools-locked-down-over-parent-carrying-gun/76947308/
http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/story/news/local/2015/12/09/parent-homer-gun-incident-responds/77036936/
you guys here about this BS?
"HOMER - A hard lockdown was ordered Monday in Homer school buildings after a parent came to school with a holstered handgun, officials said.
Homer Community School District Superintendent Robert Wright said the parent had brought a gun to school on Friday and was armed again when he returned to the school Monday to discuss Friday's incident.
Wright said the parent was questioned by a staff member; the parent asserted "His right to have it there" and he left the school without a confrontation, Wright said."
"(Wright) shuts the door, turns to me and says 'If you don't disarm right now and take that firearm out to your car, I'm going to lock the school down,'" Solis-Mullen said. "So at that point, I literally just stood up and said 'OK then, I'm just going to leave then, you know; I'm not looking to cause any problems; I'll just leave then.'
Alexandria Solis-Mullen said she felt the Monday incident was staged and that the school could have asked her husband over the phone to not bring his gun to the meeting, as well as told him about the potential lockdown"
Before the discussion starts I would like to clarify:
It is illegal for a person to carry a weapon in a school zone under the federal gun-free zone act. (Unless they have a state-issued licence to carry a firearm)
Under the Michigan CPL law, it is illegal for a CPL holder to carry a concealed weapon in a school zone.
It is therefore legal for someone with a Michigan CPL to open-carry in a school zone, as they meet both those requirements.
The federal gun-free zone act says that no one can carry a weapon in a school unless 'otherwise authorized'. (18 US Code 922, section Q)
(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm... is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(ii)if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
The state CPL law states that a CPL holder cannot carry a concealed weapon in a school zone.
(1) Subject to subsection (5), an individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure under section 12a(1)(h), shall not carry a concealed pistol on the premises of any of the following:
(a) A school or school property except that a parent or legal guardian of a student of the school is not precluded from carrying a concealed pistol while in a vehicle on school property, if he or she is dropping the student off at the school or picking up the student from the school. As used in this section, "school" and "school property" mean those terms as defined in section 237a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.237a.
"For one think South Carolina gun store owners feed criminals from many states. In NYC, according to the 2014 ATF trace report, most of the crime guns come from states with weak gun laws, specifically Georgia, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina. South Carolina is a leader in the exportation of murder on Main Street."
Any firearms purchased from a gun store require background checks, and FFL's cannot transfer handguns to residents from another state (has to be shipped to another FFL)... so good try blaming gun stores (unless illegally selling, in which case they are *breaking* the law, not taking advantage of loose ones).
If the firearms are stolen and then trafficked up north, well there's a whole list of laws being broken... loose or not.
Also, SC has 3.4X the gun ownership rate of NJ, yet only 1.6X the gun murder rate (accounting for population). Not quite the guns = death correlation you're looking for. Vermont has almost no firearm restrictions (Constitutional carry) and they are the safest state in the nation.
Are there bad areas in every state? Sure. NJ's dangerous towns just have the advantage of being "averaged" across a much larger state population.
So much for finding any holiday deals...
AR's are largely sold out *again*... thanks to Obama and the threat of terrorism (not sure which really "sold" more...)
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/12/robert-farago/gun-sales-surge-is-on-big-style/
Black Friday was huge for gun sales - I won't be able to get range time till February I think
I went shooting this morning... just wanted to put 50 rounds through my "new" gun to make sure it functioned.
The rifle range was busiest (I didn't bring my rifle, just wanted to check it out). About 6 other guys (and a girl) shooting handguns, and the same for shotguns.
Not a bad setup for a free outdoor range.
Not my videos, but this is the range 10 minutes from my house:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6_hFmFH6jk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn1fqy18S9M
Taxes are good for something!
Also, notice the "assault weapon" that is illegal by NJ standards in that second video?
The pink and gold nail polish makes it extra deadly!
Just a sub-compact semi-auto that I bought "off the books" ;)
Not really good for the range (it's decent to shoot, just not going to bullseye at 10 - 15 yards)... this one is meant for the bad guy a few feet away
"Black Friday was huge for gun sales"
This past Black Friday saw the most guns sold in a single day, ever in the history of the U.S.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/12/foghorn/white-house-shocked-by-gun-sales-surge/
too much correlation there - gun violence down except in gun free zones
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/12/04/washington-post-gun-violence-declining-except-gun-free-zones/
Yeah, it's an open and shut case of correlation which of course is not causation or in this case, even correlation. Did you read the WaPo article before you posted this twisted trash piece of shoddy journalism? It was just a click away. From your article:
"Increases in gun ownership correlated with drastic reductions in firearm-related homicides." except in Australia where a drastic reduction in firearm-related homicides combined with a reduction in arms ownership is due to world-wide reductions in homicide and not correlated or not statistically relevant or or or.
Apparently correlation only works one way.
Of course the statistical relevant reduction in arms and suicides in Australia is a statistical correlation but this statistically valid piece of evidence can be easily overlooked since alternative methods of suicide are readily available. The fact that the Australians have not figured that out proves that they are just down under. It's another world.
But the main premise of your article, the crux of the biscuit is the title: Washington Post: Gun Violence Declining, Except in Gun-Free Zones. This is backed up by "On December 3, The Washington Post reported that gun crime has been on the decline for about 20 years, except for high-profile shootings in gun-free zones; WaPo claims those shootings are on the increase."
From the WaPo article referenced: "Premeditated mass shootings in public places are happening more often, some researchers say" Holy handguns Batman, we've got a correlation, some say. No where in the WaPo article nor the Mother Jones article does the word "gun-free" appear. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/mass-shootings-increasing-harvard-research
Quite the correlation. Nice spin Skippy. Now he might be right on the facts but he quoted something that is not there. He wrote an untruth and did not do the work to prove his statement even when the raw data was right in front of his face. What the Mother Jones article does say is Obama is right, mass public shootings have tripled since 2011 when a specialized definition is used, and not much else. The specialized definition is for mass public shootings versus mass shootings. The FBI has conducted a similar view I believe. Public does not necessarily mean gun-free zone, it means public amazingly.
With mass public shootings being a fairly small number, mass shootings have remained fairly stable.
Now given the number is up, does that correlate with the fact that the number of guns owned is up? Or the number of concealed carry permits? Or the loosening of gun laws?
Let's go with all of the above :>)
There's surprisingly little functional difference between the majority of the guns laws across most of the states. Only 15 states have permit to purchase requirement as outlined by law. Almost all of those states have state background checks since before 2010. The only category that shows broad disagreement nationwide is Open Carry, with more than half of the states being restrictive or requiring licensing of some kind.
Here's a csv copy of the data used from CDC WISQARS
http://pastebin.com/6axhujUq
a quick dissection of the "Gun-Deaths" - After correcting all the factual errors in the laws themselves it was discovered that it was critical to sort the states by Permissiveness/Restrictiveness in an objective way because the Brady scores didn't correlate with anything - this chart shows the laws sorted into numerical values on a spectrum that represents available field values.
http://i.imgur.com/0UkNpEx.png
rough co-variate trend-line excel charts to see which categories did or did not correlate with the gun laws themselves.
http://i.imgur.com/x2JGWby.png
Agreed correlation isn't proof of causation. You don't know which one comes first, so you can't determine which one is driving the other or if they're simply parallel measures that are both driven by other factors. Potentially at slightly different time delays.
I still don't understand what goes through the anti-gun head....how will any law in the world, or ban in the world will stop people from getting guns illegally and killing people. If you can't answer that, you have no business saying we should impose these laws to fix a problem, a problem which is most certainly not caused by the tool some attempt to blame.
It is so ironic that people never really speak of mental health, it is always guns guns guns. Even in this last event, Obama did not hesitate to use a act of terrorism as a lever in his more gun laws desire.
"how will any law in the world, or ban in the world will stop people from getting guns illegally and killing people."
The same way "gun free zones" without metal detectors stop guns from entering (i.e. they don't). Heck, even WITH metal detectors, guns get through (TSA has a 90% failure rate at detecting firearms I believe).
There is a difference between "making a law" and "physically stopping" something that they don't seem to get, like I have brought up a dozen times on the universal background check argument, with of course no solution from them.
Skippy, you plagiarized that from a blog entry written by DumbScribblyUnctious. Shame on you and the math is bad to boot. Many errors have been posted by the gunnies themselves undoubtedly on the sites you stole this from.
"how will any law in the world, or ban in the world will stop people from getting guns illegally and killing people." So true. Yet guns themselves do kill. The Australian suicide drops due to gun bans are statistically valid. The data showing strict gun law states may be safer than loose gun law states is "roughly right." There are anomalies like VT on the loose gun law side and MD on the tough gun law side. Why? Because it's a multivariate problem requiring extensive, expensive, statistical analysis. Simple two-way correlations don't cut it.
Darrin is right, even if we waved a magic wand and stopped all gun sales, criminals would have access to guns in America for potentially hundreds of years. Heck, it would take me little time to steal some of your guns given the data provided.
And you should feel free to arm yourself to the letter of the law. Make your day. But is the only answer to be armed at all times? Is that the best you can come up with?
Like this hypothetical example of why VT and MS have loose gun laws but different result. One is a hot sweltering place with lots of poor, young, undereducated people with no future who can't get out and can't find a hospital when they get shot, the other is a cold place with lots of middle-aged upper middle class people, lots of hospitals and medevac's, highly educated work force and retirees who moved there because of the ambiance and have the money to leave at any time.
Or MD with tough gun laws, moderate climate, great social services, highly educated workforce on the government payroll, middle aged, except for Baltimore which is a living hell.
Point is there are many variables in play and without a lot of expensive analysis which probably can only be done with government that are lobbied against by the guys selling guns, it ain't gonna happen. So we play the simple correlation game.
And Skippy plagiarizing an exhausting chart pack where the basic premises forming the foundation of the fractured analysis are being corrected by the gunnies themselves is not proof, no matter how pretty the pictures.
"It is so ironic that people never really speak of mental health" I don't think that's true and certainly not for me. Until states like SC actually care, there will be giant wholes in our ability to stop mental defectives from easily purchasing guns. But mental health is like a good guy with a gun: sometimes it's all good until it goes bad.
"TSA has a 90% failure rate at detecting firearms I believe." Ah, the ole "I believe" innuendo. Silly question but how would TSA know it's failure rate? Do undetected firearm owners jump up as they leave the airport and announce?
"There is a difference between "making a law" and "physically stopping" something that they don't seem to get, like I have brought up a dozen times on the universal background check argument, with of course no solution from them." You're right that laws are made to be broken yet raising the bar of difficulty is not necessarily a useless gesture. Especially if it does not overly encumber legal citizens.
I just don't see how removing background checks, reducing gun control laws, having a society armed with concealed carry can be considered the only option. I would hope we might do better than that.
Here's the check sum: "President Barack Obama claimed that “states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths.” Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, meanwhile, has made nearly the opposite claim, saying states with stringent gun control laws have “the highest gun crime rates in the nation.”
In looking solely at the numbers of gun deaths and gun crimes, the data back up Obama, not Fiorina. But both politicians imply a causation that’s impossible to prove — that gun control laws lead to fewer or greater gun crimes or gun deaths."
Note the correlation: "“states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths." Obama correct, you are not. http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/
And Mark: "Also, SC has 3.4X the gun ownership rate of NJ, yet only 1.6X the gun murder rate. Yeah, that make you almost twice as likely to be plunked in SC than NJ. SC is the fourth most dangerous state when it comes to gun murder, if you say that's a nuance, then why do you even need guns for protection? If you say it's because SC has more guns, then I guess guns do kill.
With regards to the guns SC exports to other states for crime, who cares whether legal, illegal, FFL or out of someone's garage. The facts are that SC is a leader in crime gun exportation to other states. SC, as well as the other leading exportation states has loose gun laws. May not be causation but seems pretty well correlated.
"Ah, the ole "I believe" innuendo. Silly question but how would TSA know it's failure rate?"
Hey, I gave them the benefit of the doubt, but since you asked, it's even worse (95% failure rate). Is it really beyond your grasp that there are ways to test their effectiveness?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/tsa-failed-undercover-airport-screening-tests/
"May not be causation but seems pretty well correlated."
Yep, umbrellas cause it to rain, and ice cream brings hot weather.
"WITH metal detectors, guns get through (TSA has a 90% failure rate at detecting firearms I believe)."
" it's even worse (95% failure rate)."
"Is it really beyond your grasp that there are ways to test their effectiveness? "
Apparently it was beyond my grasp but thanks for the redundancy. Really. 90% failure at detecting firearms or even worse at 95% is more wrong. I do remember this now and reading up on it the test was for mock bombs and other weapons. It was not all guns, matter of fact I can not find a list of the weapons so who knows how many guns, much less metallic ones.
The test was conducted by the DHS Red Team, specialized "hackers" thought of as super terrorists who have inside information on all airport security, detection machines, processes, etc. and attempt to find ways to exploit. And boy did they on this one.
All failures were supposedly remedied immediately although the Red Team continues to test. Over 2,200 firearms were confiscated by TSA in 2014. TSA has asked for next test to be graded on the curve.
A special test has been developed as shown in the picture. Ouch. Build your own caption and insert the name Mark :>)
Somehow knowing that laws and safety procedures can be thwarted at times leading to a conclusions like why bother with background checks and perhaps other public safety initiatives seems ridiculous. At yet at the same time some folks believe that a guy dressed like a giant eagle can visit kids one time and teach them to be gun safe. Cuz kids trained by comic book men don't thwart the rules.
SD says "So true. Yet guns themselves do kill."
Yeah.... right....because last time I left my gun in the safe it went crazy all by itself.
Why oh why do we keep blaming a inanimate object for a select few people's actions, a object which is unable to make DECISIONS, is so far beyond me.
You want to attempt to FORCE people to stop killing people....FORCE people to follow laws, think that these LAWS will lower suicides, all while disarming millions of honest people who would never do such a thing......makes absolutely no sense what so ever. Lets take away fast cars because a select few mis-use them, speed, crash, and kill people....yet they were licensed to drive....it really is the same analogy.
I have unfortunately very personally learned that if someone wants to kill themselves, they will do it by WHATEVER means they can...comparing our country to another country is not on the same wave length. If you think people won't kill themselves just because they cannot get their hands on a gun, you are very, very wrong, I wish our nations mental instability was that easy to fix, but in reality it isn't, but dream on SD, dream on.
SD says "Make your day. But is the only answer to be armed at all times? Is that the best you can come up with?"
Just because you feel like you do not need to lock you doors, don't tell me that stores shouldn't sell locks and I shouldn't be able to buy a lock and lock mine ;-)
And to answer your question, in today's world, it is the solution that I am most comfortable with, I want control of my fate.
I changed his or her post from I correlated to here is the data and the source is in the pictures.. you know I always cite my sources.
Guy walking around in the street toward a gas station waving a gun in the air, blatantly ignoring police commands.....police react to protect the civilians and shoot him, and the jack ass's family screams police brutality.....WTF has this world come to, does everyone need someone or something else to blame for their own F'ed up actions????
Like totally annoyed right now.....see this is why I don't normally watch the news.
Skippy, not quite sure what you meant but I googled the text to find the source so seemed you had pulled more than just charts. No biggee though, you have much deposits in the source citing bank.
Darrin: I noted guns do kill based on the Australian statistics on suicide which shows less guns, less suicide. Theory is augmented by statistics on suicide via different methods where guns have the highest success rate but other methods less so. Pills for example rate about a 50% chance of success and retries are not 100% either.
The same statistical assessment could not be made for homicide by gun in Australia.
"You want to attempt to FORCE.... all while disarming millions of honest people who would never do such a thing." Not quite true. Universal Background Checks for all gun sales, mental health tracking, and automated tracking for crime guns does not disarm millions of honest people. Nor do limitations on LCM capacities.
I do lock my doors and windows and have adequate protection for my family, thank you very much.
Also the fact that more guns equals more gun deaths or the fact that loose gun laws generally means more gun death (with some anomalies) has nothing to do with gun bans or disarming millions of people. Sorry.
"The test was conducted by the DHS Red Team, specialized "hackers" thought of as super terrorists who have inside information on all airport security, detection machines, processes, etc. and attempt to find ways to exploit. And boy did they on this one."
Because real terrorists would never research how to defeat security or anything...
Maybe they wouldn't have to... there are 73 TSA employees on the terror watch list to give them the inside scoop.
http://www.newsweek.com/tsa-investigation-finds-73-workers-uss-terrorist-watc-341696
thanks for agreeing SD - I copied the entire post and changed only the pronoun - I felt it was just illustrative. It was not my intent to be academically disingenuous and admit to copying
SD.....what is crime gun tracking? I thought after a gun was used in a crime it is confiscated and destroyed by police....or are you talking about gun registration, where you can find out previous owners of a gun, but using the words "crime gun tracking" because it sounds more appealing?
I do believe what you are talking about is the second, and you already know how I feel about registration.
I have already said, I, personally am not against back ground checks, I am sure mainly in part because I have always had to do them. My problem comes in when this opens the doors to steeper restrictions, such as ADHD as a child, or when the system gets backed up for months at a time, or possibly the government makes you go to a government funded doctor who just denies everyone..... and there are many other things that make this system very very flawed.......all stuff we have discussed before.
And as you know, because I have said it a hundred times...the government has proven they cannot handle the system they currently have, so why would anyone be willing to give them more power? This is 100% the reason I am against anything new when it comes to gun laws.
You also know how I feel about LCMs.....what is a LCM, who decides what is large??? What it really comes down to is who decides what I feel comfortable having to protect my family....it should be me (we have also been over this)
And we know you have protection, you already told us you prefer calling the police over being able to handle a situation on your own, which I call BS on by the way.
"you prefer calling the police"
There are probably none of us that *wouldn't* call the police, when we're able to. That time may not be when there is an armed intruder on the other side of a hollow core interior door or 5 feet down the hallway (and the police are several miles away).
Mark, Hope you don't think I am defending a 95% failure. I am not. No terrorist can match the inside info the Red Team has but 95% has to be considered penetrable. And the fact they caught 2,000 guns in a year speaks more to the stupidity of gun owners than exceptional terrorism protection.
Your 73 employee story was busted quickly: http://www.snopes.com/72-dhs-employees-terrorist-watch-list/ Gotta stop posting those untruths. BUSTED.
Darrin: "Like totally annoyed right now" No joke. Remember when "stop or I'll shoot" was good enough? Crikey, to be PC current they will have to ban any cop show before 1995.... I say he pulls a gun, blast him. Seriously. Cops need to be able to defend themselves from undue risk and I say a visible gun is risk, imminent danger, whatever. A big bulge counts too but better be damned sure it's not a wallet. Might help keep the concealed carry guys from speeding and other minimal offenses too if they are at a higher risk of being shot just for carrying. Another benefit :>)
Gun tracing, not tracking, my bad.
And from the department of "what?????"
"I, personally am not against back ground checks."
" My problem comes in when this opens the doors to steeper restrictions."
"This is 100% the reason I am against anything new."
So basically as long as there is no change, you are all for it.......Like you are OK with background checks as long as some sales and transfers continue not to require them. What????
"And we know you have protection, you already told us you prefer calling the police over being able to handle a situation on your own, which I call BS on by the way." I don't think I said this except for a defined situation.
"Gotta stop posting those untruths. BUSTED"
Wow, quite the analysis... basically saying "We're not really sure if the TSA employees are terrorists, because the reports we saw were heavily redacted, the TSA screening procedures are full of gaps, and the government doesn't share their actual lists/codes effectively.."
But hey, that's enough to infringe upon someone's civil rights, though... because "guns".
You are off-the-Mark.... But take this in a critical analysis learning mode...
You posted: “TSA Investigation Finds 73 Workers on U.S.’s Terrorist Watchlist.” That is a fabrication. Own up.
When faced with the truth, you cherry-picked the third and last conclusion combined with the fact that he terrorist codes were redacted leading you to numerous erroneous conclusions while completely missing the main points of the analysis summary.
The report, with authors privy to the redacted material, concluded: “TSA's multi-layered process to vet aviation workers for potential links to terrorism was generally effective. In addition to initially vetting every application for new credentials, TSA recurrently vetted aviation workers with access to secured areas of commercial airports every time the Consolidated Terrorist Watchlist was updated.”
That’s about one million miles in the opposite direction from the lies you posted originally. And about ten miles from what you concluded after reading Snopes.
I realize it’s difficult to comprehend the truth after posting a complete fabrication which took one click to debunk, but when faced with the truth to pick the third conclusion to spring board to another dimension is fractured thinking.
The third conclusion was: “However, our testing showed that TSA did not identify 73 individuals with terrorism-related category codes because TSA is not authorized to receive all terrorism-related information under current interagency watchlisting policy.” Policy mate, got that?
And then based on this you conclude:
- We're not really sure if the TSA employees are terrorists, because the reports we saw were heavily redacted
- the TSA screening procedures are full of gaps
- the government doesn't share their actual lists/codes effectively..
None of that is in the report which instead concluded: “The report did, however, maintain that the TSA lacked the ability to fully vet aviation workers and recommended that the agency partner with the DHS to "formalize a request to the Watchlisting Interagency Committee through its Screening Coordination Office." Many portions of the report were repetitive, and it included several mentions of the TSA's lack of legal authorization to execute "recurrent criminal history vetting" (with some exceptions).”
Much of the improvement recommended was due not to a lack of sharing, or gaps, but legal authorization in a system which the report’s top line concluded was generally effective. Generally effective is a long way away from not sure if the TSA has terrorists on the payroll, TSA has a gap ridden screening process and the government has an ineffective sharing of lists and codes.
But best yet, based on your ill-conceived conclusions you decide that this is the reason that known members of the terror watch lists, in other words terrorists, should continue to have the Constitutional Right to buy guns. And it is better to let all of the terrorists we know about buy guns, as many as they can get, instead of rejecting any one citizen who might be wrongly placed of the Terrorism Watchlist.
Is that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?” You want to all the known terrorists buy guns at will because we might, maybe, possibly, stop some good guys. Well God bless you for your desire let those good guys buy guns and to not know they have been listed on the terror watch list. Nice job. And thanks for protecting the rights of suspected terrorists all across our nation. It’s good to stand for something.
And you still couldn’t admit you posted complete BS.
SD, So I am confused, you feel that if a guy is walking around waving a gun in the air (I think he was actually shooting into the air) police shouldn't take action? It is hard to figure out your stance on the situation since you seemed to make a joke out of it.
But, on this line ":Seriously. Cops need to be able to defend themselves from undue risk and I say a visible gun is risk, imminent danger, whatever."
So why can't people do the same and conceal carry?
SD says "And from the department of "what?????"
Yeah it does seem confusing when you take my words OUT of CONTEXT! To further explain, you ever heard the saying give a inch take a mile?
SD, you said if put in a mass shooting environment, you would rather call the police then be able to defend yourself. And later you said "and have adequate protection for my family" But maybe that is your cell phone...which hey, if that is what you feel comfortable with, all for it, I am not telling others what they should do, I am only advocating for what I feel comfortable doing. Nobody is saying everyone should conceal carry, we are saying the option should be there for those who want that option.
You did say you were not against the background checks you were used to, you did say any changes to gun laws opens the doors to steeper restrictions and you did say this is the reason you were against anything new, 100%.
I said: "I say he pulls a gun, blast him. Seriously. Cops need to be able to defend themselves from undue risk and I say a visible gun is risk, imminent danger, whatever." And yes, that would put concealed carry folks who break the law and face a cop at greater risk. Such is life.
I don't believe I have said I am against concealed carry where it is the law. Perhaps against it as a right versus a privilege. It is not a 2A right. Therefore, certainly against shall carry versus may carry laws. Do you have a post in mind where I might have taken a stand here? I do not recollect one.
"you said if put in a mass shooting environment, you would rather call the police then be able to defend yourself." Speaking of out of context, I am not sure the context of this but I am certain it had to be some narrow question someone asked and pretty sure I did not say it exactly like this. You'll have to dig it up if you want a response --- I can not find it. I don't think I said this except for a defined situation.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article49233895.html
there are congressman on that list!
“When I asked why, I was told I was on this government list,” McClintock said, calling the whole experience “Kafkaesque.”
“My first reaction was to ask, ‘Why am I on that list?’ ‘We can’t tell you that.’ ‘What are the criteria you use?’ I asked. ‘That’s classified.’ I said, ‘How can I get off this list?’ The answer was, ‘You can’t.’ ”
He said it ended up being a case of mistaken identity with an Irish Republican Army activist the “British government was mad at.”
"You want to all the known terrorists buy guns at will because we might, maybe, possibly, stop some good guys."
So I'll ask again... if these are *known* terrorists, why are we waiting around for them to buy guns? Why aren't there actual arrest/search warrants issued (with probable cause/evidence), which, you know, would also flag a stop on a NICS check?
Maybe because these aren't "known" terrorists?
So yes, until *proven* guilty or arrested I have a problem with willy-nilly denials based on secret lists.
OK, so a decade ago a mistake was made and worse yet, he could just use his middle name to avoid the issue.
So, just to show that *existing* law allows NICS to stop a firearm purchase, if there is actual *evidence*:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/appeals/nics-appeals-process/reasons-nics-background-checks-are-denied-or-delayed
A federal prohibition would exist for any person who:
...Is a fugitive from justice
I would think that includes open arrest warrants.... and I would be correct:
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=49
The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). A NICS check includes a check of three databases maintained by the FBI, including the:
...National Crime Information Center (NCIC), which includes information on persons subject to civil protection orders and *arrest warrants*.
So, if you don't want "known" terrorists buying guns, follow current law, and due process and everyone's happy.
The whole terror watch list idea is just a way for them to turn the whole country into may (not) issue at their whim with ZERO oversight and accountability.
Heck, even the ACLU agrees and they *hate* the 2nd Amendment.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms
I don't think that even if the list were "fixed" it would be grounds to restrict civil rights without arrest warrants, etc... but its gotta be pretty bad when the ACLU finds it to be unconstitutional for firearm rights.
"willy-nilly denials based on secret lists." yep, this is not one of our shared values.
it's very easy for unnamed individuals to target someone they don't like and then use the power and force of the federal government to deny them their civil rights.
Wow! it's amazing how many are aok with this. the ACLU sees how this easily technique could be applied to other rights, like the freedom of speech for example, or assembly and they are rightfully concerned about governmental overreach without due process.
but as we can see, those who are too chicken to defend themselves are perfectly fine with this overreach by the federal government.
but as Dwight D. Eisenhower said so poignantly : "If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom."
the ACLU seems to agree on this one, so do I, how come some people are always looking to strip rights away from others?
Actually what the ACLU said before you twisted it to your own agenda is: "There is no constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns, and the No Fly List could serve as one tool for it, but only with major reform."
What they look for is: "the standards for inclusion on the No Fly List are unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error. Our lawsuit seeks a meaningful opportunity for our clients to challenge their placement on the No Fly List because it is so error-prone and the consequences for their lives have been devastating."
I am guessing they will get the second part, the challenge part, but not the standards for inclusion part.
As it should be. When you let the bad guys know what you are looking for you defeat the purpose of looking.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/now-oppose-assault-weapons-ban-doubts-stopping-lone/story?id=35778846
from ABC - Most Now Oppose an Assault Weapons Ban
SD, the 2A clearly states ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What part of keep and BEAR arms mean in a safe, locked away at home, and you can't take them with you for protection?
To futher define....BEAR: (of a person) carry.
"he was bearing a tray of brimming glasses"
synonyms: carry, bring, transport, move, convey, take, fetch, deliver, tote, lug
The definition is very clear that we are to be allowed to carry arms...WITHOUT infringement. So, this is why many are against anything, because really anything is infringement.
Very simple to find SD, use the browser search function
Recap:
I had asked "You tell me, lets paint a picture, if you are in a building you know was going to be attacked, would you want a gun to protect yourself, or a cell phone to call the police and have them protect you. Attacks are happening more and more all over, and they only seem to happen in areas where there are unarmed people. I say we change that!"
And you had answered "Answer: I would like the phone first. My chance of success with a gun is minimal. The real answer is I would like to thwart the attack before it happens. But we fetter our police from knowing where the guns are, who is stockpiling ammo, and the rest because somehow we feel knowing is tantamount to taking. So to protect the 2A, we are not allowed to see people building arsenals, stock piling gunpowder, bullets, and the like Probably have a better chance of tracking tactical gear purchases than semi-automatic weapons with LCMs. "
So I do not see how I took that out of context....you literally said you would rather thwart a mass shooting with a phone then have the ability to protect yourself.
You used the words "was going to be attacked" implying there would be some time.
Also you forgot the rest of my caveats in the rest of my answer. The real answer as I called it that you ignored.
Good luck with your cocealed carry. Should be no issue legally speaking.
Although that is not how the framers knew guns. In their day open carry was the norm for hunting and militia use. Just saying.
SD, the 2A clearly states ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"The definition is very clear that we are to be allowed to carry arms...."
Boy I hate to say anything. And I'm not going to say what I think it means, as there are precedents, original intent, and all of that. I'm staying neutral on most of it.
Except....the definition, just based on the words, is not clear at all. A neutral reader may fairly read that "people" (a plural word) may keep and bear arms in the context of a well-regulated militia. Nothing is said about personal protection.
And who are included in "people"? Three-year olds? Undocumented immigrants? Deranged individuals? Surely the writers of this statement would not agree that all of these are okay.
So, my only position is that is is NOT clear. Beyond that, not disagreeing with anything here.
I won't go back and forth on the 2A either, as we've hashed that out many times here, BUT I will say one thing:
If "the people" means an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT in the 1st Amendment, then that's exactly what it means in the 2nd Amendment.
And "shall not be infringed" is self-explanatory...
infringe: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"
synonyms: restrict, limit, curb
Now, as for this whole "well-regulated militia" thing, I can tell you from my reading of the Founders own writings that "militia" meant every able-bodied man (back then, there was no PC, the women stayed home with the children and the men fought). "well-regulated" is less clear. I agree the founders should have been more absolute with their writing of 2A.
Why would the 2nd be the only collective (militia) right?
Is "the press" the only one allowed to speak. Can you only practice religion while gathered with the congregation? OK to skip a search warrant if the person lives alone?
Everyone has these rights, individually and at any age unless specifically detailed otherwise in the Constitution. Does that negate punishment for irresponsible or negligent exercise of these rights if/when they cause harm to another person? Of course not.
If you want to give a toddler a gun, just be prepared for those consequences (moral and/or criminal). If your 16 year old is mature enough to handle the responsibility, are they not considered "people"?
Do you rely on the "law" to make other parenting decisions? Maybe your kid isn't mature enough to drive when legally allowed to do so. There are also plenty of teenage kids safely operating farm equipment to help the family business before Uncle Sam says it's OK to toss them the car keys.
There I go waxing poetic on personal responsibility again... silly me.
"You used the words "was going to be attacked" implying there would be some time" You know damn well thats not how it happens....playing on a technicality hu?
"Good luck with your concealed carry. Should be no issue legally speaking. "
???? Um, in NJ???? yeah right!
the last four words in the 2nd Amendment being "shall not be infringed." 'Shall not be infringed' is pretty clear. "well-regulated" at the time of the constitution did not mean federal regulations such as back-ground checks, etc etc. Well-regulated, in the context of the constitution (a document limiting the powers of the Fed gov't, and during the late 1700s meant in proper working order - http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
FREEDOM POST!!!
JR, the first amendment mentions "the people" only as to their right to peaceably assemble - for which you need more than one person :-)
But I think we mostly agree that 2A is not entirely clear, probably me more so and you less so.
Mark, I don't know what you mean by "irresponsible or negligent exercise of these rights". I guess you agree that there need to be limits.
Skippy, again looking at just the words, "shall not be infringed" is indeed very clear. Any confusion relates to what exactly it is that shall not be infringed, e.g. the right of people to bear arms in the context of a militia that is, as you say, in working order?
Again, just pointing out non-clarity in the words; not taking a position.
jd2 - I don't think there should be any limits on "keeping" and "bearing" arms , which are the enumerated rights, and are somewhat inert activities with no potential "victims" regardless of how you keep or bear them (open or concealed).
Irresponsible or negligent use of that right would be using those arms to injure someone (other than in self defense) or otherwise physically infringe on THEIR rights (not including their "feelings" of safety).
This is why I have no problems with assault/murder laws (actual victim) but think any laws on possession or other "victimless" crimes (magazine size, how scary a rifle looks, etc.) are unconstitutional.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) settled this argument. As Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out in one of his most magisterial opinions:
“Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to ‘the people’ refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ‘the people,’ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/opinion.html
The founders were also clear about what they meant by the term militia. Richard Henry Lee stated it very succinctly: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms.”
http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/4089447-the-letters-of-richard-henry-lee-1762-1778-v1
“No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” – Richard Henry Lee, State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788
https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/history/the-founding-fathers-on-the-second-amendment
the police have no duty to protect individuals..
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect-someone.html
https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html
Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)
"In a 4-3 decision, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts' dismissal of the complaints against the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department based on the public duty doctrine. The Court explained that "[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists."
Good luck with that whole police thing.. as numerous chief law enforcement officers have urged their constituents as of late - get a gun, get trained, carry and be ready to defend yourself and your loved ones.
Savage Arms Mark II F .22LR Bolt Action with Bushnell 4x32 Scope - $124.99 after rebate - Cabelas
http://goo.gl/W96tFA
rebate here
http://goo.gl/YUwzXS
FYI, the picture on the Cabela's website shows a NON-Accu Trigger in this rifle. The Mk II F on Savage's website DOES have the accuttigger.
According to Ask Cabelas - The Savage® Arms Mark II .22 LR Bolt-Action Rimfire Rifle and Bushnell® 4x32 Scope Combo, item number IK-292253, does have an accutrigger.
for the libs we have :)
Emergency Personal Carrier (EPC) w/ Rimelig Level II Soft Body Armor *Free Shipping* - $110
http://goo.gl/8Fi7GU
I think it matters less what we think the framers meant and more what the SCOTUS says they think they meant. Otherwise we can argue over that second comma forever but in the end what does it matter over what the SCOTUS says it means. The rights in question are collective versus individual rights plus the concept of limitations.
At this point the SCOTUS has:
affirmed the individual right to own arms for personal use and carry without a collective use
has basically ignored the requirement for the collective requirement of militia except for limitations
and they have affirmed the concept of limitations at state and federal levels
In terms of the Constitution, I think that's what the SCOTUS has told us it means.
And Skippy et al, if we are to drag the framers talking about their generation, then I will also entertain what the framers meant by carry given the typical methods of carry at the time better defined by a number of early court cases regarding their generation's viewpoint on concealment of weapons during carry. Bottom line is they thought concealed carry: heinous, open carry: framer-a-skippy :<)
So carry on boys within the letter of the law and the limitations therein.
That's a decent price... I paid around $200 for my Mark II G (wood stock, no scope). I later added a 2-7x32 Cabela's scope.
Good little plinker. Mine doesn't seem to like Winchester ammo (some won't extract, or poor accuracy) but it's pretty darn good with Remington golden bullets (that everyone else seems to hate).
Actually, Mark had it right, the ACLU is against using the no fly list to ban people form buying guns. The ACLU is currently suing the Feds about the use of this list and are currently winning in court.
And Actually, Hina Shamsi of the ACLU came out more strongly against using the no-fly list to ban guns making this statement: "No Fly List criteria are vague and it violates due process. Without fix, don't use it to restrict freedoms"
ergo: the constitutionally protected freedom to keep and bear arms.
ACLU's position is pretty clear: The ACLU believes the no-fly list in it's current from is unconstitutional. (and they are correct about this, it *IS* unconstitutional) and their position is driving the liberals crazy.
Dear Santa,
I would like this for Christmas - I have been very good this year.
Love Skippy.
"I think it matters less what we think the framers meant and more what the SCOTUS says they think they meant. "
You didn't finish that thought, allow me...
"...as long as they agree with ME."
What a lot of you seem to be missing with regards to SCOTUS (and not just on this 2A issue), is that SCOTUS can be WRONG. Yup. Their decisions may affect the laws of the land, but they are just as susceptible to political agendas and influence as anyone is. Which is why ORIGINAL INTENT- in the Founders' OWN WORDS- not just in the Bill of Rights but in ALL of their writings- is what needs to be followed.
And again, I won't go thru it point-by-point and word-by-word, I've written essays on this forum about it, but if you read the Founders' own words it's plain to see they intended 2A not only to be an individual right, but also as a back-up to tyranny. Which makes perfect sense considering they had just thrown off the tyranny of the English government, many of the soldiers using their own personal firearms.
The only people that have read the Founders' words and still think anything otherwise, are either anti-gun (for whatever reason) or part of a political agenda in re-forming America as we know it DESPITE the Founding documents, in an attempt to disarm the populace, reasons for which can ONLY be nefarious and tyrannical.
SD, if they wanted limitations, they would have specified...........
The shall not be infringed is pretty clear that they were AGAINST limitations
"James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said in 1789 that “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/09/22/2nd-amendment-original-meaning-and-purpose/
SD:
mi·li·tia
məˈliSHə/Submit
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service
SO.....anyone willing can belong, you don't have to currently belong.
I'm a card-carrying member of the Metal Militia... have been for about 30 years now (-;
agreed Darrin.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_13.htm
Everyone can opine on the Bill of Rights meaning. In the end the framers structured it so that only the SCOTUS definition matters when it comes to the rule of law. So sure the SCOTUS can be wrong as proved by reversed decisions. Yet actually they were right in both answers, according to the framers, the times, and our Constitution.
One of the Constitution’s main purposes was to detail a limited Federal Government yet only two decades later our fourth Chief Justice, John Marshall, said, “we must never forget it is a Constitution we are expounding…intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” For example, at the crisis of The Great Depression our Constitutional view of a limited central government and individual rights adapted as the founders anticipated.
The Constitution was written as a broad set of principles using general terms. Concrete applications were to be defined by the SCOTUS evolving over time based on the American experience. If we only used the framer’s experience then the Constitution would not work. The framer’s concept of search would have precluded all sorts of surveillance not available in the founder’s times. If the Constitution required specificity we would potentially require new amendments for the camera, the telephone, recording devices, listening devices, video, internet, etc. The framer’s concept of carry would be open carry, concealed carry was considered heinous and unmilitary-like according to court cases of their time. The people did not include blacks, women and in some cases, renters. The founder's due process was not our due process. If we attempted to write specific application-oriented amendments for every societal and technological change, we would not have a functioning Constitution or a functioning society. We would have needed a Constitutional amendment to have an air force greatly impacting our military capabilities during a time of war where we invented it on the fly, so to speak. Women and non-heterosexuals would need their own fourteenth amendment. We might need multiple amendments for every technological advancement to come down the pike including multiple applicable new arms developments for a well-regulated militia.
So what did the framer’s intend? Somebody quoted Hamilton who also said: “that constitutional protections and limitations could “be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice,” which must “guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humours which…sometimes disseminate among the people themselves.” Madison concurred that the SCOTUS would be the definer, arbitrator and protector of those principles with, “independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves…the guardians of those rights [and]…will be naturally led to resist every encroachment” upon them.”
In other words, the SCOTUS would define the concrete applications guided by the principles provided in the Constitution.
To believe that the Constitution and Bill of Rights be limited to the specific understandings and technology of the framer’s times is to diminish the greatness of these men in their lack of preparation for any future changes in science, physics, economics and even human nature. I give the framers more credit than to lock us into a set of short-sighted rules based on what they knew then. Instead I see it as a set of principles, values and concerns to inform and guide the process of constitutional interpretation by those charged to that task: the SCOTUS.
As much as you see judicial activism as a liberal curse, I see it as the conservatives’ last recourse. Point is the pendulum has swung both ways over time frankly as the founder’s intended.
heavily leveraged from: http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/21/the-framers-constitution/
So here is a update after today's work on the shooting range. It is now double ion size. but its time to run some saws! tree obstacle!
For whatever reason the picture makes it look small but it is probably about 60-70 yards right now.
very nice!
Cabela's $50 gift card for $41.99 + free shipping at Staples
http://www.staples.com/Cabela-s-Gift-Card-50/product_1415822#/id='dropdown_1415822'?PID=7073812&storeId=10001&AID=10422268&cm_mmc=CJ-_-7073812-_-7073812-_-10422268&CID=AFF:7073812:7073812:10422268&CJPIXEL=CJPIXEL
Walther PPS $369.99 at Cabelas - Regular Price: $569.99
http://www.cabelas.com/product/walther-pps-centerfire-handguns/1591253.uts?Ntk=AllProducts&searchPath=%2Fcatalog%2Fsearch.cmd%3Fform_state%3DsearchForm%26N%3D0%26fsch%3Dtrue%26Ntk%3DAllProducts%26Ntt%3Dpps%26x%3D10%26y%3D6%26WTz_l%3DHeader%253BSearch-All%252BProducts&Ntt=pps
Went to Cabela's today in PA. The Savage .22 was a "doorbuster" so I missed that deal.
Just ended up with some .22 ammo.
The gun counter was very crowded... lots of people exercising their rights!
I think the framers intended to ensure the populace would always be armed to prevent the tyranny they experienced with England. repeatedly through history when a populace has been disarmed - a tyrannical government ensues..
http://www.mercyseat.net/gun_genocide.html
"Down through history, governments have disarmed their citizens only to tyrannize those citizens once they were disarmed."
"History of gun control is cautionary tale for those who want more regulations"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/history-of-gun-control-is-cautionary-tale-for-those-who-want-more-regulations/2012/12/22/73a07294-4afc-11e2-a6a6-aabac85e8036_story.html
With Guns...........We Are "Citizens".
Without Them........We Are "Subjects".
Yes, that's why the framers did it and there is no proof that they did it as a right for personal protection, you are correct sir.
But as our little survey shows, most people who own guns are not part of a well-regulated militia but instead Rambo-wannabees waiting for the non-electronic call to arms to head without GPS to a secret rebel base in the Pocono's to join the Wolverines who magically will become trained in advanced guerilla tactics. That's why the SCOTUS ruling on individual gun rights for personal protection is so important to the lobby; it puts the militia part in the back seat.
Limitation is not registration is not confiscation is not obliteration.
And your examples from history are stupid. First these populaces were not even close in per capital ownership of guns. Not even in our ball park.
Second, your facts are fractured, misleading and just plain boneheaded. Your first example of gun control equals genocide is Armenia where citizens with guns were killing other citizens with guns. Gun control was introduced two decades later but it didn't confiscate all the guns and the forced marches started anyway. First strike against armed citizens stopping tyranny.
In Russia a small minority of citizens armed with guns took over the government. Other armed citizens didn't stop them. Having guns didn't matter. Then the citizens with guns rose up and even though they had guns, they were crushed. It's called the Russian Civil War. Citizens with guns like Lenin, Stalin and the Bolsheviks seized government control, citizens with guns did not stop them and later when citizens with guns had their civil war, they were crushed. That's two strikes at least for armed citizens stopping tyranny.
Then there's the famous if only the German citizens had guns which frankly they did but they just loved Hitler. But only if the Jews could arms themselves. Yeah, 1% of the country could defeat the army that defeated France, Poland, etc. And France had tanks. Maybe the Jews could take an armed leave of country and become refugees in America.....
Second the Nazi's lobbied against gun control in 1928. The famed 1938 law which excluded Jews from buying guns actually weakened gun control overall; so where were those citizens who were able to buy guns to defeat tyranny? Oh yeah, they were for Hitler and just fine with his stance on Jews.
Lastly the Jews in Poland and everywhere else were armed didn't help. Even the armed Czech citizens turned on the armed Jewish citizens and sent them to the camps.
Gun control in China. Yes, that's how the citizen Communists took over the country so how did citizens with guns work in that scenario. Oh yeah, they had a civil war and the citizens even had tanks as 3 million soldiers and citizens with guns died. After that do you think a little less gun control would have turned things around?
Then there's Pol Pot who got the genocide part down but did not need or use gun control and there were more than a few guns laying around in Cambodia ---- a lot of ours. No gun control but yet genocide.
In most of these cases, the tyrants you speak of who ultimately conduct genocide started as plain ole citizens with guns. In most cases there was resistance by citizens with guns and it was crushed. Fact is you're gonna need a bit more than a bunch of individual, non-coordinated Rambo-wannabees insufficiently armed and most certainly not well regulated. Thinking that they could have stopped any on these tyrants is ridiculous. You're gonna need more.
Your second link is a good read but certainly beyond the title does not add support for your conclusions; quite the opposite it mostly defines the battle lines and what I keep saying. That is, that the only new gun control that might pass is universal background checks for all sales and transfers, universal mental health tracking and automated crime gun tracing. These are just common sense in my book, most supported by most gun owners. Don't think LCM limitations would even fly although that would be the only other one I might add.
Limitation is not registration nor confiscation or obliteration.
"But as our little survey shows, most people who own guns are not part of a well-regulated militia but instead Rambo-wannabees waiting for the non-electronic call to arms to head without GPS to a secret rebel base in the Pocono's to join the Wolverines who magically will become trained in advanced guerilla tactics." - there is absolutely no support for this statement - the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens who have successfully proven them selves to be sane, sober, and proficient in firearms handling and safety.
And a message to my brothers in arms - "wood chuck to grey squirrel - meet in the location - the cow has jumped over the moon"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEQfe9-YoIY
SD, your senereos that you keep painting really just show just how deranged your thoughts are about gun owners. Its very apparent you think this is all some big joke.
SD states "Limitation is not registration is not confiscation is not obliteration."
you seem to not use the words from the constitution when you make that statement. Limitation is infringement, and most certainly LCM restrictions are a infringement.
I don't understand why you keep resorting to making a big joke out of this, something that many of us take extremely seriously. Speaking for myself, when it comes to the ability to protect myself and my family, hands down, there is no joke about it I do understand the success rate is low. But I would rather die trying then huddle in a corner, it is just my personality, one which you do not exhibit, which is fine, we are not telling you to, but stop poking fun at the ones who have the drive to protect their family by the means they have, it is in no way a joking scenario.
Hmmm, a mass car killing attempt?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/multiple-injuries-car-drives-pedestrians-las-vegas-strip-n483581
when there is a will there is a way
it's delusional to miss the simple to understand point that being armed gives you a better chance at survival
from skippy's linked article:
"the resisters had a far higher survival rate than the submitters"
Retreating into the hills, they took up a strategic position and organized an impregnable defense. The Turks attacked and were repulsed with huge losses. They proceeded to lay siege." [10] Eventually 4,000 survivors of the siege were rescued by the British and French. [11] These Armenians who grabbed their guns and headed for the hills are the converse to the vast numbers of Armenian and other genocide victims in Lethal Laws who submitted quietly; although many of the Armenian fighters doubtless died from lack of medical care, starvation, or gunfire, so did many of the Armenians who submitted. As was the case of the Jewish resistance during World War II, armed resistance was enormously risky, but the resisters had a far higher survival rate than the submitters.
"the resisters had a far higher survival rate than the submitters"
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/12/21/nj-scoutmaster-recovering-bear-attack/
hence why you need a gun innawoods
http://crimeresearch.org/2015/12/four-concealed-handgun-permit-holders-use-their-guns-to-stop-violent-crimes-in-the-last-week/
Last week four CCW holders prevented felonies in the US.
Yes Darrin it’s a banner car year when you also have a mass murder by car too. But NV is a shall-issue open carry no permit, no license, no registration state with pre-emption laws. Where have all the good guys gone?
And yes Darrin, I find defense of tyranny to be very funny when espoused by guys who might be good at plunking stationary targets that don't move and don't fire back but may have little to no current militia experience.
It really doesn’t matter though. Militias have rarely won the day for freedom including our own revolution.
Skippy’s/Dog’s history In Armenia is distorted. Only one settlement survived because it was already high in the mountains. Yes, it's soldiers were trained and experienced. They were not arm-chair militia. Yet they were losing until Russian professional soldiers saved the day until they have to leave with the retreating Russians. Most saved Armenians were due to American Humanitarian efforts.
Many if not most tyrants started as citizens with guns. The other citizens most often had guns but did not affect history. Most often citizens with guns like the European Jews beyond Germany could not stop the Nazi killing machine. We had trained soldier’s and lots of guns and look what it took. The Nazi example is hog wash.
The myth of citizen with guns somehow banning together to defeat a known tyrant is just revisionist.
Everyone can opine on the Bill of Rights meanings. In the end the framers structured it for only the SCOTUS definition matters when it comes to the Constitution and the rule of law. Sure, the SCOTUS can be wrong as proved by reversed decisions. Yet actually they were right in both answers, according to the framers, the times, and our Constitution.
One of the Constitution’s main concepts was to detail a limited Federal Government yet only two decades later our fourth Chief Justice, John Marshall, said, “we must never forget it is a Constitution we are expounding…intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” For example, at the crisis of The Great Depression our Constitutional view of a limited central government and individual rights adapted as the founders anticipated in their structural design.
The Constitution was written as a broad set of principles using general terms. Concrete applications are defined by the SCOTUS evolving over time based on the American experience. If we only used the framer’s experience then the Constitution would not work. The framer’s concept of search would have precluded all sorts of surveillance not available in the founder’s times. If the Constitution required specificity we would potentially require new amendments for the camera, the telephone, recording devices, listening devices, video, internet, etc. The framer’s concept of carry would be open carry, concealed carry was considered heinous and unmilitary-like according to court cases of their time. The people did not include blacks, women and in some cases, renters. The founders’ due process was not our due process. If we attempted to write specific application-oriented amendments for every societal and technological change, we would not have a functioning Constitution or a functioning society. We would have needed a Constitutional amendment to create an air force greatly impacting our military capabilities during a time of war where we invented it on the fly, so to speak. Women and non-heterosexuals would need their own fourteenth amendment. We might need multiple amendments for every technological advancement to come down the pike including applicable new arms for a well-regulated militia.
So what did the framer’s intend? Somebody quoted Hamilton who also said: “that constitutional protections and limitations could “be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice,” which must “guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humours which…sometimes disseminate among the people themselves.”
Madison concurred that the SCOTUS would be the definer, arbitrator and protector of those principles with, “independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves…the guardians of those rights [and]…will be naturally led to resist every encroachment” upon them.”
In other words, the SCOTUS would define the concrete applications guided by the principles provided in the Constitution.
To believe that the Constitution and Bill of Rights be limited to the specific understandings and technology of the framer’s times is to diminish the greatness of these men in their lack of preparation for any future changes in science, physics, economics and even human nature. I give the framers more credit than to lock us into a set of short-sighted rules based on what they knew then. Instead I see it as a set of principles, values and concerns to inform and guide the process of constitutional interpretation by those charged to that task: the SCOTUS.
As much as you see judicial activism as a liberal curse, I see it as the conservatives’ last recourse. Point is the pendulum has swung both ways over time frankly as the founder’s intended.
http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/21/the-framers-constitution/
SD states " But NV is a shall-issue open carry no permit, no license, no registration state with pre-emption laws. Where have all the good guys gone?"
A statement with that with zero factual information is just silly. You have no idea if anyone there was carrying, nor do you even know the circumstances. A lady plowing through a crowd with a baby in the back seat would probably seem like a accident, and not really a time to open fire if I was to put it into perspective.
SD says "And yes Darrin, I find defense of tyranny to be very funny when espoused by guys who might be good at plunking stationary targets that don't move and don't fire back but may have little to no current militia experience. "
Glad you find what others take very seriously as a big joke. We are not here telling you what to do. I already made my stance VERY clear.
SD "The myth of citizen with guns somehow banning together to defeat a known tyrant is just revisionist."
Nothing beats a failure but a try
Most police departments will not allow officers to fire into a moving vehicle - period. This is because laminated glass tends to strip the bullet jacket off of the lead core and causing tumbling and fragmentation - its just not very effective and the risk to bystanders greatly outweighs the action.
http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-buick-o-truth-2-windshields-outsidein/
"Officers must understand the effectiveness and limitations of firearms in stopping violent offenders using autos as attack platforms. Street incidents and field tests have shown that police handguns, rifles or shotguns cannot quickly or reliably stop a vehicle. To stop a vehicle quickly requires incapacitating or disabling the driver. And, to stop an attack from vehicle occupants requires skilled firearms use and ammunition that will penetrate laminate safety glass and sheet metal."
http://www.lawofficer.com/articles/print/volume-2/issue-7/tactical-ops/shooting-moving-vehicles.html
1-oz. 12-gauge shotgun slug or bonded core .223 ammo is whats necessary in this instance.
"The Denver Police Department will prohibit officers from shooting at moving cars unless someone inside is firing at them, a change in policy that mirrors one being adopted by police departments nationwide."
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28280661/denver-police-change-policy-shooting-at-cars
The use of force continuum dictates that unless deadly force is being used against an individual - other than the car... you don't shoot.
so in summary - nothing could have been done to prevent this tragedy..
http://www.aele.org/law/2010all09/2010-09MLJ101.pdf
good analysis of policy, state and federal case law at the link above.
"And yes Darrin, I find defense of tyranny to be very funny when espoused by guys who might be good at plunking stationary targets that don't move and don't fire back but may have little to no current militia experience"
- I may not be in the militia but I participate in action pistol, IDPA, and IPSC competitions and am interested in learning more about how to "run and gun".. At least we take it as our personal responsibility to protect ourselves and our loved ones..
Perhaps guns only stop guns Darrin.
I am sorry. I do find what you take seriously very funny in the case of you protecting us from tyranny since the gunny revisionist history theory of "if they only kept their guns" is so very fractured to begin with. Most tyrants started as citizens with guns, fallacy number one. When citizens had guns like all the European Jews beyond Germany, it didn't help. The French had guns and tanks, it didn't help. It took a lot of Americans and very big guns at a very large human cost. The Armenian example was one location, high in the mountains, like the last place to go. They had experienced fighters --- not citizens with guns --- and they were losing until the Russians came in then took many with them when they retreated. Most Armenians were saved by US and other humanitarian efforts, not citizens with guns. Citizens with guns defeating tyrants --- fallacy two. The concept of Americans, with Eddie Eagle training and a lot of shooting range practice taking on a professional army is tragic. The thought that those not belonging to a militia believing they will somehow turn the tide is downright funny.
Just paint me the example of how that is going to work.
I honestly don't know why you folks dredge the defense against tyranny argument up. It didn't even work for our Revolutionary War. Certainly not relevant to current 2A legal standings.
Now, when it comes to individual rights for family and property protection, you got another thing going. Even without direct 2A wording, you have SCOTUS afirmation and your "training" fits the bill. And let's face it, concealed carry seems to be working relatively OK.
Skippy's examples all look pretty good. Not sure the guy shooting the guy stuck in a car while gas is leaking everywhere is a good shoot. Depends who shot first but the fact that the SWAT team's first reaction was to get him to stop shooting makes you wonder what the heck he was thinking. The Texas solution is also a bit questionable in that, sure the first guy with the airsoft gun deserves to be shot, but did the good guy with military training (not militia) need to unload the clip in the second guy running away? And how did the wife lose her gun? Bad training? But generally all seemed like fair enough shoots.
Thing is try as I might there is not much on good shoots gone bad. So I have to say it seems to work, so far.
However, you do realize there is a cost for all these guns being everywhere. For your four good shoots in a week I can find a few dead kids shot by other kids. Also, the amount of aggravated assault by gun rises as people use them as tools against loud music, aggressive driving and more trivial trespasses. Suicide is higher just because of the number of guns and their simplicity and effectiveness at killing.
Yet generally concealed carry seems not to have much collateral damage when used for protection. Nor does home protection. I keep looking but the damage is just not there. It's the non-protection performance with guns that could use improvements.
There's another unintended consequence perhaps looming too. While each individual who carries might be safer, over time I suspect the populace might be less safe as criminals react to being shot all the time. Why? Well today criminals act a certain way expecting a certain reaction. Most often it's "stick em up" and they take your stuff and leave. Less prevalent is saying stick em up, taking your stuff and then shooting you. But more and more their holding a gun and saying give me your wallet is met with a hail of bullets like the guy in TX unloading the full clip, probably in the second guy's back. How long until criminals just skip the words, skip just taking the wallet, and instead fire first, pick you clean and be on their way.
Just saying that escalation may have some unintended consequences.
In sum, concealed carry does seem to work; individual protection and home and family is good, might be unintended consequences of shooting robbers, time will tell. But people owning guns expecting to become Rambo's or Wolverines without training, practice and experience beyond target shooting ---- yeah that's just darned funny.
Like me being able to consistently nail the center of a tire with the ole pigskin going into an NFL game.
The right of revolution in the declaration of independence should clarify any confusion about an armed citizenry. I'm constantly amazed that there are even questions about it.
"This is because laminated glass tends to strip the bullet jacket off of the lead core and causing tumbling and fragmentation"
Well, if someone is purposefully running at me with their vehicle, the last thing I worry about it whether the jackets on my bullets are getting stripped off.
If that is a concern... then something like this may help:
http://hornady.com/store/Critical-Duty/
I actually have Critical Defense ammo in my guns (slightly different than Critical Duty), but now that I live somewhere that doesn't have irrational laws against hollow point ammo I may try something different.
yankeefan And a Happy New Year!
By the numbers.
13,013
Number of people killed by guns so far in 2015. Number of those who were children aged 0-11: 673. Number aged 12-17: 2,609. (Gun Violence Archive)
1.49
Percentage of gun deaths that are from mass shootings. (Vox.com)
965
Number of people shot dead by police this year. Of those, 719 were killed after committing violent crimes. 36 were black and unarmed. (Washington Post)
7
Number of times more likely a black man is to be shot by police than a white man. One in 3 of the more than 100 people shot and killed by police officers after traffic violations this year was black. (Washington Post)
3
Number of police officers who have been charged in the shooting deaths of unarmed black men. All three were caught on video. (Washington Post)
2.2 million
Number of firearm background checks initiated through the NCIS last month—a 24 percent increase over last year. A record 185,345 background checks were processed on Black Friday. This year, a total of 19.8 million background checks were processed through November. (FBI)
8
Percent of gun owners who own 10 or more guns. Twenty-five percent own five or more guns. (The Trace)
3
Number of times more likely law enforcement officers are to be killed in states with high firearm ownership compared to states with low firearm ownership. (American Journal of Public Health)
60
Percentage of people who die from guns in the U.S. who die by suicide. According to the CDC, suicide is the second-most common cause of death for Americans aged 15-34. (NYT)
40
Percentage of Americans who know someone who was fatally shot or who committed suicide by gun. (Huffington Post)
$229 billion
Estimated annual cost of gun violence to the American economy. (Mother Jones)
36
Number of politicians who tweeted their “thoughts and prayers” after the shooting in San Bernardino, as responded to by Think Progress contributing editor Igor Volsky.
$2.3 million
Amount given to those politicians by the NRA, who also gave all 36 an “A” rating. (Forbes/NRA)
$1 million
Projected cost at auction of a pair of pistols forged from a 4.5 billion year old meteorite by the gun manufacturer Cabot Guns. (CNN Money)
11
Great New Handguns for 2015. (Guns and Ammo)
Mark,
http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/
Lucky Gunner just tested 117 different types of self defense ammo in ballistics gel
.308 168 Match King and 175 Trophy Bonded. is what LE snipers use as well as 7.62 Nato M80 ball which supposedly works pretty well on auto glass.
When shooting through glass there are many factors to consider, with the main factors being:
1 - The angle of firing. The farther you are off of a 90* hit the angle of deflection grows in larger increments. the windshield and side windows of a vehicle will act like putting a stick in water and cause payload deflection.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refln/Lesson-1/The-Law-of-Reflection
2 - Bullet construction. See tests above - even standard M118 round just wasn't designed to penetrate glass, while It can, it's not what professional shooters would pick to ensure incapacitating the operator.. A good bullet is key to getting good penetration through the glass and into the intended recipient - see specs below..
7.62mm NATO
M118
Bullet 173 GRAINS
VELOCITY 2550 FPS
http://www.freedommunitions.com/Ammo-Specs-s/1952.htm
3 - Velocity; This is one area where the 7.62 just doesn't hold up. The Magnums, .338s, and .50s are the choice here apparently, from what I have read professional snipers seem to prefer the .300 Win Mag or .338 Laupa for shooting through laminated glass with any effectiveness.
in conclusion: shooting into a car with a handgun (with the exception of possibly a .50 DEagle) is completely ineffective.
Works Cited:
http://ffden2.phys.uaf.edu/211_fall2013.web.dir/Rex_Hallmann/The_Physics_of_Guns/Physics_of_Guns.html
http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/safer-glass.cfm
310,000,000+ (99.99% of them)
The number of guns not used in crime each year.
100,000,000+ (99.96% of them)
The number of gun owners not involved in crime each year.
But hey, its a new year... if you want all those guns better start knocking on a lot of doors.
Skippy, if I was planning to shoot through glass (military checkpoint in Iraq, maybe) I certainly would choose ammo based on those tests.
Concealed carry day to day with a 9mm handgun, you gots to use what you brought!
I would certainly hope people have better things to do on christmas then to search the web for what they believe gun owners look like, and to cherry pick data yet leave huge spaces in their posts that cause me to stop reading it......oh hey again yankerfan.....Hey, at least you were contradicting in your post....must of not read what you were posting....you posted a lot of data that certainly does not help the anti gun stance....including the supposed fact that 60% of gun deaths are suicides.
Merry Christmas to my brothers who choose to arm themselves! Carry on!
"The right of revolution in the declaration of independence should clarify any confusion about an armed citizenry. I'm constantly amazed that there are even questions about it." Really ?
"310,000,000+ (99.99% of them). The number of guns not used in crime each year.
100,000,000+ (99.96% of them). The number of gun owners not involved in crime each year. But hey, its a new year... if you want all those guns better start knocking on a lot of doors." You say the numerator is tiny, I say the denominator is way too large. And of course, the conclusion from numerical statistics is someone is coming for your guns. Paranoid much?
"I would certainly hope people have better things to do on christmas then to search the web for what they believe gun owners look like" he said positing his retort on Christmas day...:>)
"and to cherry pick data yet leave huge spaces in their posts that cause me to stop reading it.." Yes very misleading to post numerical statistics without posting all of them, but since you don't read when over a page and you don't read when there is white space, whatdoyouexpectreadersdigest?
But you did close with some Christmas cheer: "Merry Christmas to my brothers who choose to arm themselves! Carry on!" I hope this is a message to the good guys and not the bad......
And here are where your bro's live in a picture. Look, there's Mark.... :>)
Here's the cheer those bro's spread.
How do you like those pickins!!!
http://qz.com/437015/mapped-the-us-states-with-the-most-gun-owners-and-most-gun-deaths/
SD, the highest scale on your little pink map is 20 people per 100,000.....i certainly hope you were not trying to impress anyone. Numbers that low are not even good for making a point, come on, your better then that.
Yeah you're probably right. 30,000 dead probably does not impress anyone. Numbers too low to make a point.
Wait. The point was more guns, more dead.
So what, not impressive, too low to make a point.
Now four crimes stpped in four states by concesled carry is inpressive though.
A few dead in San Bernadino is impressive enough to close the boarder.
Allowing no fly listers to buy guns. Now there's a point.
SD - tell us what you want to see happen - we all want to see an end to killings and violence. I understand you have some cognitive dissonance since you like seeing gats go blat (with liberal politics) as we all do but want to prevent senseless killings. I think we are on the same side but getting there from different directions. I believe the first thing to understand is you can like guns without it effecting your political leanings.. You can support the second amendment and still be a liberal.
But the colors are so *dark* Darrin, that means 100% of the people in those area are killed by guns.
And SD, my point wasn't that I'm paranoid about people taking my guns. My point was that there are HUGE numbers of guns and owners, and that the only way to eliminate every last minuscule misuse of firearms (as miniscule as that is to begin with relative to the population) would be to eliminate all guns, and that isn't a "wave the magic wand and pass a law" solution. It would require every single one of the nation's approximately 1M law enforcement officers to knock on 100 doors and successfully confiscate 310 firearms. Not a peachy job... and those who use them in crime would be the LAST to give them up, so the first 309,970,000 guns taken wouldn't impact the murder/suicide rates at all. Great return on investment.
SD, that is not the number you tried to origionally use.....20 per 100,000 is. When you specifically leave out the compairison, it becomes very obvious what you are trying to do. 1 in 2 is a big dead, but 20 in 100,000 or 30,000 in ??? Million, or bilion.......come on dude, thats low statistics, and not reason for a jump in any means.
Sd says "Wait. The point was more guns, more dead."
So you used information that contradicts other points you have been trying to make to make this one? Also..... sure, if the military didnt have wepons there would also be less deaths, but then our country would just be overruled....the point you are trying to make while providing no statistical back up data, is lacking at best. The states that have the highest gun deaths could be states where people are acting on defending them selves, where before the outcome could of been different otherwise...rape, beatings ...etc you get my point.
I am hoping you thumb nailed that last post or that you were on the downside of a good Holiday cheer.... One of the funnier set of typo's I have read in awhile, thanks.
Perhaps I can help with some clarifies.
First the 20/100K number is yours. The chart is based on a series of ranges with the top range topping out at 20 but that color indicates values ranging from 16.5 to 20. If you look at the actual data in the link, you'll see Alaska is the winner at 19.8, Oklahoma at the low end with 16.5 and 8 states in between. Next color start's with Mark's beloved gunnie state of South Carolina. Gosh bless their loose gun laws.
Now my 30,000 dead by gun number used is the average number of gun deaths, including suicide in most given years which is roughly right. The actual per 100K ratio of course can not be 20 since that was the highest point of the highest range of which only ten states apply. Therefore, the average must be below 20 and it is. It's 10.4 for 2013, the year the data was from, thanks to all those tough gun law states which bring the average down. Using your conclusion, I guess NY either has less rapes and beatings or more than go undefended or does it? Get my point?
Hope that clarifies things and yes, the data shows that more guns = more gun deaths. And like I said, the same picture appears with a loose gun law chart showing loose gun laws = more guns = more gun deaths. It is not causation but correlation looks pretty good.
You also note: " if the military didnt have wepons there would also be less deaths, but then our country would just be overruled." Your sarcasm aside and I'll grant the mulligan on overruled figuring you really mean overrun since I am sure with Obama as President you feel overruled already :>) So sure, you're right here except I can't find anyone but you suggesting it. I certainly did not; I just showed some data indicating the conclusion in the paragraph above. The jump to taking the guns away, even from the military, is your paranoia, not mine. The data is the data and the correlation is from the data and nothing more: I did not say this means we need to take your guns because of this picture.
Now your other point is basically to say: "1 in 2 is a big dead, but 20 in 100,000 or 30,000 in ??? Million, or bilion.......come on dude, thats low statistics, and not reason for a jump in any means." Besides typing like a drunk, yes, 1 in 2 is a big dead. But the statistics are not low, they seem pretty rock solid. Yet you got me on this one, it's your opinion and I can't knock that.
So if you go the CDC mortality rates, you see at about 260/100K you see heart disease as the number 1 killer with over 600K per year, a long ways from 30,000 and 10.4/100K. The next killer, cancer comes in at about 600,000 dead per year. After that, the next killer, chronic lower respiratory comes in at the "low statistic" of 149,000 dead, a large drop off numerically. By the time you get to number 10, suicide, you're at 41,000 dead per year. So your reasoning that 30,000 dead is below the line is accurate, however not too far below the top ten line (and yes, the 30,000 includes suicide by gun too).
So one conclusion might be to skip the small stuff and focus on the big hitters, but where to draw the line of what to focus on. The: top four would help well over 60% of all deaths for example and the next ones add precious little per type, less than 5% of all deaths per type.
Yet when you parse the data by age, you find fixing the top four would not help many under the age of 45. Curing cancer would help some but the rest wouldn't help al all Below 45, you find unintentional injury as the leading caused of death. And low and behold, guns turn up many times in many flavors as the top ten leaders on unintentional injury death including suicide, homicide and unintentional shooting. Now that's just death. If you add injury not resulting in death, OMG the numbers, the numbers.....
Here are some of the scariest stats I can find. Take a look at these three charts: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leadingcauses.html. If Hackettstown Lifers are looking at this issue, these are very compelling sets of data.
So I can get your desire to focus on the big hitters but I say when we look across the age groups, death by gun, is a big hitter for Americans under the age of 45 and we should focus on making things better. And unintentional shootings is in the top ten causes of unintentional deaths for 5-14 year olds; these are not just gangbangers being mowed down. Eddie Eagle alone is not doing it.
Still not saying take away your guns.
http://crimeresearch.org/2015/12/concealed-handgun-permit-holders-stop-four-crimes-in-five-days/
Concealed Handgun Permit Holders Stop Four Violent Crimes in Five Days
Oh sue me SD, autocorrect on my phone mixed a d instead of a L....give me a break.
SD says "First the 20/100K number is yours". No it is not....did you read the legend on your second chart at all?
" So sure, you're right here except I can't find anyone but you suggesting it. I certainly did not" .....What is that suppose to mean? It was a general analogy, one which you even said was right. There is no paranoia here it was VERY obviously a simple analogy that if you were to take guns away from the military there would be less deaths using your logic.
Still don't see the point you are trying to drive because nothing you have been trying to drive for would fix your concerns. What would background checks, crime gun tracing, or even lcm's do to lower unintentional shootings? How do any of those fix that?
Here yankeefan, since you like numbers (these are sourced to places other than The Trace and Mother Jones):
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/12/dean-weingarten/2015-guns-numbers/
So I was a little under... its 390,000,000 firearms owned.
I did give you a break for the plethora of typos figuring it was either a "smart" phone or on the way to work but only one letter, you got to be kiddin.
"did you read the legend on your second chart at all?" Yes I did and I explained that the chart used ranges to determine colors; the top range was 16.5 to 20. The largest single data point was 19.8 in that range. You can look it up. Sol when you said: "that is not the number you tried to origionally use.....20 per 100,000 is." you misspoke. It was just the high end of a range, not an actual data point used to compute some total.
"What is that suppose to mean?" It means " So sure, you're right here except I can't find anyone but you suggesting it. I certainly did not" The paranoia part is taking anything I said in presenting the gun/gun death correlation data as meaning I wanted to take your guns away much less disarm the military. The fact that you used an absurd analogy, a reductio ad absurdum if you will, to compare a concept, taking guns away, that I never broached seems to fit the diagnosis.
You're last paragraph makes sense. Should have just led with that and dropped the rest. Less typos at least. And the answer is yes. The combination of universal background checks, universal mental health tracking, and automated crime gun searches would lower the number of shootings in the U.S. Limiting the size of LCMs would also help albeit mostly in mass murder situations only. The positive correlation is already shown in the charts above, more so when you add the tough vs. loose gun law state chart and that's under the current situation which is no where even close to being universal.
SD, I still want to know how background checks, crime gun tracing, LCM restrictions...heck anything you have been advocating, will lower unintentional deaths that you seem to have pointed out as priority?
Mark, very good facts in there. It is funny how people come up with such a variety of numbers, and then purposely take them away from other similar statistics to create a bigger impact.
SD again I ask you - what is your ultimate goal? Universal disarmament? It will never Happen - second amendment buy back? Happens in approximately 30 states - again those of us with permits have proven to a court of law to be sober sane and proficient in the safe use of firearms - as well as cognizant of pertinent case law - I don't understand why you ate against concealed carry - to obtain a license is a significant task
Sorry, SD I was typing on a smartphone.
SD :Sol when you said: "that is not the number you tried to originally use.....20 per 100,000 is." you misspoke. It was just the high end of a range, not an actual data point used to compute some total. "
Um, whats your point? your data showed, now exact at 19.8 per 100,000 people. In my book that is not a lot, especially considering how you say it is so "easy" to obtain and use a gun in those states
SD "The paranoia part is taking anything I said in presenting the gun/gun death correlation data as meaning I wanted to take your guns away much less disarm the military."
Did I say this? I don't believe I did, and AGAIN, the military was just a analogy, much like, take cars away and there will be less car crashes, take planes away and there will be less plane crashes. To state more guns equals more gun deaths is like saying if we pack our roads with more cars there will be more accidents. The point I am trying to make is that even "If" there is more gun deaths, I would like to know the actual percentage of those deaths that are people rightfully protecting themselves that would have otherwise, for instance, been beaten, robbed, raped...etc....I think of it as a criminal cleansing.
SD " The fact that you used an absurd analogy, a reductio ad absurdum if you will, to compare a concept, taking guns away, that I never broached seems to fit the diagnosis."...............and here is the classic SD at his best......my analogy makes sense, you wont admit it, but it is absurd.......whatever you wanna think and say buddy
SD "The combination of universal background checks, universal mental health tracking, and automated crime gun searches would lower the number of shootings in the U.S. "
Firstly, that was not what you said, you said the biggest concern was unintentional shootings in younger people, and I asked how would these restrictions or laws help lower that number......you changed the question to fit your needs yet again. I would like you to answer my actual question as stated please.
SD " Limiting the size of LCMs would also help albeit mostly in mass murder situations only."
Do you have any supporting proof of this? There is so many LCM's available for one, and so many other options available for two, that I do not think you have fully explored this statement to make this judgement call. If someone is going down in a ball of fury, I highly doubt having approved magazines will be on their to buy list..... It seems apparent, but there are MANY options out there that I do not think you are aware of.
SD "The positive correlation is already shown in the charts above, more so when you add the tough vs. loose gun law state chart and that's under the current situation which is no where even close to being universal."
I do not believe there is enough supporting information to make this claim. All these charts attempt to show is that more guns equals more gun deaths, and if you actually compare the charts, they do not even fully support this theory. Out of 50 states, approx 6 are a possible match to your colors match theory, approx 5 actually prove your theory wrong, and many of the other lower number states also prove your theory wrong, you may want to look for better supporting charts. Try opening the charts on the same screen like I just did and you will realise that this certainly does not help your point at all.
Skippy: my goal is to reduce the U.S. firearm death rate. I am tired of my freedom mellow being harshed by all this gunplay. Heck, your last tribute to concealed carry included a shout-out for shooting an unarmed dog. BDog cowered when he read that :>)
"Um, whats your point? your data showed, now exact at 19.8 per 100,000 people. In my book that is not a lot, especially considering how you say it is so "easy" to obtain and use a gun in those states." Eh, that is the point, easy to obtain = easy to use = more death by gun. “By George I think she’s got it.” Now your book may consider 19.8 not a lot and I would say if you lived in Mexico, Panama, El Salvador, or Columbia it would indeed be just an average day of shooting. But here in the U.S. we have an average of 10.6 so 19.8 is almost double our average and equivalent to living in the drug cartel zone. Some book you must have. Meanwhile, our 10.4 is double that of Nicaragua, our 10.4 is triple that of Switzerland, and our 10.4 is 5 times higher than Israel and Canada and 10 times higher than at least 25 other countries on the planet. You need a new book.
“I think of it as a criminal cleansing.” That’s the answer you have for this? You conclude it’s all criminal cleansing? And not the incredible private U.S. arsenal that’s the largest ratio of guns per person in the world? OK, so you say criminal cleansing, I say too many guns in too many places. And actually when we add more cars, we build more lanes and better highways. We add safety features. With guns not much additional preventative action is taken as the supply grows and grows.
“Firstly, that was not what you said, you said the biggest concern was unintentional shootings in younger people….” Here’s what I said and you’re not even close: “So I can get your desire to focus on the big hitters but I say when we look across the age groups, death by gun, is a big hitter for Americans under the age of 45 and we should focus on making things better. And unintentional shootings is in the top ten causes of unintentional deaths for 5-14 year olds; these are not just gangbangers being mowed down.”
Death by gun. Shootings. That is my biggest concern, Darrin and Skippy. And fixing it for all demographics, not just one age group like under 45 or just unintentional shootings for 5-14 year olds. This ain't lazar surgery. Darrin, while you think 19.8 is “not a lot,” I think it is. I think 10.4 is a heck of a lot. It’s too much.
And when we look at specific age groups, death by gun is a top killer in the under 45 age group and that's a big group. Death by gun is a top ten unintentional injury death cause for the 5-14 year old age group. Unintentional injury is the number one cause of death for this age group. These guns are the top killer of our 5-14 year old kids. That’s not “criminal cleansing.” So why you may only want to focus on the critical few problems that affect everyone, I say we should multi-task and fix as much as we can. We should not just take the top-line statistic; we should look at other demographic factors to see if there are big hitters for certain segments like the under 45 or 5-14 year old age bracket. And then “focus on making things better” for everyone with special attention of these groups. Sorry, didn’t think you would throw out my opinion up to this point and feel I would recast it based on the demographic data.
And I just can’t believe you are not moved by the death by gun rates for our children in the age 5 – 14 bracket. It’s an appalling fact of life in America. A fact that these guns are killing our kids. How can you ignore this fact.
"Do you have any supporting proof of this?" Posted answer before in other thread. It's minimal help. Got any proof of need for LCM's above 10 shells?
Which 6, which 5? You saw em. Do I have to find them too?
"What would background checks, crime gun tracing, or even lcm's do to lower unintentional shootings? How do any of those fix that?" I will respond in the future but not to any specific demographic, just across the board. Like I said, this ain't lazar surgery.
"Mark, very good facts in there. It is funny how people come up with such a variety of numbers, and then purposely take them away from other similar statistics to create a bigger impact.."
Especially when they are willing to lie and spin........
Mark’s Truth about Guns statistical review lies at times, violently spins other times. They hide their lies amongst good sources like the FBI and Gallup but TAG mixes topics, sources, and years like a salad. Pretty sloppy stuff when I can look and laugh in seconds.
The first point I thought comes a cropper was: “Number of times guns used to stop crime or for defense: 1.5 million CDC(pdf)” Well, TAG made it look like a CDC number. Must be good for the gun control crowd but I smelled some garbage.
I was right, this is a lie.
Amazingly the link labeled CDCpdf does not take you to the CDC. First clue. The link takes you to the earlier document posted by Skippy from the National Research Council with funding from two CDC organizations, one with private funding only, and additional funding from the National Academy of Sciences – not the CDC. The report is a very good read, I have recommended it, but it certainly does not support your or the TAG’s agenda --- far from it.
I know it’s longer than a page, but it’s a good read. Skippy has read it I believe.
From the summary: “The committee identified potential research topics by conducting a survey of previous relevant research, considering input received during the workshop, and using its expert judgment.” OK, so no new research, that’s point one.
The first sentence under the topic “Defensive Use of Guns” reads: “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed.” No CDC statistic is quoted. No 1.5 million defensive uses are quoted. Matter of fact, 1.5 million as a number does not appear in any of the 128 pages of the report. Fact is that without primary research, nobody knows.
Not too much truth here but a big old helping of lie.
The next is more of a spin, a twisting of the facts. TAG says:
“Murder rate in the U.S. 2015 4.5 per 100,000 FBI
Murder rate in the U.S. 1993 9.5 per 100,000 FBI
Murder rate in Brazil (latest) 25.2 per 100,000 Wikipedia
Murder rate in Mexico 2012 21.5 per 100,000 Wikipedia”
Well this is probably true but golly, do you want to be compared to Brazil and Mexico? Feel good about that? The WIKI review has 218 countries listed; Brazil and Mexico fall at 197 and 201. Hear that spin sound yet? Next in that review, the U.S. falls at 98. Anyone else feel good about being in the middle at 98 with 97 other places doing better? Can you even name 97 other places? At 98 our neighbors look like dinner at the Third World War Zone table. Iran and Kosovo and good comparisons for the U.S.
Facts may be valid, but not much truth in TAG’s spin here.
The next is also a spurious spin when TAG says:
“Suicide rate in the United States 12.1 per 100,000 suicide.org
Suicide rate in France 12.3 per 100,000
Suicide rate in Japan 18.5 per 100,000
Suicide rate in South Korea 28.9 per 100,000”
Looks pretty good except like homicide, the U.S. falls in the middle of the pack against over 100 countries, not a stellar place. So TAG’s point that we suck like France or France sucks like us? Or gosh we have it better than South Korea. Feel better yet?TAG’s point that we suck like France or France sucks like us? Or gosh we have it better than South Korea
After about the 5th time reading SD twist words, change what was said, and poke fun I got tired of reading. What he typed is all BS. Same song and dance, what we post is no good, but what you post is law, yeah yeah yeah. Around in circles we are going to go because you refuse to believe anything other then what you want to believe time and time again. We have all posted answers to everything you have asked, it's old now...
I laugh every time i read your posts, because you try you very hardest to discredit other's factual posts, heck even blatantly ignore most, it has become so apparent.....yawn
I am sorry but I don't have a clue what specifically you are upset about.
Was it the inaccurate information that Mark posted where I corrected it with a verbatim quote from the actual source?
Was it the spins that Mark posted that I added information from the various sources to expand the facts to paint a better picture?
Or was it your misread of my inputs where I quoted what I actually said to help clarify?
Or perhaps something else.....
It's funny when police are treated like "normal" citizens (and they whine about it):
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/30/us/unarmed-aviation-officers/index.html
I think the best quote in the article:
"We're nothing but casualties if you tell us to run and hide."
But that's good enough for us, huh Mr. Police Officer?
http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm
A psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality
By Sarah Thompson, M.D
Interesting article - it describes some of the people who post here
SD - I don't know if the author of that article posted a wrong link, but estimate of DGU ranges between 50K and 1M+ annually, CDC or not.
Also, posting comparisons to other countries isn't "spin". It would be quite a long article to list every single country on Earth. I'm guessing maybe those countries were chosen as a comparison to "gun free" nations having worse violence/suicide than the US. If posting a small sample is spin, then I'll be sure to pull out the same objection when you link/compare only to California or the UK.
No SD....its your attitue and the unwillingness to accept anything other then your own, that has me tired of trying to have a productive conversation with you. Case in point with your last post. You always try to spin things around, and for whatever reason only the links you post have credit, everything else is apparently garbage......whatever man. If you would open your eyes to new ideas and actually have the will to learn new things, and not just immediately go on the attack, then maybe we could come to common grounds, but you attitude is the very same that the NRA always keeps at bay. Relentless with right or wrong info, discredit or deflrct everything that comes your way, etc. Not sure how you would expect to have a conversation like that?
SD, you ignore questions, discredit questions while changing the way they were asked, and then circle back and ask the same question again, but blame us for not taking action on your question???????um, get a hold of yourself man!
SD stated"And I just can’t believe you are not moved by the death by gun rates for our children in the age 5 – 14 bracket. It’s an appalling fact of life in America. A fact that these guns are killing our kids. How can you ignore this fact."
I specifically asked you earlier in direct regard to a very similar statement "Still don't see the point you are trying to drive because nothing you have been trying to drive for would fix your concerns. What would background checks, crime gun tracing, or even lcm's do to lower unintentional shootings? How do any of those fix that?"
And you attempted to deflect it making a statement about gun shootings in general, not answering my question at all, then came back around and claimed we were not moved by that statement??? Dude, you're losing your mind, or trying to get us to lose ours......
So AGAIN I will ask, how will background checks, crime gun tracing, or even lcm's do to lower guns killing kids?
Skippy, interesting article. Based on that detail, we can also conclude that Mark wishes he was a police officer :)
Mark, the airport security issue is scary especially when it appears that the decision was made in the 90's and has not been re-addressed since then. If these folks have been trained then why not?
However, "posting comparisons to other countries isn't "spin"" while true in this case is not. Highlighting only the two worse shooting countries on the planet for comparison to the US while shielding the 97 countries that do better is the definition of spin, not saving space. The suicide comparison is a little less blatant but face it, we were middle of the pack in suicide so just indicating there are worse places at best is only half-true.
Feel free to point out any time I spin, I would appreciate it. Darrin probably can find a million of things he thinks are spin...
" it describes some of the people who post here." And anyone could re-write this for the pro gun crowd as well. Everyone is always described by pysch101 diagnosis.
"What would background checks, crime gun tracing, or even lcm's do to lower unintentional shootings? How do any of those fix that?" Like I said, this ain't lazar surgery, I can not answer you're question. I do not know to that level of fine detail.
But unlike you, I will attempt to answer the question, albeit across the entire populace, not individual population segments.
Universal Background Checks:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/04/03/why-expanding-background-checks-would-in-fact-reduce-gun-crime/
This guy is probably the leading researcher on it:
"In a separate study, Webster found that firearm-related homicides in Connecticut dropped 40 percent after the state adopted a 1995 law that required anyone seeking to buy a handgun to apply for a permit with the local police, complete at least eight hours of safety training, and be 21 years old. "I was impressed,"
http://hub.jhu.edu/magazine/2015/fall/background-checks-guns
"Missouri’s decision to repeal its law requiring all handgun purchasers to obtain a “permit-to-purchase” (PTP) verifying they passed a background check led to a 16 percent increase in the state murder rate, a new study from Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research has found"
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/15/3297141/study-proves-background-checks-save-lives/
SD says ""Do you have any supporting proof of this?" Posted answer before in other thread. It's minimal help. Got any proof of need for LCM's above 10 shells?"
I have posted a very convincing video about ten times so far, total proof within itself. Who are you to tell me how many rounds I "should" have to protect myself, or my family? Here is that video, yet again, since you will most likely claim you cannot find it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F1nPSNnaBo
Question for you SD, do you have a compact sized fire extinguisher in your house or a full size? How would you feel if I told you you were only allowed a compact sized fire extinguisher. Any normal person would say, but what happens if I have a large fire, then what am I supposed to do.......(I know you will not relate to this logic though, since you are against ANYTHING that makes a good point that does not agree with your points, you will also probably discredit and completely ignore this comparison by asking how many fire extinguishers have killed people, so my answer to that is no, fire extinguishers don't cause deaths, but fires do, and anybody can light a fire.......)
as you can tell, your outs are getting quite expected SD.
Darrin I just hang these signs throughout my house. They work, I haven't needed a fire extinguisher yet.
Guy fires four shots, perp falls over, but is only wounded with 4 shots from less than ten feet. He puts 2 more rounds in the body on the floor.
Second guy comes in, he fires seventh shot and runs out.
I said 10 rounds........ But hey.
Nice movie, here's some gunny takes:
"The average and median number of shots fired was 2. When more than 2 shots were fired, it generally appeared that the defender’s initial response was to fire until empty."
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/analysis-of-five-years-of-armed-encounters-with-data-tables/
And 3,3,3 or what I like: Plan B.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/07/robert-farago/how-many-bullets-do-you-need-in-your-home-defense-handgun/
SD, level of fine detail??? What?? Either something works or not and you simply do not want to admit that your ideas of more laws and restrictions will not help underage unintentional deaths......like you said, this is not laser surgery.....
SD, very expected response, we can pull hairs if you want, it took him 6 rounds on the first guy, who is to say it would of not taken him 6 or more on the second, and what would happen if there was a third guy? All LCM restriction are is a preparation limiter.
I see you ignored the rest of my post....
For a guy who answers very few questions, you have a lot of nerve dogging me on every question you pose.
I have one large fire extinguisher.
How many extra gallons of gas do you keep on hand:?
SD "For a guy who answers very few questions, you have a lot of nerve dogging me on every question you pose. "
Do you have proof backing this statement up? I have been very good answering any question I have seen, other then your obvious "games" that you try to play, those will be ignored for obvious reasons. As I have told you before I am here to have an actual conversation, not get corralled into saying something, or have my words constantly changed.
Also for you info, NY tried for a 7 round limit I believe, you say ten should be good, NY said 7.....who draws the line is our point.....the government will not stop at 10, it has been proven. The only thing that stopped NY is that 7 round magazines do not exist http://nypost.com/2013/03/22/states-new-limit-on-gun-magazines-put-on-hold-because-7-bullet-magazines-dont-exist/. My bottom line on magazines and what is need is that if police feel the need for 30 rounds, people should have the same right to that amount of rounds.
Ohhhh, so you have a high capacity extinguisher? Why do you feel you need such a big extinguisher? I think you should not be allowed to have such a large extinguisher, after all, that's what firefighters are for and you may get hurt trying to perform something you may not be qualified to do.....
You don't need gas to start a fire, how many matches or lighters do you keep on hand SD?
For someone who normally posts such lengthy posts, you sure have a lot of nerve ignoring what I ask and posting such a short response......
Also moving forward, you posted a link saying you like plan b, which according to the article prefers a shotgun for home defence, which I agree with. I most certainly would prefer the shotgun....but due to laws requiring minimum barrel length, they are rather cumbersome....whereas a handgun can be put in a quick release safe much like what was in the video. Up on my property I used to take a shotgun with me all the time, but carrying around a shotgun while working on the property was a real pain, so i open carry a .45. Yes, a shotgun would be more devastating to a angry bear, but it was not always by me, so it was too inconvenient. If you were in a area with a unknown amount of possible bears how many rounds would you want? I would want as many as feasibly possible, and most certainly wouldn't want someone else telling me how many I "should" need.
You have to remember, when people talk about self defence as well as carry permits, they are not just talking about people to people. Much like you poked fun at the dog story Skippy posted, being a dog owner, I actually took pretty serious. The man was able to save his dog, as well as possibly himself from a dog attack. I carry on my property because it is bear haven, not because I am scared of someone being up there.
The bottom line here is that you just don't know what is going to come your way, and being the best prepared that you can be is the smartest option in my book.
"you posted a link saying you like plan b, which according to the article prefers a shotgun for home defence, which I agree with."
NJ also neuters semi-auto shotguns. No adjustable stocks, pistol grips, or capacity over 6 shots.
Since semi-auto shotguns shoot 'softer' than pump actions, hopefully your wife/daughter is built perfectly for the stock sizes/grips or can handle the kick of a pump action if they ever needed to use it.
Rand Paul, being excellent, on The View:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-pSboOoYSg
This must be the NRA's fault !!!
http://bearingarms.com/need-gun-laws-judge-gives-strawman-seller-probation/
So in order to "close" the "gun show" "loophole", Obama states the following:
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is making clear that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our
OK, so let's say someone sells guns only at shows and wants to get a license. Head over to the ATF website and read this:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/instructions-form-7-application-federal-firearms-license
The actual form ATF F 5310.12 (Form 7) - Application for Federal Firearm License (FFL) says:
Do You Intend To Sell Firearms Only at Gun Shows? Yes (If yes, do not submit application)
It also makes you state the location of your business and hours :
Hours of Operation of Applicant's Business (Must be completed)
Obama mandates that gun show vendors obtain licenses but the ATF says they can't - stellar! This is a deliberate action creating conflicting regulatory, administrative, and legislative directives to stop an activity. The administrations response will be "well, now congress has to fix the law," and it's dead for years.
meanwhile - NICS checks have not even had a substantial effect on homicide rates.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10918704
How about we give everyone the ability to do background checks and we will only sell to qualified persons - no that is silly..
Judge Napolitano: Why Obama's executive action on guns is unconstitutional
https://www.gunowners.org/oped01052016.htm
meanwhile - this judge says the whole thing is unconstitutional..
Actually the case might be made that the NRA's stand did convince the judge to go easy on this man. The judge's rationale: "People kill people," U.S. District [Judge] Rudolph Randa said, echoing a common gun rights slogan. "Guns don't kill people."
The judge is a Bush appointee. Don't Dontray look guiltray to you?
http://www.snopes.com/dontray-mills/
Hmmm, probably caught using a crime gun trace; wonder why it took so long? Could it be the NRA's stand on automating crime gun traces?
sorry you are incorrect - this is again a failure of the NICS system and the courts.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/09/robert-farago/why-are-gun-control-advocates-up-in-arms-about-illegal-gun-dealers-probation/
"Is the NRA really the bogey man they should be focusing on, or is it guys like this? He received probation on a count that carries a 5 year sentence, and 55 counts and 27 weapons. That shouldn’t add up to probation."
gun tracing would have done nothing to stop this because the trace would have come back to the fake ID he used to fill out the 27 fraudulent 4473's..
http://www.redstate.com/2015/09/03/obamas-gun-law-enforcement-work-sell-55-illegal-guns-get-one-year-probation/
BTW - Mr. Mills was declared mentally incompetent by the courts as well after committing a violent assault. I don't care who appointed him - the sentence was moronic.
Skippy, that conflict is the result of big government where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. So what is Obama's solution? Why, more government of course!
The gun laws in this country, both federal and state to state, are frankly one giant clusterf**k. That's what happens when you try to legislate behavior/objects for those who have not yet committed any crimes rather than focusing on activities where one person actually harms another.
agreed Mark! SD I sincerely hope you are not under the misguided opinion that gun rights supporters or the NRA support this decision - most of us were blisteringly irate in September when this happened
Missouri senate votes to nullify federal gun control.
Now the measure moves on to the house. I'm not sure if it's expected to pass the house, nor if Democrat Governor Jay Dixon will sign it if it does, but there's definitely been a change in the wind since Sandy Hook. The gun control push was huge, but the pushBACK has been even bigger and longer-lasting....
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/02/20/missouri-senate-votes-to-nullify-federal-gun-control-23-10/
Now the measure moves........
JR --- isn't that a February of 2014 action? Got update? Got movement?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yClzzvWUoG4&feature=youtu.be
Wayne LaPierre is requesting a one-on-one, televised meeting with Obama.
I would rather they put Colion Noir up against Obama but we shall see how this pans out
There is absolutely no way Obama has the balls to have a televised meeting with Wayne.
This is just the NRA responding to critics who claim they didn't want to join the "conversation" at Obama's town hall (wisely so, since they would have only been allowed one pre-screened question).
When Obama declines, it will be him that doesn't want a conversation.
Not that a conversation is what they ever want... how many anti-gun videos/commercials have comments disabled... how many anti-gun groups viciously kick out dissenting voices...
Compare that to pro-gun videos and groups that welcome "outsiders" to the mix.
Oh agreed - but I'd I was Wayne I would have declined to participate too - it was a special invite only thing with a stacked deck
SD - The CDC trying to find a cure for firearm deaths would be akin to the CDC curing vehicle or weather related deaths. Or is that a back door to using doctors to report on patient gun ownership. Please explain.
Since the mid-90's, ATF has violated Federal law by collecting and maintain a list of every individual firearm purchase using form 4473 and NCIS. The law was meant to protect the privacy of lawful owners in case of politicians or government employees using the data beyond its intended purpose. There was no need for this data after the person was determined lawful.
I do like the idea of creating one list of all those who "can't". Those who can't own or purchase a firearm, drive a vehicle, play sports, hobby's, loud music, eat certain foods, do certain job's, etc. The list should include friends and associations, medical conditions and treatments, arrest's not conviction's, alcohol usage, street drug usage, any activity that could cause injury or cost taxpayer money. Imagine not being able to buy alcohol, a vehicle, fossil fuels, etc. because of a list? Or ride a bike or ski because you've been injured and have cost the rest of us money by seeking medical treatment. They have it for loans and finance, why not just one big list? There's more, but what could be more fair to every US citizen than to include everyone in the US on a list of what they cannot or should not do? After all, it shouldn't bother you if you have nothing to hide.
One-Eyed Poacher 
Another weekend of work and here is what we have, just about to the backstop, just have some widening to do.
aahhh....... NOW we get to the heart of the matter LOL
I actually bought my wife & I snowshoes for christmas LOL
Just back from pa, took a measuring tape with me. End result is 200 ft x 40 ft. with even more length and availability for targets up the hill. I would say that should make a darn good start for a personal shooting range!
200ft.... not bad!
Not sure how big your property is, but you should blaze a little "shooting trail"..... Hickok45 calls them "woods walks"....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeLKyv25xAU
You believe the garbage?
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/newslinks/breitbart-city-demands-written-essay-1000-in-training-to-qualify-for-handgun-permit/
And they REQUIRE a sum of training which costs $1,100 just to qualify to get your permit, according to the article. Reading more about it, after being forced to spend all that money on training, you are not even guaranteed you will get your permit, you can still be denied.
If they can't go over, go under. If you can't go under, go around. More than one way to skin a cat. They just keep throwing the spaghetti up against the wall to see if ANYTHING will stick.... actual RIGHTS are irrelevant to these tyrants.
YES: TYRANTS.
Hopefully someone will come out and lower the cost of training, and their plan to make the cost of getting a gun unfeasible will backfire.
Although you should never have to write a essay on why you "need" a gun, obtaining a gun is a right.
darrin, mark, skippy JR; all of you are right.
the push is unforgiving and it's relentless; those who have never owned, shot or even held a gun in their entire lives will not be satisfied untill every law abiding gun owner is forced to give up their guns and are prevented from buying/owning any more.
they will not stop until they disarm everyone around them who happens to own a gun.
"you NEED a gun? what for? why do YOU need one? I never have felt the need to own a gun so you must have some kind of a personal problem, so I have determined that makes you untrustworthy to own something that i am afraid of." "so you cannot own ______________. " (fill in the blank with any firearm name/type/capacity/ammo you want to ban next)
this is utter hogwash, and needs to be challenged at every opportunity.
these misguided well meaning people will never stop pushing for more restrictions, more regulations, more bans and outlawing more and more firearms. confiscation has already taken place in NY state, Connecticut, Massachusetts, California and New Jersey, (if you guys know of more; please list them out here, I think Illinois?) confiscation has happened in Chicago and NYC and Los Angelous and San Francsico. (any one else see a pattern here?). the relentless march to get the guns goes on and on and on and on.
and more confiscation agendas are coming, even worse than what has happened so far, so get ready.
Enough! make your voices heard. discuss these things with everyone who brings them up in conversation. speak to teach, do it with love and kindness, grace and diplomacy, and vote for the right people.
Perhaps someone should have actually read at the source what's happening rather than accept ridiculous rhetoric from the radical right.
First, I can't find 1,000 words anyway; maybe I missed it. There is a requirement for a supplement listing reasons and purpose. I can not find a word-minimum. Or double-spacing or type face size. Plus there's a separate requirement for listing experience. The more experience, the less the need for reasons and purpose.
Second, the training is purportedly "upwards" of $1,100. Note the code word.... Of course, the course they "studied" was the most expensive five-day course. The first course that fits the bill I looked up was the NRA's Basics of Personal Protection Outside The Home Course. Price in MA: $190.
Sounds like pretty heavy-handed egregious tyranny by jack-booted thugs.
Cry wolf, cry loud.
Look for your self and tell me if I missed the 1,000 word requirement?
http://lancasteronline.com/news/national/massachusetts-city-requires-written-essay-when-applying-for-unrestricted-gun/article_5e23195e-c442-11e5-93a9-ebf2086e38e9.html
"First, I can't find 1,000 words anyway"
Even a requirement for a single word essay is an infringement.
"Second, the training is purportedly "upwards" of $1,100."
Requiring any training, even if it's free, is an infringement.
Yeah it's tough.
Better to let anyone without any training walk amongst us armed.
I'm with Strangerdanger, don't I have the right to walk around freely in public without the fear that the guy next to me carrying a gun has had no training?
The First Amendment right to free speech does NOT include the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded venue. That's why we have laws restricting inflammatory speech; inciting people to riot, for example, is against the law.
Government requiring people to have minimum training does not infringe on the "right" to bear arms. Government has a responsibility to ALL citizens to insure public safety, and possession of a firearm without basic safety training is irresponsible.
JerryG Rights cannot dictate your "feelings".
The whole "fire" thing has been thoroughly debunked. Not yelling fire is akin to not *shooting* somebody (which is the equivalent illegal activity). You still "carry" the word with you and your mouth isn't duct taped prior to entry in the theater.
Training is an infringment. Nowhere does the 2A set any conditions that have to be met to "qualify" for it. The government setting conditions is therefore outside the bounds of 2A.
To take you idea further... if I was personally afraid of X color people... could we just ban X color people or require them all to get some sort of certification.
Maybe we could give them their own water fountains and different seats on the bus, too...
The point was that the stories surrounding Lowell MA "may carry" requirements were at best embellishments, at worst lies. And you all swallowed them hook, line, and stinker.
Turning to Mark's new issue that the 2A is an unfettered right simply negates the authority of the Supreme Court which was also invented by the same guys who wrote the 2A.
Not to mention that unrestricted concealed carry would never be construed by the framers as the intent of the 2A given the technology, culture and word meanings of those times. They couldn't even imagine such a situation.
What Lowell has required is that you show cause to conceal carry and that you show proficiency. That's as simple as saying "I am afraid of terrorists" and I took the NRA recommended course for gun safety and usage. If you can prove proficiency via documented experience, you don't even have to do that. Does not sound egregious, sounds like a prudent step to help assure public safety. You know, "domestic Tranquility," "general Welfare," and to better "secure the Blessings of Liberty."
Unrestricted concealed carry by untrained novices most certainly would not yield that, yet that's what Mark seems to be advocating. Can't be 100% sure since he ha not plainly said what he means.
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/01/nj_senate_revives_two_gun_bills_christie_vetoed.html
looks like S180, which would prohibit carjackers, gang members and other violent criminals from possessing firearms, and S816, which would alter New Jersey's laws regarding "smart guns." are coming back - you guys feel safer?
What was a lie SD? It seems to me you are just wording reality in a more "acceptable" way. The article you posted (for what worked of it) said they required a essay. Requiring anything training or a essay is a infringement.......where is the lie?
SD if the government cared about safe firearm use and not disarmament, why not set up the training as an incentive instead of a barrier? Buy a gun, and here's a coupon to get some free (optional) training...
Imagine that... people exercising their rights, and the government facilitating a way to do it more responsibly. It almost sounds... Constitutional.
They said 1,000 words, it isn't. They said upwards of $1,100; you can do $190 without even shopping. And even the NRA recommends training. Embellishment and lies. The fact that what you think is, is not, and yet you still believe it is, is interesting.
Tax payer incentives for guns? Let the NRA and gunmakers who reap the profits provide the incentive IMHO. After all, it's a right, not a socialist entitlement. They certainly can afford it this year.
You say infringed, I say prudent public safety. Unrestricted concealed carry seems like madness, pure madness in my book. The fact that that's the world you desire speaks volumes. Only the state that borne us Bernie Sanders offers it today. You voting for him? 49 other states and the voters therein disagree with both of you.
But it does not matter. It is the law, legal and constitutional so there you are.
"Not to mention that unrestricted concealed carry would never be construed by the framers as the intent of the 2A given the technology, culture and word meanings of those times. They couldn't even imagine such a situation."
IN YOUR OPINION. You keep leaving that part out.
BTW, just because the founders "invented" the supreme court does doesn't mean it's infallible or incorruptible. It's still MEN (and women)... always fallible and corruptible.
"unrestricted concealed carry would never be construed by the framers as the intent of the 2A"
Does that mean open carry IS the intent of the 2A, and thus subject to no infringement? Try that in NJ...
Mark Mc.:
So you'd have no problems being at your favorite shooting range when some newbie who just bought his first gun comes up to stand next to you on the firing line and has received exactly ZERO instruction on safety and operation of his new firearm? You would welcome this person who up until 30 minutes ago never even held a .45 cal pistol and thinks it's okay to wave it around, or maybe he's not sure how to insert/remove the clip, and has no clue how to make the weapon safe?
Because that's what it appears you're advocating, the ability for anyone to buy a gun and start using it without ANY training.
"After all, it's a right, not a socialist entitlement."
Then all arguments about the social utility of gun control laws are moot. That covers just about every reason you've ever given...
If I have to pay for your kids to go to school because a well educated population is good for society, then you can pay for firearm classes for the same reason.
Considering firearm owners are ~30% of the population, training each and every one of them (based on the prices you quoted) would add $65 to each taxpayer's bill... Isn't it worth $65 to you SD? Unless you think that fee would be a burden...
What happens when you put a burden on a right? Oh yeah, infringement...
Jerry... guns are not some magical object that require years of wizardy to operate. If you have so much as operated a squirt gun, you wouldn't be waving a .45 around wildly (for the sole reason that nobody taught you how *not* to wave a gun around).
Did you ever take a Husqvarna lumberjack course or do you just recognize that maybe juggling a chainsaw isn't the right way to use it?
Besides, most ranges require new members attend a safety briefing and exhibit proper firearm handling before they can join/use the facility.
Mark,
This is what you said:
"Training is an infringment. Nowhere does the 2A set any conditions that have to be met to "qualify" for it. The government setting conditions is therefore outside the bounds of 2A."
How can you equate a "squirt gun" to a weapon that if mishandled, can take someone's life? I haven't seen a water pistol with a safety, probably since no one ever sustained serious injury or died from having some water squirted on them.
For the record, I am conversant with gun safety and have fired hand guns and rifles at ranges in New Jersey, Colorado, and most recently (5 years ago) Florida. I have never been required to have a safety briefing -- unless you call the guy I gave my money and ID to in exchange for using his range in Florida asking me "Do you have any questions?" a safety briefing?
The only time I was ever asked to demonstrate that I knew what I was doing was when I fired at a military range.
I'm not equating the lethality of a squirt gun to a real gun. I'm saying it doesn't take training to learn to not wave a gun around wildly and generally know which end the bullets come out of... something most kids learn by holding a squirt gun (or some other gun shaped toy) the right way. I'm sure most adults have used bar code scanners... price guns... staple guns... garden hose nozzles... etc.
Training increases proficiency, for sure. I never said training is a bad thing, but I think your exaggerated example of Waving Willie with a .45 is far from typical for a new gun owner/shooter, who in my experience approach guns a bit cautiously and carefully pick them up.
( http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/trends.htm) You can do your own look ups on this but here is the punchline, education does not equal bad behavior, in fact it tends to work the other way.
I am all for training - however it is just a step towards registration and mandatory insurance thereby raising the threshold to buy your 2A rights back even higher.
A gun versus chainsaw analogy is a stretch of a comparison. But if you can carry a working chainsaw under your arm where, analogous to a gun, all you need to do is pull the trigger to activate, yeah, then you probably want to get some training on how to do that safely.
Amazing how the Supreme Court is wrong when it comes to gun limitations but right when it comes to 2A interpretation for the individual right to keep arms for self-defense. But it does not really matter, they are legally right and Lowell's requirements are valid.
" It's still MEN (and women)... always fallible and corruptible." And yet they have years of training :>) They were certainly corrupt and fallible on Heller IMHO :>)
"If I have to pay for your kids to go to school because a well educated population is good for society, then you can pay for firearm classes for the same reason." No I don't. We pick and choose what rights, privileges, and entitlements we fund via state or federal dollars all the time. And we change what we fund and the amounts all the time. Amazing how socialistic you are.
"What happens when you put a burden on a right? Oh yeah, infringement..." One man's burden is another's prudence. But it's the law based on the constitution in either case so take it to court.
Yes, in the founder's time open carry was the norm. Restricted or unrestricted really depended on the place and the time. Concealed carry was not only difficult because of the available technology but also considered less than honorable as in only the thing a blaggard or criminal would do. Have posted that quote from the times earlier somewhere.
SD states "They said 1,000 words, it isn't. They said upwards of $1,100; you can do $190 without even shopping. "
I did not see where they listed 1,000 words, where is there proof that it is or is not?
You say you can do it for $190, are you sure the training you apparently found fulfills all the requirements of the town?
Where is the proof?
The fact of the matter Jerry and SD, people open carry without being forced to take training classes in many states across the U.S. You don't see those people terror struck, or scared to walk down the street. You guys are just scared of the unknown, which is fine, but as Mark said, fear cannot dictate rights.
Jerry states "and have fired hand guns and rifles at ranges in New Jersey, Colorado, and most recently (5 years ago) Florida. I have never been required to have a safety briefing"
I am sorry, but I call BS on this. Every single range I have ever been to requires you to either sign a form which states the range's rules of safety, or watch a safety video. I just cannot believe this statement.
The proof you are searcing for is in the link I posted.
The lies are in the links others posted.
The denial is in your post. I should not have to triple justify what Lowell has clearly stated in their listed requirements.
SD, you link does not work, so I have no idea what you posted, it shows a page, with a title, and no words.
LOL, SD "the proof is in what I posted, the lies are in what others posted"..... It's always the same, discredit everything you possibly can, and if you can't, ignore it. What makes you think your link is any better then others link? What if your link is actually the lie????? OHHHH what then?
"It's always the same, discredit everything you possibly can, and if you can't, ignore it."
Sorry but you are way off base (I would say "always the same," but that would be very rude :>) Crikey, you didn't even read the link before you teed off on me. Maybe if you had mentioned that you could have save a bit of angst or at least HL column inches.
"What makes you think your link is any better then others link?" I posted the actual words Lowell used as the actual written requirements which totally contradicted the info you all submitted as fact. I am at fault for this? I have link hubris? Did you want me to pc my response? Dumb it down, smooth it over, tell you it's OK?
I even indicated that maybe I missed it stating: "Look for your self and tell me if I missed the 1,000 word requirement?" What the heck are you expecting?
Ignore what? Why do you insist on carrying so much past baggage and then trumping it out whenever you feel the opportunity exists even when your baggage does not even fit the bill? I ignored nothing here. You are bringing that to the table based on your feelings from something that offended you in the past. Let it go.
"You say you can do it for $190, are you sure the training you apparently found fulfills all the requirements of the town?" I now realize you didn't have the link but it's a Lowell approved NRA course listed on the NRA site as available from a NRA listed training organization located in MA; not sure how close to Lowell, I did not googlemap it. Now they might be jihadists :>)
Link works fine for me. But try this one which is just the policy as written by the City of Lowell. - http://www.scribd.com/doc/296703414/New-Policy-of-the-City-of-Lowell-Police-Department-Regarding-Issuance-of-Licenses-to-Carry-Firearms . Or use the header from the original to goggle the newstory that went with the policy statement. But it's the policy statement that's the germane part.
Good luck and let me know if I misread something.
Darrin,
Then you and I have been to different ranges, and I don't appreciate your insinuation that I am lying. But without a law requiring such a signed release, you cannot reasonably think that every single shooting range nationwide has the same requirements.
By the way, most lawyers I know would agree that a signed release (or acknowledgement of "the range's rules of safety") would not stand up in court as a defense against someone's stupidity.
But of course, I suppose in your eyes that a law requiring a signed release/rules acknowledgement would be an "infringement" of your precious Second Amendment rights.
If the range wants to be NRA certified they have to have a minimum of a safety briefing and an acknowledgment of firearms safety rules - three of the ranges I visit here in NC make you attend at minimum of first steps pistol or have a valid CHP - the training class for which exceeds the requirement
DO you remember what ranges they were Jerry? I would be very interested in knowing the actual ranges that did not have any safety program, or wavers, you can just go in and shoot.
Darrin,
The last one was five years ago, about 40 minutes north of Eglin Air Force Base in the Florida panhandle. My son took me there with a couple of his buddies; I do not know the name.
The others were at least 15 years before that and no, I don't remember the names.
Did you get that statement notarized?
Is there video of said occurrence?
I don't think there's any regulation stipulating training and such reqirements are totally up to the owner. The first site I looked at specified that you sign an idemnification waiver and tell them you watched a safety video. I clicked Yes so appears I am good to go. I feel slightly infrinhed. Want to stand next to me. I mean its as ez ad a sqirt gun.
Maybe something different happens once you frive there.
It is possible that the range had safety officers and corrected mistakes on the line
http://range.nra.org/become-a-range-safety-officer.aspx
Nice way to (try to) conflate private business practices with Constitutionality.
Pretending not to see that there is a difference between being *asked* to sign a waiver/attend a safety briefing on private property and being *required* to do so in order to exercise a civil right shows your childish attitudes.
So Jerry,
you are making your assumptions on current situations based on occurrences from 15 years ago? A LOT has changed in range safety in 15 years. The ranges I have been to are within the past 5 years and in upwards of 10 different ranges, ALL requiring a safety briefing and/or safety documentation.
Ok SD, that link worked, and a couple questions for you...
Why do you keep bringing up a 1000 word requirement? I don't believe anyone on here mentioned anything about that, nor did I see it on the original link?
Secondly, the requirements from Lowell are as follows, for all LTC applications, the successful completion of a approved safety course including a live fire component.....that could be your $190 (if this is in fact a approved course from Lowell.........but then goes on to say for occupational and unrestricted LTCs an advanced safety course above the basic level, or demonstrated competency......de-escalation of violence techniques, lawful use of deadly force, .....etc (you can read it) I am sure is not going to be a $190 course like you portray. Because you still need the 190 course, PLUS one of these
* the next one you need (personal protection outside the home) is $150, or you can take (defencive pistol) is only offered in Vermont, so you have to travel 2 hours 125 miles for it
*The sig arms concealed carry course is $425 and only offered in NH, so again you have to travel...
*GOAL the art of concealed carry in Massachusetts is $120
There is a $100 application fee to the city, plus all that travel and time off of work due to limited course schedules sure makes the upwards of $1000 figure seem all too real.
The requirements state one of the courses, but it says NRA basics or NRA defensive, then the rest is written with ;, so does that mean either of those two, then the rest.....vague I tell you, and all these rules are probably just enough to keep some people from even bothering.....probably exactly what the police want.
SD, it seems your research fell short on this one!!! There is so much more to this, even more then I typed out, but if you read the whole article you posted, I am sure you already know, just chose not to mention it.
You must take all this training PRIOR to even being considered for a permit, you can still be denied.
So Jerry,
you are making your assumptions on current situations based on occurrences from 15 years ago? A LOT has changed in range safety in 15 years. The ranges I have been to are within the past 5 years and in upwards of 10 different ranges, ALL requiring a safety briefing and/or safety documentation
Darn if you're not right Darrin, I apologize. I dropped the comma in the news story and "conflated" the 1,000 to the essay. Bad read. My bad.
The lies or extreme exaggerations still did exist. Even if what you allude to is true re: the costs, I listed the occupational course as listed in the Lowell document. Basic MA LTC training is about an additional $100; I would have to see how you get to $1,000 except where you say it might be so. You really need to better prove the requirement to travel out of state to get these courses. I don't see it.
Yes my research, really my reading, was wrong on the 1,000 words. But, in your words, and keeping with the spirit: doesn't matter whether it's 1,000 words or 1 word; the Supreme Court has determined that the 2A is defined as allowing states to set these "infringements."
Darrin,
Please re-read my reply. I specifically talked about my last visit to a range FIVE years ago, not fifteen.
Mark Mc,
Are you that naive that you think that EVERY range nationwide would require a safety orientation (of whatever form) without it being a legal requirement?
What is it that gets under your skin so bad about regulations making safety a requirement? Do you want to remove ALL regulations that conflict with what you and others continue to state "violate my Second Amendment rights?"
If that is the case, would it be okay with you for your next door neighbor to set up a shooting range with the targets located near your property line? Should we get rid of the regulations about discharging firearms within such-and-such distance of other residences? After all, those people are having their Second Amendment rights infringed upon, aren't they?
Or is it good enough to just say "please don't do that" and let it go at that?
I do believe I said "most", not "every" but nice try at the straw man...
What gets "under my skin" is that the government (and that includes the Supreme Court) is specifically and explicitly forbidden from putting any conditions on the exercise of the right (*keeping* and *bearing* arms). If you need *any* qualifications to purchase or carry them, it's unconstitutional, period.
Now, when you get to actual *discharge* of firearms, that gets into a gray area. This is where your "fire in a crowded theater" analogy may give the government some wiggle room to set conditions on what is legal *in public areas*. When they start setting legal requirements for ranges, that now gets into private property rights.
But we get it, you want the government to have carte blanche to enact any law, any time, any place , because guns are scary.
"Should we get rid of the regulations about discharging firearms within such-and-such distance of other residences?"
You realize that is a hunting regulation, not a general firearm law (at least in NJ), right? Doesn't apply to non-hunting activities.
If you have neighbors doing *anything* potentially dangerous that can cross onto your property there are plenty of civil (not criminal) ordinances that should be complied with (noise, negligence, etc.). Special gun laws aren't necessary.
"Now, when you get to actual *discharge* of firearms, that gets into a gray area. This is where your "fire in a crowded theater" analogy may give the government some wiggle room to set conditions on what is legal *in public areas*. "
You got to be kidding right? May give some wiggle room?
I am sorry but the term horses ass comes to mind on this one Mark.
Either that or you're just poking the bear as a joke which I hope is true. Because if you are serious about "some wiggle room' to set conditions in public areas, that's just not sane.
Meanwhile: The framers set the government up giving the Supreme Court the supreme right to decipher and define what the Constitution means. So the same guys who, IMHO, weirded out and gave you your Heller definition, also weirded out IYHO and gave you limitations, both Federal and State. Live with it, it's the law and the current exact legal definition of the 2A. Anything else is conjecture or your or my opinion. Tough tuna, get used to it.
The fact of the matter while the words in the 2A are simple; the use of the comma is highly subject to debate and controls the absolute meaning of those simple few words. Whether that second comma divides the two statements into prefatory and operative is the crux of the whole thing. And in focusing on this, the SCOTUS basically threw out the first statement about militia being involved.
English courts of the time basically ignored punctuation, a smart thing since there really were not many grammatical rules. Meanwhile many states ratified a one comma version, some states ratified a 2 comma version of the 2A, and one or two may have approved a 4 comma version. You can find all the comma choices easily.
IMHO this is what the 2A was intended to mean: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16freedman.html?_r=0
IMO, the framer's didn't care a rat's patootti about your self-defense, they cared about government intrusion. And no way did the founder's believe you would fend off such an intrusion as an individual; heck by that time they realized a militia could only start the party but a real army would be needed to rule the day.
So in my book you got plain dumb lucky on Heller by a SCOTUS gone bat crazy: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-comma-in-the-second-amendment-2013-8
But when it comes to limitations, it's not just the 2A under fire but even a more important right, the 1A not to mention literally every right the Constitution mentions.
We know none of you belong to a militia, do any of you guys actually hunt?
Does Darrin plan any sort of hazardous metal abatement at gun pollution central PA shooting range?
Jerry you listed ONE in florida, five years ago.....then said the OTHERS were 15 years ago, so I went with the majority.
But as far as thinking, I would think that a shooting range would WANT to protect themselves from lawsuits, people getting hurt, etc, and would have some sort of safety orientation in place, just like the NUMEROUS ranges I have been to have.
I am sorry that the ONE range you have been to five years ago didn't, and the "others" you have been to 15 years ago didn't. I was hoping you had a name of the range so I could look up their current regulations.
I am also sorry but your, single range 5 years ago and "others" 15 years ago does not give you a leg to stand on when claiming "I am conversant with gun safety and have fired hand guns and rifles at ranges in New Jersey, Colorado, and most recently (5 years ago) Florida. I have never been required to have a safety briefing -- unless you call the guy I gave my money and ID to in exchange for using his range in Florida asking me "Do you have any questions?" a safety briefing??"
hey SD, you actually got a lot of that right. 2A is indeed meant for the people to throw off a tyrannical government, just like they HAD JUST DONE.
NOW, moving forward from there.... I get your point about militias being necessary for said overthrow. But how would you intend for the militias to own firearms, but private citizens to not (or, private citizens to be heavily regulated)? Militias have their own arms repositories where all their "troops" weapons are kept? I mean, seriously- how would YOU "solve" the issue of all these militias being allowed to own, UNINFRINGED, all the weaponry they desire, in case they need to revolt? You think there's some way to accomplish that without the government knowing where every single one of them is? Talk about an easy target. Stupid stupid stupid. We're supposed to trust the government, right?
I'd seriously like to know, how a "regulated militia" who is allowed to own firearms uninfringed, when private ownership is regulated as severely as you seem to want, would work? And how would said militia keep the government from seizing, or blowing up, all the armories of the militias?
"I am sorry but the term horses ass comes to mind on this one Mark."
Stay classy, SD. And, just so the comma doesn't throw you for a loop... Stay classy SD.
" it's the law and the current exact legal definition of the 2A. Anything else is conjecture or your or my opinion. Tough tuna, get used to it."
So that's the interpretation... by the government... of a law that restricts what the government is allowed to interpret (by infringing the right in any way). No conflict of interest there. Sounds like some dolphins got caught in the tuna net.
"We know none of you belong to a militia, do any of you guys actually hunt?"
Actually, we all do if you believe in the various Militia Acts that have been enacted over the history of the US... and what does hunting have to do with anything?
It's even in the state law down here:
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t25c001.php
SECTION 25-1-60. Composition and classes of militia.
(A) The militia of this State consists of all able-bodied persons over seventeen years of age who are:
(1) citizens of the United States residing within this State;
(2) citizens of the United States bound by law, lawful order, or contract to serve in the militia or military forces of this State; or
(3) persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States and are bound by law, lawful order, or contract to serve in the militia or military forces of this State.
It was just a passing thought ;>]
Welcome to South Carolina: the you done been conscrioted state. Ar least they included the women folk.
They were just sone passing questions.
Mark - I don't know why you continue to try, but God Bless you for putting the effort in. You're certainly a better man than most, the patience of a Saint really.
I hope you've learned by now that you've "won", whatever that means, when the insults start coming. Not that there is anything to "win" here, though, as this is just a discussion board after all...
Interesting information about South Carolina, thank you Mark for sharing that.
But for the constitutional scholars in the group, does the Second Amendment also grant someone the right to decline to bear arms? What if a SC resident does not want to automatically be drafted into the SC Militia?
SD, you messages are showing up all out of order, and really late to the party it seems. One from 18 hours ago just popped up.
SD message:
"Darn if you're not right Darrin, I apologize. I dropped the comma in the news story and "conflated" the 1,000 to the essay. Bad read. My bad.
The lies or extreme exaggerations still did exist. Even if what you allude to is true re: the costs, I listed the occupational course as listed in the Lowell document. Basic MA LTC training is about an additional $100; I would have to see how you get to $1,000 except where you say it might be so. You really need to better prove the requirement to travel out of state to get these courses. I don't see it.
Yes my research, really my reading, was wrong on the 1,000 words. But, in your words, and keeping with the spirit: doesn't matter whether it's 1,000 words or 1 word; the Supreme Court has determined that the 2A is defined as allowing states to set these "infringements."
strangerdangerstrangerdanger ✉
18 hours ago"
SD "You really need to better prove the requirement to travel out of state to get these courses. I don't see it."
Its very simple, go like you are signing up for the course (how I found the costs) for any of the NRA courses there is a search function 25 miles, 50 miles, 100 miles, etc. when you get a result use google maps for directions from lowell, MA to there. Same was for the SIG course, that is only offered in one spot.
SD "But, in your words, and keeping with the spirit: doesn't matter whether it's 1,000 words or 1 word; the Supreme Court has determined that the 2A is defined as allowing states to set these "infringements.""
Those were my words SD? Shall you re-read who said that, my golly you are losing your grasp buddy.
more proof the Gun Show Loophole doesn't exist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEihkjKNhN8
Many of the courses you listed are State required; others have been on Lowell's books for years; we were discussing the new courses required under the new requirements since that was the part discussed in the news stories that kicked off this little tangent.
"Those were my words SD?" Perhaps I was less than clear; your words were about your opinion regarding the infringement of requiring a reason for concealed carry using the essay form and not the second clause regarding the actual fact of law by the Supreme court that allows such limitations. Bad use of semi-colon.
In your words: "Requiring anything training or a essay is a infringement......." or, better yet, requiring any training or an essay is an infringement.
Remington .22 LR HV Ammo Bucket 36 Gr. 1400 rounds - $89.99 ($5 S/H over $99 w/code "26FLAT")
http://www.cabelas.com/product/remington-reg-22-lr-hv-ammo-bucket/1426039.uts?Ntk=AllProducts&searchPath=%2Fcatalog%2Fsearch.cmd%3Fform_state%3DsearchForm%26N%3D0%26fsch%3Dtrue%26Ntk%3DAllProducts%26Ntt%3Dremington%252Bammo%252Bbucket%26x%3D10%26y%3D6%26WTz_l%3DHeader%253BSearch-All%252BProducts&Ntt=remington+ammo+bucket
.22 still sells out quick online.
I check the local Academy once or twice a week. Maybe 1/4 of the time they have something... sometimes a brick, sometimes smaller boxes (plenty of center fire ammo though).
Just bought a box of 500 last week, little over 5 cents/round. Up to 11K total but I still use it somewhat sparingly at the range.
agreed - love plinking - for the price to go back to normal we all are going to have to break the hoarding habit unfortunately. I don't see that happeing.
Wolf Gold .223 Ammo, FMJ, 55 Grain, 1,000 Rounds $308.74 @ Sportsman's Guide
http://www.sportsmansguide.com/product/index/wolf-gold-223-ammo-fmj-55-grain-1000-rounds?a=1581231&SID=ikg85dde0r011njj012b1&CJ=1&cjaffilid=6161139&cjaffsite=VigLink&cjadv=CJTSGUSA&cjadvid=1522857&utm_source=VigLink&utm_medium=CJ&utm_campaign=Redirect-Enabled+Deep+Link
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2016/02/10/new-study-economists-and-criminologists-views-on-guns-n2117044
Report: Criminologists, Economists Find Benefits to Gun Ownership
John Lott is involved, ergo, anti-gunners will outright dismiss it but a good read none the less
Link to the paper:
Article Title: Economists' and Criminologists' Views on Guns: Crime, Suicides, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws
Website Title: by Gary A. Mauser, John R. Lott
URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2728123
Abstract:
Economists and Criminologists have very different models of human behavior. A total of 74 out of 130 academics who published peer-reviewed empirical research on gun issues in criminology and economics journals responded to our survey. That was a 57% response rate. Looking at their views on gun control, our survey finds that these two groups have very different views on gun control that vary in systematic ways that we expected. While economists tend to view guns as making people safer, criminologists hold this position less strongly. Combining all the economists and criminologists together shows that researchers believe that guns are used more in self-defense than in crime; gun-free zones attract criminals; guns in the home do not increase the risk of suicide; concealed handgun permit holders are much more law-abiding than the typical American; and that permitted concealed handguns lower the murder rate. All those results are statistically significant. The survey of economists was conducted from August 25th to September 12th 2014. The survey of criminologists was conducted from May 29th to June 14th 2015.
What a crybaby... the lawlessness of this president boggles the mind....
http://abcnews.com.co/president-obama-signs-executive-order-limiting-us-gun-owners-three-guns/
Apparently the above link is indeed fake... it said "ABC news" so I thought it reliable.
There was no truth to this story, however. This bit of fiction originated with abcnews.com.co, a clickbait fake news site that imitates the appearance and domain name of a legitimate news organization (ABC News) in order to generate traffic and advertising revenues by creating and spreading fabricated "news" stories.
nice catch. hat's off for turning yourself in.
looked real to me; I was about to agree with you :>)
mark sold his extra guns......
Darrin donned the camo and drove to PA, truck heavily weighted down with something, to Bundy it out Pocono style....
I literally was about to SD LMAO
Just goes to show that you cant believe everything, even what you think to be creditable news without first verifying with multiple sources. And dven what you think to be a good source can instill their own vision on an occurance which could be far or different from the truth.
I too thought it was real at first and sat there reading it with jaw dropped to be honest.
If people are selling, I'm buying.
No registration here... how would they know how many guns I have?
FYI:
https://www.truthorfiction.com/president-obama-executive-order-limits-gun-ownership/
President Obama hasn’t limited gun ownership in the U.S. to no more than three guns per person.
That rumor started with the fake news website abcnews.com/co, which is designed to trick readers by looking a lot like ABC News. The report, which appeared under the headline, “President Obama Signs Executive Order Limiting US Gun Owners to Three Guns,” reports:
I need to come up with some ideas for shotgun & rifle targets, anyone have any cheap but durable ideas?
I would love a long distance "gong" but finding any suitable metal is darn expensive to buy
any target ideas would be great
I'd recommend just browsing through the companies that sell AR500 plates and invest the money once. Some have cool dueling trees, spinning wheels, etc.
You're right that it's not cheap, but they are very tough and will last a long time as long as you follow their caliber/distance guidelines.
I have 1/2" thick plates from ShootSteel. Good for non-magnum rifles at 100 yards I believe. My .223 hardly makes a mark on them. JR'S rifle made tiny dimples (I think his was 7.62x39). Magnums need 200 yards or thicker plates
Not sure what 12 gauge slugs would do to these... For fun, you can just hang some logs and blow 'em apart.
Great site Mark, their prices are much less then I was seeing on ebay. Thank you!
What size you guys think 10" or 12", currently the range is 70 yards
Oh, and here is a pic, we are finally done clearing (for now) back to clearing atv trails
And here is closer to where handguns will be shot
I also found this
http://www.ebay.com/itm/AR500-Bullseye-Gong-Target-10-x1-2-ShootingTargets7-/151329280391?hash=item233bed9187:g:IGYAAOSwhh5Tnl-a
10" with a bullseye, all mounting chains and hardware included, 60 bucks shipped, lifetime guarantee
Should be a little more fun then just a standard gong, although somehow I highly doubt it will stand up to a 50 bmg like they claim.
So I have been in the market for a wasr-10, and here is how ridiculous NJ has become. When asking different gun shops about the NJ laws, they all have to refer to a book, and start shuffling pages to answer my questions.
My biggest issues is, I want the slant tip (from the factory i believe it is a flash hider) but I want it simply for looks, I like the look of a factory original gun, not some cut down NJ version. So the best answer I was able to get, is that you can in fact get the slant tip, as long as it is not removable with a threaded barrel, and it has nothing to do with what it does as a feature, but has all to do with what it is called. So as long as it is labeled as a compensator, you can get it, even though it in fact functions as a flash hider.
This state is ridiculous.
Get some ground stuff too and make some small burns to put tannerite and 3 liters / milk jugs on
Few hours left for a Leap Day sale...
5% off and free shipping for all ammo at Freedom Munitions.
https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/maxxtech-by-pobjeda-technology-9mm-brass-cased-full-metal-jacket-115-grains-1150-fps-1000-round-case-packed-in-ten-100-round-plastic-cylinders-ptgb9mm-3877000251384.do
Maxxtech 9mm Luger -$155.79/1000 before shipping
So West Virginia just became the latest state to pass Constitutional carry (no permits required).
Legislature passed the law, the governor vetoed it, so the legislature overrode the veto.
Congrats WV... the will of the people is pro-gun rights!
kb2755 It will be interesting to follow WV's crime rate and see how this law effects it.
Hot corner Your right hot corner, it will, now if we could just find media that is honest..................
Great afternoon breaking in the range and breaking in a new 9mm!
Got pretty good groupings after the first 3 shots
Well let's just say I'd be a lot less worried with SOME people shooting at me LOL
You can shoot at me SD, with your "smart guns"
By the time you get the bracelet on, get you little 22lr in, and figure out how to use the damn thing, all while hoping that your batteries didn't die I will be long gone.
JR --- good one! glad someone has a sense of humor. Yeah, I knew what you were saying, but it did make me laugh.
Speaking of humor and guns.... What smart guns? What the heck are you talking about?
Man, if you're trying to be funny, please keep that day job :>) If you're not trying to be funny, oh my.
Hey have you guys seen these optics made by dagger defence?
http://www.defensefirearms.com/
They have darn good reviews on amazon, and are quite nicely priced
Was considering getting the DDHB, under 50 bucks on amazon with 4.5 star reviews
Uh... the smart gun that folks wanted to trigger NJ's smart gun law... the Armatix iP1 pistol.
For someone that vehemently defended smart gun legislation in our debates here, you are either playing "dumb" trying to zing Darrin, or you admit to being ignorant about the gun control laws you hoped to see enacted and enforced.
I don't need no stinkin smart gun. I would just talk you to death.
Smart gun no way. I have enough problems with my smart phone trying to kill me.
LOL SD "What smart guns? What the heck are you talking about?"
Maybe you should read some of your previous posts, you have talked about them in the past, even posted links about them
Is your memory failing you buddy?
Mark, mabey SD is in his alter ego, MG today, and never had these conversations, yet posted as SD?
SD "mart gun no way. I have enough problems with my smart phone trying to kill me."
Now THAT was funny
"I would just talk you to death."
Ain't that the truth
" I have enough problems with my smart phone trying to kill me."
Generally if your smart phone fails to unlock on your first (second... third...) fingerprint, someone *else* won't kill you though...
Mark, how often has someone tried to kill you?
Now my smart phone tries to polish me off every time I make a speakerphone call in the car. It's a ever present danger.
Crud, if it was so smart why do I have to thumb scroll to get to the last post.
Never... hope it doesn't happen either...
But if it does I would be really upset if a dirty fingerprint (or dead battery) foiled my chances of self defense.
Some things should just remain simple - or "dumb" in that I don't want a life saving tool making (potentially wrong) decisions.
I have had someone attempt to rob me by knife 5-6 years back
Thankfully I also had a knife, and mine was bigger, and sharper........In all seriousness I knew it was a risk taking it out. Gun woulda worked way better. Luckily for me, they did not want the hassle and took off running.
Taking a knife out to rob you is a real long ways from trying to kill you. Just saying. In the neighborhood maybe. I mean who hasn't been in a knife fight sometime in their life........
Would love to find my comments advocating smart guns. I will look again, haven't found em yet.
Really don't think you have a lot to worry about Mark unless you really just like to worry (and you do, you do :>)
Come on Darrin... we all know the sharpest tool you could have brought to bear would be your handy reference copy of NJ 2C:39-5(d).
Then you ask the crook if his knife is "manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as it may have." That'll learn 'em.
I'm sure he didn't actually have a gun because his FID references just didn't call back yet... Nothing to do with him not yet stealing enough of your money to go buy a black market Hi-Point out of someone's trunk on MLK Boulevard.
Lol SD... go pull a knife on a cop and see how long it takes for them to draw their sidearm on you. It's assault with a deadly weapon... (especially inside ~21 feet away from you, which would be enough time to attack before most people could even react).
I don't think I'd wait for a criminal to fill out a questionnaire clarifying their actual intent in the matter.
I honestly don't know what the heck you are arguing with me over. Is there a point?
I asked if anyone tried to kill you. Darrin said a guy with a knife tried to rob him. I noted that wad not exactly having someone trying to kill you.
And you are having some philosophic hissy fit meltdown with racial overtones. At least Darrin can lighten up.
" I mean who hasn't been in a knife fight sometime in their life........"
Um...me. But if I ever am, I hope I bring a gun to it.
SD "Taking a knife out to rob you is a real long ways from trying to kill you."
Are you sure of that? Do you know the guy? Were you there? Do you know what would've happened had I not had a way to defend myself? Do you know anything about the situation at all or did you just make a complete donkey out of yourself???? I certainly took the situation way more seriously than you care to.
SD, you will find them, they are numerous, ....hint, check some of the former threads too before you totally eat your words
Start at the gun ownership thread...and yeah, at anytime you can quit pretending to not know who mistergoogle is......we all know it is you, way, way, WAY too obvious
Time to test honesty,
Strangerdanger........Did you or did you not used to post under the name "mistergoogle"
"(especially inside ~21 feet away from you, which would be enough time to attack before most people could even react)."
If you ever have a knife and plan to test that theory out, make sure that the hole you just dug for your dead dog isn't located within the 21' between you and the guy with the gun (-;
GC "Had to put the MLK in there didn't you."
If it walks like a duck...
http://newjersey.news12.com/news/man-shot-killed-in-broad-daylight-on-martin-luther-king-jr-boulevard-in-newark-1.6407058?pts=761015.
https://www.fbi.gov/newark/press-releases/2014/members-of-violent-bloods-street-gang-charged-with-murder-and-other-racketeering-offenses
"The Bloods street gang is organized into subgroups that operate in specific geographic locations. Sex Money Murder is the Bloods subgroup that operates primarily in Essex County, New Jersey. From 2007, Sex Money Murder controlled the distribution of heroin and crack cocaine in the area surrounding Martin Luther King Boulevard and Spruce Street in Newark."
"The gang also stored and circulated numerous firearms from apartments located at 725 Martin Luther Blvd. and 90 Spruce St."
http://pix11.com/2016/01/18/cities-work-to-restore-mlk-jr-boulevards-often-taken-over-by-violence-and-poverty/
"And you are having some philosophic hissy fit meltdown with racial overtones. "
Come on... I put the "lol" in there. You always claim your smiley face emoticon gets you off the hook.
Yeah GC, I have posted under Darrin2 all the time, pretty straightforward about it being me too. (if you can't figure that out for yourself) Difference is.....I don't deny it!
So back to what i was saying............
Strangerdanger........Did you or did you not used to post under the name "mistergoogle"
strangerdanger was once mistergoogle who was once Hackettstown Harold. He's even gone back to using the same gravatar as HH. Is there even any question that they are all different nom de plumes for the same person? It's probably even MORE obvious than Darrin and Darrin2, lol.
JeffersonRepub used to post under a different name, too. Who cares?
9MM Glock works for me. Only had to pull it out once, and the would-be perp ran like the headless chicken he was, without incident. That was fifteen years ago in Passaic County. Never had any such issues around here.
DannyC ianimal, difference is, he time and time again denies it, and now is denying having conversations he had as mistergoogle. Claiming:
"What smart guns? What the heck are you talking about?"
and
"Just can't remember that one."
Well see after he is done discussing with his alter ego if he remembers the conversations he had as mistergoogle......
And no GC, since day one my name has been Darrin, the day I feel reason to change it will be the day I am done with this forum.
LOL, Darrin... don't you think it's possible that he just doesn't remember that specific conversation and that it's not some larger attempt to distance himself from opinions written by "mistergoogle"? He is getting up there in age and the long term effects of all those Pete Seeger concerts may be catching up to him (-;
"don't you think it's possible that he just doesn't remember that specific conversation"
Mistergoogle/Strangerdanger??? No- not possible. I've debated him for years now, and the one thing he is NOT is forgetful. He may spin his facts (don't we all), but he's GOT THEM. No way he forgot!! ESPECIALLY on the gun issue!!!
Not that it matters.
"Debate"??
In the going on 10 years of HL there hasn't been a single thread that has ever qualified as a debate. Never confuse juvenile playground peeing contests as the real thing.
Oops, I missed the LOK. I should lighten up. Guess it was the "I've was robbed at knifepoint" leading to your MLK leading to your defense of MLK via proof that bad people live on or near MLK and they are black so that proves that if there's a weapon it must have come from a black person.......
Yes, it is news that black people live on or near the MLKs of the land and that bad things happen more frequently in poor urban areas. Thank you.
Darrin, knives just result far less frequently in death than guns; that's all I was alluding to. Just a statistical view, not necessarily trying to guess your exact situation which apparently did fit the point since it just took an equal or slightly greater threat to defuse the situation.
Re smart guns, Iman is correct. I just forgot and when I searched on it I can't find it. Really seems odd that I would take a major stand for it and certainly have not done it recently. Darrin, you seem so certain to the point of even believing my forgetting proves it so perhaps you can find it. Or perhaps you're just losing your mind. We'll just hope due to old age versus toxic BTool gases. But yeah, I'm from HL so show me.
Names: don't mean to go Hillary on you, but I don't think I ever denied it, I just didn't admit it and no one ever directly asked, they just assumed and seemed to take great joy in typing a longer name. As to "who is John Galt, who is HH/MG/SD, hey, it's an anonymous web site so if you want Darrin to be Darrin2 to be some fellow who lives behind CVS with lots of guns and rebel flags, so be it. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not. It's an anonymous web site so who really knows except those that really know the real you. And I am not one of them.
So now you've asked and we all know how knotted your knickers get if you don't get an answer. The answer is as simple as Darrin/Darrin2. Not that you're simple. You're anonymous. The names are to return to HL after being bumped off probably by the moderators. HH was an evil man that played by his own rules, did not know the HL culture, and did not even try to abide by HL moderator feelings and rules. He had to die. He was too free for HL, too much liberty and there are limitations on 1A rights on HL.
MG was born as a fact-based link obsessed checker of the radical right that pervades the site. He really mostly played by the rules and I will probably get kicked for this, but the moderators have a special place in HLheck for me. I understand it's ultimately an owner-based, our way or the highway site, but my posts don't always update the thread even today, can take from a minute to over 8 hours to update, my new thread continually get denied --- if I started 2A MEGA Tread 2, it would never make it for example. If my thread is even in the area of an existing thread from 2 years ago...denied. I own the record for closing the most threads often for totally innocuous statements. Others can call me every name, some four letter ones, and they and their post remains to this day. No issue. No problems. Curse away. But me ---- not so lucky. So it was a Stranger sort of Danger that birthed SD to beat my boot off by a week or so. My MG gravatar was Nick Danger. And you can say I am crazy about my special place and perhaps it's not the moderators at all --- but pretty much it's been tested to be true that it's happening.
Sorry it wasn't more exciting and that you had such trouble with it. I didn't know that an anonymous site required each new name to replicate the former. Such a creative void.......wonder if I will even see this post :>)
Good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a hatchet:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/13/us/washington-7-eleven-customer-shoots-attacker/index.html
Don't have the link, but I assume everyone also heard about the family that killed the escaped convict that was holding them hostage...
But, defensive gun uses never happen...
I did not see your post until just now SD, and I appreciate the honesty and can totally relate. Although you were never directly asked like that, you spared no time side stepping any reference you could. But as far as the blocking/time lapse, etc, I can totally relate, I too have had very similar issues that did not get resolved until crazy ex-girlfriend like emails were sent to the contact us portion.
It is a tough read to get by the numerous "funny" insults and sly comments though, and that is why you could be having some issues. I normally would of stopped reading after your jab claiming I am some guy by CVS with lots of rebel flags and guns.....a true unfair and unjust profile that I just do not appreciate you making up honestly.
Your play on words, and little games you play with people has a way of really getting people very angry and fed up talking to you, I think that is your biggest downfall. You could of had a normal conversation here, but no, had to dish out jabs to both Mark and I.....for what? did it make you feel better inside?
And to answer your quesdtion since it was you that lost your marbels, not I
http://www.hackettstownlife.com/forum/593119#t596828
Use the search function for "Smart Gun"
And you will result in a abundence of MG threads talking about smart guns
Mark,
There is a ton of them, but due to the media not wanting these stories out there, they are hard to find. The media prys off of juicy stories that get people riled up, and a story about a good guy with a gun is just not in most of their databases.
http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/collection/good-guy-gun-stopped-bad-guy-gun/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/
There is a bunch of them, and some recent stories, but good luck finding these stories on any common news headline
"Although you were never directly asked like that, you spared no time side stepping any reference you could" Side stepping, no. Yes you are right, I did not go out of my way to clarify. I was enjoying the background conversation about such a trivial thing. I admit it.
Re: CVS/flags/guns. Difference is that is exactly what you have said, not some name calling branding generalization put down. Bigger difference is that if it offends you, I am sorry that it did and I will never do it again. No defense, just acceptance of your feelings.
As far as my play on words, double meanings, puns, whatever; where I come from this is normal conversation. It's the give n take of my community of peers. And yes, we like to argue. Intensely. Believe me when I say SD is holding back. HH was closer to how it is in SD's neighborhood. If I eradicate all of it, I am not me. However, if you call me on it, I will most likely respond just as I did above and will not double down, dig in, or repeat it further. Same way that photo shopped picture I used once went immediately into the trash can (although I do have a new Iman Zombie Wedding Picture.....:>)
HAGD. You always come through when you just let your feelings fly. Thanks.
SD, my point is that your roundhouse way of replies could be what is getting you in trouble with moderators. You seem to try time and time again to corral people into saying what you want them to say, and if they get close, you jab it to them. Healthy conversations can be held without the past grudges, you seem to hold onto everything, using what people have said in the past to compile a profile of what you THINK they are, and then spread that profile like flyers across the forum, as if it is some big joke.
So moving forward, were you able to find your smart gun conversations?
Nope, never could find, searched on many versions. Certainly was not recent as of when I started my reduced focus on things that might actually be done. Smart guns is certainly not one of those.
Holding a grudge. Judgmental generalizations. Corralling people. You got to be kidding, right? I think JIT's whole diatribe and you folks piling on has me as the recipient of that exact behavior. But I say let it go, call em when you see em and let's move forward from there. I was just indicating that I guarantee I will fail, in your eyes, again and feel free to point it out and I will act accordingly, as I did here.
And, ahem, as an aside ---- if you find something I said supporting smart guns, check the date for holding on to things :>)
SD "And, ahem, as an aside ---- if you find something I said supporting smart guns, check the date for holding on to things :>)"
Not holding onto anything, just defending your statement "What smart guns? What the heck are you talking about?"
Here:
I mean if I want a smart gun, why do you have the right to stop me from buying one --- much less at the point of a gun. much less in another state beyond Jersey when the law these outsiders are protesting is a Jersey law. It's time to call out the real jack-booted thugs; I just don't see how you can condone that.
mistergooglemistergoogle ✉
May '14
I think gun owners using threats of violence to stop gun sellers from selling certain guns is about as hypocritical as it gets. If you don't like the law, use legal means to get your message out and change the law. I think the NJ smart gun law sounds like a nice blue-sky idea but certainly seems nebulous, impractical, and perhaps illegal. I mean how grey is it to force smart gun sales when you think they're readily available. And even if readily available, if the cost is prohibitive to the point of stopping gun sales, does that not conflict with the 2A to essentially create an embargo at the state line? Not to mention that the effect at that point will be for gun owners to "import' cost effective guns across our state lines ---- legal or not.
mistergoogle ✉
May '14
And like I said before, regardless what else is or isn't considered arms (i.e. nukes), nobody can believably argue with a straight face that firearms aren't arms and are therefore off limits from any *government* infringement." it makes me wonder why the NRA wants limitations and bans on smart guns. Don't you like smart? It is not just an arm, a gun, etc. Why oh why is your team against guns?
mistergooglemistergoogle ✉
May '14
Those three should get you started, like I said :
http://www.hackettstownlife.com/forum/593119#t596828
I found it, like you asked, can't hold your hand much more then I have
You're right SD, it's hard to look at what you write today and not relate it to your past writings. After all, moment-in-time sound bites never, ever, tell the whole story and we have to look at all the pieces to understand each other. I think we've both been here for about 8 years-wow. That's a lot of communication and history that's hard at times to forget.
When mg initially morphed into SD I must admit you were quite reasonable with everyone. Would enjoy more of that type of interaction.
I agree JIT, at first SD was a different type of person, but then morphed right back into MG's old ways
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/checking-gun-violence-in-australia/
Interesting piece.
eperot Hey, we should take Australia's lead on something else... very strict immigration policy.
Regarding their gun ban... there HAVE been mass shootings since then (and terrorist attacks with illegal weapons), the crime rate was already dropping before the ban (it actually increased afterwards, and took until ~2003 to drop back below 1996 levels), and arson/knife massacres increased.
"Regarding their gun ban... there HAVE been mass shootings since then (and terrorist attacks with illegal weapons), the crime rate was already dropping before the ban (it actually increased afterwards, and took until ~2003 to drop back below 1996 levels), and arson/knife massacres increased."
Of course that makes total sense, since anything GOOD that happens in America can be traced BACK to the previous democrat administration, and anything BAD that happens can be traced back to the previous republican administration.
Right? Just go back in history as far as you need to until it agrees with you preconceived notion. ;) Hey, the left does it all the time....
Oh JR. Everyone knows Republicans invented preconceived notions. What about your stage name :-). Darned conservatives can't think past the founding fathers.
The ultimate in Hypocrisy?: Bill in NJ Senate would bestow Special Snowflake Status on State Legislators & Judges.
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/03/lawmaker_let_nj_legislators_judges_carry_handguns.html
I say NO, what makes their lives any more important then ours? Or their lives in any more potential danger then ours? They have the police to protect them after all right?
Agreed - and if legislators and judges have them why should they Perdue any legislation which allows the rest of us to carry.
I actually thought they already were exempt from the laws that mere citizens have to follow... they absolutely shouldn't be.
We'll be sure to see hypocritical arguments on the bill though (guns aren't good for self defense... except for me).
I feel bad for you guys and gals left in NJ. It's basically a lost cause for gun rights - especially once you have Governor Sweeney.
OF COURSE no. I would think even SD could agree with that. Gadfly, I'm not so sure about...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
this coming from a guy who writes everyone's conclusions as he thinks they are.........
http://toprightnews.com/anti-gun-prof-looks-out-window-and-is-paralyzed-with-fear-calls-911-then-they-tell-her-the-truth/
Anti-gun professor Heidi Czerwiec at the University of North Dakota dialed 911 in absolute “fear” when she spotted “2 figures in camo with guns outside” her classroom. It was just ROTC cadets performing an exercise. “I guess I’ll be calling 911 for the next couple weeks—and I will. Every time.”
Such a sad state of mind when you are so against guns that you have to tie up emergency personnel's time with pointless phone calls even though you know the answer. The woman should be charged.
A couple of minor tweaks for NJ firearm laws (basically slapping the wrist of police departments that make up the rules as they go...)
https://anjrpc.site-ym.com/page/AGMakesGood_Christie
(This is a link to the ANJRPC summary, but there are further links inside to the actual AG directives.)
thanks Mark, it's a good start, there is still along way to go.
NJ is far behind the times and out of touch with the rest of the nation it's shocking.
personally i'm ok with judges and law makers being permitted to carry their own firearm for self-protection. it's open the door to the concept, and it's another big step towards the 'shall issue' CCW permit law that is missing here.
LOL skippy!
NOW.... if only it would get warm & not windy enough to GO to Shongum......
Oh my... the number of places anti-gun folks can take a vacation keeps on getting smaller. No more 'Ole Miss for them...:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/04/robert-farago/mississippi-governor-signs-constitutional-carry-guns-churches-law/
(That is, if they actually believe in the "wild west" baloney they predict... even though it never happens...)
"That is, if they actually believe in the "wild west" baloney they predict... even though it never happens...)"
Tell that to Will Smith, Buckaroo. Oh wait, you can't, but you can tell his wife. She was only wounded.
Of course, if they didn't have guns, I am sure the outcome of man against Defensive End would have ended the same way......
"its so easy to point and click, so darned easy, so easy"
SD
"its so easy to point and click, so darned easy, so easy"
you forgot to load, so your gun might be empty..........
So SD, if we present an example of a DGU (which actually hasn't even been disproven in the Will Smith incident ) you brush it off as a meaningless anecdote. But one case on your side proves the bigger picture?
Ah, if you didn't have double standards you wouldn't have any at all...
And then he shot the wife because he had been listening to Trump about killing the terrorist's family as well.......
Nice comedic relief tossing out that ole double standards line. Nothing snarky there. No wonder you avoid humor. Still are. Ba dum bump.
What bigger picture are you alluding to? The Wild West? That was your picture that you pasted upon all people who have issues with the escalating gun population and violence in America as a generalized stereotype.
Do you somehow think a few good DGUs will diminish the shoot-outs at the OK corral? Or how about a million justified DGU's? Still not the Wild West in your book?
Get over it. We're all packing, we're all using. The fact that the vast majority of DGUs are justifiable clean shoots does not diminish the fact we live now in the Wild West. And the corresponding increasing acts of aggression over trivial affairs goes hand in hand will more guns, more shootings.
Remember, the DGUs are a good guy with a gun done good. But on the other side, more than ever, we have guys there were good up until they were bad.
Right, wrong, doesn't matter in the Wild West. Dead is dead. It's just so damn easy to point and click.
So far this year we are approaching 4,000 gunned down; 150 children under 11. 73 mass shootings so far, 460 DGUs and 730 accidental shootings (oooops). Could be able to break 10,000 if we give it our best shot.
"escalating gun population and violence in America"
You're half right... FBI crime statistics refute the second part of that theory though...
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/violent-crime-topic-page/violentcrimemain_final
If good guys with guns can't/don't stop bad guys with guns....
Why do cops have guns?
Guns are the most regulated consumer product in America. The vast majority (over 80%) of people killed are criminals aged 15-19 killed by criminals or while committing criminal acts.
Here's how firearm injuries stack up against other causes:
http://extranosalley.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2014gunaccs.gif
502 in a year. That's all ages, all races, all genders.
"Firearm—In 2013, 33,636 persons died from firearm injuries in
the United States (Tables 18 and 19), accounting for 17.4% of all injury
deaths in that year. The age-adjusted death rate from firearm injuries
(all intents) did not change significantly in 2013 from 2012. The two
major component causes of firearm injury deaths in 2013 were suicide
(63.0%) and homicide (33.3%). The age-adjusted death rate for
firearm homicide decreased 5.3%, from 3.8 in 2012 to 3.6 in 2013. The
rate for firearm suicide did not change significantly"
Deaths from Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis due to alcohol............ (K70,K73–K74) 36,427 Still legal..
Works Cited:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf <-- see table 10
"Deaths from Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis due to alcohol............ (K70,K73–K74) 36,427 Still legal.."
Not just legal, but sold in grocery stores with nary a background check... and I'd bet there's plenty of alcohol in wine fridges and basement bars of plenty of people who are against drunk driving, etc.
I mean come on, if gun owners are supposed to feel guilty when guns are used in crime, shouldn't alcohol owners feel guilty too? I say we enact size limits on refrigerators so you can't stock more than 3 beers at a time... and no coozies, that makes the can more ergonomic - therefore it's assault beer.
Haha... a straight, simple answer from SD, Darrin?
You'd have more luck getting a CCW in New Jersey.
My thoughts are that many people who desire common sense gun safety laws own guns; one of the purposes being self defense.
And that JR operates at a third-grade level when he says someone is full of S for thinking differently from him. Factless and feckless. Of course he is also perplexed as to why cops carry guns. Perhaps you can answer that for him Darrin.
Skippy,
Has there *ever* been a bayonet attack (let alone mass killing) anywhere in the US that you can recall?
Yet NJ (and a few other states) ban bayonet lugs. These are "common sense" gun laws?
Look how scary they are... 10 years in jail for a 1/4" chunk of metal...
I think you have a better chance of getting killed by a gun that is improperly sized since the stock cannot be adjusted to fit the shooter properly. Oh wait, maybe we are suppose to buy more guns, one of every size?
Yes all gun laws are common sense gun laws. At least according to the "you wit us or you aginst us" crowd. Just because someone believes in common sense gun safety laws does not mean they believe all gun laws are common sense.
Frankly do you really care about have a bayonet?
Is it really illegal to have a bayonet lug or is there is a ban on bayonets in conjunction with certain other features?
Is it really a mandatory ten year imprisonment?
Darrin, the best part is you are allowed to pin the stock at any length (longest or shortest). It just can't be adjustable...
And heaven forbid you have a tube fed for drum mag .22 for plinking - nope you need to reload every 10 rounds when shooting with your kid lol
It is illegal to have a semi-auto rifle with a certain number of "illegal" features. If you have a pistol grip, it cannot also have an adjustable stock, bayonet lug, or threaded barrel.
The bayonet lug needs to be ground off, the stock pinned, and any barrel accessories (muzzle brakes only in NJ) welded on.
It's actually a third degree crime (3 to 5 years)... for not grinding off a chunk of metal. No violent activity or even intent needs to be proven. You don't even have to own a bayonet capable of being mounted.
"Frankly do you really care about have a bayonet."
Whether I care to own one or not doesn't make the law any less asinine (or infringing).
"Frankly do you really care about have a bayonet?"
That's like saying you can have a classic car, but have to take out the big "dangerous" motor and put a v-6 in because it is safer.
If the gun came originally with it, YES, I care, and YES, I want it. Grinding off original features destroys the collectability of certain firearms.
Actually Darrin... the car would still be illegal because it's capable of mounting a larger engine.
It would be like banning nuts and bolts, because thats what holds the motor in.
Any firearms crime in nj carries with it a 10 year automatic penalty unfortunately.
Are class 3 firearms legal in NJ with the ATF stamp ?
"Are class 3 firearms legal in NJ with the ATF stamp ?"
Do you really have to ask? Lol
No, its up to ten years.
Its two features so you can choose.
Yes, its terrible that you might have to deface a classic gun but I don't know how young a gun had to be to fit the assault weapon resyrictions. Do you?
Yes, adding bayonet to the law seems dumb. Its probably the least likely assault part of assault weapon.
Still has very little to do with common sense safety gun laws.
True lol
Meanwhile- flamethrower - completely legal to own poses transfer carry and operate - no permit necessary
Haha, true.
No worries for me, though. I am basically able to own any firearm ever designed, with any accessory or magazine capacity. Sure, some require ATF tax stamps (they have to approve all non-criminal applicants, but the backlog is long) and I can't afford a pre-ban full auto, but other than that you name it and it could be cozy in my gun safe.
Oh, if only I could win the lottery...
"I like you. When I rule the world, your death shall quick and painless. -Stewie Griffin"
Meanwhile, I got a pocket knife as my free gift for renewing with the NRA...
...but I'm not sure if I can carry it concealed here in the PRNJ... lol
"Well, the Constitution should trump all Federal and State gun laws, so..."
sigh...yes, yes.....
"Well, the Constitution should trump all Federal and State gun laws, so..."
And the Supreme Court defines what the Constitution trumps, so....
"I've got a story, ain't got no moral. Let the bad guy win every once in a while
Will it go round in circles. Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky"
"And the Supreme Court defines what the Constitution trumps, so..."
The government deciding if what they do is illegal? Sounds legit.
"And the Supreme Court defines what the Constitution trumps, so...."
...and are HUMAN, and can be (and have been) WRONG. I won't even mention the obvious political corruption/agenda they have, despite the fact judges are SUPPOSED to be VOID of that because they are JUDGES. Unfortunately, real life doesn't work that way.
Gander Mountain: $20 off $100 purchase (no exclusion of guns or ammo) Use code "CUST20" online or barcode in store. Valid through April 22nd.
http://i.imgur.com/Z8I1hcX.jpg
Founding Fathers were not infallible and had their own agendas too. Not to mention making political decisions for expediency too.
Of course the Founding Fathers set up the Supfeme Court structure as well.
Just saying
SD has changed his mind on gun control!!! Have you read his latest opinion?
"So you are creating a crime for which there had been little or no offense except in your mind. You are protecting yourself against that which has rarely happened by creating a different crime for someone who had done nothing wrong that ever mattered to you before you created a new crime to protect you from a non existent crime.
I think that's called fear."
This is an unmitigated and purposeful lie. I never said anything of the sort about gun control nor have I changed my mind.
JR, we all know liberals can think one way about one topic, and completely differently about another topic, despite the logic behind the reasoning being exactly the same.....
So the next time some celebrity talks about how "nobody needs a gun"... keep in mind that people like Mark Zuckerberg spend $5M on 24/7 security... Tim Cook spends a measly $200K per year.
I wouldn't need a gun either if I had an extra $200K+ per year for somebody else to carry one for me.
Heck, even if it cost $50K for one armed guard, that's still about 50-100X the cost of one gun and a few training classes to do it myself.
I believe this is called hypocrisy.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/05/robert-farago/desantis-gunhide-question-of-the-day-how-much-do-you-spend-on-your-security/
I honestly don't think SD has come down one way or the other - he just likes to banter back and forth on stuff - which is fun actually - I like to engage in a battle of wits. He has stated he has firearms and has shot on his property - I don't consider him an anti - he just makes us prove out statements which is good.
what makes America great is the freedom to fall anywhere on the political spectrum on any issue and have the right to speak. I am a libertarian and am personally against anti 2A legislation but vehemently opposed to any legislation that repeals Rowe V wade or discriminates on gender or sexuality - the government has no place in our bedrooms or gun safes. Many of my closest friends disagree but respect my views and we enjoy spirited debate once the guns are secured and the bottle gets passed. Good times
"He has stated he has firearms and has shot on his property - I don't consider him an anti"
He has also made plenty of statements showing he knows very little about the purchase and ownership process in NJ. So I'd say if he has anything firearms related it's probably some antique single shot shotgun or something that he brought with him from West Virginia.
Maybe he used to hunt, but doesn't believe in modern firearms, handguns (and associated accessories like standard magazines), or armed self defense.
There is a term for this... "Fudd". Like Elmer, as long as he can get an occasional wabbit, that's all the gun anyone should need.
"JR, we all know liberals can think one way about one topic, and completely differently about another topic, despite the logic behind the reasoning being exactly the same....." Do we really want to get into what you know about logic, much less my logic? For boys who take extreme umbrage at paraphrasing, summarizing, or extrapolating your words, JR's lifting out of context of my words to fabricate a complete, and totally undecipherable, piece of fiction not only does not bother you, but in this case, he is right and I am wrong. Pieces of work for sure.
"I honestly don't think SD has come down one way or the other - he just likes to banter back and forth on stuff - which is fun actually - I like to engage in a battle of wits. He has stated he has firearms and has shot on his property - I don't consider him an anti - he just makes us prove out statements which is good." Actually I have been pretty darned specific about my beliefs on sensible gun control laws. Golly, they are in writing. And yes, I shoot targets and varmints at this time. Drop on by, we'll see which category you fall into :>) NJ too crowded for anything else IMO and even the varmint action has slowed as civilization creeps in. And Mark, all I can say for your gun and WV snobbery is Fudd you, you rascally rarebit :>)
What WV snobbery?
You obviously haven't bought guns (at least handguns) in NJ because you have had questions on basic handgun purchase permits, and I believe even the FID card. In some thread, if I recall correctly, you said you used to live in West Virginia. So my take is that whatever guns you may have you moved here with.
As for gun snobbery, just because someone doesn't agree with your opinions doesn't make them a snob (otherwise about 80% of the country is snobs, because the laws you want don't exist in about 40+ states).
It's OK skippy. He put a smiley face after that sentence. He's allowed to do that and then claim "it was just a joke" if we ever call him on something he says.
But only he is allowed to do that. He'll still get butt hurt by anything we say, even in jest. ;)
SD,
I think this time you have hooked YOURSELF, hook line and sinker - with your own words. So "creating a crime for which there had been little or no offense except in your mind" is a terrible and bigoted thing to do as long as you are talking about people's bathroom rights, but is A-OK when talking about someone's constitutional firearms rights.
"You are protecting yourself against that which has rarely happened by creating a different crime for someone who had done nothing wrong that ever mattered to you before you created a new crime to protect you from a non existent crime. "
That IS gun control. I have never shot anyone, nor planned to commit a crime with a firearm, yet you want to make sure laws get passed to restrict my rights IN CASE I decide to do such. It's EXACTLY the same thing. It's the Minority Report.
You can't have it both ways, unless you want to admit to being a hypocritical left-wing zealot. SD, you've been blown out of the water on this one. You sir, are a hypocrite. You use emotions instead of logic to form political opinions on issues when the facts don't fit into your pre-existing dogma.
Nonsense! Complete and utter. You think you're being clever JR, but you're making very silly arguments. Why? Because you don't have any real ones.
JR - I'll add some more words that SD has spoken on another topic (our free speech discussion) to add to his logical inconsistency...
These bathroom laws only affect the "time, place, and manner" for where someone can go. It doesn't change what they do in the bathroom... therefore nobody's rights are being violated by these laws, hmm SD?
Either the government is allowed to tell us where we can pee, speak and congregate, or carry guns (in which case they aren't rights, but priveliges) or they can't (in which case we are still responsible for the result of how we use those rights).
"Nonsense! Complete and utter. You think you're being clever JR, but you're making very silly arguments. Why? Because you don't have any real ones."
What I have are PRINCIPLES. You and SD should try them sometime, instead of waffling political dogma.
Your phoney baloney arguments are weaker than the beer in Utah? Why don't you make an argument rather than try to turn a COMPLETELY unrelated discussion to guns?
"And yes, I shoot targets and varmints at this time. Drop on by, we'll see which category you fall into "
Hmmm, is that a threat?
Darrin, guess it depends on how you fit in the category. But not a threat. I really don't expect any of you to be a varmint.
Do I really have to rebuttal this ridiculous transfer of my opinion of transgender toilet legislation to gun control?
Do you really see transgender toilet legislation to be comparable to gun control?
And if so, do you really think the statement applies?
Finally, what is the "principle" that you see in the statement that offends you so much to see transgressed on any issue, including gun control?
Methinks this is more about a gang slam than actual issues, but hey, here's your chance to explain.
SD, you know darn well if one of us made a comment like you did, you would run with it. You said you target shoot and varmit shoot, stop by and you will see which category skippy fits in......it is quite obvious what you were saying in haste, and it is quite obvious you thought it was a joke, but I do not find making comments like that amusing or at all laughable.
It's very simple SD, you were defending someone for having laws put against them for a crime they have not committed. You have to be able to see how similar that is to the gun law issue.
The vast majority of gun owners have no intent, nor will ever commit a crime, yet you want more laws put on them. But think differently about transgenders........ something could happen, but since they have not committed a crime, no laws.
That's my take, but it was not my statement, I just get JR's point. o Methinks you have some explaining to do why one party can do as they please in their interest and have no laws, and another has to be treated differently, even though they too have not committed a crime.
"it is quite obvious what you were saying in haste, and it is quite obvious you thought it was a joke, but I do not find making comments like that amusing or at all laughable." And yet you have never responded to JR when he does it. Interesting.
Darrin,
He's not defending it because he can't- it's indefensible. Unless one wants to admit to having faulty logic or flexible principles. But then, SD was always able to SPIN anything he encounters into anything he wants. It's called confirmation bias:
"In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors."
Ask and you shall receive Jr.
What a ridiculous set of posts by our resident Three Stooges. At least Skippy wisely took the intelligent route proving he indeed is not Shemp.
First salvo was JR, our torrid transfixed transgender toilet time poster, where he equates toilets and guns. While he might have a point there, he claims my opinion on the transgender issue trumps what I have written ad nausea about gun control issues because it is an overarching principle that I need to apply to all issues.
Bunk. He doesn’t even know what a principle is if it Cheney'd him.
But if it is was a principle, it would be: "So you are creating a crime for which there had been little or no offense except in your mind. You are protecting yourself against that which has rarely happened by creating a different crime for someone who had done nothing wrong that ever mattered to you before you created a new crime to protect you from a nonexistent crime. I think that's called fear."
How does that apply to guns?
JR says it applies because “That IS gun control. I have never shot anyone, nor planned to commit a crime with a firearm, yet you want to make sure laws get passed to restrict my rights IN CASE I decide to do such. It's EXACTLY the same thing. It's the Minority Report.”
Is the fact that JR has not yet been convicted of a gun crime mean that he has never done something illegal with guns? (It’s NJ remember, so be careful with your answer). More important, JR’s entire argument rests on his personal experience and therefore he feels the entire nation and everyone in it should be treated according to his personal experience. How narcissistic of him. I would hazard the guess that many guns are used in many crimes and many crimes are conducted with many guns.
Is JR insinuating that we don’t have a crime problem involving guns or that we do have a transgender toilet crime spree?
Bunk. Even if the statement was a principle, it does not apply to the gun issue where many crimes include many guns proving the need for some level of legislation. He may not like the outcome or the level of the restrictions, but the need for gun legislation based on frequent use in crimes is not a shot in the dark. Transgender toilet crime on the other hand is a complete miss.
Then Darrin piles on calling it a liberal problem in thinking logically. OK, we are going to learn how to think logically from a guy who bought a house next to the train tracks behind a toxic waste industrial site that frequently floods. Sure. Nuff said.
Mark continues the trend to put words in others mouths by lifting statements from other threads and different discussions, massage them, and then apply them to the transgender toilet legislation and gun control safety legislation as some sort of overarching principles and logic inconsistencies. This time he converts, not my statements, but what I noted as the SCOTUS decision on the 1A and free speech cages. Mark basically equates the 1st amendment to toilet behavior and gun control. And he credits me for the SCOTUS decision that he has bastardized.
Bunk. If you want to take things from other threads, take them out of context, and massage them to mean something else, then we can cease any real discussions.
For example, Mark jumps around kvetching about gosh knows what, private guards, Zuckerberg, my lack of knowledge of NJ gun laws (where I have corrected him once in a blue moon). Of course this guy “believe in modern firearms, handguns (and associated accessories……:>) Not sure I want him in the boy’s room with his love of handgun accessories…. Especially if he’s into: “butt hurt by anything we say.” Do I hear Dueling Banjos? Oh wait: :>) :>) :>) Its OK now.
Let’s get back to a real discussion rather than cherry-picking statements from other unrelated discussions, massaging them, and then treating them as overarching principles covering all aspects of our lives.
"What a ridiculous set of posts by our resident Three Stooges"
Does that mean we are game on for name calling again?
"Bunk. If you want to take things from other threads, take them out of context, and massage them to mean something else, then we can cease any real discussions. "
How many times have you been accredited to doing the same exact thing? In fact, that's really all you do, pull everyone's statements from everywhere else, and compile them into what you "thought" they meant, essentially making our words, your versions, yet still quoting us.
May I suggest a theme song for this thread?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0u8teXR8VE4
You guys can argue over who gets to be Stephen Pearcy, but mistergoogle is Uncle Milty all the way, lol.
I guess SD has used up "busted", he has switched to "bunk" now LOL.
I said it before, but it's worth repeating:
SD: confirmation bias: "In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors."
Personally, I like "double standard" better; "confirmation bias" gives him too much credit...I think what he does is VERY deliberate. He knows EXACTLY what he's spinning.
"He knows EXACTLY what he's spinning."
Thats pretty obvious after seeing how enraged he got in his last post....stooped real low on that one, and broke all his own rules too!
:> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :>
Enraged?? More like unhinged. Reading this thread is a blast. It can be very funny and serious. Just for fun, I say all you guys get water guns and duke it out :)
auntiel First, I am getting a lot of flack for and am sorry for associating you with The Three Stooges. Appears that folks feel it diminishes the stooges :)
You take my argument from the transgender policy thread, call it an "opinion" and then call it a "principle," you apply my opinion-now-principle on transgender toilet legislation to 2A gun legislation, use your personal experience to describe all the guns in the nation as your rationale as no gun crimes committed, and then accuse me of spin, hypocrisy, confirmation bias, and double standards. Busted? You betcha.
Haven't you taken JR's (and others) words from these threads and used them to create your interpretation of them on other topics such as immigration, religion, etc?
Pot... kettle...
My point exactly Mark............
SD, just because you say busted, does not mean you're right........But the mudslinging still continues, even after posting such a personal attack on three levels with zero retribution...
Classification = All time low
How is that taste of your own medicine treating you?
"Haven't you taken JR's (and others) words from these threads and used them to create your interpretation of them on other topics such as immigration, religion, etc?" No, and that's the difference. I have been called out for misinterpreting your statements or summarizing them in a manner you don't agree. There is some question of who's right, but I have generally acknowledged and accepted your clarifications no matter how you posed it originally.
In my case, JR has not, and he has not accepted any clarifications instead making this some sort of principle play mostly for the fun of poking me and watching you pile on with your support.
Further, JR has taken my opinion on transgender toilet legislation, called it an "opinion" and then reclassified it as an overarching "principle," then he applied my opinion-now-principle on transgender toilet legislation to 2A gun legislation. He supported this outrageous claim by using his personal experience to describe all the guns in the nation as being no-gun-crimes-committed to suggest we don' need any form of gun control laws. Then he accuses me of spin, hypocrisy, confirmation bias and double standards.
Fact is, my views on gun control are noted above, as Iman would say, over and over. You really don't have to lift an opinion on another topic, apply it here, to know my opinions on common sense gun control safety legislation. I have provided that information --- over and over. JR just wants to provoke with the justification being pot-kettle.
And for the record Darrin and Mark, my name calling was only in response to the ad hominem attacks launched during his torrid tirade which continues unabated. At this point, he has more brand names for me than Donald Trump has products.
Enough. Move on or play Ianima's song post repeatedly.
"And for the record Darrin and Mark, my name calling was only in response to the ad hominem attacks launched during his torrid tirade which continues unabated."
So someone calls you a "bad name" and you then call Darrin and myself "stooges"?
Give it up, SD. We know your game. You have been calling people stupid names LONG before any of this started.
To quote the authority, you: "Pot... kettle..." We are talking about this instance, not history.
And I have already apologized for doing it. To the stooges :>)
Hypocrite by posting contradicting views on a different thread or not, you most certainly cannot even follow your own rules on this thread....apologize, and then continue to poke fun....
Treat others how you want to be treated
When they treat you the way you have treated them for years, you go off the deep end, and all your "rules" do too.....cry cry cry.
:> (but this makes it all okay)
"I will tell you that we always hear from the left on gun control … if it would just save one person then we should do it. If this would just save one little girl from being molested by a heterosexual pervert, we should do it," Glen Beck
sounds just as stupid as
“Listen, we cannot put too high a price on the safety of our families. Our children are being killed every day by gun violence, and we could really benefit from some common sense gun regulations to reduce the bloodshed"
Fact is SD - When it comes to "common sense" gun control or any thing that the left wants to cram down our throats, even those things that infringe on our 2A rights, then you and everyone like you treat everything as if it is a tragedy and the country is on fire.
The minute something like the bathroom bills come about, either nothing is said or you advocate for creating another protect class of people whose rights "shall not be infringed"
This logic is flawed - and you know it. you pick your battles and use the same tactics you accuse my boys Larry and Moe of and sit there in righteous indignation and deny it. I refuse to pretend for even one second that that you have the moral high ground because you again - are putting one groups rights in front of everyone elses.
https://youtu.be/U1mlCPMYtPk And sorry this is clearly this threads theme song - warning f bomb in lyrics
"Fact is SD - When it comes to "common sense" gun control or any thing that the left wants to cram down our throats, even those things that infringe on our 2A rights, then you and everyone like you treat everything as if it is a tragedy and the country is on fire.
The minute something like the bathroom bills come about, either nothing is said or you advocate for creating another protect class of people whose rights "shall not be infringed"
This logic is flawed - and you know it. you pick your battles and use the same tactics you accuse my boys Larry and Moe of and sit there in righteous indignation and deny it. I refuse to pretend for even one second that that you have the moral high ground because you again - are putting one groups rights in front of everyone elses."
BINGO.
WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER.
GAME, SET, MATCH.
"you again - are putting one groups rights in front of everyone elses"
isn't that the liberal mantra?
Joe Friday All I can say Darrin is remember your reaction when I misinterpreted your words in my summarization and then "Treat others how you want to be treated."
There are at least three logically fallacies in JR's lie.
The first is that all things are equal; that is transgender toilet crime, issues and legislation and gun crime, issues and legislation are equal and opinions on one of these can be transferred to the other.
Opinions are principles --- nuff said.
The third is that truths of an individual are can be extrapolated to be the truths for the entire population. Therefore the fact that there is no transgender toilet crime says just that. JR says since he has a gun and he is not a criminal and therefore guns and crime are not correlated because he is not.
So when I said the transgender toilet legislation is creating a crime for which there had been little or no criminal offense recorded; JR says that "principle" applies to guns because he has not committed a crime and therefore because "I have never shot anyone, nor planned to commit a crime with a firearm, yet you want to make sure laws get passed to restrict my rights IN CASE I decide to do such." He acts as if guns are not associated with crime and that transgender crime in the toilet is rampant. Both are not true.
Skippy now expands my opinion to be part of the liberal cause. Actually Skippy the law is restrictive to transgenders, not protective. But he says "The minute something like the bathroom bills come about, either nothing is said or you advocate for creating another protect class of people whose rights "shall not be infringed."
And actually Skippy, I was arguing a conservative principle of too much regulation and government overreach to create laws where crimes do not exist. Of course, our gang of three only has principles when it suits them. They only see harm when it affects them. And when there's pushback, they say it's ok to treat you that way because you did it somewhere else, some other time. Just not true. Fact is, I didn't take an opinion from one topic, apply it to another, massage it and then add a false logic assumption to turn it into a fabricated lie.
However, maybe JR in onto something when he uses his own gun ownership example to prove the lack of a correlation between guns and crime. I heard that he has used the same "principle" to prove transgender toilet crime. Whenever JR puts on his favorite dress and goes into the girl's room, he breaks the law. Bingo!
Sad part is I am the rare case to provide a dissenting view to these boys, all of which is printed above. Yet instead they want to focus on what I opined about toilets as being so, so, important to guns. What do you want to discuss in your 2A MEGA thread next, Panther Valley Rehabilitation Center and how zoning laws are equivalent to gun control laws? Skippy, you take point to find the leftist cause and start us off...
Skippy now expands my opinion to be part of the liberal cause. Actually Skippy the law is restrictive to transgenders, not protective. But he says "The minute something like the bathroom bills come about, either nothing is said or you advocate for creating another protect class of people whose rights "shall not be infringed."
You are again attributing rights to a class of individuals not granted by the constitution - while I am against HB2 personally, I DO NOT feel we as a populace should be creating additional protected classes where none such exists. Either we are all equal or not - for anyone to argue that an individual should be granted specific protections under the color of law because they identify one way or the other is ludicrous.
"And actually Skippy, I was arguing a conservative principle of too much regulation and government overreach to create laws where crimes do not exist. Of course, our gang of three only has principles when it suits them". - we are a gang of 4 you forgot Mark Mc (Shemp)
however my issue is that that that you will not admit, under any circumstances that:
1. this is a states rights issue - as you have opined that restrictions on the second amendment should be.
2. I agree - this is an abhorrent example of government over reach, I should not have my constitutional rights impinged upon or sold back to me.
3. "common sense" gun legislation creates crimes where none exist, ergo bayonet lugs folding stocks, forearm grips.. why are you blind to that being ridiculous but when NC does the same thing you are up in arms?
hypocrite much?
I think it's hilarious DS keeps saying I "lied".... as if any of us would BELIEVE he would change his stance on gun control, especially to one that made so much SENSE. LOL
Just demonstrating the hypocrisy is all I was doing. But he knows that. He's just pulling the ol' Trump on me "Lyin' Ted! Cruz lies!" because he desperately doesn't want to be exposed for the hypocrite and double-standard bearer he is.
Lyin' Jefferson!!! ROFLMAO
yeah I find that comment dubious JR - more baseless BS. He is trapped in his own hypocrisy. I guess it's not offensive SD when you accuse JR of being a cross dresser when he disagrees with you.. you are a joke dude. I used to respect you - not so much as of late.
DS, there is a difference between blatantly changing what someone said to make it into something else or demonstrating someone's logic as applied to a different but very similar topic...... hypocrisy that's all I can say
I am attempting to resurect brother dog out of retirement - very soon to be the 5 horsemen or 2A freedom
I am still not getting how JR "lied" every single one of us knew it was the principle of the statement that you had made on another topic, not that you had actually changed your feelings on gun laws, JR's extreme sarcasm made that very clear.
Also, this very reaction by you was to be expected. I wouldn't think you would ever be humble enough to admit your statement was that of a hypocrite, even though it is clear as day.
JR did not lie as we know, he was pointing out an error in logic and using sarcasm as a vehicle :> :>
"Lyin' Jefferson!!!! Believe it!!! You have to believe my words, because I have all the best words"
-DoubleStandard
ok skippy, my agent has let me know you contacted him, and for you jr, (and you too darrin);
all three of you are correct and no matter how many times he posts or how many overly-voluminous repetitions of his illogically hypocritical rhetoric he spews in desperation, he has revealed himself. exposed himself if you will, and if he was at the park or in the girls room at the local target store he would be arrested as it is already against the law, and it's sad that everyone but him knows it.
the emperor has no clothes on and has been caught red handed with his pants down
LMFAO BD, good to see you back!
Oh he knows it, he definitely knows it, but is not humble enough to admit it.
Amazingly and apparently unbeknownst to BDog, he just agreed with me. Bravo "as it is already against the law" is exactly what I was saying. Why do we need a transgender toilet law when no crimes have been recorded and the crimes intended to be protected by the new law are already on the books. Thanks for agreeing.
We do have plenty of gun crimes however. And that's the difference.
"JR did not lie as we know, he was pointing out an error in logic and using sarcasm as a vehicle :> :>"
I humbly disagree. You can't take an opinion from one thread, call it a principle, add a false piece of logic, apply it to another topic and not call that a fabrication, a miss-truth, a lie.
As far as I can tell, transgender toilet policy and gun control have little in common. So to take an opinion from one and use it for the other is clearly not what I said or meant. The proof is in the voluminous treatise above as to my opinion on guns controls.
Even if you mistakenly believe my opinion on transgender toilet legislation is somehow not an opinion but instead some overarching guiding principle to be applied to all subjects across the board, you must do it equally.
So the principle was: if there is no crime, why do you need a law?
Transgender people in toilets: no one can find a crime and if they do, there is a law already on the books to protect the people. But JR uses a logical fallacy to fabricate something I didn't say. He said since he has guns and has not committed a crime, then there is no need for gun control law equating the status of an individual as typifying the status of the entire population. There is obviously a lot of crime using guns. He knows that. He has lied. Especially when he has the gall to use his own personal example not only to represent the entire population, but to attribute that lie as something I meant.
The error in logic was JRs. And he used it to fabricate something new that I did not say about a topic where I have spoken volumes as to what my opinions are. None of my opinions on the topic includes JR's fabrication. What do you call that? Sarcasm?
Along the way I was called "hypocrite," "desperate," "a joke," "stupid," "doublestandard," and "unhinged," but yet I am the villain for categorizing you as The Stooges. Somehow if JR's intent was sarcasm, the name calling branding element defeats the purpose. And to say it's ok because of a historical perspective but I should not react, one time, in kind to this mudslinging onslaught on a 5-against-1 odds is just plain unfair.
Now Skippy, in your thoughtful entry which unfortunately ended in your stooping to the branding: "hypocrite much?" you actually brought up some good points.
1. It is a state's rights issue however the issue under discussion is not state's rights. I agree that the state can legislate but that is not the issue we are discussing.
2. It is overreach and we both agree that's the crux of the biscuit. I only added that the fact that there is no recorded transgender toilet crime which proves the overreach. So we agree on the important part. Bravo.
3. All this stuff is a red herring and I have never spoken out against any of it. These are not the common sense gun control safety legislative and process improvements I have advocated. I don't even know what a folding stock or forearm grip is and as far as I know, the lugs (at least in NJ) are not illegal per se except as part of a "menu" to classify an assault weapon. If memory serves, if you have a bayonet lug but do not have 2 of the menu items, the lug is legal. But all of this stuff is a red herring having nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Again, I am happy to discuss my opinions on the 2A but JR's fabrication is not my opinion. He has made it up by cutting, pasting and altering what I have written in another thread on another topic.
you are correct in re the menu
From the AG's Guidelines:
A semi-automatic firearm should be considered to be "substantially identical," that is, identical in all material respects, to a named assault weapon if it meets the below listed criteria:
A. semi-automatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of the following:
1. a folding or telescoping stock;
2. a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
3. a bayonet mount;
4. a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
5. a grenade launcher;
B. a semi-automatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of the following:
1. an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
2. a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
3. a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
4. manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
5. a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm; and,
C. a semi-automatic shotgun that has at least 2 of the following:
1. a folding or telescoping stock;
2. a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
3. a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
4. an ability to accept a detachable magazine.
"5-against-1 odds is just plain unfair"
DS, maybe you should round up some more people that agree with you.....oh wait......there is none
:>
DS, We all know what you "think" your logic is behind your defence, you do not have to keep repeating it, over, and over, and over......and over again.
The principle of the topic is treating someone differently by making a law for which no crime was committed.....yet 99.9% of guns out there will never commit a crime.....it's very simple logic to see the same principle these two arguments carry.
If you want your proof there is plenty of it, ask mistergoogle for help.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/23/a-rape-survivor-speaks-out-about-transgender-bathrooms/
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/12/483296-rape-survivor-reveals-why-shes-got-a-problem-with-transgender-bathrooms/
"Jason Pomares, 33, was arrested for cross-dressing and videotaping women in a Florida mall restroom.
Norwood Smith Burned, 51, dressed like a woman and indecently exposed himself to children in a Walmart bathroom.
Taylor Buehler, 18, snuck into a women’s bathroom at a community college while wearing a bra and wig and later admitted to taking a shower in the women’s locker room."
And the list goes on......plenty of transgender crimes, in bathrooms, locker rooms, you name it.
And even before this law - those acts were still illegal - kind of like how we have a ton of laws on the books about murder and assault with a deadly weapon.
And I embrace the stooges - all good sticks and stones and all that I can take it and dish it out - no harm with me. And I wasn't name calling - I felt your comments to be hypocritical- you have called shenanigans on many things people have said. I never have taken it personally - nor should you. When you have called me on the carpet and I was wrong I admitted it and said "Mia culpa". Will you do the same?
Darrin, that's not exactly conclusive evidence; your "defence" is de-senseless on this one.. First you post a story from a nice woman, abused as a child by a MAN, who does not agree with transgender in the bathroom. Cool. But there is no transgender crime in the story. Then you list three men who don women's clothing to commit crimes. Again, no transgender crime. No "defence."
And Skippy is correct, plenty of laws already on the books for this although not sure what a "mia" culpa is. Momma mea...
Darrin, perhaps you are right that guns do not have a lot to do with crime when you bring up the good point: "yet 99.9% of guns out there will never commit a crime." Of course that makes me wonder why you all needs guns for "defence" if indeed most guns are not used in crime. Extra careful you are? Of course, while some might say that this just points to the fact there are way too many guns in America, I choose another path.
First, no one have shown that transgender crime in the bathroom is rampant much less existent. And even less resulting in death. A number of us suggest that a law criminalizing transgender in the bathroom is overreach looking to create a crime where none exists.
Of guns, we have plenty of crime associated with guns. Much of this results in death.
We are getting close to about 34,000 gun deaths per year. Another 80,000 are wounded, some life altering. While heart attacks are the leading cause of death, guns are a leading cause of death in the US, and much more so than any other developed nation on the planet. Purposeful gun actions, many of which are crimes, kill almost as many people as die in car accidents each year. Probably will surpass auto deaths next year. We have over 300 mass shootings per year where one person shoots many. We have zero mass transgender bathroom incidents. Darrin can't even find a guy in panties assaulting in mass in a single incident.
About 60% or 20,000 of these death-by-gun are suicides, which is a crime. Guns are the most effective and efficient manner of committing this crime. All other methods have been statistically proven to be less reliable and often result in a life spared. The Australian experiment has statistically validated that. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mostly-suicides.html?_r=0
Homicide is a crime and 70% of all homicides are performed with a gun at about 13,000 a year. Other methods of homicide have a much higher survival rate.
Robbery is a crime and 26% are performed with a gun. Assault is a crime and 31% are performed with a gun. Many of these result in a shooting, some in death.
When it comes to death, guns are our leading choice to perform the act. When is comes to crime, guns are often included in every possible type of crime in America. When it comes to crime with guns, a result of death is much more probable than any other weapon.
A toddler shots someone almost every week in America. While mostly deemed a terrible tragedy and we cry, IMO there has got to be a crime in most of these cases.
Domestic violence assault crimes are 12 times more likely to result in death when there is a gun in the house.
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/12/gun-violence-stats-2015/
There is no transgender crime to be found in the bathroom, why do we need a law? That was my point.
JR, and now Darrin, say the same is true for guns and gun control laws. There is minimal or no crime and plenty of law abiding gun owners to compensate. Mark is at work and Skippy agrees to agree and disagree, that is the question. BDog agrees 100% with the liberal me.
IMO there is enough gun crime that prudent people would call for some level of common sense gun safety laws to protect our citizens and our children, too many of whom are gunned down each year. Does that say I support every gun law on the books?. Probably not. So quit saying I do. Does it say I support every new law advocated by gun control supporters? Most certainly not. So quit saying I do. What I do support has been noted above and it's not new laws per se, but rather a short list of four improvements to current laws already on the books. Some are supported by gun owners, on average, as well.
And its not "Methinks thou dost protest too much," its "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Dost better.
Well, I didn't want to use the absolute quote, because I didn't want to offend you since I'm assuming you "identify" as a man.
"About 60% or 20,000 of these death-by-gun are suicides, which is a crime."
Do you honestly think ANY suicides would be averted by magazine size limits, ammunition (hollow point) bans/taxes, assault weapon bans, no-issue CCW, or gun free zones. Come on man... Suicide shouldn't even be a "crime", but even if it is, nothing you propose would affect the suicide rate in the least.
"Domestic violence assault crimes are 12 times more likely to result in death when there is a gun in the house."
Millions of people live with guns in the house, perfectly safely. The recidivism rate of domestic violence perpetrators is 30 - 60% depending on the study (and they are prohibited from owning a firearm). Living with a gun isn't the problem, living with a violent felon is.
"IMO there is enough gun crime that prudent people would call for some level of common sense gun safety laws to protect our citizens and our children, too many of whom are gunned down each year. "
Most prudent people know it isn't the gun that's the problem. It's the people... it's letting violent offenders out of jail (did you hear Obama just released a few hundred crack dealers?)... this is evidenced by the fact that gun rights are *expanding* in almost every state.
And when I actually took the time to skim through I found this "Skippy agrees to agree and disagree, that is the question. BDog agrees 100% with the liberal me."
How is your little own world? Is it nice? Hmm, more "This is an unmitigated and purposeful lie"
And excuse me, the man dressed in woman's clothes taking pictures in the woman's room is not "good enough" for you....did not realize he had to have breasts, or whatever transgenders have.....what the hell is the difference?
If you are going to gasp at straws such as that, so will I....
How many crimes have been committed with guns with the "evil features" we are not allowed?
How many bayonets have been use in crimes when mounted to the front of a gun?
How many flash suppressors have assisted someone in a crime?
How many 50 cal weapons have been used in crimes?
How many adjustable stocks have been used in crimes and did they help the crime?
How many tube fed .22lr guns have been used in crimes?
...this list can go on and on and on...if we are going to gasp at straws
These are very small straws Darrin ;)
"How many crimes have been committed with guns with the "evil features" we are not allowed?"
Despite these features being "allowed" in almost every state, AT MOST (per 2014 FBI statistics) there were 248 murders where a rifle was the weapon. Hammers kill more people annually.
"How many bayonets have been use in crimes when mounted to the front of a gun?"
I don't recall ever hearing about a bayonet crime/murder.
"How many flash suppressors have assisted someone in a crime?"
Again, at most the same 248 as above. Not saying the flash suppressor had anything to do with it (contrary to most people's belief, the purpose of a flash suppressor is to preserve a shooter's night vision, not "hide" the shooting from bystanders.)
"How many 50 cal weapons have been used in crimes?"
To the best of my knowledge, zero.
"How many adjustable stocks have been used in crimes and did they help the crime?"
Same as above for rifles, perhaps a small subset where the stock was actually cut off to fit inside a garment. So minuscule as to be statistically insignificant compared to the number of adjustable stocks owned in America.
"How many tube fed .22lr guns have been used in crimes?"
These are also in the rifle category. So fewer than 248.
Excellent points all, Darrin!
I've love to see someone try to commit a crime with a collapsible stock or a bayonet lug.
I would like to know just one point of why a bayonet is not allowed on the front of a gun, just one good point is all I am asking for
And for the record I am in the market for such a gun and it irks me so bad to have to take a grinder to a classic gun....for what? Because somebody wanted to make a law?
HMMM....
""So you are creating a crime for which there had been little or no offense except in your mind. You are protecting yourself against that which has rarely happened by creating a different crime for someone who had done nothing wrong that ever mattered to you before you created a new crime to protect you from a non existent crime.
I think that's called fear."
Seems pretty suiting in this example......after all, if having a gun isn't scary enough, having a knife on the gun is just horrifying!
Darrin, hopefully your straw grasping isn't aimed at me although it sort of looks like it is given the preceding diatribe. Good post on the assault weapon law and I agree. Why you continue to broad brush every gun control law somehow owned by me is very funny. If you remember, earlier in this discussion, I noted "Nowhere have I recommended bans on any gun model or registration or confiscation. At most I recommended limitations on LCM's which I agree would not have a statistically positive result."
Further, as you have pointed out in the past, beyond mass shootings and mass murders, not a lot of crime or homicides with long guns to begin with. Less with bayonets. Probably more crimes with bayonets not on guns. We all agree.
As to the common sense gun control laws I advocate, my position is covered in the early posts in this thread. " So, once again, what I support is universal background checks, universal mental health tracking and automated crime gun tracking." So perhaps you might inquire whether I support some other law before you target me as owner and supporter.
As to ""Skippy agrees to agree and disagree, that is the question. BDog agrees 100% with the liberal me" being a lie. Nope, Skippy has agreed on parts of our latest adventure and disagreed on others. BDog agreed when he said "as it is already against the law, and it's sad that everyone but him knows it." He just didn't realize that is exactly what I meant and I did indeed know it. Laws are already on the books.
And this: "And excuse me, the man dressed in woman's clothes taking pictures in the woman's room is not "good enough" for you....did not realize he had to have breasts, or whatever transgenders have.....what the hell is the difference?" Wow, you are really showing your misunderstanding of transgender. Sorry.
No JR, you bastardized the bard and you must be punished. (perhaps if you dropped the DS, I would have said: point taken :>)
Lastly Darrin, NO you can't use what I said about the transgender toilet issue as some overarching SD principle to be applied to other topics like my opinion on common sense gun safety laws. Guns and crimes go together, transgenders and crime in the bathroom do not. The red herring that you post that a NJ gun ban proves the point for all gun laws is not close to what I meant, does not trample the principle that if there is no crime, why create a law, and has nothing to do with the actual common sense gun safety laws that I, StrangerDanger, actually advocate and support. You can find that at Square One.
SD, you helped make my point by agreeing that some gun laws are absolutely worthless.
The government makes useless laws, as we have agreed to, and when they do try to make a "good" law, they throw 10 useless law into the mix, so it gets shot down.
So what is the reason behind me only being able to buy 1 handgun a month, and 3 at a time? How is if I have 1 hand gun or 10 going to make a difference?
But I can walk into the store and by 50 shotguns (which will do more damage then 10 handguns combined)
Also you can disagree all you want, but it is not getting you anywhere. What you posted is a double standard and that's that.
And for the record, I never called you a owner of laws (we would be screwed if that were the case) and I was making a broad statement to anyone anti-gun (remember there are others reading this)
You're welcome. And gee, I guess I did remember. I said as much. And no, it was a comment on transgender toilet laws specific to that topic. If you want to break it down to: why have a law if there is no crime, perhaps that is true. But that is not what I said; I said something very sprcific to the topic I posted it to. As you once said: don't put words in my mouth.
"No JR, you bastardized the bard and you must be punished. (perhaps if you dropped the DS, I would have said: point taken "
Sure sure, and I just saw a pig fly by.
Nobody is putting words in your mouth SD, big difference....you are not worming out of this one.
What we are asking is why do you feel one way about one topic, and as you even generalized it to "why have a law if there is no crime"
But feel like on another topic, when 99% of the people who own guns never commit a crime, we need to law up?
Furthermore, If you want to claim "So, once again, what I support is universal background checks, universal mental health tracking and automated crime gun tracking."
Why do you ALWAYS use crime guns as examples? Not a thing of what you have proposed will stop illegal guns and the criminals that use them which create the majority of the statistical number you have ever posted.
You repeatedly talk about "toddlers" getting ahold of daddy's guns.....
Again, how will "So, once again, what I support is universal background checks, universal mental health tracking and automated crime gun tracking." Stop people from being irresponsible?
So again, while you may claim to just want background checks and crime gun tracing, the stories you use as "proof we need this" say more, as they do not line up to what you "say" you are after.
So my question to you is, if you are only after background checks and crime gun tracing like you claim, why do you repeatedly use stories that do not back up what you want? You make yourself seem anti gun by doing this, hence why we feel the way we do. If you could stick to factual info that backs up what you want, we could have a discussion.
i see that reading comprehension is lacking in the double-standard one. misquoting and cherry picking partial sentence fragments leads to wrong take-aways.
here what was posted:
"all three of you are correct and no matter how many times he posts or how many overly-voluminous repetitions of his illogically hypocritical rhetoric he spews in desperation, he has revealed himself. exposed himself if you will, and if he was at the park or in the girls room at the local target store he would be arrested as it is already against the law, and it's sad that everyone but him knows it."
the commas tell how to apply the parts of the sentence, what was expressed and intended was that "it's sad that everyone but him knows it." applies to the subject of the sentence which is : "illogically hypocritical rhetoric"
the sad part is that it is pathetic that hh//mg/sd/ds does not realize the hypocritical nature of his overly-voluminous spewed repetitions of illogically hypocritical rhetoric.
he cherry picks quotes all the time from other posters and then misapplies them on purpose to make fun of them and castigate them in unfair ways, when he feels (wrongly in this case) that it's done to him he has a major league issue with the poster who does it. that's hypocritical, big time.
it's hypocritical behavior, and it is a constant technique with him, and now he has been caught, red handed and he has revealed himself yet again and everyone but him knows it. that's both sad and pathetic, really poor behavior on his part and when people do these kinds of things consistently i always wonder about what kind of house they grew up in. because it is wrong, very wrong. and to keep denying it is delusional, and self-delusional is no way to go through life. so maybe poor parenting is to blame for an adult who thinks it's ok to proceed in this fashion.
the emperor truly has no clothes on and has been caught red handed with his pants down
give it up already, can't rewrite history no matter how much denial and effort and thousands of words are put into it. when you lose respect from a guy like skippy you have to know you've made an error.
(skip, my agent called, he said i'm over-extended on the original agreement, sorry man)
http://abc7chicago.com/news/great-grandma-guns-down-intruder-after-crowbar-beating/1326680/
Home-invader brings crowbar, Great-Grandma has a gun. Great-Grandma: 1, Thug: 0
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435564/gun-rights-concealed-carry-second-amendment-new-jersey-us-congress
NJ claims 6 of the top 100 most dangerous cities in the US: Elizabeth (99), Bridgeton (64), Newark (51), Trenton (49), Atlantic City (21), and Camden (2) but strict gun laws are helping obviously lol
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/top100dangerous/
We have some primary elections coming up in June.
It's nice to be able to vote for the most pro-gun candidate instead of the least anti-gun!
Several of the campaign websites make it clear that the 2A is not to be infringed... and the current sheriff seeking re-election is a CWP instructor.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-fires-back-donald-trump-nra-remarks/story?id=39280417
Great...we got another one who claims not to be against guns, but shoots down anything pro gun.
I can't even believe she said any of that - Next we will see her shooting sporting clays with Bernie
Hillary *loves* guns... the ones inside the sport jackets of her SS body guards.
You don't think she actually wants us mere peons to be able to defend ourselves with the same tools, though... do you?
What a hypocrite she is. Pulled the same thing in West Virginia, saying her statements on shutting down the coal industry were taken out of context when confronted by a coal miner regarding them.
http://myfreebingocards.com/M/MiAfE
Gun control bingo so the rest of you can play along when we argue lol
I stopped by here for lunch yesterday...
This business "gets it". Notice the sign in the window (and ignore the redneck pickup in the reflection).
Never see that in NJ.
Hmm, this puts SD in a tough spot. How many times has he told us that SCOTUS decisions are settled law, never to be questioned (at least the ones HE agrees with)?
Republicans can't question Obamacare... SCOTUS HAS SPOKEN!
(insert gun control law here).... SCOTUS HAS SPOKEN!
Now his favorite politician is doing the same thing he chides us for doing... better duck for the incoming spin!
good points Darrin, Mark: Hillary Clinton hates the 2nd amendment and wants to see it eviscerated by statute.
from the link:
"An audio recording of the event captured Clinton telling those gathered, “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”
this issue will lose her the election, she is unfit to be President,
and she has lied to congress and the american people over and over again, she has not cooperated with the investigations into her misuse of classified information, she should be indicted on multiple charges,
and Hillary has enriched herself and her husband by misusing her office as Secretary of State. Criminally and unethically.
Hillary is unfit to be president. period. and she does not support the individual right to keep and bear arms, (neither does her daughter)
The fact that SCOTUS has spoken and therefore that is the law does not mean you can't disagree with the decision; I never said that. You just can't disavow the decision nor the SCOTUS position in the process. And deciding it's wrong because people make mistakes is silly. You just disagree. I have also noted that often what is not law, becomes law, and can be undone by a later SCOTUS as well. That is the process of defining the Constitution for our times.
However over 60 Republican attempts to repeal ObamaCare does seem to be the poster-child for a real-life example of insanity. Or of having lost sight of our objectives, we decided to redouble our efforts of lunacy.
Speaking of lunacy, the NRA takes a statement of disagreement and conflates it into a policy which has never been advocated by Clinton. They do so in order to secure your vote and, more importantly, your dollars.
Here's what was said and, more importantly, the current policies advocated. I can not say I am in 100% agreement with the policies; I think an assault gun ban is over-the-top although I could support a restriction on clip size. However, both of these are lightning rods that will drag down the other common sense gun law improvements that I think have a chance of becoming law. I also see no policies to strengthen prison sentences for illegal gun use or negligence in cases of underage shootings. Clearly she has no stated policy on tap to overturn the 2A.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/trump-distorts-clintons-gun-stance/
Here's a cogent look from the other side. Like the NRA statement, it has to insert their own idea of what they THINK Clinton is thinking and not what she has proposed, in writing --- unlike most Trump plans or lack thereof, or what she has supported in legislation historically. In other words, the author asks you to take a leap of faith which I only too sure you have already done.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435311/hillary-gun-rights-she-wants-abolish-second-amendment
What I really can't understand is why the NRA spends most of its capital creating fear, a little on gun training, and no capital trying to solve gun control issues while protecting your rights to own. Why isn't the NRA offering to secure your gun ownership records for example? If they kept them, they could both keep them safe and allow law enforcement access, under warrant, to catch the bad guys quicker. Why isn't the NRA pushing to automate crime gun searches so we can take not only bad guys off the street faster but also bad gun dealers who support the bad guys? And why isn't the NRA pushing to criminalize folks who leave guns easily available for kids to shoot other kids or older instead of the prevalent tragedy classification normally applied. It would seem that punishing adults who give guns to kids who shoot other people with them would be a positive for gun owners.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/10/gun_accidents_why_are_parents_who_leave_loaded_weapons_lying_around_never.html
But no, let's spend your NRA capital taking a Clinton belief and exaggerating it into a policy she has never advocated. That makes more money for the NRA, that's why.
"The fact that SCOTUS has spoken and therefore that is the law does not mean you can't disagree with the decision; I never said that."
You've pretty much said exactly that when there is a decision that we have disagreed with.
I warned everyone to dodge the spin!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGNiXGX2nLU
"Pretty much" isn't saying it oh spinmadter general.
Well, you kinda said It.
We know what you meant even if you didn't say it.
Haha, now *I* am the spinmaster? That's a hoot.
So you've established that unless a series of exact words is spoken we can't pull in the intent of previous statements to counter an argument. Unfortunately for you, you have "spoken" a *lot* of words here... our well to choose from is pretty deep.
Just keep on spinning. What's next? Maybe you can reorganize my words into a completely new idea. I'm getting dizzy.
Meanwhile you have completely lost account of whatever it was you were talking about with Hillary and the 2A. Maybe you gave up when you saw the facts.
Oh that's right. You were talking about how she disagreed with Heller and therefore that really means she's coming for your guns even though she never said that. Sound familiar?What's next? Maybe since she supports Israel so therefore she advocates tossing Christians to the lions?
Keep on reading one thing and spinning it into another spinmaster
“the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.” - Hillary Clinton
"Like the NRA statement, it has to insert their own idea of what they THINK Clinton is thinking and not what she has proposed, in writing" HMMM, sounds EXACTLY like what I have called you out NUMEROUS times for doing.....But apparently it is a problem when others try to state someone else's opinion......there is that hippocrate coming out, yet again.
But you're not a hypocrite if you do it because you are a man of principle.
It's a problem when anyone does it and if I have mis-stated your ramblings, often I have apologized for it. Now its your turn.
SD, my initial argument here is that you are (predictably) defending Clinton for doing something that you have chided us for doing - questioning a court decision as settled law. That's as "deep" as my observation went.
But now that you've tried peeking inside "why" she disagrees with the decision... well Clinton is on record saying, for example, that Australian style *mandatory* buybacks are "worth looking into". I'll let you guess what happens if you don't participate (hint: I doubt you get to keep your guns... i.e. confiscation).
(Also, a little quibble on the term "buy back"... how does a government buy "back" something it never owned in the first place? Just a fancy term for confiscation, whether they give you a $5 gift card or not.)
Again, there is no issue with you disagreeing with a SCOTUS decision; there is an issue with saying they don't have the right to interpret the Constitution. It's when you disavow the SCOTUS process determined by the Founding Fathers that I take issue. I do not take issue with you disagreeing with the decision.
With regards to Hillary and the buy back. Nice catch however "worth looking into" is a long way from "we're gonna get you if you don't participate." The Australian buy back or any buy back for that matter is not part of her written platform. You know this would never pass Congress, you can't do an Executive Order on this, and I strongly doubt Hillary will waste her time on drilling a dry well. Frankly I would expect she peddles back on the assault gun ban as well but you have more credibility on hating her on that one versus the buy back. Heck, how can you be voting for Trump if you believe 100% everything this man has said?
Hillary's platform position is to enact bans on assault rifles, so yes she is coming for the guns, she said so and has documented it on her web site for all to see.
and as she said about SCOTUS; 'the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.'
so she is going after the 2nd amendment, and she is proud of it and is announcing this for all to know ahead of time.
really? she thinks people will vote for her to do this?
vote for Bernie Sanders on tuesday, send her home
Yup, some pretty awful stuff meaning the end of everything for you all. Common sense gun laws are a good thing. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/gun-violence-prevention/
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/legal/breaking-ninth-circuit-rules-against-peruta/
9th Circuit rules against CCW, Peruta in 2nd Amendment carry case
Whoever is the next appointment to the SCOTUS will decide this. Scalia turned the 4-4 stalemate into a 5-4 victory for 2A supporters. The best we can hope for is a draw. That being said - we absolutely cannot allow a Hillary Appointee to happen - she has already specifically stated it is her goal to overturn Heller. We also need to make sure that Congress does not approve Obama's nominee during the lame duck.
On the other hand SCOTUS may not grant cert since they know it will be a 4:4 decision with the current court and the passing of Scalia. They may choose to just not take the case in which situation this decision stands and "may issue" becomes acceptable nationwide and must be addressed at the local level. Which means no CCW in NJ, DC, MD, NY, and the other usual suspects
The ruling seems to be a punt of sort. They took the most narrow ruling only addressing that the 2A doesn't specifically allowed concealed carry. They did leave the caveat that the 2A may allow for some carrying of arms in public, but also noted that decision may be left to the supreme court.
There is a current ongoing case "Nichols vs. Brown" that regards Open Carry. I am curious to see how the outcome of that case meshes with Peruta. I doubt California will allow open carry, but that will more clearly define the prevailing question of bearing arms in public as a 2A right.
"the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure."
Tyranny is here boys..
So after today there won't be any more shootings in California or the rest of the 9th Circuit, right?
I mean, since criminals definitely check for recent court decisions before deciding to rob gas stations and what-not....
Cool.
Blood. Liberty. Tyranny. Manure. Boys. Somehow tyranny and CCW seem at polar ends of the gun argument spectrum.
Jefferson loved guns and thought it the safest sport for the body. He was quite the marksman and collector. Obviously he advocated war. He never fought as a soldier and I can find no gun play beyond sport as a civilian. Apparently he liked it when others fought for him.
Now for real killers loving that quote, you know that Timothy McVeigh was wearing it on his T when he bombed Oklahoma City killing 168 including 19 children. So what are YOU recommending in using that quote?
As to Jefferson, try some context: http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/08/jeffersons-tree-of-liberty-quote-in.html
As to real warriors, try our top generals who actually know something about it.
Grant: "I have never advocated war except as a means of peace."
Sheridan: "The only good Indians I saw were dead." Well, you got to have a cropper...
Lee: "What a cruel thing war is" "to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors." Such a gracious guy.
Patton: "Better to fight for something than live for nothing." Darn, this is not going well.
Eisenhower: "I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity." Ah, getting better in the modern age....
MacArthur: "The soldier above all others prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war." Phew.....
Well, it's a mixed bag but more against than for especially as the weapons of mass destruction take the personal out of the game.
Self defense --- sure. As a threat to tyranny --- give me a break. Like CCW is going to stop tyranny.
Out of that post the only thing you got was the Jefferson quote ? Our votes are what will stop the tyrants - not our guns.
Oh that kind of tyrant.....
And yeah, that's all I got. Only because of lack of interest. Sorry.
Tyrant out.
Haha, skippy posts a few paragraphs and you lose interest... but not before you post another long tome...
Sorry I wasn't around to join the fun... was too busy buying another gun myself.
Yeah lies Darrin. They didn't say it. And the Jefferson quote isn't out of context. Lies all.
I was interested in the quote and what other real generals had to say. Too long for some though.
You are just interesyed in bickering.
https://us.glock.com/products/model/g19gen4
nice!! 15 round double stack - did you get it in .40, 10MM .45 Auto, .45 G.A.R,. .380 .357 or the current fave 9x19 ?
9mm.
This is my first non-Ruger handgun. I guess the next one will need to be a "large" caliber (all of my center fires are .380/9mm/38/357).
SD, again, i did not say your info was lie....i was very clear in saying that your comment about not being interested was a lie.
Man, you can even try to spin someones words when what they said is clear as day hu?
Thats twice in a row you tried that....havent you learned?
When u post "you sit on a throne of lies" I guess its easy to think u mean what you post.
SD, didn't realize you only look at pictures and don't read posts....... My mistake!
Likewise I'm sure. When I said "Oh that kind of tyrant..... And yeah, that's all I got. Only because of lack of interest. Sorry" I was indicating that my interest was in the tyrant part and the supporting quote and I was just not that interested in the rest.
And speaking of clarity, Skippy posted a quote, out of context of course, that dealt with the entirety of the ruling system. Yet his subject was really limited not only to guns but to a specific example, I think in a specific state that he conflated to the entire system vis-à-vis this quote. Just saying......
So sure, we are all clear as mud. And one of us threw the liar card.
9MM is the hotness right now - nothing wrong with it - everybody with a gun channel on YouTube has a video stating .40 is dead. With the new advances in ballistic technology anything bigger is not worth the recoil for negligible differences in wound channel using JHP. - you gonna get yourself a nice hybrid IWB to carry that in?
skippy; i still like .45 acp for pistol stopping power, what 9mm can really comptete with that? also, the judge that chambers both .410 shotguns shells and .45 long colt is interesting, how .is 45 long colt vs 9mm for stopping power?
Agreed- I love .45 myself - I have a bond arms top break in .45 LC. The .45 was invented to drop drugged up Moro islanders - there is no comparison. The difference comes in with capacity in a combat handgun. The trade off is in concealability and magazine capacity - you can't go wrong either way. If you like large frame wheel guns the Taurus judge and the Chiapa rhino in 45/410 are great.
http://www.tactical-life.com/gear/45-acp-vs-9mm-ammo/#bsum-buffoni
Just broke in the first 100 rounds... no problems at all. Never even cleaned off the factory grease.
Wasn't going for accuracy, just function.
Gotta say the grip texture on the Gen 4's is certainly aggressive!
I admit the quote was out of context - what I meant it to mean was that 2A supporters need to vote.
yeah, you be right as rain as usual skippy, the glocks do hold more rounds and they are easier to wear concealed, it's true, i'm a springfield arms 1911-1a fan myself, looking to get one of those soon, i do know a guy who just got a glock in .45acp just for the added stopping power, also still in the market for an M1a which is still legal to buy in jersey (at least until hillary gets elected, then it's all down hill for us, "Down Hill With Hillary", that's a bumper sticker waiting to happen)
I heard Hillbill on the news this morning, she said her goal is to re-instate the assault weapons ban.
I challenge anyone to explain why you feel assault weapons should be banned. What features do they have that puts their danger level over the rest. Come on happiest girl, redwing....now is your chance.
oh yeah, make no mistake about it, when they keep yelling at us that "Nobody wants to take your guns away" they are lying through their teeth, they want the guns, they want to take them away and are just getting started. It won't stop with 'assault weapons. (which they cannot define)
If not already a member, it's time to join the NRA today, urge others to also join. Send them invites. Talk it up, emphasize the danger that Hilllary represents in this election.
It's been debated to death - typical socialist agenda to seize upon tragedy to disarm the populace - remember Katrina?
And then the thought comes into my head...hmmm...Florida, so many people with concealed carry permits why was this not able to be stopped.........
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/12/orlando-pulse-gay-bar-gun-free-zone-state-law/
YAY LAWS! Worked so good this time, lets add more!!!!!
Yep, the typical victim disarmament zone strikes again. This *should* be a deprivation of rights under color of law... but who will prosecute the government?
I read that the shooter was stopped by swatt.....so all the victims literally had to wait for swat to assemble and arrive, while they were helpless. How long do you think that took?
It's so sad that even in a state where you are "allowed" the option to defend yourself, this right is stripped in certain instances, and it is quite apparent those locations are the ones deranged people such as this prey on.
Darrin, according to a time line on CNN, almost 3 hours. He could have used a single action revolver to kill 50 people in 3 hours.
or a pencil - tell me again how surrendering your guns to the government is a great idea. the signs don't have the force of law in Florida. would have carried right past that bad boy..
"I read that the shooter was stopped by swatt.....so all the victims literally had to wait for swat to assemble and arrive, while they were helpless. How long do you think that took? "
Not quite. I think a three-on-one gunfight started the evening between the shooter and one off-duty officer working Pulse and two other officers. The shooter enters the building and the ensuing hostage situation detained SWAT for 3 hours until they finally flash bombed and drove an armored vehicle through the door.
Would additional armed civilians have stopped it from happening. Doubtful. He probably wouldn't have cared if there were some armed folks there. He was on a suicide mission anyway.
Could they have reduced the death toll. Perhaps. But no one can know.
Could they have made it worse. Doubtful that much worse IMO. No one can know but most often if civilian errors ensue, only the civilian is the extra casualty.
To your point: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/
To round out the story: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/dec/03/guns-mass-shootings-gunmen-concealed-carry/
And some of the trade-offs: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings
So there's trade-offs. First, yes, IMO it seems that civilians with guns are pretty darned accurate. But the trade-off is most of these evil nuts were good guys until they became evil nuts. So in the best possible result, we save a few in these mass shootings but we keep killing each other at a third-world shooting gallery rate.
This latest terrorist-watch-list investigated, domestic abuser passed muster to buy himself a mini-arsenal. By our current metrics, he was a good-enough-guy to buy some guns in Florida and had a CCW. How many of the 30,000 deaths by gun each year would not have resulted in death if somehow magically we all gave up our guns. Certainly a healthy percentage. Why? Simply because other methods are strictly not as easy, effective or efficient as the gun. Point and click. Bang, bang, you're dead.
You can talk pressure cookers, fertilizer, hanging, slashing wrists, robbery by knife, but none of these methods have the same kill ratio as the gun. It is a very good tool for killing.
This is not me advocating taking your guns. The question is given the trade-offs, should we not attempt to do better at determining those who should not own a gun? Should we be more stringent on those we should be putting on watch-lists? And should we make sure those of watch-lists can't buy guns (if the NRA would quit lobbying to preclude). If there is a law that domestic abusers can't have guns, shouldn't that apply to close relationships and not just married people. And shouldn't every state enforce the federal law in this case equally?
Or is the trade-off to let everyone have guns and focus on mental health.
Darrin notes that we should quit focusing on the tool and instead solely focus on the person. Again, given the efficiency of the gun in killing, I am not sure I agree that a singular focus is the best approach. And again, there are trade-offs. Let's say we ramp up mental health support. Free pysch for everyone --- the Sander's solution. Well, wouldn't one of the first caveats be that the unhealthy can't have guns? Now if Darrin was feeling a bit batty, do you think he would go to the Doctor? No bloody way. You'd need a court order that only Jade LLC would support. And what sort of review lets daffy Darrin now sane Darrin be allowed to purchase guns again? Trade-offs.
Still waiting to see how this guy slipped the domestic abuse preclusion to buying guns. Probably was not convicted or Fla has the loophole that too many states have in protecting us from domestic abusers with guns. For another day.
Signs may not have the force of law in an otherwise permitted area, but state law itself prohibits carry in any area of a business that sells alcohol. No "sign" was needed to create a statutory gun free zone here.
That's much like Texas, with automatic carry bans in bars regardless of how the business owner feels. Here in SC (where properly formatted signs do have the force of law) we can carry in unposted bars, or bar areas of restaurants, as long as no alcohol is consumed.
Although I have to laugh... the sign posted on a nearby city hall is not formatted properly, and is thus unenforceable.
Just re-read 790.06 for Florida.
1. Schools & colleges
2. Police stations, courthouses, chambers for county commission, & city council board meetings
3. Sporting events
4. Bars
5. Airports & anywhere federal law prohibits the carrying of weapons.
The shooter passed insta-check check...WITH multiple FBI flags.
This is a clear example that political correctness and the establishment in DC has no qualms sacrificing American lives in order to gain more votes and avoid upsetting people by enforcing laws they think are not "socially liberal".
The problem that some people don't want to face and admit is that this type of violence is often unpredictable. People do not want to believe that there isn't just some law or background check they can pass that will prevent anyone from every flipping out and killing a bunch of people.
If you made every gun in America disappear in a cloud of smoke tomorrow and a radicalized wannabe ISIS member who hates gays decides he wants to kill a bunch of people, he could chain and lock some exits, start a fire in the place and then wait by the only open door in an SUV and run people over with it as the pour outside to escape.
This is America - we don't just hysterically flail about passing laws and throwing regulations around that compromise people's rights when there is little they can do to prevent a determined murderer from killing a bunch of people.
The idea that we are going to use laws to keep people from shooting other people is ridiculous in a country with more than 300 million guns. It goes beyond wishful thinking. It's just ludicrous. And "b-b-but we have to do something" isn't good enough justification.
The first thing we need to do, if we actually want to make some improvement to these stats is to get our emotions in check and think logically about OUR situation in the U.S. Stop allowing politicians to propose "quick fixes" of legislation they can pass before they are up for election again and point to as an accomplishment when they fail to a single life. Talk about real solutions that will work here and save the most lives.
Using education to teach parents and children gun safety. Making sure that every gun owner you can possibly reach understands the fundamentals of gun safety. Teaching situation awareness to teachers, principals, employees who work in places that may be soft targets and yes, increasing armed security at some of these places. In other words, solution that recognize the reality on the ground instead of wishful thinking that criminals will suddenly be inspired to obey the new laws this administration wants to pull out of its ass.
But then again if you can run for president while being investigated by the FBI why shouldn't he be allowed to buy a gun?
Oh Skippy.... You seem to be spinning all the data and forgetting anything you might have learned. So sad.
"The shooter passed insta-check check...WITH multiple FBI flags."
Uh.....because that's how you gun lovers and your beloved NRA WANTS IT.
Here's what they say:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20110419/why-nra-opposes-gun-control-supporters
According to the NRA, this was a good guy with a gun right up until 2:02am Saturday night.
"If you made every gun in America disappear in a cloud of smoke tomorrow and a radicalized wannabe ISIS member who hates gays decides he wants to kill a bunch of people, he could chain and lock some exits, start a fire in the place and then wait by the only open door in an SUV and run people over with it as the pour outside to escape."
And probably less than 50 people would die.
Skippy's solution to ending mass shootings in the United States of America:
Using education to teach parents and children gun safety. (ok, this will stop no mass shooting whatsoever)
Making sure that every gun owner you can possibly reach understands the fundamentals of gun safety. (ditto on that one Skippy)
Teaching situation awareness to teachers, principals, employees who work in places that may be soft targets (Probably wouldn't have saved one blooming life at Pulse)
increasing armed security at some of these places. (ok, now you got one. if every bar with more than 50 people armed it's doors, windows, and rooftops against bomb-carrying, assault weapon equipped hit teams, installed metal detectors and xray machines, we might not set a new record. of course that will be $35 a beer please).
Of course, if the NRA would unclench it's gun-maker's hand in it's back pocket sphincter for a second, maybe the Lautenberg law that would allow those being investigated for being terrorists or at least those on the terrorist watch list to be precluded from buying the guns the way that this evil subhuman did.
Or we can send Eddie Eagle in for more training...........
You never heard me or the NRA advocate lying on a 4473 nor forgoing punishment for doing so.
New gun laws won't do anything to control mass killings either - ask France how that's working out.
You don't have a clue. You just parrot the same old stupid phrases hoping if you say it enough, it will actually be true. Get an origjnal thought for once.
SD, again I ask, what laws would have stopped this guy? Your current laws are what failed you and the Florida loved ones on this one, but hey, we cannot make our current laws work, so why not make more...that's so sensible...maybe that's what you mean by common sense gun laws.......
Like I said on the other thread. Guns had NOTHING to do with this sub human hunting down and killing 49 gay Americans. This sub humans "beliefs" did. The tool cannot be blamed. The tool could not be used unless this sub human held it in his hand and pulled the trigger. Until our leaders admit and face what this really is ALL about, the killings will not end. Time to face it and fix it!!
skippy said - "This is America - we don't just hysterically flail about passing laws and throwing regulations around that compromise people's rights when there is little they can do to prevent a determined murderer from killing a bunch of people."
+1 skippy, totally agree with this, and I will add that banning AR-15's is not the answer, NJ. connecticut, NY and others are wrong to do so. Makes no sense at all.
auntiel said - "Guns had NOTHING to do with this sub human hunting down and killing 49 gay Americans. This sub humans "beliefs" did. The tool cannot be blamed"
+1 auntiel; you are spot on, we even have otherwise intelligent posters arguing in the other thread that in this case it WAS the gun, but in the world trade center attack 'box cutters' had nothing to do with it. When are we going to ban bomb making materials (like all fertilizers) and boxcutters? how many more? how many? ("if it save just one life . . . . . ." geesh! gimme a break with this nonsense already)
you're both doing well, keep up the good work and invite your friends, families and contacts to actually join the NRA, it's a good thing because there is strength in numbers.
I have said before that most common sense gun laws or other laws will not statistically lower the number of mass murders. The numbers are too low to begin with to be able to statistically judge effect.
The common sense gun laws I have recommended, and posted above a number of times Darrin, and you know this Darrin, are mostly enhancements of existing laws, i.e. --- make what we have on the books work.
Nowhere have I said I believe we should ban assault weapons. Except for mass murders, they have little effect on crime statistics.
"My issue with guns is not in people having them, it's with getting them too easy, giving them easily to the wrong people, and not being able to track them when used in a crime."
"So, once again, what I support is universal background checks, universal mental health tracking and automated crime gun tracking.
I would also like to see people who illegally carry or illegally use guns face the harshest of penalties. The statistical evidence of this helping is also lacking but what the heck. Whether it's a crime gun or leaving your gun on the table for junior, put em away for a long, long, time. And two strikes and you're out with judicial override versus mandatory to protect those used in legally questionable defense."
Your problem is that you see any enhancement to current laws as new law and you feel there should be no new laws regarding guns. You feel either it won't fix the problem because they're criminals or there isn't a problem that can't be cured by more guns in more hands. Escalation is not the answer in my book.
Do these legislative enhancements stop the problem. No. But every time we make it harder to get a gun, we win. Every time someone is forced to use another weapon instead of a gun, we win. Because no other weapon has the kill ratio of a gun. None.
Now I have some other snippets I have recently added after this latest event. I don't use the word tragedy because at this point how can we really say the act is tragic --- our prevention is tragic. These new additions are:
- domestic abuser restrictions should include any abuser, not just married ones.
- all states need to comply
- people on the watch list should be restricted from buying and owning guns
= don't like it, there's a process for getting off the list
- OK, I had this as a secondary priority but let's get real: ban all clips above 10 bullets.
So there you have it Darrin. Mostly repetition of what you have read and discussed before with the watch list and domestic abuse being new. And no, these will not statistically make a dent in mass murders but clip size might reduce the carnage, albeit not statistically. At the same time, I just don't see where any of this puts the "normal" gun owner at risk. Sure, to preclude some bad guys from getting guns easily you will have to wait longer, fill out some more papers, and change clips more often. Good practice on that last one.
So you will be burdened but not restricted. Sort of like after 9/11 we are all more burdened now whenever we ticket and board the plane. What can I say: life in the big city. Get used to it.
In January, following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, President Obama issued a “Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence,” along with 22 other “initiatives.”
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1?page=
This study was to back up his push for three major gun control initiatives — universal background checks, a ban on “assault weapons,” and a ban on “high-capacity” magazines
Fun facts:
The majority of gun-related deaths between 2000 and 2010 were due to suicide and not criminal violence:
Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.
defensive use of guns “is a common occurrence,”
"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008."
Accidental deaths due to firearms continued to fall (Yay Eddie Eagle!) with “the number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents account[ing] for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
The key finding of more laws would result in less crime is absent.
“interventions,” such as background checks and restrictions on firearms and increased penalties for illegal gun use, showed “mixed” results, while “turn-in” programs “are ineffective” in reducing crime.
Most criminals obtained their guns in the underground economy — from friends, family members, or gang members — well outside any influence from gun controls on legitimate gun owners.
mass shootings such as the one in Newtown, Connecticut, have declined and “account for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths.”
This is the same report that our anti gun friends love to quote from because it reported that “the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.”
Zara Matheson of the Martin Prosperity Institute, produced a map that compared gun violence rates in the major metropolitan areas of the country to rates of foreign countries.
“If one were to exclude figures for Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, DC, the homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.” These areas, of course, are noted for the most restrictive gun laws in the country, thus negating any opportunity for the president to celebrate the report’s findings.
http://guardianlv.com/2013/06/gun-violence-facts-in-new-report-contradict-anti-gun-narrative/
The places with the most restrictive gun laws have the worst violence...
"in 2003 Americans owned an estimated 192 million firearms"
while today that number is estimated to be closer to 300 million, an increase of more than 55 percent."
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
Has there been a huge upswing in deaths? nope
This report also echoes “Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws" (Emphasis added.):
Bans on specified firearms or ammunition, Restrictions on firearm acquisition,
Waiting periods for firearm acquisition, Firearm registration and licensing of owners, and Zero tolerance for firearms in schools."
So, why are they pushing for things their own studies show won't work? Oh yeah, I forgot, they have an agenda and don't care about facts or whether or not the stated goal is ever achieved - the dems want money and votes and they are stepping on our backs to get it - period end..
Oh Skippy. You really should quote and note the source when you cut and paste other's narratives.
Again, and again, we have done this one before..... First, this 2013 "study" you just discovered again for the third time was secondary research or a collection of existing mostly secondary or inconclusive primary research efforts. It is not primary research. The purpose was to recommend what primary research should be conducted. Thus the title says it all: "PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH TO REDUCE THE THREAT OF FIREARM-RELATED VIOLENCE."
You have seemed to miss that point.
And then both sides, like you just did, over time have cherry-picked choice tidbits to make points while overlooking the true reasons for the report: "directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), along with other relevant federal agencies, to immediately begin identifying the most pressing firearm-related violence research problems. The CDC and the CDC Foundation2 requested that the Institute of Medicine (IOM), in collaboration with the National Research Council (NRC), convene a committee of experts to develop a potential research agenda focusing on the public health aspects of firearm-related violence—its causes, approaches to interventions that could prevent it, and strategies to minimize its health burden."
This was not a call to further Obama's agenda but a call to determine the proper research to find potential solutions.
When it comes to describing the problems, the report references the same data we have been tossing about since the dawn of the 2A Mega Thread. You cherry-picked your side, I can do the same..... That's not the point of the report.
Try this summary: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/
Sigh.
the AWB defined assault weapons as "semi-automatic firearms that shared too many cosmetic features with their fully automatic counterparts."
According to a Department of Justice study, the firearms that the AWB would ban were used in only 2% of gun crimes.
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf
Americans were led to believe the bill would ban machine guns and "weapons of war," something that had, in fact, already been banned since 1986.
" What some people call "assault weapons" function like every other normal firearm—they fire only one bullet each time the trigger is pressed. Unlike automatics (machine guns), they do not fire continuously as long as the trigger is held. ... Today in America, most handguns are semi-automatics, as are many long guns, including the best-selling rifle today, the AR-15, the model used in the Newtown shooting. Some of these guns look like machine guns, but they do not function like machine guns." -
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323723104578185271857424036
Is the proper research you indicate done by Violence Policy Center, an anti-gun lobby?
http://www.vpc.org/studies/awacont.htm
" [H]andgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons ... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
Eric Harris - columbine shooter was armed with a Hi-Point 995 - an AWB compliant gun.Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought thirteen. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.
Seung-Hui Cho (VT Shooter) showed the futility of regulating magazine capacity when he used 19 ten- and fifteen-round magazines - he was able to fire 170 of those rounds before shooting himself. Why was there no outcry for additional regulation after VT - the firearms used were handguns..
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/gun.laws/index.html?eref=aol
James Holmes used a shotgun in Aurora - much more lethal...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/us/aurora-gunmans-lethal-arsenal.html
After Sandy Hook the AR-15 was again vilified and wrongly depicted as a military weapon whose only purpose was to rapidly kill large numbers of people.
The AR-15 has been described as the "Modern Musket" Why?
modularity (lots of accessories)
accuracy,
light weight,
low recoil
In 2004, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired. It was not renewed - why?
The AWB had failed to have an impact on gun crime in the United States. A 2004 Department of Justice report concluded:
"Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. [Assault weapons] were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban."
Regarding large capacity magazines, the study said:
"It is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading."
In his memoir, Bill Clinton wrote that Democrats lost control of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections because of the AWB. Other Democrats have speculated that the AWB may have cost Al Gore the 2000 presidential election.
According to Senator Feinstein - author of the original AWB - "assault weapons have been used in 385 murders since the AWB expired in 2004, or about 48 murders per year." There were 8,583 total murders with guns in the United States in 2011, meaning so-called assault weapons were used 0.6% of the time.
FBI data shows that 323 murders were committed with rifles of any kind in 2011. In comparison, 496 murders were committed with hammers and clubs, and 1,694 murders were perpetrated with knives.
The truth about assault weapons is that there is NO such thing. So-called assault weapons are semi-automatic firearms banning guns due to cosmetic features is rediculous
"Is the proper research you indicate done by Violence Policy Center, an anti-gun lobby?" Not really. We have gone over this too before. Just extrapolating existing data dumps is really not primary research. Are you "mouse-ing" me?
"Primary research is new research, carried out to answer specific issues or questions. It can involve questionnaires, surveys or interviews with individuals or small groups. Secondary research makes use of information previously researched for other purposes and publicly available."
As you know Skippy et al, there are many conflicts in resolving the truth about guns no doubt stemming from the countless variables encountered, urban vs. rural, gender, race, income levels, education levels, whatever. Why is VT gun crazy but gun safe. Why is the South so dangerous. What's up in Chicago but not NYC? Why do people in South Carolina buy their guns at Burger King but in North Carolina they shoot each other at McDonalds? Do strict gun laws work or do they create islands where upstanding citizens are more preyed upon by criminals taking advantage of the strict gun laws.
No matter what you are trying to prove with guns, there's always an anomaly somewhere in the US or the world that contradicts what you think you have proved. Without primary research, we will continue to live in a gun world of "generally this is true" which when dealing with such an emotional subject as the 2A that many feel drives right to the heart of personal and family safety and the very protection of our way of life, makes attempting even the smallest modifications a Promethean task.
The report that you pulled the same old tired facts from was trying to define what primary research would answer the vast number of questions out there hopefully prioritizing them. Of course, since the report's 2013 issue, the NRA continues to block CDC funding from being used for primary research. No news sells guns you know.
But if you're talkin to me about assault weapons, definitions, and an AWB, you've missed my point and are guilty of preaching to the choir. I have no issues with assault weapons being sold. I have feelings for the common sense gun laws I have suggested. The AWB is not one of them, as you know.
"Why do people in South Carolina buy their guns at Burger King"
That one's easy... because I can.
Is this one of those "good guys with guns"?
http://patch.com/new-jersey/longvalley/long-valley-man-pointed-assault-rifle-boys-being-loud-cops
Tracy "Appis was charged with possession of drug paraphernalia, unauthorized person having a weapon, possession of a weapon for unlawful purpose, unlawful possession of a weapon, possession of an assault weapon, and illegal possession of ammunition magazine."
Where shall we begin Tracy? Its pretty clear from the charges he had the gun unlawfully.
And whats up with the possession of an assault weapon charge?
Tracy - That's a twice convicted felon with a series of an additional half dozen arrests for terroristic threats and assault. Remember the odd description of the stabbing in the throat??
Tracy, nice attempt at a "gotcha" question.
Nobody here has ever denied that there are "bad" guys with guns, but that doesn't negate the existence of "good" guys with guns.
So no, this wasn't a "good" guy with a gun, but as Darrin and GC pointed out he wasn't a "good" guy with just about anything... and being a convicted felon he would not be permitted to purchase/possess ANY firearms, yet somehow he still managed to do so. Weird, huh?
Searching for his name brings up several links describing his crime that date back more than a few years... this was a habitual violent criminal so why is he walking the streets at all?
yeah darrin you're right, it's not an 'assault rifle', which no one can define with any consistency, it's a ruger .22 caliber rifle.
gc - tracy - the NRA maintains that people like this should have the book thrown at them, to the full extent of law possible with any and all charges brought and the maximum amount of time served in jail.
no one i know (and i know a lot of nra members) wants a guy like this to be any where near a firearm
tracy - clearly this is not a good guy with a gun, not even close.
And shockingly enough - the pro 2A guys advocate him receiving the highest punishment allowed my law
"it's a ruger .22 caliber rifle."
If you swap the "furniture" (there are *tons* of upgrade/customization options for 10/22's) to something with a pistol grip and adjustable stock it magically becomes an assault weapon in NJ.
Same firearm, same barrel, same ammunition, but now it's more dangerous because the black plastic enables it to shoot eleventy-billion assault clip magazines per second.
I wish I was kidding, but I'm not (except for the whole assault clip magazine, in case any media outlets are reading this).
Freedom Munitions has free shipping for Father's Day today... you don't need to be a dad to qualify. ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-S161h2IpQ
New breed of targets for the .22 up to 9mm. It’s a swarm of wireless targets all interacting together to bleed you of your ammo supply using some new not-seen-before technology on the field. Some of the notable tech on the target platform includes forward-facing LEDs with replaceable polycarbonate armor and an electromagnetic catch for resetting the target. Together, it becomes a very unique experience for the shooter and we feel might ramp up the fun factor by many orders of magnitude.
Very cool, but I'm sure very expensive too... (even "dumb" knockdown targets are pretty pricey).
just sayin
"So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats"
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/146307088451/why-gun-control-cant-be-solved-in-the-usa
Skippy - Even if the #'s have "declined" (which I'm very skeptical of... more likely people just don't want to answer such a question over the phone) there were approximately 102,000,000 gun owners that killed no one yesterday.
Clearly gun owners (or the items they own - estimated to include between 5 and 20 million "assault weapons") are the problem.
" "So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats"
Why would this ever be true? Beyond your source stating it, you got any other reasons this would be true?
good post mark, thanks for sharing, scott adams makes some valid points;
"Our situation in the United States is that people with different risk profiles are voting for their self-interests as they see it. There is no compromise to be had in this situation unless you brainwash one side or the other to see their self-interest differently. And I don’t see anyone with persuasion skills trying to do that on either side.
Fear always beats reason. So as long as Democrats are mostly using guns to shoot innocent people (intentionally or accidentally) and Republicans are mostly using guns for sport or self-defense, no compromise can be had.
So stop acting like one side is stupid. Both sides of the gun issue are scared, and both have legitimate reasons to be that way. Neither side is “right.” "
https://www.openthebooks.com/assets/1/7/Oversight_TheMilitarizationOfAmerica_06102016.pdf
Very interesting considering the anti-gun rhetoric that permeates government propaganda.
"The Internal Revenue Service, with its 2,316 special agents, spent nearly $11 million on guns, ammunition and military-style equipment."
The IRS needs guns (a lot of them apparently) to enforce taxation, yet many still beleieve that taxation isn't forceful taking by the government (an obviously illegal thing for you to do to your neighbor, rightfully so)? Okay then....
BDog: how can points be valid without any facts or source?
JIT: Good point. We reviewed this one before and found to be either mostly false or for equipment aimed toward enforcement officers in those agencies. Report seems to be rehash of earlier effort.
However, partially true that, in general, everyone has more guns, bigger guns, and really cool vehicles to transport them in. Welcome to a combination of the war on terrorism augmented by great prices from the lowering of inventory post the Iraq War. I.E. ---- felt we needed to beef up and prices were never better. Look, I got a fully armored Humvee for the price of a Jeep!
Some counter info: http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2014/jun/27/james-buchal/government-stockpiling-hundreds-millions-rounds-am/ There's more of this to counter the report.
But on the other side: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/aug/21/rand-paul/rand-paul-says-federal-program-incentivizes-police/
So I would conclude and could easily be wrong, yes, everyone has more and bigger guns and the ammo to fit them, but no, there's no government takeover or coup-de-tat nor a huge armament of people previously unarmed. Oh yeah, and they have lots of really neat trucks.
Welcome to the post 9/11 world of living with terrorists where many of our freedoms are restricted or have limitations.
Of course we have patriots pushing back to allow suspected terrorists who can't board a plane to buy guns, want to force us to either prove probable cause or take the suspected terrorist off the list, letting adjudicated mental defectives arm up, and letting you grab the biggest clips you can -- you might need em to answer the door at 10:30 pm! Oh yeah, be sure play that pledge of allegiance recruiting tape to terror loud and clear because we don't trust the government and want to be sure that the uglies feel real good about their success. Freedom fighters, idiots, paranoids, or guys who like to sell guns --- you be the judge.
No I just thought it was. Good article - it's an option piece by an author (of dilbert) who is actually an anti - he is saying if anything is going to change both sides needs to look at their motivations. It is in no way a scholarly work. In my opinion it bring up the fact that both sides have valid points and are operating from a position of fear.
And yeah mark that's an old meme
"We reviewed this one before and found to be either mostly false or for equipment aimed toward enforcement officers in those agencies. Report seems to be rehash of earlier effort."
No, *you* reviewed this one before and came to the conclusions *you* wanted to hear - certainly no surprise there. This article is co-authored by a former US Senator and the data comes directly from the government itself. Please read both the article and report before making assumptions.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-does-the-irs-need-guns-1466117176
If you don't have a wsj subscription, paste the link into a google search and click the link from the results. I think the wsj has a deal with google to allow full access to articles when they are the result of a search...
Removing the spin, we can argue and agree or disagree with the justifications for the militarization of non-military entities within the government, but the build up is well documented and the data is provided by the government itself. It makes no sense to try and say it's not.
+ 1 skippy - as you said; "it's an option piece by an author (of dilbert) who is actually an anti - he is saying if anything is going to change both sides needs to look at their motivations." ; the author does indeed make some very good points.
dilbert's authur says:
"On average, Democrats (that’s my team*) use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.
On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.
If you don’t believe me, you can check the statistics on the Internet that don’t exist. At least I couldn’t find any that looked credible.
But we do know that race and poverty are correlated. And we know that poverty and crime are correlated. And we know that race and political affiliation are correlated. Therefore, my team (Clinton) is more likely to use guns to shoot innocent people, whereas the other team (Trump) is more likely to use guns for sporting and defense.
That’s a gross generalization. Obviously. Your town might be totally different.
So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats. Psychologically, those are different risk profiles. And you can’t reconcile those interests, except on the margins. For example, both sides might agree that rocket launchers are a step too far. But Democrats are unlikely to talk Republicans out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you.”"
good points to consider;
Anyone seen this?
Party of Six:
To overcome and dismantle New Jersey’s “Justifiable Need” statue that absolutely denies our rights as private citizens to carry a handgun outside of our homes. www.partyofsix.org
They have a lawyer representing them from Mississippi who has sued / is suing the ATF. Doesn't seem like it will help us overnight, but I hope it will chip away at some of the restrictions on our rights.
... and NJ will just enact more barriers in their place.
Christie recently tried to make it easier for victims of domestic violence to obtain carry permits, and the Assembly is already creating/debating legislation to negate that.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/29/concealed-carrier-prevents-mass-shooting-at-sc-nightclub/
Concealed Carrier Prevents Mass Shooting At SC Nightclub The criminal shooter got four charges of attempted murder... He should be given a charge for each person in the crowd. Mark was this you? lol
To that tune:
http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/20/concealed-permit-holder-stops-attempted-mass-shooting-in-chicago/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/09/2nd-amendment-in-action-armed-driver-stops-attempted-mass-shooting/
http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/05/31/concealed-carrying-hero-battled-mass-shooter-houston-media-silent/
and many, many more
Nah, that's about an hour away from me, but nice job for the "good guy" with a gun.
(...and exactly why SC doesn't ban the carrying of firearms in an establishment that serves alcohol, as long as you aren't drinking.)
Free shipping at ShopRuger.com this weekend on orders over $50.
Might need to pick up a 2 pack of 17 round magazines for my SR9!
Haha, sorry JR.
Free shipping over $99 and 5% off gift certs this weekend at Freedom Munitions too. Never a bad time to stock up on ammo (or give the gift of ammo)!
I feel sorry for the 5 year old boy that was shot and killed by his 4 year old brother.
I feel good about the 11-year old who shot and stopped the intruder with his parent's handgun.
happiest, you should feel sorry for the mother who was derelict in being a responsible parent maintaining a safe home for her multiple children. in fact, you should feel sorry for her possessing a weapon illegally that got 1 of her children killed. that's the liberal mantra, right? feeling sorry for criminals, right?
You mean this 11-year old JR --- http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/homeinvasion.asp
OR this 11-year old
https://www.truthorfiction.com/butte-invasion/
Up to your ole tricks again?
joe - the child would still be dead whether she got the gun legally or illegally.
so the parent broke the law and obtained the firearm illegally and allowed a minor to get access to it - also illegal and you blame the instrument. What color is the sky in bizarro- world ? Do you have unicorns ?
Do you get a big charge out of being rude, Skippy?
Or is it your childish personality that leads you to fantasize about other people's lives.
lol
Calling someone "jackass" ..... JR?
Angry people like you shouldn't be allowed to have guns.
Why don't you turn on channel 13 at 9pm tonight ...... it might help dissolve some of your rudeness.
I'm not sure because JR says I'm stupid and can't be fixed but I think I saw someone calling me a bad name.....
Like we won't be seeing this kid in the news again.... I'm amazed you can read this story and come away feeling good. I feel sad for the kid who shoots a fleeing laundry thief, claims he had a gun, and then boasts about it. You train your kids to shoot people as they run away with a few Walmart possessions?
Let's see, guy in house, kid grabs knife, guy shows gun, kid grabs gun, tells guy to scram. Guy scrams, guy is outside of the house running away with a hamper of dirty clothes and this kid, whose Dad leaves guns around for 11-year olds to freely grab as fast as a guy with a gun running at him down the stairs, this kid fires off 12 rounds of full metal jacket finally hitting the scramming guy on the 12th round as he was hoping the fence.
No doubt the kid felt the guy was about to use unlawful deadly physical force or engage in kidnapping, assault, robbery, or rape. Or take his favorite pair of Spiderman undies.
He actually knew the guy, was familiar, but they were not friends. Lucky that. But he was not going to let those Spidey shorts get away.
Chris said the guy had robbed the house before. Not sure what was up with that, maybe he was on laundry parole.
“I hope you learned your lesson from coming to this house trying to steal stuff,” Chris said.
Wonder what happened to the burgler's gun?
Oh yeah, we will be seeing this kid on TV sometime in the future. He's got "needs counseling" written all over him. I'm glad you feel good. I know this kid is real happy about shooting a hapless homeless hamper housebreaker. Hope they move next door to you.
They were? I can still see them.... no matter, gun control has been losing BIG TIME during Obama's reign- and will continue to lose. Because the majority of American people obviously don't want any more of it, despite what the mainstream media portrays with their propaganda, because they know the truth. If a majority of the people truly wanted more gun control, with all the news of the last 8 years, they would have gotten it. They didn't. All the propaganda and spin in the world isn't fooling enough people to make a dent in the issue. Obama is the biggest gun-selling president (and I'm not even including fast and furious) in my lifetime, if not EVER. LOL.
Which is a good thing, since it's an un-infringable constitutional right. But we've been over this. Maybe if Hillary wins, she can gain some traction Obama hasn't been able to... but I doubt it. Plus, she has to win first.... I feel safe in saying if Trump is elected, we (constitutional, law-abiding gun owners) won't have much to worry about, at least on a national level.
Evidence?
More states are passing constitutional carry. More states are passing "stand your ground" laws. More states are allowing concealed carry.
Obama is the nation's biggest gun seller LOL, from one of your favorite "objective" sources...
http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales/
HG "Angry people like you shouldn't be allowed to have guns."
And according to you, who should be allowed to have guns?
I think perverse people such as yourself shouldn't be allowed to have opinions.....I mean freedom of speech, right to bear arms....if we are going to interpret one, we might as well interpet them all.
SD, " I know this kid is real happy about shooting a hapless homeless hamper housebreaker."
Now you are trying to talk down a home break in and theft because of what was stolen is just plain rediculous. Let's just legalize breaking into someone's home then, if you see there was no big deal about it..... Who knows what the guys intentions were, I wouldn't want to be the one to wait and find out.......waiting could cost you your life.
"I think perverse people such as yourself shouldn't be allowed to have opinions.....I mean freedom of speech, right to bear arms....if we are going to interpret one, we might as well interpet them all."
Slam-dunk.
That's the problem in a nut shell: changing definitions and intention of our laws in order to fit our own personal views.
Seriously, what ever happened to live and let live? Today we are all about presumption of guilt, do no harm, and forgetting all about the basic tenet of innocent until proven guilty. Crazy times indeed!
I'm sorry for you Darrin if you think it's appropriate to shoot a guy running off with your dirty laundry. The break-in was over. The kid knew who he was.
I do fault the parent for using FMJ instead of JHP and failing to teach judicious marksmanship - he should have been able to drop him way before the fence - he wasted a quarter of a box of ammo on that guy
+1 skippy!
If people don't want to get shot, I proffer they not break into someone's house. Problem solved. Nobody gets robbed, nobody gets shot. Everyone wins.
...."perverse" ??
LOL -- the childish name-calling again from one of the "boys"
I love how JR "needs" to parrot Darrin's words ....those little boys sure need to stick together.
Look!! --- there's JR now, jumping up and down with childish glee, clapping his hands, as he pats Darrin on the back. LOL
Let us know when you need your diaper changed, JR.
So Jr., do you train your 11-year olds how to get the guns and to shoot a fleeing culprit guilty of stealing dirty laundry? You seem to be saying YES.
Personally I think this is a stretch for Alabumer's stand your ground law given the legal point in question is: "Unlawfully and forcefully entering a home or car." Seems that in this case, the person had entered the house but was outside the home and fleeing when the kid unloaded on him. He was shot clearing the fence which presumably marked the border.
I mean where is the demarcation for "entering a home?" Could the kid have followed him down the block squeezing off rounds? Maybe caught up with him the next day?
Plus, how can it be legal to make firearms readily available for 11-year olds. I mean this kid, according to him, got this loaded gun really fast. I mean in the time it takes to come down the stair, bolt out the door and be part way across the lawn, this kid was firing.
Something don't sound too responsible to me in this one. But hey, if this is Jr.'s winning solution, go for it.
It's very humorous and telling that happiest girl criticizes others for denigrating others, then denigrates others. High IQ on that one.
SD, I was shooting guns at 8 or 10, I don't remember. I had access to at least one loaded weapon in my house growing up. I never shot anyone with it, no one ever got hurt from it. Because I was taught responsibility and consequences, but those are two things you liberals don't believe in any more (except for gun owners of course)
So that's a yes?
I did not know that resonsible gun ownership was just a conservative ideal. Must be so ez in a black n white world. Find a label, know all.
Is what a yes - can a youth be instructed in the responsibility to control the and lawfully utilize a firearm - it's a resounding yes. My kids have had individual instruction with NRA safety courses - first steps pistol and rifle and are NRA / Winchester distinguished experts - my oldest is 20 now but it's been Drilled into there heads since they were a sperm. - I've spent many thousands of dollars on training and the responsibility to maintain and store as well as utilize firearms appropriately - my family is not the enemy here but an example of how the responsible care storage and use of firearms can exist in a polite lawful society.
Did you teach them to read....(kidding)
"?So Jr., do you train your 11-year olds how to get the guns and to shoot a fleeing culprit guilty of stealing dirty laundry? You seem to be saying YES." It's noted again above this second time.
I really didn't expect you to say, "no, I did not teach my kids to be responsible" and obviously yours are. But.... would they shoot at a fleeing man, outside the house, that they knew, who is making off with your dirty laundry?"
+1 to Skippy who said - " I've spent many thousands of dollars on training and the responsibility to maintain and store as well as utilize firearms appropriately - my family is not the enemy here but an example of how the responsible care storage and use of firearms can exist in a polite lawful society."
this is also true for me and my family; there is no reason to deny us the choice of rifles/magazines that we need or choose to own. nothing.to.fear.at.all
so why the constant push to take away certain rifles, certain types of ammo, certain magazine capacities? Why the OCD obsession to keep coming after law abiding , responsible citizens? Over time, as this continues, it will make us less safe, not more safe.
good post Skippy, well done, i would add that the only things most know people know of the NRA is what they have been spoon fed by an anti-gun media machine who collectively do not see a need for guns in a 'progressive' society. I urge everyone to check out what Skippy is saying for themselves and not rely solely on what they hear from NPR and their ilk. (CBS, NBC, NYT's etc) All of theses so-called 'news outlets' are in the tank for more and more gun bans, ammo bans, and restrictions, it's not just the 'no fly, no buy' list, they will not stop coming for more and more limitations on everything firearm related, and as Skippy has pointed out, there is absolutely nothing to fear from him and his family re:guns. nothing at all. please don't give in to fear like the media is campaigning heavily for you to do.
Is that really what's happening here BDog. With over 30,000 dead by guns each year, do you really claim your family's safe use is making us more safe?
Or is it that with 30,000 dead by guns each year, you have decided that the only way to keep YOURSELF safe is to arms yourself of any caliber, capacity and quantity of guns is somehow fulfilling the founding father's dream for America.
Somehow arriving at the answer that the best solution is more guns in more hands seems a little short on creativity, much less safety. Every year, hundreds of good, responsible, well-trained folks like you go off the reservation and become something else. There is no safe determination that you or your family is not next.
Somehow, if cheering an 11-year old kid who shoot a burglar, outside the house, at the edge of his lawn, guilty of breaking, entering, and leaving with dirty laundry, a guy that the kid knew, if cheering that is the quality of your training ---- that's just sad.
That's all I was getting at. Sure, own your guns. And I own my right to ask for a cap on clip size in a Constitutional fashion. And as far as the NRA, liberal media, whatever ---- you are roughly right. The media spoon feeding only covers the tip of the iceberg on how insidious and evil the NRA really is and how responsible gun owners are being taken for a capitalistic ride by the gun makers and purveyors of death. These ##$-ers even support selling guns to suspected terrorists; that's digging deep in the immorality chasm to show a profit.
Thanks and hey, I saw a shotgun when Jr. wrote handgun... How about giving your take on the question?
I don't have kids. But if I had an 11-year old, yes he would be instructed in the safe use of and self-defense with firearms. Was that the question? I know you're attempting to pin some characterization on me (and all gun owners), but it's just nonsense really- you are the one being unreasonable and attempting to paint an unfair picture of not only the 2nd Amendment but all gun owners in general.... you continually say "you don't have a problem with people owning guns" and "I don't want to take your guns", and you clearly demonstrate over and over again that is exactly what you want to do. And everyone on this forum (except for your comrades is dis-arms: gadfly, happiest girl, and the like) knows it. People see right through you, ol' boy... it's simply not working anymore.
And it's not working across the country either. The people know the truth. the liberals keep pushing, and the mainstream media keeps pushing, and the president keeps pushing, and the people keep pushing back. Gun control has been a BIG FAILURE under Obama, and BECAUSE OF Obama. It's sort of like that chinese finger trap: the harder you pull, the tighter it gets. The harder the govt tries to push gun control, the more the people of the country fight back.
Now run off and go find some firearms death stats to spin into a novella you can type up here that we can read the next time we get a day off work (because that's how long it takes to read your diatribes).
SD, you are really trying to talk down this story....something tells me there is much more to it, in some quick research:
1. This was not the first time the man has broken into their house.
2. The burglar threatened to kill the 11 year old.
3. The hamper was full of "property" maybe laundry, but that seems doubtful.
4. Of all the articles I have read, every one says they did not know the burglar "they were familiar with the suspected intruder, though they don’t know him well."
5. The 11 year old reported that the burglar had a gun
6. "Chris referred to the man as “a meth-head” in his 30s who had robbed them before and is known for targeting other homes in the area."
So, IDK where you are getting your "info" from, or if you think cherry picking info is fun and funny, but there is some real facts for you.
And "LAW" fyi .... whatever that is, states:
In 2006, the Hunstville Times reports, Alabama enacted Stand Your Ground, a law that permits the use the use of deadly force against an aggressor if that person is:
About to use unlawful deadly physical force.
A burglar about to use physical force.
Engaged in kidnapping, assault, robbery, or rape.
Unlawfully and forcefully entering a home or car, or attempting to remove a person against their will. (There are exceptions for people who used to live there and are under no injunctions or domestic protection orders.)
Breaking into a nuclear power plant.
Wow, it a Jr. lollapalooza litany of laments.... It ask a simple question having absolutely nothing to do with your tirade of generalizations and accusations having nothing to do with what this discussion is about or anything I have said previously. Instead you chose to tell us whether you are responsible or not. OK folks, show of hands --- who amongst think they themselves as not being responsible? That's a question I would not even bother to ask Jr.
But thank goodness you believe you speak for the people, you speak for everyone on the forum "(except for your comrades is dis-arms: gadfly, happiest girl, and the like)". The "like." That's a good one. We are not alike at all. We agree on some things, we differ on others. I don't even know what they think about my previous proposals on common sense gun laws.
I am not attempting to pin anything on you. I just asked a question. If you are afraid to answer? Is it because you think it's some sort of character trap? At least that's what you said. Well all-righty then. That's an answer.
Where in all of this latest foo-fa-rah do you see anything of me even hinting of taking your guns beyond you saying it. You just take all your angst from every anti-gun statement you have ever seen, you put em together in a paragraph or two and toss them at me as my beliefs because I am convenient for you to vent your spleen against the entire anti-gun world. And you think that gets you to avoid answering the question.
1. 11 year old kid was alone in his own home. 2. Kid confronted robber who was stealing property. 3. Kid felt threatened by robber in his house and used weapon to defend himself. 4. Kid fired final shot at robber fleeing with his property.
Honestly, I think the kid acted in a very responsible manner to defend himself and his home. He was undoubtedly scared to death and that influenced his poor aim. , if you are confronted by a thief in your home not defending yourself could very well result in your death. I think he did everything right in defending himself. His accuracy needs improvement but again he was afraid . Quite frankly I would have liked to hear that he shot the subject when he came downstairs rather than after he was fleeing but it's been ruled a clean shoot.
"SD, you are really trying to talk down this story....something tells me there is much more to it, in some quick research" I do agree, would love to see follow up, lots of holes and questions. But no, we were looking at the same facts. And bear in mind, if I was really funning the kid I would have talked about the bragging, mocking, and other things the press accused him of. I was more interested in 1. the law and 2. your feelings about supporting this shooting.
1. This was not the first time the man has broken into their house.
- sounds like they know him, doesn't it. but why not arrested?
2. The burglar threatened to kill the 11 year old.
- so he says, he says there's a gun too. how often do you hear about gun but don't hear about make/model/etc.
3. The hamper was full of "property" maybe laundry, but that seems doubtful.
- good point, we actually don't know it was full, we have to assume there was laundry -- it is a laundry basket, don't know it anything else is in it. Couldn't be much, not a lot of room (or time)
4. Of all the articles I have read, every one says they did not know the burglar "they were familiar with the suspected intruder, though they don’t know him well."
- uh, familiar, don't know him well but well enough to know he broke in before....
5. The 11 year old reported that the burglar had a gun.
- yeah, but no gun was found that was reported
6. "Chris referred to the man as “a meth-head” in his 30s who had robbed them before and is known for targeting other homes in the area."
- hmmm, sounds like he knows him.
So, IDK where you are getting your "info" from, or if you think cherry picking info is fun and funny, but there is some real facts for you.
- So, my summary fits with this except I read where the guy was in the yard running awkwardly because of the hamper and was shot as he climbed over the fence. He also said the guy was on the steps yelling death threats, had a gun so the kid exchanged his knife for a gun. That pretty well sets up the timing of guy on stairs, kid gets gun, starts shooting at guy in lawn and on the 12th shot, nails him clearing the fence.
- yes you got the law as I saw it.
About to use unlawful deadly physical force.
- guy was out the door
A burglar about to use physical force.
- guy was out the door
Engaged in kidnapping, assault, robbery, or rape.
- guy was out the door
Unlawfully and forcefully entering a home or car, or attempting to remove a person against their will. (There are exceptions for people who used to live there and are under no injunctions or domestic protection orders.)
- OK, this is the one. But my question was since the guy was out the door, isn't this a stretch and how far can you stretch it. Down the street, the next day.... What?
Breaking into a nuclear power plant.
- hmmm, wonder why they culled this one out.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/05/01/he-started-crying-like-a-little-baby-11-year-old-brags-about-shooting-suspected-home-invader/?utm_term=.8338cf957934 This was the article you all first posted. Has the relative timeline, the fact the burglar was outside, shot while hopping the fence, etc.
Skippy, I didn't read where any of the shots were fired inside. That's what raised my eyebrows. And the article clearing says the guy was moving down the stairs, with his gun, as the kid went for his gun.
In the kid's defense, maybe he was being very accurate and trying to wound the guy. Let's go with that. Otherwise there's a potential 11 bullets flying somewhere in that neighborhood.
SD,
From what I gather, the burglar used the hamper to put whatever he was stealing into for transport. How you can still say "we have to assume there was laundry -- it is a laundry basket, don't know it anything else is in it" is beyond me. To assume he was stealing dirty laundry is just trying to downplay the situation and you know it.
Secondly, the accounts are not very clear when the child started shooting, from what I had read there was a warning shot then a clip unload. But if someone is truly scared for their life, they will undoubtedly empty the clip while aiming at their target, in that time, if the perp made it to the boarder of the yard, so be it.
Me personally, no, I would not shoot at someone as they were running away, but this is a 11 year old kid, who did what he did, and was legally cleared for what he did. Turn the story upside down and shake it at its' ankles all you want, the kid was legally cleared for his actions.
SD "In the kid's defense, maybe he was being very accurate and trying to wound the guy. Let's go with that. Otherwise there's a potential 11 bullets flying somewhere in that neighborhood."
Are you aware with even the highest trained police's accuracy??? I believe only 30% of their bullets are target hits. In shootouts, 100's of rounds go flying, yet you have said nothing about that...but now these 11 make you wonder....awfully one side of the fence for you hu?
"Otherwise there's a potential 11 bullets flying somewhere in that neighborhood."
Because police officers, who you are 100% fine with owning weapons including automatic weapons I'm sure, NEVER do that. LOL Your double standards are showing, as usual.
"From what I gather, the burglar used the hamper to put whatever he was stealing into for transport." Well that's a no-duh. But unless he unloaded it, probably has laundry. As to something else being in it, there are no reports so you are guessing.
As to the rest, it was a simple question. First, yes he is legal. But does the law allow you to shoot someone outside the house, when they are clearly hopping the fence? Stand what ground? Just seems like a stretch. For Alabama, apparently a legal stretch. The simple question though was "would you train your kid to do this?" My hope is no, that you would tell your kid, if he could ID the guy, like you were familiar with him, he's been robbing houses around here for a while, and the guy was hoping the fence with some possessions ---- let the guy go and let the police do their work. You have insurance and why would you want your kid to live with a killing if it could be reasonably avoided. Thank goodness this kid doesn't. But based on his braggadocio, I say counseling because I thin we're gonna see this one in the news again someday.
Hey, personally the guy was robbing a house. Its a risky business. He got shot, that goes with the territory. I would rather the kid not be charged. I just feel for the kid either having to live with it, or to be so darned proud of shooting a burglar after the threat is gone. To me, there's something wrong with this kids training and I pray you don't train your kids this way.
And yes, I am aware of the police mis-fires. As well as anyone under fire. At least that's what the studies show, Eddie be darned. Most of the time, training goes out the window for all except those facing fire routinely.
FYI, from the story: "Once the man made it outside, Chris fired a warning shot." OK, that's a warning shot, following by 11 more once the guy was outside. That's not protecting, that sounds like hunting. Now, remember he is fully trained. What does your training tell you to do when you hit a guy with a gun in the leg........? Yeah between no info on the gun, the fact they knew the guy, the timing, yeah, I smell a rat in this one in terms of stand your ground.
But like I said, it's a dangerous business and the guy came up short. And no, the kid should not be charged IMO. Therapy yes though or at least a training update.
I was wondering how you guys would choose to spend your holiday weekend.... and I was correct in my assumption that you would all be doing what you love best, which is pointlessly arguing with each other. Enjoy (-;
Sadly, I'm stuck in the office today and probably tomorrow, too... but at least I'm getting PAID, lol.
...and OF COURSE Ian checks in, to laugh at us for being here.... while BEING HERE himself. " ;) " "lol"
Happy Independence Day weekend, everyone- let's not forget what it's about.
ianimal - What kind of work do you that traps you in the office on Independence Day weekend? I thought this was only for restaurant workers like me. Hope you can find the time to fly the flag, listen to some patriotic music, grill a porterhouse steak and see some fireworks with the kids. If you can, a small contribution to our vets would be most appreciated as well.
"Sadly, I'm stuck in the office today and probably tomorrow, too... but at least I'm getting PAID, lol."
Glad your working today, keep that SS check coming in thank you.
I'm sure your on break or lunch and able to check out HL
Atta boy.
Next
The Man There's an oxymoron... :>)
I just check in on water breaks from painting. Remodeling and want to be able to have my AC back....
"Your double standards are showing, as usual." At least only one of us is knicker-knotted :>)
OK, on to the bbq!
Happy Independence Day.
stolen from here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/4rndgi/since_gun_control_is_a_hot_button_topic_heres_a/
https://i.sli.mg/h6JJPo.jpg
Put into context, in 2014 almost the same amount of people died from accidental falls in the home as firearm related deaths (roughly 32,000). Eliminating suicides and gang violence and we get a very interesting statistic...
Americans are roughly 19x more likely to be killed by an unintentional fall in the home than be killed by a firearm.
To wit, America does not have a "gun crime" problem. We have a mental health problem and a gang violence problem. Those are two entirely different issues and must be treated as such. Lumping them all together is, at a minimum, intellectually dishonest.
source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr65/nvsr65_04.pdf (see page 44)
http://i.imgur.com/eOiyVBl.jpg
As more and more unconstitutional gun laws are passed, we will be seeing more and more of this...
Around 1,000 gun owners rallied at the state capitol in Olympia, WA, openly armed, this past Saturday in defiance of the newly passed gun control law, I-594.
“This isn’t just a protest. We are here to openly violate the law,” stated Gavin Seim, organizer of the event, named ‘I Will Not Comply’.
At the end of the rally, gun owners burned their concealed weapons permits and signed a petition vowing to refuse to follow the new gun control law. The petition ended with the text, “We pledge our blood. We will not comply.”
http://wearechange.org/wa-gun-owners-stage-largest-felony-civil-disobedience-rally-americas-history/
You're in good company when the same thing happened in 1969, although a little different.
You know Skippy, quoting falls and crime/gun violence kills is one metric. Although you leave out how often those crime kills and even gang violence kills include deaths by those who are neither criminals or gang members.
How about another metric. How about how the US rates in terms of "best of class" amongst developed nations throughout the world. Hot off the presses but with little difference from the past decade:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/
"Americans are 10 times more likely to be killed by guns than people in other developed countries, a new study finds.
Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the United States' gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher. And, even though the United States' suicide rate is similar to other countries, the nation's gun-related suicide rate is eight times higher than other high-income countries, researchers said."
Ten times, 25 times, 8 times.... I would also note that Australia's suicide rate dropped at a statistically significant rate post their gun ban, not that I am suggesting a ban.
""These results are consistent with the hypothesis that our firearms are killing us rather than protecting us,"
"The researchers also found that compared to people in the other high-income nations, Americans are seven times more likely to die from violence and six times more likely to be accidentally killed with a gun."
"Even though it has half the population of the other 22 nations combined, the United States accounted for 82 percent of all gun deaths. The United States also accounted for 90 percent of all women killed by guns, the study found. Ninety-one percent of children under 14 who died by gun violence were in the United States. And 92 percent of young people between ages 15 and 24 killed by guns were in the United States, the study found."
On top of this I would suggest that in America there are probably more laws, more product safety regulations, around falling than there are restrictions on the 2A. In other words, we do more to protect ourselves from falling than we do from being shot.
Now crime and homicide is down across the world, US included. We still fall more than being shot. But against the metric of the world, we suck. The U.S. is more dangerous and more lethal than the rest of the developed world. The sheer number of guns is killing us.
Again, no recommendation for a ban but we should first admit we have a problem and perhaps, at minimum make existing laws universal without loopholes, mental health included (which is woefully not universal).
Now on mental health, beside making existing laws universal, what do you suggest? Because it is easy to say --- aha, there's the problem. Finding a viable solution can be trickier. (bear in mind that once you suggest one you will be labelled a progressive leftist liberal looney anti- gunnite :>) Be brave!
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/
But as we have seen in the uk and Australia the violence persists - even gun crime persists: it's ineffective
Did somebody mention Australia??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4
CBGB We've been through this several times - you going to make me pull it again? Do you dispute there were not just several massacres in Paris involving guns. They have the same problems we do. I just would like to see a plan that does not infringe on the rights of 200 million lawful gun owners to prevent something that a motivated attacker is going to do anyway with another mechanism- perhaps a pressure cooker or a truck full of heating oil and fertilizer? All new firearms legislation is going to do is prevent trained, law abiding citizens from protecting themselves and their loved ones
I really don't care what the risk of *gun* death is... I care what the *total* risk of murder is. Whether by knife, baseball bat, etc... dead is dead.
Truth is, clean up a handful of cities in the US and our murder rate is just about the same as any other country you like comparing us to. We mostly have a gang violence problem, murders are concentrated in lovely places like Chicago, DC, Newark... not spread evenly across the nation (i.e. flyover country where the vast majority of guns are owned).
Another truth... if 80% of the murders are gang on gang. GOOD! Fewer of them are better... let them wipe themselves off the map.
As Skippy said, there are many tens (possibly hundreds) of MILLIONS of gun owners being targeted by laws which have no effect on the gang-bangers in Memphis or Detroit.
In the words of your Dear Leader: ‘We cannot let the actions of a few define all of us’
http://www.pressherald.com/2016/07/09/obama-we-can-not-let-the-actions-of-a-few-define-all-of-us/
(Of course - he's only referring to race... because *everything* is a race problem for him.)
Agreed mark - and as I have said previously- people are afraid and every time POTUS opens his mouth more and more people feel the need to take their personal safety into their own hands.
Here is an idea - Chicago, NYC, LA, DC and Baltimore succeed from the union and become the utopian police state desired - and leave the rest of the country to its business. You can can set up a big fence and live like escape from NY minus snake. Since that's not going to happen present something reasonable whereby law abiding people who mind their own business are not effected by the inability of the residents of those areas from killing each other every time the Bulls win a playoff tournament
Skippy: sorry, but you really have nothing to say refuting America's terrible death-by-gun statistics versus the rest of the world's developed nations.
Falls: if we put half the effort in reducing gun deaths that we do for reducing falls, we would be in a much better place. Obviously we will see more death from things we do most like driving, standing up and, surprised you didn't post this excuse, sitting ""Sitting is more dangerous than smoking, kills more people than HIV and is more treacherous than parachuting. We are sitting ourselves to death," http://www.cnbc.com/2014/08/18/why-your-chair-might-be-killing-you.html
The fact that we die from living does not say we should not prioritize death from guns where we rank so poorly against a much better world. Did you not read the stats on how bad we are? It seems so glaringly obvious to even the untrained eye that there's room for improvement.
But no, you suggest less is more or throw out the mental health sound bite without suggesting an actual proposal or plan. Still waiting on that.
Then you turn to gang violence pulling an anonymous 80% number and running with it. Well, you fell down: the real number is more like 80% of those surveyed reported gang violence. The number of gang-related homicides is about 13%. Your point, cordon off the city and only send Kurt Russell in when needed, is also over inflated. Only in the gang capitals of LA and Chicago do gang related homicides reach 50%, not 80% but still a huge number and that's only for those cities. This represents 25% of all gang homicides so you can see where the numbers per city will drop as you move out of these two locations to the other 300 sizeable cities in the US.
70% of all gang related homicides happen in cities of over 100,000 which is about 300 cities. Now, to your point, if we just kicked out a few states, we can lower this a fair amount. CA is the lead with a count of 73 but contiguous with that is AZ with 10 and one hop over NM (2) is TX with 37. Catty corner to TX is CO with 12 and to keep the border smooth take out UT and NV with 4 each. Cap it off with FL at 22 since it's easy to sever although this will reduce the crime guns available in America :>) Now that's 166 big cities out of 304 for only 8 out of 50 states. Should reduced gun deaths in America by a max of 20% (pfm estimate). Great!!! :>)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population#Cities_formerly_over_100.2C000_people
Gangs are obviously also concentrated in our bigger cities, but no where near the exclusivity you think worthy of building a wall. Funny idea though and great movie(s). Love the Fonda surfing superimposed scene. Even if you erased every large city, you would still have 30% of the gang murder left.
Your numbers are bogus: https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/measuring-the-extent-of-gang-problems
And then you go off the reservation saying something about UK and Australia without support. When questioned, you say what about Paris. Paris was a single terrible event and a silly response to the question about your UK and Australia ascertain. France, UK, and Austria have 7 times less murder by gun than the US ---- that's combined, not average or individual. In other words, we suck and we have a problem and it's guns. These countries have 2.5 times less homicide; so much for where's there's a way there's a weapon. Nothing is easier than a gun. Suicide is a mixed bag with AU about equal, France 50% worse and UK 50% better. However, the UK rate is significantly down since the gun ban. Must be a bummer down under and no romance in France.
I say the numbers are compelling and should force us to at least make existing laws universal, close the loopholes, and use 2016 technology to make crime gun searches rapid instead of the 1970's technology we force police to deploy that take weeks. Oh yeah, speaking of Paris and mass shootings, add in cap the clip at 10 shots. ---- Same thing I have been saying.
I know. We need to stop people from falling, driving, and having hearts first........
I know. Criminals will not obey the law and will get the guns. No joke with the foolhardy practices you have been promoting for decades. But gee, might we at least attempt to stem to tide, erode the huge disproportionate death-by-gun stats we "enjoy?"
So sad that you can't even recognize when we, as a nation, suck much less have the strength to try to do something about it. At least my solution holds the possibility for improvement, yours holds more death.
From today's New York Times:
Open-Carry Laws in Texas Blurred Lines Amid Shootings
By MANNY FERNANDEZ, ALAN BLINDER and DAVID MONTGOMERY 6:00 AM ET
A number of demonstrators in Dallas on Thursday showed up with military-style rifles and wore them openly, confusing police as the attack unfolded.
The mayor suggested tightening the state’s laws to make it tougher to carry long arms in public.
I think we should ban legal driving... it would make it easier to find the drunks.
I have never been a proponent of open carry for reasons like this amongst others but I believe in their right to do it - I sincerely hope more people in the gun community help us police our selves - next time you see someone in Quiznos with an AK - do what I do - remind them this is why we can't have nice things and they are feeding into the negative perception.
Every time someone with an AK goes into a Quiznos and nothing bad happens, people start to realize it isn't the "gun" that's the problem. I actually think it enhances the positive perception.
Gays didn't win back their rights for marriage, equality, etc. by hiding in the shadows. They had elaborate parades and PDA's in front of city hall.
What good is a right if exercising it makes you worry about how other people will "feel".
Guess nobody wants to walk the "Gun free Zone" talk...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnNa-vLg89c
Yeah I get you brother but I'm very conflicted on it while defending their right to do it
Mark...that video is hilarious and totally hypocritical. They won't support their own movement!
Gun bans for everyone! But wait! I don't want everyone to know I don't have a gun....I want a sign that says I have a gun....LMFAO
Nah, nobody wants to take our guns away....don't be silly....
http://americanmilitarynews.com/2016/07/massachusetts-just-banned-the-sale-of-all-semi-automatic-rifles-effective-immediately/?utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=alt&utm_source=colddeadhands
"Residents of the state that have already purchased these weapons will not be targeted according to Healey, for now. Any resident that owns an “assault weapon” will be able to keep them."
For NOW..... one step at a time folks, one step at a time....
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=55208
Finland man behind bars for using a knife on a home invader
Remember, regulation means confiscation. Limitation means confiscation. Registration means confiscation. Gun nation means obliteration.
It's not the tool, it's the criminal disregard for life...
15 dead and 45 injured (as of now) by a single knife wielding attacker in Japan.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/world/japan-knife-attack-deaths/index.html
"I can understand why you want to downplay the tool."
Because you guys always say "if he didn't have a gun this wouldn't happen"...
So now someone with both a truck and a knife have proven you immensely incorrect.
Yes you have a few instances. I have over 30,000 every year.
And no one argues the lethality difference between a gun and a knife for example. As far as tools go, the gun rules in ease of use and effectiveness.
Ever see a movie where two guys face off with fists, say wait, let's do this like men and throw down their fists and pick up some guns? No, its alwus vice-versa.
Ever see a movie where two guys face off with guns and after its over, slap each other on the back and say: good fight.
The tool does make a difference.
SD - your whole diatribe recently (or so you claim) is to reduce the lethality of "mass killings".
This guy had a 0-round magazine and yet he killed 19 and injured 45.
Your 30,000 also includes suicide (most of them are suicide actually). Shall we compare Japan's "gun free" suicide rate here too? The numbers won't look good (for blaming the tool).
Need I mention that almost all knives are banned in Japan?
Not to mention gang related shootings and police shootings - there are almost as many guns in this country as people - if we were a problem it would be much more apparent - AND if we were to vote the gun free utopian cities of NY, CCO, LA, Newark , Camden and DC off the island we would have almost no gun violence - riddle me that batman
"Yes you have a few instances. I have over 30,000 every year. "
We've played this game before- deaths from firearms are barely in the top 10 leading causes of accidental death. So apparently you don't REALLY care about accidental/innocent deaths, or you would be focusing your attention elsewhere.
The argument that other things kill us does not mean we should not address things that kill us. Especially those that are the favorite choice for homicide and even suicide.
Homicide and suicide are not accidental death and arguing that people die from accidental death and therefore we should not address murder.
Gang murders and police murders speak to the fact that the gun is the most efficient and effective tool for murder. Voting the cities you mention off the planet does not result in the conclusion you expect. I have shown before that your numbers are wrong.
"Need I mention that almost all knives are banned in Japan?" Really? Japan requires permission to own a blade over six inches; they do not ban them, they require permission. Same is true for folding blades over 2.3 inches. Open or concealed carry for blades of any kind over 2.3 inches is illegal.
There is no doubt of the fact that the gun is much more effective and efficient for homicide and suicide than any of the other choices you present. The fact that others things can be, and are, used does not diminish that fact.
My point is only to suggest that the tool does matter. Sure, other things kill. But 30,000 deaths by gun each year should hit our radar as an issue we might be able to improve upon versus giving up by saying other things are worse or worse yet, other things are comparable.
And when you compare the US against other developed nations it appears that the tool, the gun, is a major factor in our higher rates of homicide and mixed rates for suicide. Other places have knives, trucks, and heart attacks, but we have the gun and higher murder rates. We are third world even if we vote Chicago and DC off the planet.
Again, my only recommendation to reduce our murder rate is not confiscation but making existing laws universal without loopholes and to make crime gun tracing effective and efficient unlike the multi-layer fax/phone/paper file "data" system we have today. For mass murder I would love to see us come to consensus as to a reasonable number of bullets per clip or cartridge for fun and protection. And that number is not 20 or higher.
"The argument that other things kill us does not mean we should not address things that kill us. Especially those that are the favorite choice for homicide and even suicide."
You sir, are a poser. Obviously you don't REALLY care about actual numbers of deaths. "How many more?" How many more must die until we start taking seriously EVERYTHING ELSE THAT COMES IN ABOVE FIREARMS DEATHS? Priorities, my dear sir- priorities.
"Really? Japan requires permission to own a blade over six inches; they do not ban them, they require permission. Same is true for folding blades over 2.3 inches. Open or concealed carry for blades of any kind over 2.3 inches is illegal."
Hence why I said "almost" and thanks for confirming that *carrying* any knife (over 2.3 inches, which is tiny) is illegl.
That was my point - the weapon this person chose to use was *completely 100% illegal to possess* in that location, but that didn't stop him. He didn't have a gun, but it proves that he didn't need a gun to kill/main dozens of people. Do you think that even if magazines of *any* size were banned in the US (and somehow magically disappeared - that's the part you have yet to explain) that someone here wouldn't also just pick a different weapon?
... and I'd guess that it wouldn't affect the suicide rate *at all*. People in Japan don't have guns but they still have tall buildings and fast trains.
The fact that different weapons are used does not change the lethality rating of each weapon.
That's like saying you can die from infection from a scratch or you can die from old age so both are equal in lethality. Bogus logic. Old age will nail you 100% of the time and scratch infection will not.
Does that mean we should just skip the antibiotics? Why bother, old age will get you anyway........
Forest for suicide. Think about that ---- how would anyone know?
What's ironic is that had this attacker chosen to use a gun, fewer people may have been killed/injured. I'm guessing he attacked them silently while they slept. Using a gun would have alerted others to the danger and perhaps allowed for faster police response.
Same thing in France. By the time people/police were aware it was not an accident he already plowed through huge crowds.
If there is one thing humans have perfected (even long before guns were invented) over thousands of years, it's creative ways to kill other people
"What's ironic is that had this attacker chosen to use a gun, fewer people may have been killed/injured." And there's a better chance he might have been hit by lightning holding a long piece of steel. May have, could have, might have.....
I find it ironic that you downplay the importance of the gun in murder and JR goes as far to say: "How many more must die until we start taking seriously EVERYTHING ELSE THAT COMES IN ABOVE FIREARMS DEATHS? Priorities, my dear sir- priorities."
You highlight the mass killings by truck in France as proof positive it's not just the gun. This is your takeaway? After all, "If there is one thing humans have perfected (even long before guns were invented) over thousands of years, it's creative ways to kill other people."
I say force these sub-humans to be creative at least versus setting us up in any public forum as floating ducks in a shooting gallery. Only in America could a guy that stupid pull off the tragic murders in Orlando so easily.
Show me the other weapons of mass destruction used in the US to do this:
(warning: the graphics should make you sick to your stomach or, like these guys, want to go out and buy some more guns)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/
"Forest for suicide. Think about that ---- how would anyone know?"
Oh- they know.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/suicide-forest-in-japan/
"Show me the other weapons of mass destruction"
We've provided other examples to you numerous times, then you dismiss them because their frequency is different than that of firearms. Then, when JR points out that if freqency is the issue (with a list of more frequent killers) you say it's not about the numbers. Around and around we go...
But just to play along, yet again (albeit not all recently used in the US), how about:
Trucks (France)
Knives (Japan and China)
Pressure Cooker in a Backpack (Boston)
Box Cutters and Airplanes (9/11)
Fertilizer (OK City)
Lighter Fluid and a Match (New Orleans)
Cyanide laced Kool Aid (Jonestown)
When someone decides that they want to kill a lot of people they A) Choose the easiest target and B) Choose the easiest method for that target, and it's not always guns.
We never deny that firearms *are* used in crimes, but you can't deny that there is a disproportionate response after the fact. I haven't heard any serious proposals to run background checks on pressure cookers, truck rentals, baseball bats, etc. Because those are everyday objects, just like guns are everyday objects to millions of people.
These people would be no more apt to use their firearm to solve an "argument" than you would be to whack someone with a baseball bat (or at least I hope), so stop trying to blame the object that millions of people peacefully use as the root cause of death.
SD, you are very obviously looking to lower the number of deaths/suicides by removing one of the many tools used to kill...........
So, quick question, when you are doing a project on your home, and you do not have the exact tool you were looking for, do you always walk away from the project without completing it?
Point.....If you don't have one specific tool, you will make a different tool work to the same outcome.
You very obviously live in fear, and want guns taken away from everyone so that "the numbers will be less"
Why not focus your energy on what is causing people the desire to kill others....by knife, gun, truck, bomb....you name it....because, if you are in fact so concerned about the "numbers" why put all your eggs in one basket, and focus on a single aspect....seems pretty foolish actually....if you are actually so concerned.....you would be focusing on the desire to kill, not the tool used.
Secondly, large attacks have occurred by knife, bomb, and now truck, yet nothing but crickets from the SD world....if you were so concerned, why not get involved with solutions for those attacks as well? Yet every discussion you bring up guns, even when they were not the main weapon used.
Seems to me like your focus is solely on guns, and not really the "numbers"
"So, quick question, when you are doing a project on your home, and you do not have the exact tool you were looking for, do you always walk away from the project without completing it?"
Yes, most often. That's why my things don't fall off the shelves :>)
You know that if you jury-rig the tools for the job, the job most often gets more difficult, takes longer and has a lower quality.
"You very obviously live in fear, and want guns taken away from everyone so that "the numbers will be less" You obviously only pretend to know me. Fear is not something I am usually accused of.
"Why not focus your energy on what is causing people the desire to kill others...." Wait, we could do both ---- there's a concept. What do suggest as the cure for any of the "causes of desire to kill?" which you have devoted so much of your time and mindshare to?
Yeah, gee, we as a people do absolutely nothing to curtail people from making and detonating bombs. As to trucks and cars, focus on the numbers yourself. Next you'll be quoting Jonestown and telling us to ban the Kool-Aid you aren't drinking. Oh wait Mark did that. Gee Mark, did you see my LIST. It's just a wee tad bit l o n g e r. Maybe the mass murderers didn't get your how-to list.
So "Show me the other weapons of mass destruction used in the US to do this........" You got 10, and not all in the US, I got 869 victims, of which 144 were children, killed by 244 guns from 129 gun shooters in 40 states and DC.
You had to go to China to find knives and Africa for poison. Another reason to recommend they need the 2A.
Or just tell us how other things can be used so bring on more guns, more guns. Skip background checks, open more loopholes, bigger clips -- we need more bullets --- you never know who's coming for you, who cares about your mental health -- nuts need guns to protect themselves from nuts, need guns for folks on the terrorist watch list --- it's their right, kids get guns --- don't arrest those parents, found a crime gun --- hey, let's take a month to figure out who bought it, Is that a developed nation with inalienable right to life? I say NO: how many more must die by gun before you act responsibly?
Mark says: "you can't deny that there is a disproportionate response after the fact." I say, how about something more than a response?
Mark says, and I love this one: no one runs "background checks on pressure cookers." OK, here's the deal. I will put up the money for you to buy 5 pressure cookers on line from one source all to be delivered to your house on a expedited (not overnight though) shipment. Unless you have some fear, you get 5 pressure cookers for free. Or are they :>)
Rather than respond, just go up 20 posts and reread........ Or just quit posting knife killings and telling us the guns are all right.
"You got 10, and not all in the US, I got 869 victims, of which 144 were children, killed by 244 guns from 129 gun shooters in 40 states and DC."
So it's about numbers again? Rinse, repeat... (If that's the case, we need to ban doctors that kill ~200 - 400K people a year due to malpractice/medical errors).
.. and before you say "but doctors save lives too", don't forget that defensive gun uses outnumber murders by *at least* 5:1 (using the absolute most conservative estimates).
Just can't walk and chew gum can you.
Of course banish all doctors who kill through malpractice. Now whatta bout them guns.
Oh right, you can't even acknowledge the possibility of a problem.
We live in the third world of guns thanks to your irresponsibility. Can't even fathom how to improve things because nothings wrong or something else is worse....for you.
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/
At least 15 people killed in knife attack at Sagamihara facility - knife laws working well
CNN's revising it to 19 people.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/world/japan-knife-attack-deaths/index.html
Why did the knife do it?!
He was targeting the disabled. Do you really want to say that proves knives kill just like guns?
Because to your one or two I can add hundreds by guns --- http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting
But hey, let's think about the knife as a WMD.
those people are certainly just as dead -
Estimates on defensive gun use range from 67,000 per year according to the Violence Policy Center (drawn from National Crime Victimization Survey data), to over 3 million per year according to oft-cited studies by Kleck and Gertz. The link to the study and research are in the article:
https://medium.com/@rossradford/why-common-gun-control-proposals-fail-and-how-to-do-better-c4fe47717f60#.564riakyn
"Solving America’s gun violence problem means solving its gun problem at the same time as solving its violence problem. Focusing on just one or the other will not fix our country."
http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable16.pdf
From page 7 of the study/9 of the PDF:
"Using the NCVS numbers, for the three-year period 2012 through 2014, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 263,500."
263,500 / 3 = 87,833 DGUs per year.
This is an anti-gun source btw who I would like to thank for highlighting the extent to which defensive gun uses outnumber criminal homicides.
remember the only DGUs are the ones reported to the police. The NRA estimates the number being closer to 2.5 million per year. These are ones where the gun stopped the event before it got started.. the cdc references the 2.5 million and the DOJ analyzed those numbers and said that it's likely that 1.5 million or more is correct.
So you keep your democrats from attacking us lawful gun owners and we wont have to keep spraying them all over the sidewalk.
"From page 7 of the study/9 of the PDF:
"Using the NCVS numbers, for the three-year period 2012 through 2014, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 263,500."
263,500 / 3 = 87,833 DGUs per year.
This is an anti-gun source btw who I would like to thank for highlighting the extent to which defensive gun uses outnumber criminal homicides.
remember the only DGUs are the ones reported to the police. "
Damn. Slam dunk, Skippy!
That's 263,500 reasons to not FURTHER infringe on American's 2A rights, vs SD's... 30,000? reason TO. Hey- YOU'RE the one who's trying to use MATH to prove your point, SD. But you get shot down (pun intended) at EVERY TURN.
Wow Skippy, all those other developed nations just be less violent than Americans.
I would say we suck but somebody would probably get violent.
Kleck and Gertz oft cited. And yet still bogus. DGU statistics are worthless. There's never been a comprehensive statistical analysis.
But you know that.
Maybe we wouldn't need some many DGU's if we didn't have the guns to begin with.
Where are the Defensive Knife counts.
How about Defensive Driving; I hear that's possible.
My understanding is that there's 4,333,323,123,000,000,000 defensive knife uses per week so we should just get rid of the guns ----- knives are so much better.
"Maybe we wouldn't need some many DGU's if we didn't have the guns to begin with."
Maybe we wouldn't need DGU's if we didn't have *criminals attacking other people regardless of the tools/force they use*.
But keep focusing on the guns...
"knives are so much better"
Australia, UK, Japan, etc. prove that once they "get rid of the guns" they move onto knives too. It's whack-a-mole without addressing the root cause of the issue.
"There's never been a comprehensive statistical analysis."
Funny... the report that Skippy linked to (from the "Violence Policy Center") is titled:
"Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self Defense Gun Use - An Analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Crime Victimization Survey Data"
Sounds like a pretty comprehensive analysis to me using FBI and NCVS (administered by the Bureau of Justice *Statistics*) data... Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean it didn't happen.
"Maybe we wouldn't need some many DGU's if we didn't have the guns to begin with."
BUT, "we don't want to take away anybody's guns"
..you really need to make up your mind, SD. It's hard to debate you when you keep saying things you don't mean, and meaning things you don't admit.
I would put addressing poverty and drug abuse much higher on my list of things to address
skippy, something tells me drug abuse and gun violence go hand in hand. If you work on the drug abuse issue, what do you think would happen to gun and gang violence?
But of course SD won't see it this way....no, no, no the guns are the problem! Had those gang members and criminals not been able to get guns (which I am sure they did not buy legally..... completely nixing ALL and ANY of SD's supposed ideas btw) murder rates would be down!
Like Mark stated, work on the root cause of the issue.
Agreed - but those are hard issues and more prevalent in certain communities and socio economic classes which make up the majority of Clintons supporters so we don't go there.
The biggest problem I have with this is why are millions of trained, sober, sane, background investigated people going to lose their rights because of individuals who can't help kill each other?
In addition unless you possess some magic there are still 200 million guns in the US - disarming the lawful does nothing but make them victims and you will see gun crime rise - even in the case of a total disarmament - why? Because you just handed the sheep to the wolves.. SCOTUS has ruled the police have no obligation to protect you (warren vs. DC).
I would also love to see any proposed confiscation happen south of Maryland or west of say east stroudsburg - the populace will laugh at you and the police will in most cases not comply. In the fly over states you can tell the Fellons by the fact that they don't open carry..
And here we go: "From…..the PDF:”
"Using the NCVS numbers, for the three-year period 2012 through 2014, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 263,500." (Looks like you got me here. It looks like a tally but not a quantitative analysis which is what I mean by statistics. I could also argue the validity of a self-reported survey, but hey ---- I think these are my peeps like you said --- and it is a survey, basic but still. Of course --- wait, there’s more…..
Remember, I not only don’t argue DGU's exist but have applauded the fact that DGUsers seem to not miss (except for that kid who shot the dirty clothes thief as he jumped the perimeter fence with the kids’s spidey whities :>) But wait….)
263,500 / 3 = 87,833 DGUs per year. (this is true, but wait for it……)
This is an anti-gun source btw who I would like to thank for highlighting the extent to which defensive gun uses outnumber criminal homicides. (OK, this is a neat fact although it skippy's any sort of valid comparison on an apples-to-apples basis. Uh oh.. The defensive stats are for violent crime and property crime both; 40% are non-violent property crime, and you pulled both together but are only talking the violent crime subset of homicide for comparison. That’s not fair. That defensive use for violent crime, not homicide, would 163,600 for the same period. Meanwhile against the 54,533 DGUs per year, there are "According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms were used in 73,505 nonfatal injuries...and 11,208 deaths by homicide..... by suicide with a firearm, 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms of unknown intent." Outnumber what? The number of violent crimes associated with the 54K+ DGUs would be 18,328,600 or a .9% DGU factor. It's a drop in the bucket, a nice drop but a drop. Also, I am not sure any of these DGU instances prevented a homicide, no one knows. Further, resistance without a weapon or by yelling, etc. happened 53% of the time FYI --- perhaps not having a gun is more effective? Again, no one knows.)
remember the only DGUs are the ones reported to the police. (not really true. The NCVS is a telephone survey of 90,000 people. Those 54K DGUs are self reported --- everyone could be lying or not talking about the gun). The NRA estimates the number being closer to 2.5 million per year. (yeah, well how did they arrive at that -- pfm?) These are ones where the gun stopped the event before it got started. the cdc references the 2.5 million (so? I referenced it too.) and the DOJ analyzed those numbers and said that it's likely that 1.5 million or more is correct. (source please.....I'm a little incredulous on that one. Your attached report says: “This estimate is not plausible and has been nominated as the most outrageous number mentioned in a policy discussion by an elected official.” And then it explains why this is an egregiously bogus estimate. I will let you look that up.)
(Last I checked there's a HUGE difference between 54K and 2.5M or even 1.5M which we would love to see the source on.)
(As to Mark noting FBI stats are used, you are correct sir, in the report, but not in the DGU stats so it has nothing to do with this discussion. Busted.)
(And Mark: saying "Australia, UK, Japan, etc. prove that once they "get rid of the guns" they move onto knives too. It's whack-a-mole without addressing the root cause of the issue" seems wrong. Our homicide rate is 10 times that of Japan and 4 times that of the UK. They may be whacking moles over there but they are not killing each other with guns at 4 to 10 times the rate that Americans are. That's a HUGE number to say it's just because we are less civilized. The difference seems to be the prevalence of the weapon --- the gun. Note that the majority of our homicides are by gun; theirs are not. Knives kill but not at the lethality of the gun. Deep down you know that. But if you need proof, lend me your gun, grab a knife, let's count off twenty paces.....and aim for a center target :>) More guns = more death. How many more? (thanks JR for bringing that back, I missed it.
Mark: want to play this game with other developed nations or maybe you can read above or look it up yourself. But the differences between the US kill rates with the gun against other developed nations without a gun are egregiously in favor of the other nations being less homicidal. Sorry, but busted.
So you keep your democrats from attacking us lawful gun owners and we wont have to keep spraying them all over the sidewalk. (FYI: there is no proof than any of these DGUsers actually fired the guns in any of the 54K+ DGUs and absolutely no proof that anyone was a Democrat or Republican on either side of the DGU.)
(Some good numbers but very, very shaky analysis. And like I said, I have been impressed that DGUsers seem to rarely miss. But keep up the good guy anecdotes and I will show you a lot of them :>)
I am not sure why proving "he extent to which defensive gun uses outnumber criminal homicides." means anything anyway. I mean are you trying to say guns cause less homicides? Because according to world statistics, that just ain't true. And according to your survey, you can't tell me that even one of those 54 DGUs would have resulted in a homicide ---- told you --- no statistical analysis since a good one would have found that answer. Call the NRA and ask them to let the CDC actually run some good quantitative analyses. Personally, I think we will see Trump's taxes first.
"lend me your gun, grab a knife, let's count off twenty paces.....and aim for a center target"
Already been done...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_KJ1R2PCMM
Thank you for your detailed opinion SD - my brothers friends and family have adopted a stance of Molon labe - come and take it. I wish you and yours the best
I habe not a clue what you are talking about skippy. You're apparently spreaking gunny now and I don't know the lingo.
Thanks for the invite though.
Around and around we go
present, attempt to discredit, present your own as factual, discredit, repeat
use a link but don't allow anyone else to cross examine, and discredit their take when they do.
Say your not anti gun, you just want "common sense" gun laws
then say
"Maybe we wouldn't need some many DGU's if we didn't have the guns to begin with."
around and around we go, with the same HH/MG/SD who cannot seem to make up his own mind.......
"I habe not a clue what you are talking about skippy."
Yes, the Greek "B" is pronounced like a V...
Which you obviously knew (hence your "typo"), but for those that don't...
I did not say it was Bush's fault, I did not call anyone a racist --- what are you implying or are you just lying? Are you attempting to use humor while not being able to accept humor?
You pull a tongue-in-cheek sound bite out of context, call it my mantra, and say I can't make up my mind when you know "Maybe we wouldn't need some many DGU's if we didn't have the guns to begin with." has to be true on it's merit. It just can't be false, impossible. Yet a ridiculous premise given the reality that is America. Sorry you didn't get it given the context that it was used in.
You accuse me of "present, attempt to discredit, present your own as factual, discredit, repeat." So what do you do? Sure have hit upon a number of these just in your last submission.
No matter what I say, how often I say it, you still continue to conclude that I am saying and meaning something other that what I said. Not much I can do with that problem.
And to top it off, you say "use a link but don't allow anyone else to cross examine, and discredit their take when they do." This is most confused. What link are you talking about. And if I don't allow you to cross examine (how the heck could I even do that), how could I discredit them if they do when I don't allow them to. Very weird thought process you got going there son.
Think you are shaken but not stirring. Oh wait --- that's so demeaning, you must be crushed...... :>) Lighten up.
http://pmddtc.state.gov/compliance/Applicability%20of%20the%20ITAR%20Registration%20Requirement%20to%20Firearms%20Manufacturers%20(Publish).pdf
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160727/just-in-time-for-his-party-s-convention-obama-administration-releases-latest-executive-gun-control
Obama uses executive order to basically make something on the level of a barrel swap to change caliber in the realm of manufacturing. This puts one in the purview of an alphabet soup agency that charges over $2k/year to have the privilege of participation in commerce in the firearms industry.
Basically another onerous regulation aimed to tax the 2A out of existence since he can't much do it outright currently.
democrats will tell you a 20 dollar drivers license fee is an unnecessary burden to voting - go figure
"democrats will tell you a 20 dollar drivers license fee is an unnecessary burden to voting - go figure"
Not even... the mere ability to acquire/present a photo ID of any kind is a burden on the right to vote, according to them.
Do we really want terrorists voting for our president? No fly, no vote!
the ar-15 is today's version of the brown bess musket, it is a standar firearm that is in widespread use:
In truth, the AR-15 is the contemporary equivalent of the musket—an everyday gun for everyday citizens. Fundamentally, the AR-15 is democratic. It is the yeoman’s gun; the people’s gun; the Brown Bess of our era. It is what William Blackstone was referring to when he praised private arms; what George Orwell had in mind when he sought to keep the “rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage;” what Ida B. Wells imagined when she recommended that endangered blacks give a rifle “a place of honor” in their homes. As the standard firearm of its day, the AR-15 does not represent some bizarre over-extension of the right to keep and bear arms. It is the very core of that right.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160728/anti-gun-coalition-calls-for-west-coast-ban-on-commonly-owned-semi-auto-firearms
enough with the banning/confiscation nonsense already !
The AR-15 Is The Musket Of Its Era
despite all of the propaganda to the contrary, the AR-15 is not a “supergun,” a “machine gun,” an “automatic weapon” or an “assault rifle”; that it does not “spray bullets” indiscriminately, as one sees in the movies; that it is owned by a fascinating cross-section of American citizens; that it is not especially powerful, especially when compared to rifles that are primarily used for hunting; and that it is used so infrequently in crimes that the FBI doesn’t even bother to keep statistics.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160719/the-ar-15-is-the-musket-of-its-era
"it is not especially powerful, especially when compared to rifles that are primarily used for hunting"
Don't worry... "sniper rifles" will be next on their list.
You are right about not being especially powerful. I could shoot my .223 all day (budget allowing) but 3 or 4 shots from my brother's 7mm Magnum and my shoulder has had enough thumping (it's a light weight pack model so it kicks pretty good).
"In truth, the AR-15 is the contemporary equivalent of the musket—an everyday gun for everyday citizens"
What's your Sunday morning go-to-meeting model?
Sd, you do not just post on this thread. You have accused a few of being racist, and I am pretty sure you have blamed a few things on Bush as well in other threads.
"What's your Sunday morning go-to-meeting model?"
Here's one for a common Sunday gathering...
Ya laws, making it too hard for gun manufacturers to make specific models
"Century Arms, due to impending legislation, will be ceasing production of our popular bullet button configured California rifles on Oct 1, 2016! We currently have the following stock prepped for immediate delivery to California dealers and distributors:"
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article88521977.html
California... still banning guns that are the most rarely used in crime (despite not being banned almost everywhere else)...
Hey Darrin:
Pennsylvania: The Firearms Preemption bill SB1330 is in limbo. When they come back from fall break (or what ever vacation) they are on there will on be 6 days of the 2016 session left. Please take 30 seconds to send a canned email.
https://act.nraila.org/takeaction.aspx?AlertID=1338
----------------------------------
2015 FBI uniform crime report is out.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/home
Murder: Table 8
Justifiable homicide (law enforcement): Table 14
Justifiable homicide (private citizen): Table 15
Three times as many people were killed by knives than both rifles and shotguns combined in 2015. Look at Table 8.
a review of the data set for the years 2010-2014 reveals the same trend holds roughly true, with about 2-4x (depending on year) as many people were killed by knives than rifles and shotguns combined.
Here are recorded statistics all the way back to 2001 and plotted on a few charts.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fZaneOcLdJ29c4eUXl_V60SYVcXDvEvPs7LoIj3dzPQ/pubhtml
Apparently DH is expecting a POLAR BEAR to break into the kitchen or something?! WTH why is this in my house lol...
(Not a gun person but thought I would post because this is kind of the craziest gun I've see around here... thought you guys would get a kick.)
whew... that'll take down a bear. So it'll take down ANYTHING. Never fired a .454 before, but in THAT short-barrelled weapon, it's got to have a HELL of a recoil!!!
Yes I told him he'd better hit the gym for a month before putting a bullet in it right?
oh, he can put a bullet in it... just be prepared when he pulls the trigger lol
I saw a guy get kicked out of a (inside) range once for failing to be able to control a .50 caliber pistol. It's no joke!
Well thank goodness we have our own range... but I think I'll decline to be anywhere nearby when he decides to fire that crazy thing. :-P
Ok... I'll be the safety Nazi. ;)
Finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot!
This even applies to unloaded guns. Muscle memory can be a good or bad thing (always train yourself to not touch the trigger by default).
Other than that, pretty cool. Have fun and be safe! I'm a Ruger fan too, they are great guns.
Noted!! Thank you. As I said, not a gun person. Like at all. (And he never would have handed it to me loaded.) Just picked it up for the pic... I was shocked at how heavy it was!
No problem, just a gentle reminder ;) It's good to get into the right habits from the get go. Especially if it's not your gun, and you will never *always* know if it's been loaded/unloaded before you handle it.
Double action revolvers are about as safe as they get, with a long trigger pull that generally requires a pretty deliberate act to fire them (unless the hammer is pre-cocked to single action).
Is that something you do regularly, yankee? You seem awfully familiar with the action...
Not that's there's anything wrong with that....
Damn, that gun would probably knock this little chick on her ass! Great looking gun.
Is that any worse than sports fans who drool (or have group "fantasies") over the actual players and pretend like "they" are part of the winning team?
At least gun owners are actually actively participating in the topic of conversation.
It's not just big 'uns that hurt to shoot. My LCR with the boot grip - small gun (13.5 oz) plus two finger grip - isn't what I'd call "fun" to use for more than a few rounds.
I think the gun probably weighs about as much as you do, Calico!
Neither one of those look like much fun to me even for a single shot, but hey, if you guys do, my philosophy is... to each his own, and have fun! (Just hope DH doesn't dislocate his shoulder.)
that's a lot of pistol for a little girl, it's also a lot of pistol for a large muscular man,
that 454 casull comes in a variety of loads , from light to medium to heavy, and the ammo is expensive . . .
the Alaskan can chamber and shoot 45 long colt, but if you do use the long colt in it, be sure to clean it thoroughly before using the slightly larger 454 casull, the problem in switching the ammo back and forth is the smaller 45 long colt will leave powder residue in the chamber causing the 45 casull to be not only hard to load , but also tougher to shoot as an unintended consequence of the increased pressure while shooting, the 65,000 psi in the standard 454 casull load will be magnified (higher pressure = stronger recoil) if the chambers are fouled with residue form the 45 long colts, this increase in pressure will cause more kick, you can injure your hand/wrist by shooting this with improoper technique.
this pistol with that round in it can sprain the wrist of a small framed individual, so please be careful
this gun was designed to be a sidearm for extra protection in Alaska when confronted by Kodiak bears, it happens, and your rifle may not be within arms reach, or you could be out mending fences or tending to your garden or cutting firewood, so you need to have a large caliber weapon on your person to be safe
around here? not really useful imho. better choice for you, Rebecka, would be to be familiar with a 38 special, which can be handled much more easily and will provide protection in case of home invasion.
oh, and this: welcome back to the forum, Rebecka as I have missed your posts, try and ignore the trolls as best you can, personally speaking I am very glad to see you rejoin the fray.
WOW that is great info re: ammo, BD! I am printing it out and giving it to DH, as I know he did indeed buy several types of ammo to "start small" and work his way up. Thanks so much for sharing.
Yes he has told me what the gun is typically used for. He ordered it after I mentioned I am seeing bear paw and nose prints on the kitchen windows on a regular basis lately and am starting to get a wee bit concerned. Perhaps I needed to specify *black* bear lol! But seriously I know he mostly got it just to have fun on the range with. He's totally stressed out at work and firing off a few rounds on the weekends seems to relax him. That said, if a bear ever *does* get in, I'm glad he's prepared, albeit overly so.
As for yours truly ever shooting it-- uh no, because I'm pretty sure my next post would be from a hospital bed. My preferred target-shoot fun is my 60-lb. bow and I'm pretty much at my limit there! (Bows rule, gun people. hehe...)
As for trolls, I promise to try to *ignore* moving forward! Temporarily lost the 'ol temper there lol.
I cant imagine shooting it through such a short barrel. Mine is .45 long colt, 454 casuall, and 460 s&w with a 8 3/8 barrel.
The 454 is not bad in it, and my wife can shoot it, but depending on the load the 460 just down right hurts! Many of my fiends wont touch the gun....45 long colt can be shot sot all day long though.
Might want to get tinted shooting glasses... it spits out a bit of a fireball ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFJjc8jUlrU
Geezus H... you guys are scaring me! Now thinking I should probably confiscate his ridiculous new toy, or he'll ---->
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gun-sales-hit-17th-straight-record/article/2603496
Gun sales up for the last 17 months - 27% overall
Every time there is news of another peace-loving Individual doing The Prophet's Work of killing murderous infidels, every time BLM holds a riot as they loot another store, every time Hillary Clinton says she'll attack the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens, every time another state's governor or AG decides to make felons out of their citizens while at the same time doing absolutely *nothing* to prevent criminals from being criminals. thousands of guns are sold.. the best part is liberals just can't quite put their finger on why gun sales are going up - go figure.
Does anyone have any experience or good resources regarding the permanent relocation of firearms (rifles and pistols) from NJ to FL and the transportation, storage, etc of said move? It would be via personal auto right down 95. I will be moving out of this state in the next several months and want to start getting an idea of the ins and outs.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150101/guide-to-the-interstate-transportation
Locked in a container the trunk with ammo separate same way you transport to the range now. Do not stop in NJ or Maryland once you start - both states have a portal to portal rule - ergo you can drive through the state but can't make any "unreasonable" stops - what that means is in the ether, however, I would not want to pay an attorney to find out. NJ is not your issue since you possess an FID - you should be fine where most people would not. Gas up in PA and Delaware - do not deviate from double nickels in Maryland.
First - head out to 81 in PA to avoid the 95 nightmare around Baltimore/Washington/Richmond. Take that to 77 past Charlotte, and then pick up 95 in South Carolina.
Second - Pucker your butt for 12 miles though Maryland, then breath a sigh of relief (and freedom) when you hit West Virginia...
Third (optional) - Once you're in Virginia you should be good to even load up a handgun to carry in the car. Just be aware that without a permit the laws vary state to state (for example, North Carolina requires it to be open/visible while South Carolina requires it to be in a console/non-visible).
Also NC is a duty to inform state if you're carrying - I would inform the officer you are transporting firearms anyway - any where south of Maryland the response will me - ok you keep yours there and I'll keep mine in the holster lol. There's no firearm registration in Florida so you could theoretically ship them to yourself via UPS air and declare them (no ffl needed) but you'll be fine transporting as stated above.
"Also NC is a duty to inform state if you're carrying - I would inform the officer you are transporting firearms anyway"
Not sure what the duty to inform is in NC - may be for concealed carry only (which requires a permit) so just keep the gun on the dashboard... SC is a bit strange... we have a duty to inform *if* we have a CPL (permit) but no duty to inform if we don't have a permit (in which case it's still legal to have a firearm in the console, but not "on" your person - even for non-residents).
I would disagree about volunteering any information regarding transportation, unless they specifically ask, then answer truthfully of course. Chances are they won't ask (because they assume everyone has a gun) and it's just a can of worms if you volunteer that info to the wrong officer. Traffic stops are "yes sir/no sir/have a nice night sir" and get moving along...
I got pulled over for speeding a few months back, and topic never came up, despite the fact that I did have my Glock in the glove box. (Didn't get a ticket either...)
this is all fantastic info and is a great starting point for me; I'm actually going to print all of your responses so i can use them as my basis for further looking into. thanks so much guys!
Soo...the only thing wrong with that article is the gun laws in the state of New Jersey? Everything else was perfectly acceptable. Gotcha.
Yes. The gun laws in the state of NJ are tyrannical. Yes, you GOT IT, exactly.
"Failure to have an FID?"
FOPA (Federal law) is supposed to cover interstate transport when firearms are unloaded/locked/cased. But NJ, in its infinite wisdom, severely limits when/where you are allowed to stop, even with an FID (in the case of a handgun).
Basically NJ law invalidates the intent of FOPA and they can do what they want to harass gun owners from within and outside the state even if they are transporting firearms in the safest possible way.
her final destination was Hackettstown so she is not covered under 926A unfortunately.
http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/about/fire_trans.html
if she was traveling to and from a place were she was legal to have the firearm she was covered.
Yep but her primary was in pa - where She had an expired CCW. The only thing I can think of is failure to possess an FID with NJ as the destination- having property here does not exempt you from the FID requirements
But if she was in between her PA residence and NJ residence, then FOPA should cover her. You don't need an FID to possess firearms on your own property.
The whole argument should be moot anyway... the guns were secured and locked. Why is there ANY concern in ANY law regarding that method of transportation?
Yeah, but are we allowed to pee without permission? That's all I really want to know!
Not sure mark - my guess is PA plates and expired CCW on the books - trooper stopped to see what the deal was and ran said plate - up popped the CCW - he takes a shot in the dark and says any guns on you? She denies it and the mysterious bullet on the floor become PC because she refused a search - she gets hauled down for contempt of cop and gets the tour of exit 12. Meanwhile they call the prosecutors office and the on call judge denies the warrant or the Prosecutor may have pushed it - in any regard I am sure she was charged with something. Burke and his team love to run stupid stuff up the flagpole
At least something is going right: most Americans oppose gun control...
"The survey, conducted by Gallup, found 76 percent of respondents thought there should not be a law banning civilian ownership of handguns, a four-point increase from last year and an all-time high in the 57 years the question has been asked.
The poll also found that 61 percent of respondents are “against” a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles—often referred to as “assault weapons”—, a ten-point increase since the last time the poll was taken and an all-time high since Gallup began asking the question in 1996."
http://freebeacon.com/issues/poll-record-number-americans-oppose-gun-bans/
Now, if we can just get nation-wide CCW.
I have never been a fan of nationwide ccw - too easy to abolish or change if it's federal. now I think individual states permits should be honored everywhere but that is a pipe dream. And as we discussed in the gas tax thread - it does not matter what we the unwashed masses want - career politicians well decide what is best for you unfortunately.
Per her green sheet she was charged with
(2C:39-5) - Unlawful Possession of Weapons (no NJ FID)
(2C:39-3.F) Possession of Hollow Tip ammo - totally legal to possess as long as it was not carried
(2C:18-3) Criminal Trespass (she pulled over on private property)
All of this SHOULD be tossed but guarantee this will cost $100K and this early guns are going to be become part of the jetty at some NJ beach
Lol NJ is f***ed up. Trespassing because she pulled over on private property?
Get out while you can folks.
Come on down here. If you *don’t* have a gun and a few mags of hollow points in your car, you're the weird one.
Yep and they're going to charge her with the HP ammo because she wasn't not in her way to a range or hunting
Looks like (based on NICS checks) that 2016 is the best gun selling year ever. I assume crime continues to fall overall?
I only got two guns this year, but they didn't add to the NICS total. Bought a G19 privately and inherited a 1954 (I believe) High Standard Sport King SK-100 (.22 pistol).
Anyone got something on their Xmas wish list?
I've had two experiences with guns. When I was about twelve my dad took us to the town dump and we shot cans with I think a twenty two rifle. Not so good a shot. Then a couple years ago my niece and her husband invited us to a shooting range in PA. It was early spring and cold as heck with lines of people waiting to shoot. I shot a glock and something else similar but can't remember what it was called. Well first of all, to actually hold a loaded gun gave me some pause. Not only literally the weight of it but the weight of it if you get my meaning. Then second of all it was a blast, excuse the pun. And best of all I was a crack shot! Every shot in the middle, a couple times two shots went through the same hole! My niece and her husband were impressed and then commented it was kinda scary ;)
RAS 
Oops, almost forgot about another inheritance...
This is a Mossberg Brownie. A little 4 barrel .22 pistol. Wouldn't actually fire this one though. Just a display item now.
Only made from 1920 to 1932... could be almost 100 years old.
That's super cool mark - should get it X-rayed and see if it's capable of fire. You should take up target shooting RAS it's like bowling with firecrackers lol
I took the panels off just to see if I could find any serial numbers. I'm thinking it's an early model (SN 479), but there is little definitive information on what years got what numbers... there were about 32,000 produced overall.
It could probably be made to fire (looks like all the parts are there) but the metallurgy from that era (on these "cheap" guns) wouldn't hold up to today's pressures. Chances are it would blow itself up.
As pitted as it is (and unfortunately missing the original thumb lever to open it) it's still a piece of history. The Brownie was the first firearm ever designed/built by Mossberg (as his own company). A far cry from their shotguns of today...
That's great - you should call their historian a Let them know you have it and get some tips on preservation - they may want pics - very cool indeed
mark if memory serves me, that little 4 barrel has a rotating firing pin, that's the weak part part mechanically that will give you trouble,
get some sub-sonic 22 shorts, hook up a rope and put it in a vice pointing downrange, stand far enough back and test fire , look it over for problems,
post back what you find,
i bet it will aok to fire that piece.
"Anyone got something on their Xmas wish list?"
Yeah, I got Universal Background Checks so you have to use NICS for those transfers Mark. Happy New Year.
"Yeah, I got Universal Background Checks so you have to use NICS for those transfers Mark. Happy New Year."
Well, I guess there are some things beyond even a Christmas miracle.
We may be getting nationwide reciprocity, repeal of gun free zones, and the removal of silencers from the NFA regulations though.. Joy to the World!
'nationwide reciprocity' Don't tease, it's not fair!
Yeah, national reciprocity... While it would be nice to carry at home, I won't hold my breath waiting for NYC to comply, and since I spend most of my time either at work or at home it wouldn't change an awful lot. (I did have a glimmer of hope at one point at work though, they are trying to arm some of our security guards and having a hard time finding qualified and willing participants... I tried to volunteer but I don't think they thought I was serious...)
brendan Come to NC - here in the Raleigh area I know of at least one diocese that has a fully armed "safety" team
Hah, we're not quite that proactive... I found out later that the main reason we were moving that direction is because we're (probably) installing millimeter wave radar scanners at the public entrances to the building which will alarm on weapons or explosives (I'm actually very curious how these work re: explosives). Problem is, if the machine detects somebody with a gun/bomb the jig is immediately up and either you're going to take them down or their going to start shooting/pressing buttons... So it's kindof imperative to have somebody armed at the machine...
But yeah, national reciprocity... It'd be nice enough to be able to have something in the car... Only time I ever had a gun pulled on me was in traffic...
I bet they are like the ones at the airport, they show a colored dot on your outline then the jig is up. Ok story time what happened in traffic :)
The nationwide reciprocity thing... it's interesting. I can see both sides, and by that I mean...
-I can see it being national, using the 2nd Amendment as a basis.
-I can see it as a states' rights issue, meaning if states don't want to abide federal law, they shouldn't have to (I'm a big states' rights guy)
It's kind of a sticky wicket. Part of me says, it's constitutional, and it should be national open or concealed carry. WV just passed constitutional carry. Part of me says, as much of a 2A defender as I am, this world is filled with stupid, and I think it would be prudent to have a shooting course be passed in order to carry.... just as I wouldn't want people driving cars all over the place having not passed a basic drivers test.
I'm with you but then we go down a slippery slope - do I feel that someone should have training to include live fire to carry in public - absolutely- do I think the government should make that a barrier to buying back your 2A rights nope - too subjective and inconsistent to be practicable. With rights come responsibility- if you exercise them it is your responsibility to get training and keep in practice, just like driving. If I live in NYC and got my license at 18 and don't drive till I'm 35 - which is entirely possible and happens regularly- it's my fault if I make a novice error and hurt someone. Also as NJ will tell you - driving is a privilege not an an inalienable right bestowed upon us by a creator guaranteed by the constitution.
Skippy- also, I haven't been through an airport in a while but last time I was the machines they had you needed to enter and wait, the ones they are contemplating at work allow people to move through at a walking pace. I'm trying to find any reference to it online, but can't seem to find one (although it looks like it's not backscatter, it's millimeter wave, since they said it can detect explosives too). I do know it's a relatively new product, our security people were down in DC looking at them. I'm sure they are cheap.
Look at MSA smart tech - i hope to God that was Not a Cop - glad you fornicate out unscathed
Possibly MSA, they provide our dogs/handlers. I'm curious about whatever product they were talking about because it is (allegedly) portable and can be setup pretty quickly, so they will be able to move it from venue to venue as opposed to fixed installations at each venue, which would be problematic anyway because of the variable options on how the building is divided up public/private space depending on the day... But yeah, it was interesting contemplating what options and how much time you have once the alarm goes off... Not too many choices unfortunately, I definitely see why they were pushing to arm somebody at each screening point.
I will PM you the data sheet - the good deal with MSA is the boots on the ground don't actually make the call - they have live analysts that are watching live
http://www.guns.com/2016/12/02/new-jersey-could-restrict-shooting-ranges-to-those-with-gun-cards-only/
there are 2 pieces of legislation A4179 and A4180, would require all adult shooting range, rifle or pistol club users to verify their identity with range operators and show proof of a firearms purchaser ID card to shoot.
of course they come out of Essex County..
A few problems:
There is no logical connection between having or not having a FID and committing suicide. Now I understand the logic that says if you already have a gun then you would not need to go to a range to rent a gun to kill yourself. This is sometimes handled by saying you need to come to the range with a gun. I am not a fan of this as one of the reasons for renting gun at the range in NJ is that there is you literally put yourself in legal jeopardy driving to the range with a gun. It would make sense for them to say if they don't want you to drive with a gun in your car and they don't want you to own a gun then why create this type of rule. Perhaps someone would like to experience shooting a gun before purchasing one to see if they like it - nah never happen..
Looking for two gun safes. One monster, can be around 40 inches wide, any depth, and up to 6 feet tall. Weight doesn't matter to me. I want multiple shelves and area for long guns
secondly,
also a smaller safe, up to 22 inches wide, any depth, any height. One side for long guns, the other shelves.
Both must have a electronic lock and backup key, but I don't want to spend a arm and a leg.
cannon, believe it or not, does not have a backup key and their reviews have gone down hill.
I liked the sentry (stack on) 64 gun safe dicks had on sale, but the height is just not there with only 52 1/2 interior height may not be tall enough for some of the big guys.
Any info on sales, brands, or stores is appreciated.
Darrin- Snap Safe. It's good for 2400 degrees for one hour. Which is the most important feature when purchasing a gun safe, I know you know that. Price is reasonable. You won't be disappointed.
Trump = good news for NEW JERSEY gun rights (yes, NEW JERSEY: state level)...
http://www.nj2as.org/trump_s_court_appointments_will_be_yuuuuge_for_new_jersey_gun_owners
http://www.ammoland.com/2017/01/nj2as-fighting-nj-conceal-carry-national-reciprocity/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
NJ2AS is Fighting for NJ Conceal Carry and National Reciprocity
BEYOND - I wouldn't start looking at getting my resident permit someplace if I were you
I have found two safes I think I may be interested in, although they are quite a coin
http://www.steelwatergunsafes.com/product/steelwater-xtreme-duty-2-hr-fire-hd724228/
http://www.steelwatergunsafes.com/product/sw592216-heavy-duty/
Hmm... there comes a point where the cost of the safe is higher than just getting some additional ArmsCare coverage from the NRA (which covers loss, damage, flood, fire, and theft). All NRA members get $2,500 policies for free, and you can purchase additional limits.
* Unless of course you have irreplaceable items... and of course lock up guns if you have kids in the house, but that doesn't need to be fire-proof.
I'm also of the opinion to "divide and conquer"...
*Any* safe (that mere mortals like us can afford) can be broken into in minutes by a professional thief. Put all your eggs into one large basket (guns, jewelry, papers, etc.) and poof - it's all gone.
Get several smaller safes, cabinets, hidden safes, "fake" furniture, etc. and at least not everything may be gone in one swoop.
Your immediate action is needed! Anti-gun politicians in Trenton are quickly mobilizing against Governor Christie’s executive action. Last week, the Governor announced the adoption of his administrative regulations with respect to concealed carry reform and “justifiable need.”
As a result, anti-gun lawmakers quickly introduced SCR 149. Unlike most bills, SCR 149 will bypass the committee process, where public input is usually taken, and go straight to the floor for a vote. The bill was hastily, and without warning, scheduled for floor action in the Senate this afternoon. The text of the bill was not even made available to the public. The Assembly is expected to take action on ACR 234, the Assembly companion, on Thursday.
This legislation would support a legal challenge to the Governor’s action. We have fought for concealed carry reform in New Jersey for years, and now that Governor Christie has taken an important step in that direction, anti-gun politicians are furious and want to thwart this incremental progress. It’s time for New Jersey to join the 43 other states which have permissive carry laws and the basic fundamental right to self-defense.
It’s imperative that you take action immediately to counter their stealth maneuver. Please contact your state legislators in addition to Senate and Assembly Leadership members and tell them to vote NO on SCR 149/ACR 234.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170313/new-jersey-action-needed-anti-gunners-launch-stealth-attack?utm_content=sf62024375&utm_medium=spredfast&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=National+Rifle+Association+of+America&sf62024375=1
Gov. Chris Christie announced on Monday the adoption of regulations that would loosen restrictions on citizens seeking gun carry permits, surprising some state legislators who thought they had blocked the proposal last year and potentially sparking a political firestorm that could end in the courts.
The new rules announced by the Governor’s Office would allow New Jersey residents to obtain handgun carry permits by demonstrating that they are the subjects of "serious threats" that are not directed specifically at an individual, "but which establish more than mere generalized fears or concerns,” according to the press release.
That would replace the present rules, which require that an applicant to carry a handgun show a “justifiable need,” a phrase courts have interpreted to mean “specific threats” or “previous attacks.” It’s a high bar that some gun rights groups have said is difficult to meet, but one that state and federal courts have upheld as a reasonable and constitutional public-safety measure.
http://www.northjersey.com/story/news/new-jersey/2017/03/06/christie-goes-around-lawmakers-loosen-gun-carry-regs/98831336/
and so it begins..
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/03/nj_lawmakers_voting_whether_to_sue_christie_to_sto.html
Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen) - " the governor's new regulation were adopted "it would allow every cab driver, pizza delivery driver, Uber driver and anyone else living or working in a high-crime neighborhood to qualify for a firearm permit."
yeah thats how the 2A works lol.
"yeah thats how the 2A works lol."
Like in almost every other state in America.
Hope you guys don't have any plans to visit the green states... and get through the blue ones as fast as possible because there will be blood in the streets! Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
...or nothing. Just people moving on with their lives peacefully, but prepared to defend themselves should the need arise.
Wow Mark. You nailed it. Guns. Its all good. Just plain peaceful folk ready to defend themselves when the need arises. Yup, that's Amerikan reality for you. Guns. All good. All the time. Mark knows.
"that's Amerikan reality for you"
Ha, trying to inject some Russian connotation into gun rights now?
You're really running out of fresh material there, comrade.
But hey, maybe I'll go buy an AK just for fun...
I don't know skippy... a few of those may in fact have "shoulder things that go up".
Ban 'em.
Mark,
I also see many magazines that hold way too many rounds
So scary, I am scared, get them away!
"Just people moving on with their lives peacefully, but prepared to defend themselves should the need arise." Each and every one no doubt at all......
Yeah, nothing wrong with that statement. Sounds like a Dukes of Hazzard lyric and about at the same level of being in touch with reality :>)
The arguments used against voter ID laws are that they require too much time and money for poor people and minorities to adhere to. The narrative is that that it's a way to suppress the poor because they are the ones disproportionately affected by voter ID laws.
Funny how liberals don't think that gun control is a way for only the rich (see "white" ) people, the ones who have an easier time of powering through the bureaucracy, to buy back their constitutional rights while the rest of America is "suppressed". Gun control laws started in the Jim Crowe era to ensure that African Americans couldn't resist
But and then again, I shouldn't be looking for consistency in people who support gun control.
The only one out of touch with reality is you...
With ~88% of the US states having shall issue permits or Constitutional carry (and a large % of those having no "assault weapon" laws), if guns were a problem they'd be involved in more than ~1% of the annual deaths.
You'd be more successful requiring background checks before allowing someone to buy a Big Mac (with heart disease tallying up 25% of our annual deaths). How about some "one hamburger a month" laws...
Don't go to the doctor either... 10% of our deaths are caused by medical errors. Pretty sure they all require permits/licenses to practice too...
But you're right... our nation's big problem is definitely adjustable rifle stocks, forward pistol grips, and armed cab drivers.
I got it. All gun owners are peaceful folk ready to defend against unpeaceful folk who must not have guns. Otherwise they would be peaceful.
And because there are other reasons for death, gun death does not matter compared to the larger causes of death. There are more important issues to attend to than guns which are way down the death toll list. Like old age --- the greatest killer of all.
I just think your original comment trivialized a topic with some serious issues. Guns.
"unpeaceful folk who must not have guns"
You're forgetting that unpeaceful folk already have guns *regardless* of the state's permitting laws.
See: Newark/Camden
well here is one thing about Trump being elected SD.
Remington Outdoor just announced layoffs of 120 people at their upstate New York manufacturing facility due to sinking gun demand in the Trump era
https://www.wsj.com/articles/waning-sales-force-layoffs-by-gun-maker-in-new-york-1489446331
"other firearms makers, including American Outdoor Brands, formerly known as Smith & Wesson, say demand for weapons, particularly handguns, has been ebbing since Trump's election. Earlier this month the company posted disappointing sales and higher inventories and admitted to investors on their quarterly earnings call that business had slowed...all of which sent the stock into a downward spiral."
I guess Obama really was the best salesman of all time
Obama was a great salesman, but Remington's woes may also have something to do with their quality going in the crapper.
And from NJ in Feb, "The victim said a man driving a Mercedes-Benz with a VA license plate, pulled up next to him and brandished a gun." Oh yeah, semiauto, hollow-points, a full defensive arsenal. (NJ.com)
Just good Americans protecting their own.
Soon we will not raise our voices for fear of being shot for it.
"Oh yeah, semiauto, hollow-points, a full defensive arsenal. (NJ.com)"
You do realize hollow points are *safer* than full metal jacket, right?
...and semi-autos fire no faster than revolvers (one round per trigger pull).
...and VA residents aren't permitted to carry in NJ. Fat lot of good that law did, huh?
I keep saying it over and over... prior restraint laws don't work. If you want to arrest that VA driver for brandishing (an actual act) then have at it. But merely possessing/carrying should not be a crime (who is the victim?).
"Soon we will not raise our voices for fear of being shot for it."
Do you do a lot of yelling at other people now? I mean, you have nothing to fear in NJ, right? Maybe instead of a gun you would benefit more from anger management classes.
Just reporting Mark. And yes, I realize you want your gun with you at all times. Stroke it. :>) And yes, I realize you believe a perfect America is one where everyone has a gun, everywhere, at all times. It's good for defense and we must that in America. Whether behind the wheel, at school, or in Church, keep that gun close.
Let's avoid talking about road rage and guns though and instead, live in the land of make believe where guns are only for defense only by the good. And an America where the bad are around every corner, robbing, raping, and killing all the time.
How many defensive guns are you up to now? Expecting to be gang raped in your home?
you're right, Mark, it's not Virginia that's the problem, it's NJ - (ignore the trolls as best you can) -
"The leaders of the NJ assembly and senate are planning to sue the Governor over his attempt to make it easier for some people to carry a handgun for protection.
They think that every pizza delivery driver, cab driver or anyone that works in a dangerous neighborhood will apply for a permit.
Guess what? They should!
A large number of states, including Texas and Florida, where I’ve visited in the last month, allow their citizens to apply for permits, and carry guns. The criminal element is far less likely to try anything knowing a potential victim could be armed, and the crime stats bear that out.
I feel safe there, knowing that law abiding, licensed, decent people are armed and ready to fend off the bad guys if confronted. This is such a foreign concept here in New Jersey that it’s an embarrassment and an affront to our liberty and safety. It’s been this way in this state since 1924!
Amazing that very few seem to mind that we are at the mercy of those who don’t follow the law and would want to do us harm and very few people care. "
http://nj1015.com/how-dare-you-try-and-protect-yourself-new-jersey/
"The criminal element is far less likely to try anything knowing a potential victim could be armed, and the crime stats bear that out."
Interesting Brother Dog - it's been pointed out to you over a number of years and times now that it's not the case. The stats show what doesn't really seem right. No matter what the law or potential for carrying crime persists and doesn't change either before or after changes in the law.
What does that mean? I can't say I'm sure and people on both sides of the argument don't want to acknowledge it, but that's what the stats are. The only thing I personally seem to come back to is that it has nothing to do with the law, or guns, or beliefs. Maybe it's more about the people than it is any of the emotional responses. A criminal is a criminal and has a different mind set that doesn't respond to the same thinking law abiding people do.
I met the cousins of a client of mine once who talked about growing up in an extremely dangerous neighborhood. They said if you think a gun is the slightest deterrent, then you have no idea how they grew up. Every day going to school they were shot at, innocent kids had bullet holes and it was totally expected that everyone was armed. Prison as well wasn't the slightest issue, that's actually safer they said because you only have a limited amount of weapons you have access to. In that world, a gun is a joke because no one's afraid of something that's every day life. How could you be afraid of something that's actually better than your current environment?
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.
Waiting for the scum in Trenton to start making words illegal because they might hurt people. Can't wait to get the hell outta this liberal snowflake cesspool.
LJRubi http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/
From the link above
Fact: After passing their concealed carry law, Florida’s homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below, 3.
Fact: In Texas, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average in the year after their concealed carry law passed. Rape rates fell 93% faster in the first year after enactment, and 500% faster in the second. 4 Assaults fell 250% faster in the second year. 5
Fact: More to the point, crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws. 6
"live in the land of make believe where guns are only for defense only by the good."
Hey, I acknowledge that bad guys have them. You seem incapable if acknowledging that good guys have them too. It's clear that you think gun = bad guy... except your gun(s), you're far too enlightened to be a bad guy... everybody *else* can't handle theirs as safely/responsibly as you (unless you're one of those that would shoot after being yelled at).
"America where the bad are around every corner, robbing, raping, and killing all the time."
Wouldn't that be a great reason to be armed? So, which is it? Is America that dangerous, or not? If not, then I guess you have nothing to be worried about - even with plenty of people carrying firearms.
I'm guessing you'd be perfectly fine visiting Texas, right? Got any travel plans to Somalia? What's the difference if it's only about guns (as per your meme)?
lol GC - you'll have to explain all that to the author of the piece, because it's his words that were quoted, not mine. he brings up some good points though, and that's why i shared it with you all.
here's another quote from the link - "A large number of states, including Texas and Florida, where I’ve visited in the last month, allow their citizens to apply for permits, and carry guns."
my question is : Why is NJ so far behind the times and not in step with most of the country?
time for change i think,
LOL BrotherDog - you'll have to explain yourself why you previously knew that wasn't right but are still quoting it. His good points have been proven wrong like you already knew from past discussions. Why don't *you* explain that to the author of the piece??
The quote from the link about visiting Florida and Texas was what you seemed to say you personally did. Is it really you, or the link? Maybe the rest is out of step because of confirmation bias and conservative privilege which is what it came down to over the years here. It definitely isn't because the state is a lemming.
Skippy - see Brother Dog's previous posts.
lol, and i'm smiling right now, why are you shouting GC? (lol) ;) - - - as previously stated, i posted it for discussion, you can clearly see the quotation marks, and if you took the time to read the link you would know it's the authors words,
imo, your oft stated confirmation bias opinion is wrong, (as skippy's data points prove) and this state is indeed an outlier imo (and many others agree with me, including Denis Malloy).
'lemming' is your word and it's a good one, i agree, NJ is a lemming of a state, and change needs to happen
it's past time for NJ to enact a shall issue permit law, what part of 'shall not be infringed' do they not understand here? NJ is backwards, behind the times and out of step with the rest of the nation on this issue, it's plain to see if you take time to look around.
i am confident that current court cases challenging NJ's draconian restrictions on guns will be successful and the laws wil be overturned on appeal. what part of 'shall not be infringed' is so hard to understand? the higher courts in the land seem to get it, why not NJ?
i was taught at a young age that when dealt 'lemmings' , take the positive route and make 'lemming aide', that's why NJ needs it own constitutional carry law enacted asap.
So, in response to the Ft. Lauderdale shooting, the brilliant minds at TSA have come up with a solution...
Increased police presence? Nope.
Arming TSA agents? Nope.
Allowing people to exercise Constitutional rights within non-secure areas of the airport? HAHA, nope.
It's zip ties!
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/03/daniel-zimmerman/tsa-now-zip-tying-bags-checked-firearms/
This is what a $7B/year "security" (theater) agency gets you, folks.
BrotherDog - If you look I did not shout which is caps, but instead added emphasis. The reason for that is you have as much or more reason to question the author as I have. You asked me to do that, so I wonder why you don't do it instead.
As for Confirmation Bias, when you already know the answer is "the statistics confirm it" when they don't but just Google the answer and post the link to it, that's Confirmation Bias. Skippy did that. It's correct. But even more you've skirted the issue that the statement isn't correct. We've had a serious of discussions over a number of years and you already know it's not correct. There were a number of tries at statistical models which have nothing to do with facts, and the terms inverse converse, contrapositive, etc. that show why models don't work, and logic inferences end up in fallacy. By very definition. Even if "but I still think".
As for lemmings, it means the overwhelming majority and the conditioned knee jerk response. Which one is majority and which one is minority and which one are you using to try to say it's right?
ok, LOL is not shouting, it's just for emphasis (lol), so is that a belly laugh or just a really long chuckle? lol, LOL, lol, ;) :)
agreed the stats are used both ways to say both things are true, but none of that matters to the right to keep and bear arms, the right is not conditional on crime stats, that's just a discussion point, the right is ours as individuals no matter how the crime stats play out up or down.
most of the country allows citizens to bear arms with them as they go about heir daily lives, NJ does not and is behind the times and out of step with the rest of the country
it is an individual right, and NJ's draconian restrictions are imo (and many. many others opinion) unconstitutional.
i am fairly certian (imho) that significant change is coming on these issues here in NJ soon
So here is the rest of SD's story, since he did not source it, he seems to have left out some details.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2017/02/02/road-rage-incident-leads-arrest-gun-and-drug-charges/97399844/
A key point that was left out:
"After Landes was arrested, troopers say a search found he was in possession of cocaine."
Yup, just another one of your law abiding citizens SD?
"Landes was charged with possession of cocaine, unlawful possession of a handgun, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, assault, and possession of hollow-point bullets. He was sent to the Burlington County Jail on a no-bail warrant."
Darrin, I did source it to NJ.com and dated it also. I did not link it. Thought I was entering the important stuff, saving space…, but you are right I am wrong; adding the just another good old American attempt at humor is uncalled for given the information left out. Way uncalled for. Some kind of Freudian slip is showing because the guns subject is so Oedipus complex. Sorry about that, good catch. most certainly BUSTED. Didn’t take long either, did it :>) Xmas gift.
"i am fairly certian (imho) that significant change is coming on these issues here in NJ soon"
IDK, BD... once Christie is gone and a democrat is back in, it's no-holds-barred.... open season on gun owners. Today the legislature introduced a bill for people with mental health issues (who have been deemed to be a danger to themselves or others) to be prohibited from owning firearms. Which, on it's surface, doesn't sound crazy, but I'm sure there are neat little "catch-alls" in there... like the HOUSEHOLD the person lives in is prohibited from owning firearms... just another slippery slope.... any way they can get 'em, they will.
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp?BillNumber=A2938
This bill would allow any mental health provider - to include marriage counselors and social workers to initiate seizure and sale of a person's guns. The bill has a drastic forfeiture provision, which calls for property to be seized and sold with no compensation to the owner - without a conviction of anything. The legislation also alters doctor-patient confidentiality.
Meanwhile - current law allows exceptions to the privilege and defines circumstances in which law enforcement authorities can be notified. so this is more unnecessary feel good legislation.
lease contact your Assembly members and ask them to respectfully oppose A.2938.
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/abcroster.asp
thanks skippy, this needs to be defeated, it's true over reach and is unconstitutional. i urge everyone to contact their representatives and tell them to vote no on A.2938.
- - - - - - - - - - -
meanwhile, elsewhere, North Dakota gets on board with the program of 'Constitutional Carry'
quoted from the link below:
Constitutional/Permitless Carry Bill Headed to Governor Burgum!
Today, House Bill 1169 passed the North Dakota Senate with a 34-13 vote! HB 1169 now heads to Governor Doug Burgum (R) for his consideration.
Introduced by state Representative Rick Becker (R-7), HB 1169 would eliminate the requirement to obtain a permit in order to lawfully carry. HB 1169 would make the current permitting system optional to allow citizens to obtain permits and take advantage of reciprocity agreements with other states.
This bill recognizes a law-abiding adult’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms for self-defense in the manner he or she chooses. Self-defense situations are difficult, if not impossible, to anticipate. Accordingly, a law-abiding adult’s right to defend himself or herself in such situations should not be conditioned by government-mandated time delays and taxes.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170321/north-dakota-constitutionalpermitless-carry-bill-headed-to-governor-burgum?utm_content=sf64737239&utm_medium=spredfast&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=National+Rifle+Association+of+America&sf64737239=1
ruger's implementation of the AR-15 platform is getting a lot of respect, prices are low as well;:
https://www.cdnnsports.com/rugerr-ar556-carbine.html
RUGER® AR556 MEDIUM HEAVY CARBINE
Action: Semi Auto, Direct Impingement • Finish: Matte Black • Barrel: 16.1", 1:8 Twist • Sights: Adjustable Front Post, Adjustable Ruger® Rapid Deploy Rear • Magazine(s): 1 - 30 Round Magpul Pmag • Stock: Composite, Collapsible • Weight: 6 lbs. 8 oz. • Overall Length: 32.25"-35.5"
The milled gas block is located at a carbine length (M4) position. The handguards are made from heat-resistant glass-filled nylon. The front sight post is elevation adjustable, and a front sight tool is included. The Ruger® Rapid Deploy folding rear sight provides windage adjustability and is a solid, reliable aiming system when coupled with the elevation adjustable front sight. The rear sight can be folded out of the way to make room for optics but can be instantly redeployed if needed. Six-position telescoping M4-style buttstock and Mil-Spec buffer tube.
16.1 inch medium contour barrel is cold hammer-forged providing ultra-precise rifling for exceptional accuracy, longevity and easy cleaning. The 1:8 twist rate stabilizes bullets from 35 to 77 grains and the 5.56 NATO chamber allows the use of both 5.56 NATO and .223 Rem. ammunition. A Ruger® flash suppressor is provided and the ½"-28 threaded barrel allows for standard muzzle accessories to be installed.
The ergonomic pistol grip features an extended trigger reach for more precise trigger control. The enlarged trigger guard is designed to allow for gloved shooting. The chrome-plated bolt carrier inside diameter and chrome-plated gas key inside diameter provide exceptional resistance to hot gases. The gas key is staked so that it will not loosen after extensive firing. A matte black oxide finish on the exterior of the bolt carrier provides corrosion resistance.
"30 Round Magpul Pmag"
"Six-position telescoping M4-style buttstock"
"A Ruger® flash suppressor"
"½"-28 threaded barrel"
Not legal for sale in NJ. You get the neutered version (Model 8502)...
I love Rugers (have 7 of them). If you can pick up an AR556 for a good price (compared to say an M&P-15) go ahead and grab one. The quality should be good. That being said, all the "features" that Ruger touts for their model are found on 99.9% of AR's from all other manufacturers.
They could have just said "Ruger AR556 - We make one too..." ;)
yes and no Mark, this modestly priced ruger is very well made, ruger is really good at this stuff and this is one more example of their manufacturing excellence.
and yeah, i know , not legal in NJ, hoping some court cases will change that, there is no reason whatsoever to ban these common rifles which are in 'common use' all over the country (including NJ pre-ban)
You can still get it...but......
"30 Round Magpul Pmag" can't have that, give that back and take a cheaper 15 rd for 30rd price or pin it
"Six-position telescoping M4-style buttstock" pin it at added cost
"A Ruger® flash suppressor" nope....cant have that! change it to a brake at added cost
"½"-28 threaded barrel" whatever is on there must be permanently pinned and non removable....hope you never want to change it (at added cost of course)
I thought the price was great...after nj mods its a $600 gun minimum
It will be almost $600 before you even started the compliance work. $500 plus $20 shipping plus $25 (or more) transfer fee plus $15 NICS = $565+ just to buy it as is.
If you're honest you'd also account for the out of state sales tax next April. ;)
Oops... $560... originally I had $20 for NICS but changed that without updating the total.
I don't even know what the fee is in SC... I think it may be $5, but once I get my CWP I don't need a NICS check for any purchases.
Just to be clear guys... you CAN have a flash suppressor in NJ, provided it is one of only 2 "evil features"... (3 evil features makes it an "assault weapon", and therefore, illegal. meaning, you can have a removable magazine (evil feature) and a flash suppressor (evil feature), you just can't have any OTHER evil feature... telescoping stock, bayonet lug, etc etc. Very few guns meet thise unique standard, because flash suppressors are usually on AR-15s and AK-47s, which already have too many evil features. The Ruger Mini-14 and Mini-30 are 2 guns that have only these 2 (removable mag and flash suppressor), and are legal in NJ.
And that's the LAW. Don't let someone (even if it's a cop) at a range tell you otherwise... the law is a little vague and confusing. You won't find any gun shops SELLING them in NJ, simply because they don't want to take the risk (dealing with a vague law that many people don't know the letter of).
Here's the law:
A. semi-automatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of the following:
a folding or telescoping stock;
a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
a bayonet mount;
a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
a grenade launcher;
Mini 14/30 has only one (in addition to the detachable magazine): the flash suppressor. Legal.
(and only the tactical versions of these weapons; most of the 14/30 models do NOT have flash suppressors.)
I was wondering the same thing JR!
I will settle for 1 evil feature if I can have the grenade launcher? LOL!
"BTW, how does something protrude "conspicuously"
This is why there are "NY Style" grips for AR rifles.
In NJ this would (theoretically) allow you to have one other feature. Who wants to be the test case?
Senate Democrats and the anti-gun media have launched an all-out assault on President Trump's pro-gun Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch.
It's official. President Trump has nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court.
Gorsuch has a proven pro-gun record, and was reported as "a worthy heir to Scalia" in many major publications.
But radical Democrats including Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren have already vowed to stall and outright defeat the President's pick.
That's why it's imperative you sign your DEFEND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Petition to your U.S. Senators right away!
For Freedom
https://nagr.org/2017/defendthescotus.aspx?pid=fb6nL
Before I went with some unsupported bad humor, I was dancing around some points, so let me clarify.
1. Yeah, we are going to keep arguing the statistical data since it’s all secondary and there are such yuge unexplained anomalies. Like how can VT have loose gun laws and low gun deaths? That does not work in most places. Or how can Chicago have strict gun laws and rampant gun death. That does not work in most places. Or the standard profile for rural and urban gun ownership (or the lack thereof) where somewhere, anomalies contradict the average. No matter what you believe the data says, there always seems to be a yuge anomaly somewhere to contradict. Too many variables not factored into the existing statistics. The only way to correct this is yuge primary research efforts. Private industry or education won’t take this on, it’s commercial death to go against the NRA. And the NRA has successfully lobbied the government against doing any primary research because of political death. So the anomalies will never be explained and we will continue our whirlpool “discussion” of the existing facts.
2. As I have said, as hard as I look, it appears that the overwhelming preponderance of good-guy-with-gun situations end well. For the good guys. These guys seem to be very accurate or, at least, not inaccurate.
3. What is missed in all this is that with more guns, more concealed guns, there more instances of good guys being bad, is on the rise. Our murder rate is too high against many, if not most, industrialized nations. Most murders are by gun. Statistically, with less guns comes less murders across the globe. This doesn’t get counted in the good guy with gun tracking because guys using guns badly aren’t being good anymore….. That was my focus on road rage since I think there has been a definite increase in guns in cars as a matter of course. And it is not good defensive shoots. It's pissed off people grabbing the convenient weapon for point and click justice.
My point is that more guns = more gun deaths. A simple truth. Yes, some are defensive, mostly good shoots. Can mean more gun defense saves (gun deaths) as well. Which is a good thing since these guys tend not to miss. Both of these can be true facts. So how do we preserve the one and lower the other? Certainly, the path we are on is not doing it.
what part of 'shall not be infringed' is so hard to understand?
the fundamental right to 'keep and bear' arms is not contingent on crime stats
the rate if crime is not a condition of being able to keep and bear arms. it is simply a fundamental individual right that the constitution proscribes the government from infringing upon.
what part of 'shall not be infringed' is so difficult to comprehend?
SD - one of the flaws in your argument is you just clearly admitted that "some" shoots are good defensive uses (actual studies put this number in the millions per year - of course not all result in shots fired or a dead bad guy...) but you never strip out these numbers in the aggregate total gun deaths that you present as evidence of our "problem".
I'd go so far as to say that we should also strip out the "bad on bad" shoots... gang bangers in Chicago want to kill each other? Have at it... it saves the taxpayers/private citizens money on ammo.
Second - to classify something (like Vermont or Chicago) as an "anomaly" there would have to be a trend that they were anomalous to. While we cannot quantify "strictness" of gun control, we can choose somewhat of an analogue in "gun ownership rate". Since you postulate the theory that "more guns = more gun deaths" I think this is a valid method.
I have plotted the data from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_the_United_States_by_state
Gun ownership rate on the X-axis. Total murder and gun murder rates on the Y-axis.
There is *NO* (as in zip, zero, nada) correlation in gun ownership rate (which is normalized to eliminate the effects of population density) and murder rates. Really, the *only* anomaly is DC... with very strict gun control, super low gun ownership %, and insane murder rates (4x the national average). I think we have to reject your hypothesis here...
"there has been a definite increase in guns in cars as a matter of course"
That reminds me... I have to shop for a gun to put in my old truck.
this video makes a good point how NJ is behind the times and out of step with the rest of the nation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjwGCnfVu-w
what part of 'shall not be infringed' does NJ not understand? time for change,
"what part of 'shall not be infringed' is so difficult to comprehend?" Perhaps it's the part where the SCOTUS job is to decide to put reasonable restrictions on the Constitutional right. You know, like we do for literally all Constitutionally provided rights. Every one. Got comprehension difficulties on that one? Just look it up.
"SD - one of the flaws..." Why would I strip any gun deaths out from a gun death total statistic? It's not good or bad deaths we are parsing, it's death we be counting.
"I'd go so far as to say that we should also strip out the "bad on bad" shoots..." Yeah, because we want that in America.....they never miss either :>(
"Second - to classify something (like Vermont or Chicago) as an "anomaly" there would have to be a trend that they were anomalous to." Yeah, we call it gun control strictness which can be quantified, look it up. You may disagree with the metrics, but it can be done. And you know we can't count gun ownership rates except via self reporting, I think. Your "study" on gun ownership is from 2007 and the methodology is not provided. It was done by your favorite source: US Liberal Politics.....showing how low you will go :>) Need link for "normalized" effect; not in the links I am looking at and can't imagine what that even means. Then you match this with 2010 death data for a pretty weak tea.
However, let's look at your top ten ownership states
1. Wyoming - 59.7% (also one of the top 20 gun murder states....)
2. Alaska - 57.8% (numero uno in gun death)
3. Montana - 57.7% (top 20)
4. South Dakota - 56.6% (you gots a winner, this is an anomaly)
5. West Virginia - 55.4% (top 20)
6. Mississippi - 55.3% (top 20)
6. Idaho - 55.3% (top 20)
6. Arkansas - 55.3% (top 20)
9. Alabama - 51.7% (top 20)
10. North Dakota - 50.7% (not in, another anomaly)
And to lowest 10 in ownership..."States with Below Median Populations of Gun Owners
40. Delaware - 25.5% (winner for lowest 10 states in gun death)
41. Florida - 24.5% (anomaly)
42. California - 21.3% (winner)
42. Maryland - 21.3% (winner)
44. Illinois - 20.2% (winner)
45. New York - 18% (winner)
46. Connecticut - 16.7% (winner)
47. Rhode Island - 12.8% (winner)
48. Massachusetts - 12.6% (winner)
49. New Jersey - 12.3% (winner)
50. Hawaii - 6.7% (numero uno)
"Zip, zero, nada......" what are you saying?
"That reminds me... I have to shop for a gun to put in my old truck." Sounds like you really need it in your neighborhood; those Carolina's are a shooting gallery.
SD, I look at it as more bad guys dead, and more good guys able to defend themselves from bad guys.
It turns the tables so to say.
Sure, there are obviously a few bad apples, but the more good guys there are, the more of a chance to stop those bad apples.
it's a huge equalizer for the elderly and handicapped and persons of smaller stature or slight build - a 90lb woman with a .38 in her purse can defend herself - there should be no reason to live in fear anywhere in this country
Now all we need to do is relocate the good guys to the bad areas or vice-versa :>)
what part of 'shall not be infringed' is so hard to understand?
the fundamental right to 'keep and bear' arms is not dependent on death rates, makes no difference in the fundamental personal right to 'keep and bear arms' period,
it is a fundamental individual right that the constitution protects individuals by proscribing the government from infringing upon.
many of the current laws in America are unreasonably infringing on this right and need to be challenged in court so they can be overturned, NY, CT, NJ and other states have way overstepped the bounds of good reason and common sense and have truly infringed in draconian ways on this fundamental human right that is enumerated in the constituion
"2. Alaska - 57.8% (numero uno in gun death)"
What chart are you reading? Alaska has a gun murder rate of 2.7 per 100,000 population. Mid-pack at best.
"(top 20)"
Oh my, top 20 out of 50 states... in other words, almost average.
Not to mention that when the difference from #1 to #50 is so small, simply ranking them doesn't tell the whole story. What's the standard deviation so we can even tell if it's a statistically significant difference between #8 and #13 (for example)? How about posting your own chart?
Still curious how you "quantify" gun control? Is it the number of laws, or how many words in each? If a state has a magazine limit but no AWB, does that rank above or below a state with AWB but no magazine limit?
I know you don't like the Wikipedia data (give me another data set and I'll try to create the same graphs)...
But it looks like the "gun murder" rate is a "normal" data distribution, if anything (other than Washington DC) tending towards the low side of the expected distribution (since you can't have a negative rate).
What this says to me is that the frequency of gun death is statistically the same in all states no matter what the gun ownership percentage (or any other factor - as a histogram is not dependent on an X variable) of that state is.
I understand your data dilemma. You live in the Carolinas :>) And yeah, your state flunks.
We can go round and round checking and testing: the links are above if you desire to find out answers to your questions.
Again, the data will always include anomalies, without a massive primary research effort, we won't come closer to the truth than we are right now. We can debate the metrics used, the data sources, the logic used -----> just copy/paste your old stuff.
Really shouldn't have started this, just Heidi's needed a response and your generalization just called out for one. My bad. This bear just needs a tickle to be poked :>)
The gun control estimate you are looking for can be found in many places, I think even pro gun but most pull from here: http://gunlawscorecard.org/
"Sounds like you really need it in your neighborhood; those Carolina's are a shooting gallery
Yep, got one in my backyard.
So what do you guys think this time? Maybe XDM 9mm or an M&P 9mm?
ooh..... XDM.
Personally, I'd love the Ruger Gunsite Scout... .308 of course.
NJ legal!
http://www.ruger.com/products/gunsiteScoutRifle/models.html
NJ is behind the times and out of step with the rest of the nation:
quoted from the link below:
North Dakota Governor Signs NRA-Backed Constitutional/Permitless Carry Legislation into Law
Yesterday, Governor Burgum signed House Bill 1169 into law. North Dakota is now the 12th state to enact Constitutional/Permitless Carry. HB 1169 will take effect on August 1, 2017.
HB 1169 eliminates the requirement to obtain a permit in order to lawfully carry. HB 1169 makes the current permitting system optional to allow citizens to obtain permits and take advantage of reciprocity agreements with other states.
This bill recognizes a law-abiding adult’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms for self-defense in the manner he or she chooses. Self-defense situations are difficult, if not impossible, to anticipate. Accordingly, a law-abiding adult’s right to defend himself or herself in such situations should not be conditioned by government-mandated time delays and taxes.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170324/north-dakota-governor-signs-nra-backed-constitutionalpermitless-carry-legislation-into-law
I think grading A through F is hardly a "quantifiable" assessment. Where are the numeric scores?
Also, ranking doesn't necessarily mean that #10 is twice as bad as #5.
So, from a statistical analysis point of view, their data is crap... unless I missed the actual *numbers* somewhere - hard to browse everything there on my cell phone.
Finally, they are quite obviously including suicide in their total death numbers. I'd be curious as to how magazine limits, concealed carry permitting, etc. have any effect on suicide rates. To me it looks like padding the numbers to get the results they want.
that's a real nice rifle JR! thx for sharing, and agreed! .308 is the best caliber for a good scout rifle.
the scout rifle owes it's heritage to the great competition pistol expert Jeff Cooper. With that in mind i thought you guy smight find somem value in this article:
http://www.range365.com/gun-test-scout-rifle
quoted from the link:
"If there is such a thing as a Renaissance man in the world of shooting, Jeff Cooper qualified. He was instrumental in starting the sport of action pistol shooting, which lives on today with USPSA and IPSC competitions all over the world. Cooper also developed and taught the Modern Technique of pistol shooting, which changed how we shoot defensive handguns, and is the foundation for most of the techniques used in pistol shooting today. He was a hard-core big game hunter with worldwide experience. He founded Gunsite Academy, one of the top firearms training centers in the world. And Cooper was a prolific writer who authored several books on guns, shooting, and self-defense.
An additional Cooper legacy is the continuing popularity of the Scout Rifle, which he first began to develop in 1968. He wrote about the idea behind the rifle design in his book The Art of The Rifle."
----------
the rest of the article is quite informative, urge you guys to take the time to read it, the .308 is a long range, hard hitting, useful cartridge, and it's good to see that long range shooting is coming back as a trend, (as you know, i've been a consistent advocate of it for over 40 years now, our current military/infantry preparations do not make effective enough use of it and our men and women in uniform suffer as a direct result, the over reliance on the m4 in .556 nato is just wrong imho,, it results is less battle effectiveness and ends up causing more casualties)
Yes, I've done all kinds of reading on the Scout rifle concept. My buddy got a Springfield M1 Carbine in .308 many years ago, and I fell in love with it. I would prefer a .308 carbine to a bolt-action, but the bolt IS more accurate for long-distance shooting. And I already have a carbine, in 7.62 (Ruger Mini-30). FUN shooting gun! Plenty accurate out to 100 yds, which in reality is as far as I'd use a carbine anyway.
However, we were hitting 12" targets at 200 yds with my buddy's M1, using iron sites...
M1 carbine in .' 308 Winchester' ? could it have been .' 30 carbine' ? anyways, good shooting. keep up the good work,
BD,
No... carbine in .308 check it out:
http://www.springfield-armory.com/products/m1a-scout-squad/
My dad has an M1 Carbine (.30) , after-WWII surplus, that is the funnest rifle I've ever shot. Small, light, no kick, just fun fun fun!
Women On The Frontlines Of Campus Carry
In 2016, Texas became America's eighth state to allow for the legal carry of a concealed firearm on campus. While the anti-gunners have claimed the law won't reduce crime and have staged protests in opposition, a new group of voices has emerged to take back...
https://www.nratv.com/series/ginny-simone-reporting/episode/ginny-simone-reporting-season-7-episode-14-women-on-the-frontlines-of-campus-carry
"My buddy got a Springfield M1 Carbine in .308 many years ago, and I fell in love with it. "
My dad had a real IBM M1 Carbine, bought basically "new" (I think test fired only) from the civilian marksmanship program when he was younger and lived in Ohio (probably in the 1960's or so).
I remember shooting it as a kid, along with his Mauser 8mm (they were kept at my grandmother's house in Ohio). Alas, he had to eventually sell the carbine because they are illegal to possess in NJ.
Had I moved to SC a couple years sooner it would be in my gun safe instead...
"Common sense" laws indeed. Part of my memories of dad forced to be sold off to a stranger.
Mark, that's a real shame about you father's rifle. NJ is out of step with the rest of the nation, there is no 'common sense' reason to ban the ownership of that particular rifle. If it was me, I would have found someone out of state to store it for a while. I am saddened to no end when i hear these stories.
gotcha now thanks JR,
the M1A is a different rifle than the M1 carbine from WWII and Korea (and some limited early deployment in Vietnam)
the M1A is the civilian version of the military M14, the difference being of course that the select fire switch is not on the M1A. M1A's are still legal to buy here in Jersey. go figure.
and yes they are most often in .308 Winchester, although i think you can get them in 6mm
the M1 carbine was originally based on off the M1 Garrand and their actions operate very similarly although many modifications and improvements were introduced.
so was it an M1A you shot or was it truly an M1 carbine from earlier? i ask because i'm not aware that M1 carbines came in .308, the military issued ones were all chambered in '.30 Carbine'
skip, the CMP is out of stock on them until Obama's import ban is rescinded, they will get American made military surplus Garrand rifles from overseas once that's done
just one more reason to dislike our past president, there is no earthly reason that makes any sense at all for banning the re-importation of these classic rifles. just stupid, but typical for the melt-them-all-down anti-gunites out there.
the CMP is a wonderful program and needs these rifles to continue to expand it's important mission.
BD,
My buddy's was a Springfield M1A Carbine Scout in .308
My dad's was an M1 Carbine .30 from WWII surplus (he got it after WWII, which he fought in)
"Can you still get a Garrand through CMP?"
I believe so, but CMP prices are really not much (if any) better than market prices. It's a private organization now, so they need a profit to fund their other activities (as opposed to the government being happy to get something to offset scrap costs).
I've always thought guns make beautiful music!!
http://www.wimp.com/performing-classical-music-with-two-handguns/
Greg I am not a large fan of the safety on my XDM in .45. It has a similar safety to a 1911, with no flip safety. Had I known that, I probably wouldn't have bought it. I just simply do not trust myself not to hit that and the double trigger while upholstering with one in the chamber, so I always carry it unchambered. Other then that, match grade and great shooting gun, incredibly accurate.
Yeah it does. I do not trust it, because I holster it while making trails. If I bump it, get it hung up, or grab it out, that is definitively getting pushed.
I am just not comfortable with that form of safety and keeping 1 chambered. I like the flip safety all my other guns have.
http://www.nj2as.org/it_s_official_judge_signs_order_overturning_nj_s_ban_on_tasers_and_stun_guns?utm_campaign=taser3&utm_medium=email&utm_source=nj2as
It's Official: Judge Signs Order Overturning NJ's Ban on Tasers and Stun Guns
People forget that things other than guns are "arms" and are thus protected by the 2nd Amendment.
NJ's logic is (was) dumb... firearms are deadly, you should use less lethal options, which, by the way, we also banned. Good luck!
they didn't provide a lawful way to get less lethal options - the police can't even use them
question for you guys, colt AR15 vs Colt match target rifle (model - MT6700)
do they use the same lower? same receiver? why is one legal in NJ and the other one not? (556/nato with a 20" barrel)
I don't know if they are the exact same lowers. You would have to look at them in person to see the machining and details. Certainly should be interchangeable since they are built to the AR-15 specs.
One is legal one isn't because New Jersey is retarded, plain and simple.
Because NJ arbitrarily created a list one day and colt ended up on it with bushmaster etc - on you tube Evan Nappen has a video about it
https://youtu.be/ewseb59lLzk
Anytime you folks get annoyed with NJ gun law check this out
Looks like an XDM is off my shopping list...
Springfield Armory and Rock River Arms appear to have been caught with their hands in the gun control cookie jar...
First, last week, it was shown that they likely traded their opposition to an Illinois gun control bill (strict licensing and transfer quantity limitations) for a carve out that exempts their businesses.
Now, their lobbying arm (IFMA - funded solely by Springfield and Rock River - the CEO's of those companies being Directors of IFMA) has been shown to be making donations to anti-gun Democrats as far back as 2012... potentially in violation of political donation disclosure laws.
Not a good PR week for either company, and certainly now on my (and MANY other's) do not buy list.
https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2017/05/01/springfield-armory-rock-river-arms-oppose-gun-dealer-licensing-act/
here is their rebuttal
Want to pick up some handguns. I know, stop laughing and pick yourself up off the floor :>) Want as small and light with stopping power as possible but whatever clip NJ allows ---- 10 or 15?? What do you suggest?
Any special stores that cater to idiots? Be nice if said store "refurbished" or cleaned up shotguns --- probably should clean all those up at the same time.
You like a wheel gun or a semi-auto? What's the intended purpose? Self defense? Who is the primary user ergo you with big construction worn hands or a 110 pound woman - lots of questions.
You should buy from jim Flynn in glen Gardner- as far as show rooming guns? Try Hackettsown guns and ammo. See what fits your needs. For self defense you can't go wrong with .357 as your caliber (can shoot .38, .38 +P abd .357) 9mm is ok too. Not a huge fan of .40, .45 or 10mm for a combat handgun.
Now with that said you can't go wrong with a wheel gun for self defense. If there's a problem you pull the trigger again. (No tap rack bang) clearing of misfires. Can get a smith and Wesson featherweight and their extremely light but are snappy and have some recoil control issues for folks without the grip strength. Also can't go wrong with a single stack 9mm like the glock 43. Extremely durable and easy to use but again semi auto.
If you want mag capacity you need a full sized large frame - something like a sig 226 or a glock 19. They come in all the flavors
Skippy. Their rebuttals are weak sauce.
Springfield and Rock River breaking ties with the IFMA is like trying to divorce yourself. They (Larson and Reese - the CEOs of Springfield and Rock River) ARE the IFMA along with one other individual - the lobbyist himself.
At a bare minimum, it shows massive incompetence if they were not aware of what the IFMA lobbyist was doing. At the end of the day they still have their carve out and donations were still made to anti-gun legislators via funds from their bank accounts.
Yeah not disputing that - just wasn't sure if you saw what they said.
SD you should got to RTSP in Randolph and actually shoot some of the guns you are looking at - this way you can get a feel for recoil sight placement accuracy in addition to what feels good in your hand.
Hey SD you said handguns as in plural - how many fun coupons (pistol purchase permits) you got? Did you get the trifecta? If so I can make some more recommends
He needs to practice what he preaches, so there is only one option:
Armatix iP1 "smart" gun with the magazine down-loaded to only 6 or 7 rounds.
Might be tough to find a dealer, but that's the price you pay (in addition to the $1,800 cost) for principles.
MickeyMark: really man, you've got some issues.....:>) Just target practice for fun and, yes, I will comply with all laws and any that I have suggested ---- I still recommend and would comply with.
Thanks Skip, I will report back after some shooting some 357's and 9mm.
And one for now, probably more later once I figure out why......as in multiple models for different features. Like is there a handgun that's better for longer distances? How long? That could be fun.
Those other shells for the 357, do they all kick the same? Do they make 357's that are not Dirty Harry sized?
They make very small .357 revolvers
Ruger SP101 357 Mag, 2.25″ Revolver:
That one is. 5 shot and again can chamber .38 .38+P and .357. You can use .38 wad cutters for target practice and .357 for defense (recommend hornaday critical defense or Speer gold dot jacketed hollow point). That one can take the crimson laser grips which are pretty cool and has a snagless hammer.
For distance plinking you need to really go with a rifle - handgun max realistic range is 25 yds for accuracy. Handgun quals here are 3 yds, 5 yds, 7 yds, 10 yds, 15 yds, and 25 yds
38 has much less recoil than .357 and .38+P and since the firearm is built for the heavier .357 round you can shoot all 3.
What range you gonna go to? Shongum had a 2 year waiting list when I was a member may want to apply now
How do I have issues?
Why don't you want a smart gun, and why do you want the maximum legal capacity magazine? 15 is OK even for you, but 16 is too high... 17, 18? Wheres the limit, and why? Honest answers, please?
You have spent *years* railing on us for those two issues, and now you want a gun that doesn't even have the features you'd like to see mandated for the rest of us. Interesting...
Walther ppk/s in .380, small, light, thin easily carried and has a 7 + 1 capacity.
now skippy may not like the lack of stopping power in the .380 cartditg compared to some others, but i disagree.
*IF* you want both stopping power and , small and easily carriedm then that;s hard to find a compromise,
.45 cal ACP in a short barrel commander versions of the venerable 1911 might be one, but it s twice the size and weight of the Walther mentioned above.
i am not a fan of the 9mm, yes, you can get glocks that have a 17+1 capacity
so it's a compromise of goals that's needed. The Walther is a 70 year old design that is time proven and field tested, HMSS used them during WWII, MI6 used them post war and that's why Ian Flemming put one in the hands of James Bond (who was based on real life agents post WWII)
the pic is of one in stainless steel, i prefer the blued version personally, both are available,
http://www.waltherarms.com/handguns/ppk/ppk-ppks/#
mark, good points, and the thin skinned once again has give empirical proof that he can dish it out often and liberally but he just can't take it, maybe he should remember how he feels about this the next time he decides to go after someone who dares to disagree with him. (won't hold my breath on that one . . . lol)
I have nothing against .380 - I was trying to recommend one caliber that gave him multiple options, was reliable, and could do double duty as a plinker and a defensive handgun. At the Walther price point he can get a deagle or sig and have more capacity. the .380 definily is a great round but it shoots .380 end of list
BDog - You like 380 but not 9mm?
380 is just a short 9mm cartridge. Not intended to be interchangeable in any guns like 38/357 is, although you could probably use 380's in a 9mm revolver with moon clips. Wouldn't work in a semi-auto as they head space off the front of the rimless case, so the 380 would be too far into the chamber for the firing pin to contact.
380 ACP is also known as "9x17mm" compared to a regular "9x19mm".
you know, i don't really like it, i just like it in that particular handgun, if you need small, slim and easy to carry, hide etc, its a good choice, it's reliable, well built and is time proven, you just can't go wrong with German engineering and the successful use of the walther ppk and ppk/s by HMSS (for decades) speaks to it's usefulness.
the 9x17mm is known as the 9mm kurz, (kurz is German for short) the round is shorter than the regular 9mm
and i don't really like 9mm either and i know i'm bucking a very popular trend, i do like .45's for stopping power, the 9mm and 9mm Kurz is about .355" in diameter, that's a huge difference. 115 grain bullet tops out what the 380 acp can handle, i understand the Kurz can be a bit heavier? (not sure about that) and the use of high pressure powders is always problematic in semi-auto handguns, so that limits muzzle velocity which relates to stopping power, revolvers can handle the higher pressure rounds safer and so are preferred if you want more stopping power.
like i said, it's a balancing act of priorities and everyone will have their own take on it,
i don't like .223 in rifles for similar reasons, and the pentagon is currently developing a larger , longer range cartridge/rifle combo for our armed services because they are finally admitting (like i been preaching to folks for over 40 years now) that our men and women in uniform are being outgunned in the field, we discussed this at length up here a while back.
good discussion guys, this is what we need more of up here rather than the R vs D nonsense in the other thread
.45 is great - just not in a 1911 and the PPK is James Bonds gun nuff said - that thing as a 17 pound DAO trigger pull though bro. I can guarantee one thing - he won't have a ND with that
SD, my vote is 9mm, that is my favorite all around round.
But I must say, I am very confused here. you have told us for a while how educated you are about guns and laws, and about how you possibly have guns and have shot before...... but then you state "Want as small and light with stopping power as possible but whatever clip NJ allows ---- 10 or 15?? What do you suggest?" And call yourself a "idiot" when it comes to guns, and ask questions about kickback.......
So you do not even know the current laws? And even you want as much stopping power as possible? Along with the max legal capacity? All things you have time and time again vouched against?
Practice what you preach and get a smart gun....let us all know how it is.
This must be a joke...if it is not, maybe we have finally brought SD to see the light. Because we all know....you can't just have one ;-)
skipp - lol brother, maybe i should re-think my position on 9mm,
what is the heaviest grain bullet with +P powder that is safe in most semi-auto handguns? longer barrel length will allow more of the powder to burn thereby increasing muzzle velocity ('stopping power')
.45 has great stopping power, but in my opinion gets tiresome target shooting.
.380 is fun for target shooting but lacks stopping power
9mm is middle of the road. I guess .40 would be too, as it is very similar to a 9, but I ended up with a 9 first.
If you are looking for one gun for it all, 9mm would be my choice. If you want the best for every thing you may ever do, like skippy said, buy multiple guns like we all do LOL! You can't just have one!
"what is the heaviest grain bullet with +P powder that is safe in most semi-auto handguns? "
9mm rounds are usually 115, 124, or 147 grain. There is no "best" selection, some guns, barrel lengths, twist rates, and rifling type work better with one weight vs. another. I have used all three in various guns, but never did a "bullseye" test (each weight will have a slightly different point of aim at longer distances). I generally stick to the middle of the road 124 grain if I have the choice.
Also note, not all guns are rated for +P ammunition. You have to check the specific owners manual... +P ammo is harder to find and more expensive too.
There is also an even rarer +P+ version, but I don't think that is a SAAMI recognized pressure - so use at your own risk, if you could even find it.
"what is the heaviest grain bullet with +P powder that is safe in most semi-auto handguns?"
.44 Magnum Cartridge Standard pressure 36,000 +P pressure 43,500
If I had to pick one round I am with you on 9MM. I only recommended the .357 due to the versatility of chambering multiple rounds and concern for recoil. A .357 going off in a 2.5 in revolver definitely produces some snap. He can start with some underpressure .38 special wad cutters and get used to it. 9MM runs at nearly twice the pressure of a .38 special for a projectile that weighs just one grain less.
http://www.ballistics101.com/9mm_vs_.38special.php
"If I had to pick one round I am with you on 9MM. I only recommended the .357 due to the versatility of chambering multiple rounds and concern for recoil."
9mm pressure is ~35,000 psi
9mm +P pressures is ~38,500 psi
.357 Magnum pressure is ~35,000 psi
38 Special pressure is ~16,000 psi
Comparing my GP100 to my SR9... 38 kicks about the same as the 9mm, while 357 kicks more. 357 is a beast of a round (sure, it's less than .44 mag, but it packs a punch in the smaller case).
Semi-autos should shoot softer than comparably sized revolvers, because the slide/recoil spring dampens some of the force. In revolvers, all the force goes right to your hand and wrist.
Even the feel of the recoil is a bit different. 38 is a "push", 357 is a "punch", and 9mm is a "snap". (Although even 38's in my sub compact LCR aren't pleasant).
Yeah agreed but with a wheel gun there are no stove pipes, FTF resolves by pulling the trigger again, FTE is almost non existent and you just reload with 4 not 5. For someone who is a first time shooter and wants a combat handgun it's not a bad choice
"Yeah agreed but with a wheel gun there are no stove pipes"
This is true... but revolvers can have failures. I have seen squib loads and lock ups (where the revolver is still loaded but the cylinder cannot be opened... not a great situation).
Pros and cons to both.
At the moment I like/shoot my semi-autos more often, not that I'd ever get rid of my GP100 ;)
skippy - 9mm - largest grain sized bullet and +P charge that is safe to use in sem-autos? pick an average popular handgun in 9mm, what's the max grains in bullet mass? whats the safest max pressure? and then bonus question: with an an avg 4" and/or 5" barrel whats the muzzle velocity? i guess there's a chart somewhere with this info
anything can fail and I carry a G43 - but the potential for a sqib with factory ammo is low and will jam you up either way - you now have a club. also lockups from primer flow back are rare on factory ammo and most likely caused by carbon build up on the face of the cylinder and forcing cone binding it or loose ejector rods (not an issue on the SP-101)
Now I tell you one thing that will bind you up guaranteed - and this has gotten cops killed. Back traveling a double action trigger pull on a S&W model 64 revolver. You can stop, and freeze at any point along the cycle, continue to increase pull and stop again and again but never go backwards or let the the trigger back travel once you have started a pull. You must complete the cycle or you can and will experience a frozen or misaligned lockwork of the revolver.
What used to happen is folks with less than stellar trigger discipline would do the "stop police!" bit with the booger hook on the bang switch (now you know why the NYPD uses DAO semi-autos with a 12 lb trigger pull) and partially cycle the mechanism and then allow it to travel back into place. Now a situation happens when you actually want the thing to go bang - you get boom - jam & lock..
"44 Magnum Cartridge Standard pressure 36,000 +P pressure 43,500"
yeah, in ruger blackhawk, would't try it in a S&W
but i was talking 9mm in this conversation, although for a combined rifle/handgun cartridge the .44 mag is on my list, get a nice 92' model lever action with a ruger blackhawk and use the same cartridge in both.
Actually, on the caliber debate, 9mm +P has been shown to have one of the highest "stopping power" ratings. I think only .40 S&W beat it. Now, this does not include any of the new-fangled ammo I have been seeing in recent years, just standard JHPs.
yep and with the manufacturing advancements in 9mm you get much better control and more rounds in the mag - difference in expansion or velocity is negligible
9mm .40 S&W
Diameter 9.01mm (0.355 inches) 10.2mm (0.4 inches)
Velocity 950-1,400 fps 900-1,449 fps
Expansion 0.36-0.72 inches 0.4-0.76 inches
http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2016/01/9mm-vs-40-caliber.aspx
I own .40's but carry 9mm - not worth it to me.
44 is a great gun and you can shoot .410 shorts out of it - great utility there
You think it's a lot for you.......remember, I'm the idiot neophyte here :>) Nothing is easy is it...
Skippy ---- given I am looking for my first, don't want to ever get rid of it, but will add one or two more later ----- 9mm or 357? In either case, I will probably go for a clip, sig looked nice.
Given I don't know what I am talking about, when I mention stopping power, I am looking for enough ---- does not have to be yuge for yuge sake. Just that once done plinking, it the tool is to be used as intended, it would be good that it was adequate to the task. Police friend used to tell me he grabbed (70's --- no 9/11 milspec police back then...) his shotgun (was it sawed off???) vs. a handgun when entering an armed situation. His point: "if I use it, I don't want them getting up because if you clip them and they get up, good chance a cannon won't stop them at that point...." Saw the same sort of thing when I cruised with different police as well.
So 357 or 9mm --- like the variety of ammo Skippy noted for the 357 --- but Darrin likes the 9mm, sounded like a lighter kick, ---- so what say the pro's from Dover?
Will try both. Will look for clips unless you all say different. Like the look of the sig.
Homework time!
Commercial:
heaviest 9mm - 158gr fmj Fiocchi (850 fps) IMI (935 fps) and Prvi Partizan (984 fps)
Reloads:
165 grain plated RN cast bullet is also available - http://www.xtremebullets.com/
problem is the Lyman manual stops at 147 grains because that's what CCI, Federal, Remington and Winchester stop at so your guessing. Hodgdon and Vihtavuori go to 150
Western Powders estimates for 160 grain bullets with Accurate No. 7, 5.0 grains for about 700 fps, and a maximum of 6.1 grains for about 800 fps.
https://www.westernpowders.com/
Cartridges of the World, No. 8 (1997) notes:
Caliber 9mm, NATO Ball, M882
Weapon: Pistol, M9 or M11
124 gr. copper alloy bullet
1,251 fps, +- 25 fps, at 16 meters
27,000 psi, maximum average pressure
The SAAMI industry maximum pressure is 35,000 psi. So would use that as max pressure for +P+
any semi-automatic will have less "perceived" recoil as was stated previously. A lot happens to dissipate the felt recoil impulse. As we know from the 3rd law of Newtonian physics the energy going backwards is the same - every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In a semi-auto it feels different the gasses move the slide backward against pressure of the recoil spring, the barrel moves, so that same recoil impulse is differently perceived.
"I will probably go for a clip, sig looked nice." then go 9mm - you lose the other options when you go semi-auto in 357 because you are feeding up a magazine ramp. you are allowed 15 round magazines in NJ
these are ones that I would recommend off the top of my head
Sig Sauer P226 - forget that little bit of america (suppressor) on the front in the pics - you cant have that
https://www.sigsauer.com/products/firearms/pistols/p226/
you can look at it with different options on that link. I would not get the threaded barrel unless you plan to move.
Glock 19 Gen 4:
https://us.glock.com/products/model/g19gen4
the shotgun was due to the fact that they are much more forgiving when it comes to aim - even if you get caught with one pellet of 00 Buck you are a hurting pupper
Wow this got busy!
I'll second the recommendation of a Sig 226 for a first pistol. Mostly because it was my first pistol... still hard to get used to anything that has a safety and doesn't have a decocking lever, just feels unnatural!
SD, the best advice i can give is to go to a rental range and rent both guns, then mke the decision based off what you feel most comfortable with.
I own many, yet still go rent prior to buying.
Or just buy both lol!
Yes, went with a stackon armorguard. I liked the interior layout the best. I came real close to buying a steel water, but when i found out they too were made in china, what was the point of spending 300 more?
Also after multiple readings and videos i came to the conclusion that there is only so much a safe does.
Got a great deal on it from home depot, and went with stackon simply because they had a backup key.
Unfortunately my keypad has already glitched once and i have had to use the backup key for entrance, but now it is working again.
Wow that sucks about the keypad... warranty? Perhaps they will send you a new keypad and you could install yourself?
Make sure it's got a new battery in it... if it came supplied with one, who knows how old it really is...
JR, I emailed stackon but they never responded, I did not chase them down because it went away the next day....its on my to do list, along with 1000 other things!
I'd start with the battery (and the web!)
http://www.maximumsecurity.com/blog/gun-safes/gun-safe-digital-lock-not-working/
You guys must think I am retarded!!!!
Of course I replaced the battery, before even trying it a second time!!!!
Yes skippy, I believe the lock just has a plug on it, and since the problem seemed to be with a few numbers not working, not the locking mechanistic itself, I would say you could probably just plug in a new keypad. Reading online it seems a common problem with stackon
maybe you need a +P battery, just make sure the lock can withstand the higher pressure
OK, some stupid questions. Thanks in advance for saving me from looking. And yeah, go ahead and laugh --- it is pretty funny.
I have my fid; had a handgun permit but expired so I need to start that part again. So I get my handgun card; looks like I can buy one gun, but can I get more with the same authorization? How long do I wait between buys?
And when I buy said gun, can my wife use it or does she need a permit too?
What do I need to plink in the back yard? Certain number of acres? Aim right, aim low? Call the cops and tell em I'm about to target shoot 100 shots or so......
OK, the big one ------ what am I supposed to do with all the long guns lying around. Was I supposed to tell someone?
you can only buy 1 a month(every 30 days) - one permit to purchase a pistol or revolver is needed for every firearm (Including BB or Pellet pistols) - you can purchase one long gun with just the FID a month.
you can share guns at the range per 2C:58-3.1. (temporary transfer of firearms) as long as she does not have any disqualifications to the best of your knowledge.
in the house - "Nothing in subsections b., c. and d. of N.J.S.2C:39-5 shall be construed to prevent a person keeping or carrying about his place of business, residence, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, any firearm" she can keep and carry any legal gun in her residence.
long guns lying around - there is no registration in NJ so no need to tell anyone anything.
as far as plinking - you need to have a suitable backstop to ensure that round stops e.g. a burm or whatever and not violate noise ordinances - most towns have a no firearms discharge ordinance so there is that too. I shot in my yard in hope all the time - just called the barracks.
I suggest you get Evan Nappen's book - in NJ even if you make an administrative error on paperwork you could be looking at 10 years. It is absolutely your responsibility to be up to the minute on the law with everything you do with a firearm.
http://www.evannappen.com/gun-law-books.html
his blog is here
http://www.evannappen.com/nappenblog
As far as lying around you mean securely locked with the ammo separate in the event a child would ever possibly be anywhere near that firearm - don't even have a dream about having a loaded firearm unattended anywhere near a minor in these United States or we will be putting money in your commesary account
"but can I get more with the same authorization?"
No. Permits are good to purchase 1 gun and expire in 90 days. You can extend them 90 more after expiration (have to get re-approved by the local PD to extend them).
"How long do I wait between buys?"
You can get another one on the 31st day from the initial purchase. I don't think there are any system blocks in place to prevent early purchases. If you go to different FFL's you can probably get guns on the same day (or improperly on the 30th day), but maybe expect a visit from the police afterwards.
"can my wife use it"
Yes, unless/until there are "Universal Background Checks" for all "transfers". I wouldn't let her take it to the range without you. See the problem yet?
"What do I need to plink in the back yard?"
Probably to move out of NJ. If you are in any town limits, I'd venture a guess that you cannot shoot in your back yard. It has nothing to do with acreage... it has to do with local "discharge" laws.
"what am I supposed to do with all the long guns lying around."
Well, NJ lets you voluntarily register them. I would never do that, but then again I never pushed for gun registration laws. Money --> mouth.
"you can purchase one long gun with just the FID a month. "
Incorrect. Purchase as many long guns as fast as you want.
Also want to add, you can get as many permits at a time as you want, but theoretically you'll only be able to use 5 or *maybe* 6 (if your timing is perfect) in a 180 day time period, unless you get a multiple handgun exemption (but for that you need to know the make/model/serial numbers all up front - like if you are buying out an estate).
thanks skippy --- you're a real time saver.
And yeah, there's no kids near the good stuff. Not that it matters, you know many of the most egregious liable gun toting parents just get the "oh wait a terrible tragedy" treatment :>)
CAP laws are only on the books in less than half the states and often are vague enough to be unenforceable. I think only one state requires you to lock unmanned guns.
No one knows what percentage of adults are charged with liability over child shootings. Not the NRA, not the CDC.
It's shameful for all of us.
But not an issue at strangerdanger's house. Heck, I can't even find them all :>)
this is why NJ sucks as a state, these draconian harsh laws do nothing to promote safety, at all.
exactly the conclusion I was coming too.....not. BDog, you might consider a reexamination of priorities in this is a main reason you think NJ sucks.
No problem but don't take my word for it - I'm a fat guy on the internet - get the Nappen book and keep up on it - best of luck
law 101 - THE LAW MUST BE ACCESSIBLE AND SO FAR AS POSSIBLE INTELLIGIBLE, CLEAR AND PREDICTABLE
1 - people should be able to find out what they must do or not do on pain of criminal penalty;
2 - even in civil law, people needs to know their rights and obligations;
New Jersey law and gun law in general does not follow that premise. People are subject to fine and loss of 2A rights or worse incarceration for administrative errors. There is a lot of ambiguity and untested waters. I can think of a number of reasons NJ sucks and this is certainly one of them.
22 ammo is back "on the shelf" here (not behind the counter) at Academy. Too much to fit in my camera's frame. Cabelas has been stocked for a while...
How is it by you guys?
Can get a brick for .06 a round at Walmart. Now don't go hoarding it all and set off another panic spree lol
State Police sue Sig Sauer
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/05/foghorn/new-jersey-sues-sig-sauer-malfunctioning-p229s/
re: NJSP suing SigSauer
The NJSP holsters -JUST THE HOLSTERS- cost $857,000 ????
And people wonder why we think the govt is too big and wastes money....
https://youtu.be/qKFB89p_s-A
Great video for the yankee Marshall on the current threats to 2A
"On this day, remember Carol Bowne. She did everything she could. Restraining Orders, Camera's on her house. Her last resort was to get a gun. NJ law says 30 days for approval.
She was murdered in her driveway on day 43, still waiting for her approval.
Don't let this happen to anyone else.
Stand Up for your Rights.
NJ Politicians are wrong...Dead Wrong on Gun Control
New Jersey Sons & Daughters of Liberty"
One of your Democratic Gubernatorial candidates Bill Brennan is making this part of his platform actually
http://constitution.com/unarmed-london-police-officers-ran-away-from-terrorists-on-london-bridge/
Commentary on World Gun laws in the wake of Manchester
Maybe he's sighing because he's also past the 30-day statutory limit on when NJ was supposed to have his purchase permits approved/denied. It is tiring when NJ blatantly breaks it's own laws.
I wonder if they'd give one of us (well, you guys that are still in NJ) a mulligan if we didn't follow the letter of the law *exactly* as written when it comes to guns.
"Sorry officer... I figured 16 rounds was just barely more than the limit of 15."
"Hey, I waited 29 days instead of 30 between purchases. Close enough, right?"
"Flash hider? Muzzle brake? What's the difference?" (Hint: One of the items in the photo is (or can be) very illegal... one is perfectly legal. Want to press your luck?)
Try those sometime... and then use your one phone call to get in touch with a lawyer.
Top is a flash hider and bottom is a brake - gotta be pinned though, the flash scares the zombies - so that is pretty good there.
"Top is a flash hider and bottom is a brake"
Do you trust the average street cop to know the difference, or *why* one is a flash hider and one is a brake? (Keeping in mind there are dozens (if not more) designs that all look very different - and the law doesn't define how to tell them apart.)
Thank God and the Founders for 2A. There go those pesky guns, saving lives again...
"According to The Ada News, police said the suspect–27-year-old Leland Foster–“forced his way into a home in the 1800 block of East 6th Street” and tried to killed his own three-month-old twins. Ada Public Information Director Lisa Bratcher said Central Dispatch received a 911 call from the mother of the twins wherein the mother said she and the babies were under attack by a suspect armed with a knife. Bratcher said “dispatchers could hear the woman screaming in the background amid sounds of a struggle.”
A neighbor, Cash Freeman, was alerted to the situation by a 12-year-old who fled the home, frantically seeking help. Freeman grabbed his revolver and entered the home, where he found Foster allegedly holding the twins under water in the bathtub. Freeman shot Foster two times, killing him and saving the babies."
guns don't save babies, babies shoot babies.... wait, that's not it....I mean babies shoot babies all the time, but that's not it. It's guns don't save babies, babies save babies. At least when they're not shooting other babies. No, no, no, that's still not it.....
guns don't save babies, people save babies. And people could save more babies that this story tells if they just stopped giving them guns.
how many more need to die to assault vehicle violence before it can finally be curbed? We need universal background checks on all potential truck drivers entering the country, we need to end the private sale loop hole, and we need to ban assault trucks by feature. No one needs a high capacity gas tank capable of injuring 50 or more after driving through a Christmas market. Anyone who thinks they do should learn how to drive. Why don't our politicians even care??
As you can see when the "narrative" no longer fits, the lefty's go bonkers.
SD would rather see two babies murdered than admit that someone with a gun saved their lives.
"As you can see when the "narrative" no longer fits, the lefty's go bonkers."
+1 Mark, they sure do, they have totally lost their minds.
i recommend you ignore the trolls
Looks like the two saved babies just got cancelled out...
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/06/report_gun_found_next_to_mom_i.html#incart_2box_lvl-homepage-featured
Do we really need to do the stats thing again?
Here's one in the exact same town where the gun saved lives - I can do this all day
http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/lancaster-city-homeowner-shoots-intruder-after-early-sunday-morning-break/article_5bf14adc-4940-11e7-b943-3f21012c6691.html
... It's too bad they didn't also have a concerned neighbor to intervene on their behalf.
Guns don't save lives any more than they take lives. People do both. Crazy people should be prevented from buying guns. Yes, the woman could have drowned her kids in a bathtub instead, but the neighbor in the other case could have just as easily smashed in the guy's head with a baseball bat. It's a wash, either way...
Trump appoints conservative judge to 3rd circuit court of appeals (NJ)
http://www.nj2as.org/president_trump_appoints_conservative_justice_to_3rd_circuit_court_of_appeals
Awesome - so when Murphy gets elected and you need a separate permit to purchase for every round of ammo you get (no worries anything that holds more than 1 round of .22lr will be illegal), you can appeal.... after spending a million dollars in legal fees in the lower courts ... with judges Murphy appointed...
Killing expediency doesn't equate with the fact that causing harm is an act committed by a person. The tool just makes it easier.
Guns are also more fun to shoot...
Throwing a bat 100 yards gets tiring after a while...
Went to the local gun show this weekend.
Prices actually weren't too bad.
Picked up an LCP magazine for $26 (retail $35) and an M&P 9mm (M2.0) for $479 out the door (retail $529 before tax).
No NICS if you have a CWP... I have to find a CWP class though. Didn't get one while I was renting to avoid dealing with an address change and re-issue. No concerns about the course content, just need to find one at a convenient location and time.
NICS is quick here, and no fees. In the meantime, I can carry in my vehicles and my Utah permit covers other states.
Awesome - great purchase I'm sure you will enjoy that. Is that how the grips came or did you add tape ? What's going on the pic rail?
I have this flashlight on my 9mm and my .45, fits real nice and works GREAT!
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0051W6CQ8/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Skippy - That's how the grips came. Much sharper than the previous generation (and any other gun that I have). Should be no problem if anything is wet, dirty, etc. Would not be a good IWB gun if you don't have a holster that covers the whole grip, you'd wear a hole into your skin.
The only problem with attachments is finding a holster that will still work. I mount Blackhawk Serpa's in the truck with the quick disconnect adapters, and they don't work with any lights.
I should look into tritium night sights, though.
Already put 50 rounds through it. Seems to shoot nice.
if SCOTUS takes this case and comes down on the right side of the constitution this will have an impact here in NJ:
Supreme Court Asked to Review Maryland's Gun Ban:
In February, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Second Amendment does not protect the most popular rifles in the country – including AR-15s – as well as all standard capacity detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
The petition asks the Supreme Court to confirm that its ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller protects the most popular semiautomatic rifles and magazines.
By holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to common firearms and magazines, the 4th Circuit has gone further than any other court in attacking Second Amendment freedoms.
“Maryland’s ban on commonly owned rifles and magazines is unconstitutional.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170721/supreme-court-asked-to-review-marylands-gun-ban
Skippy, no, I take the light off when holstering.
Guys, I need to get a new pellet gun (.17) need recommendations
My current setup keeps shooting the scope off of it every 5-10 shots and I am tiered of it, (It was a cheap gun)
Want a good one, scoped, and accurate.
Primary use will be plinking and varmint shooting.
RWS air rifles are supposed to be pretty good. I just can't bring myself to spend more on an air gun than a regular .22 rifle.
Is the scope mount just coming loose or are you losing zero?
The gun had a dove tail cut into the receiver...that never held, bought a dove tail to pic rail, that doesn't hold either. The whole kit and caboodle goes flying off!
and make no mistake about it, they anti-gunners are coming after the guns. here is revealing honest statement form one of the gun control fanatics:
"Glaze downplayed the importance of background checks, claiming that they “alone aren’t the answer.” According to Glaze, “To truly tackle the gun violence epidemic, lawmakers must go further – after the guns themselves.”
Glaze’s central thesis, and Guns Down’s organizing principle, is that there are too many guns in private hands the U.S.; regardless of whether those guns are lawfully or unlawfully possessed."
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170721/former-bloomberg-lackey-comes-clean-on-true-anti-gun-agenda
http://www.nj2as.org/nj_dems_have_20_gun_control_bills_lined_up_if_murphy_becomes_governor
Mr. Bean and friends have 20 new ant-gun bills on deck for you folks.
thanks skippy, i know it's gonna get a lot worse around here when murphy gets elected, there's just no way he can lose this election
the 5 round limit will outlaw almost all handguns currently owned in the state, including most revolvers, wienberg knows that and could care less.
wonder how many off-duty and retired cops will get caught up on gun regulation violations just for owning their trusted service piece ? ? ?
those who have eyes, let them see . . . .
what part of 'shall not be infringed' is so hard to understand?
"wonder how many off-duty and retired cops will get caught up on gun regulation violations just for owning their trusted service piece ? ? ? "
None. I'm 1000% sure they will have LEO exemptions.
That's how they get their support for these bills. Government back scratching.
Even without LEOSA they'll have a whole list of exemptions right up front...
For example:
http://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2013/title-2c/section-2c-39-6/
the end goal for them is a total ban and confiscation, remember this? :
Dianne Feinstein: “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in.”
that's what loretta weinberg really wants, and Phil Murphy has already come out and stated NJ needs more controls, more restrictions,
ironically this is actually a regressive policy goal, the opposite of 'progressive'
NJ is behind the times and out of step with the rest of the nation, NJ needs a CCW 'shall issue' permit law on the books,
Just leave a forwarding address so we know where it's not safe anymore.....:>)
Agreed but there is too much Bloomberg money poring into folks pockets like Corey Booker to have that happen. It's a blue state unfortunately
Seriously guys... just get out of NJ. It's hopeless.
I know it's tough to change jobs, leave family, etc. but it was still the best thing I ever did.
Speaking of jobs, we are hiring for a few positions.
you never know when you are going to need your own firearm to defend yourself or someone else: (hey skippy, might time for a new thread)
----------------
Police say three employees of a Cleveland Taco Bell opened fire on two armed robbers, killing one.
Police have said two masked robbers entered the restaurant early Wednesday and ordered three employees to lie on the floor. Police say three other employees pulled out handguns and opened fire, shooting one of the suspects six times. The other suspect ran off.
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2017/09/07/taco-bell-employees-shoot-robber/
The question will always be, was the risk worth it? Were these folks protecting themselves? Taco Bell cash drawer versus innocent patrons under fire? I mean this guy has his gun out, demands folks lie on the floor, what to do? Once he demands folks to lie down, can't argue with drawing down on him unless you feel you could do so while lying on the floor. Also, don't know if patrons were in the line of fire or even there. But still ---- flying bullets over a Taco Bell cash drawer?
Given the number of good guys shot by good guys missing bad guys, I think each case, even the more obvious ones like this one, still needs investigation. The question being mortal jeopardy or Taco Bell cash drawer.
I think the bigger takeaway is that, IMO, its really sad to think that of these 8 people in a Taco Bell in Cleveland Ohio, that a least 5 of them were packing sidearms. Maybe more had them and just didn't pull them. You guys are finally getting the America you have been dreaming about. Dodge City without the deadline.
Granted good guys rarely seem to miss, but they do: "Texas ‘good guy with a gun’ shoots carjacking victim in head — then runs away" and becomes a bad guy... Couldn't pick a better example of good idea gone bad. From 2015: http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/texas-good-guy-with-a-gun-shoots-carjacking-victim-in-head-then-runs-away/
As more and more of the population becomes armed in public, more and more misses will occur, more bad judgements, and more. I think robbery gets you about a nickel and armed robbery nets a dime to 20 years ------ there's the problem. How about 20 years minimum for any gun, good guy or bad, used in a crime?
It's about time we legislatively say --- sure, buy, keep, and play with your guns ---- but if you used them poorly ----- go to jail for two decades.
from the Daily news:
"Three Taco Bell employees opened fire on two suspected robbers, killing one.
Cleveland police said two armed men wearing bandanas over their faces walked into an Edgewater Taco Bell early Wednesday morning and ordered three workers to the ground at gunpoint, Cleveland.com reports.
The suspected robbers then walked over to the cash register.
According to authorities, three other employees in the store, each armed with a gun, opened fire."
"Cleveland.com reports that there were no customers in the restaurant at the time of the shooting.
Arthur Giles, one of the store's owners, told the outlet that the employees opened fire in self-defense.
Taco Bell said in a statement to WMAR that the employees at the location were "very shaken up" about what happened and the franchise would be offering counseling to anyone who needs it"
LMAO, leave it to SD to make it a moral question and try to turn it around.....bottom line, the employees had a gun drawn on THEM and THEY reacted protecting themselves.....you can try to look at it from any angle you want SD
Take from the story....don't rob stores at gun point...well at least where people can protect themselves.....other states that don't allow protecting yourself.....go for it....rob away, point guns at all those defenseless people
a "good guy" in a defensive situation is fully exposed to prosecution malicious or otherwise - in NJ thats 10 years.
the number of "good guys" getting hit with friendly fire is statistically insignificant - we've been through this before.
The answer is not "trust the armed robber to not shoot you while you lie on the floor and hope you don't get your head blown off."
"Cleveland police said two armed men wearing bandanas over their faces walked into an Edgewater Taco Bell early Wednesday morning and ordered three workers to the ground at gunpoint"
yep, when your life is in immediate danger and you are staring death in the face, the cops are only 10 mins away . . . .
Gee, I think I said as much.....But yet the other issues remain. And not to worry about moral questions turning you around Darrin. You're safe :>)
"the number of "good guys" getting hit with friendly fire is statistically insignificant - we've been through this before." And I kind of said as much except anecdotally. You do remember that there are no statistics here --- remember? NRA stops fed research funding? Of course if I am wrong, show us some statistics.
So now that you fella's are still tilting at windmills agreeing with me, the morality issues still remain independent of your, and my, justification for this shooting.
Point is I just can't believe that you don't have a clue as to what to do about this except to arm yourself at all times. Is that the only way you can feel safe? A world where "you never know when you are going to need your own firearm." What an unsafe world that must be. I mean over 50% or more of this Taco Bell was packing, is that really your nirvana? A well-armed, lock and loaded America, 24/7, in all locations, by all ages and genders? Where does it stop?
Luckily for me, now that Trump is voting with the Democrats, we'll have greater restrictions soon :>)
"Luckily for me, now that Trump is voting with the Democrats, we'll have greater restrictions soon :>)"
Somebody's hitting the sauce a little early in the day again....
Making a deal to secure hurricane relief and allowing further 2A restrictions is... wait for it... a "false equivalency" ;)
folks never know when they are going to need to use their own firearm, thank the good lord that these taco bell employees could defend themselves when faced with an existential threat to their lives.
when faced with a deadly threat to your life right in front of you, the cops are only several minutes away, and the police don't even have an obligation to come to your defense (court case history proves it) so you're left to your own devices,
choosing to keep and bear arms is one of the fundamental individual human rights, others may freely choose not to exercise that right, that'd be their free choice, hope they're lucky enough to survive that deadly threat and not regret being defenseless in the face of an existential threat, what they can't do is decide for others that they cannot exercise their own individual free choice, it's unconstitutional.
when the threat to your life comes straight at you, the local police are just 10, 15 or 30 minutes away, hope you last that long . . . just sayin'
"choosing to keep and bear arms is one of the fundamental individual human rights" Like it's God's will, eh?
There's a huge divide between the right and the need. What we are talking about is the need; you all are all for it and I say gee, that's too bad that you believe our society calls for it.
But if you have this need, then what the heck are you doing in New Jersey? I mean if my God's will fundamental human rights were denied, I would either leave or fight. So what are you doing? Living with it.
Ok you think nobody should own a firearm - except you because you're morally and ethically superior and will immediately know and use said firearm appropriately due to your superior intelligence and understanding of the law.. we get it - you're sadly mistaken but point taken
"I would either leave or fight"
Whats it look like we are doing....some have left, all are fighting lol!
Considering Mark and Skippy have both left, we are all (I would guess) members of the NRA, and we are all on here almost every day arguing with you (The left) we are definitely fighting.
"I just can't believe that you don't have a clue as to what to do about this except to arm yourself at all times. Is that the only way you can feel safe? A world where "you never know when you are going to need your own firearm.""
I am going to turn this around and ask you the same question. What would you do about this situation...OTHER then law down the law abiding citizens with more laws that criminals, who break laws, do not follow
and, Do you feel safe not being able to defend yourself and your family? And having to "wait" for police to show up? If you are, then you have obviously never been in a situation like I have been, and I am sure others have been in.
I look at it this way, police are allowed to carry. Police are trained citizens....so more trained citizens that are allowed to carry is simply more police. Police make us safe right? So why wouldn't more carrying citizens make us safe? Seems perfectly clear and logical.
You can turn this any way you want, but do remember some trusted police officers, in the past, have turned into bad guys just like your famous line good guy gone bad, so it's always a possibility, so why worry about one and not the other?
"Mark and Skippy have both left"
I'd highly recommend it, for many reasons other than guns (that's just the icing on the cake).
Actually, whether you are NRA members or not...asked but never answered.
Just as no one responded to: "So you all conceal carry or are at arms length, 24x7?" And that was my point Darrin, "Is that the only way you can feel safe? A world where "you never know when you are going to need your own firearm." What an unsafe world that must be. I mean over 50% or more of this Taco Bell was packing, is that really your nirvana? A well-armed, lock and loaded America, 24/7, in all locations, by all ages and genders? Where does it stop?"
But you focus on the result of NOT be able to carry: "I would either leave or fight" saying most of you have left since you can't carry your guns 24x7 and you're fight is unsuccessful. Then spend your fight time for the cause discussing with me. Hmmmm. Lol is right.
And then you pull apart the discussion to only discuss home defense. That's half the loaf unless you never leave home, eh. Short personal answer: I use a gun. A big one. I also use a lot of other things to avoid the gun. But that was not the point. The point was do you carry in all public locations 24x7? Do you feel that, in America, one needs to be packing at all times?
"I am going to turn this around and ask you the same question. What would you do about this situation...OTHER then law down the law abiding citizens with more laws that criminals, who break laws, do not follow." I have posted my response to this many times but to illuminate: there are a number of approaches, education, gun control, and police enforcement. All of which could use enhancement.
Lately I have been looking at the mandatory sentencing aspects of gunnydom. Seems that it's state dependent but about 5-10 and 10-20 years between having a gun illegally to using a gun in a crime. There's mandatories, three strikes, whatever --- a mishmash of outcomes depending on the state. What, beyond strict criminal enforcement, do you through your NRA recommend? Federal statutes are more severe and some states routinely bump gun crimes into the Federal arena. Today, the discussion is muddied by conservatives joining liberals in calling for disbanding mandatory minimums in general saying they don't work. Leaves the NRA in the crossfire so to speak. My take: bunk --- get a nationwide gun-punishment standard that is high, well communicated, certainly will be understood in a short time.
"If you are, then you have obviously never been in a situation like I have been, and I am sure others have been in." What situation are you and the others you are sure about --- are you talking about that I have not been in?
"I look at it this way,""....so more trained citizens that are allowed to carry is simply more police." You got to be kidding right? First you used the word trained. How many gun owners who carry 24x7 are trained at all? And then how many are trained to a police-level. And then ---- how often have you highlighted the untrained aspects of our police in gun shootings? Just saying.....
"You can turn this any way you want, but do remember some trusted police officers, in the past, have turned into bad guys just like your famous line good guy gone bad, so it's always a possibility, so why worry about one and not the other?" Not sure what you mean here? Are you thinking about shooting some police?
Beyond all the sun burned herrings here, my point is what kind of world have you created where you feel you have to be armed 24x7? One where everyone in the Taco Bell is locked n loaded. Are you happy with that outcome? I mean you might feel safer about having a gun in you holster, but do you really feel safer with all those other Taco Bell lovers lock and loaded as well?
Is this the America the founding fathers imagined when they penned the 2nd?
"Ok you think nobody should own a firearm - except you because you're morally and ethically superior and will immediately know and use said firearm appropriately due to your superior intelligence and understanding of the law.. we get it - you're sadly mistaken but point taken."
Talk about jumping the shark.... Sheer fantasy Skippy. All in your mind. Only point taken is on the top of your head. I never even got close to saying any of whatever you are attempting to say here.
It's refreshing to see that many of the gun control extremists agree that NJ is behind the times and out of step with the rest of the nation with it's draconian unconstitutional laws and restrictions on individual gun rights.
this will change with more court fights which are under way right now and proceeding through the court system, (that's part of fighting btw) many of these court challenges will be good for NJ residents who are being held back by an out of control state legislature.
"So you are in court fighting. That's so cool. Good job."
The organizations in which we are members are in court fighting....
Ever heard of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Gun Owners of America (GOA), etc?
These are the organizations representing the plaintiffs in many of the cases making their way to/through the various state and supreme courts.
https://www.saf.org/2nd-amendment-legal-action/
They may not be active in NJ specifically, but they don't have to be if they get the SCOTUS to set the baseline (i.e. Heller, etc.).
To answer your question about carrying 24x7 obviously not....its against the law in nj.... but when i am home or at my property in pa, you bet ya, i have a loaded gun close at all times. And mainly because of bears not criminals i must add.
The rest of your post i cant even take seriously.....your take was seriously that i was going to shoot police? Are you out of your mind? That was very obviously NOT even close to what i was saying.
I try to have a serious conversation and yet again you can't help but try to steer ot down the wrong road.
The sad part is SD, other then your continual post flips, is that you or anyone else would of walked in and back out of that taco bell and never noticed a difference....but that day, who knows what would if happened or what the criminals intentions were....after all they did come in at gun point. I have always been taught you never pull a gun unless you are prepared to use it.
How about for once you embrace the fact that these employees very well may have saved innocent lives....and no it is not the american anyone wants, but guess what...it IS thr america we have.
Typical libral turn around
"you or anyone else would of walked in and back out of that taco bell and never noticed a difference"
... and I'm sure they have walked into (and safely out of) MANY places where there are armed citizens, which is pretty much everywhere in the country except for a half-dozen states along the NE or SW coast lines.
When criminals start calling ahead to make appointments is when people can stop carrying 24/7, if they so choose to.
"my point is what kind of world have you created where you feel you have to be armed 24x7?"
a world we created? guaranteed the stick up man voted for Hillary 8 times
Gun owners nationwide are fighting to make the Second Amendment the only "permit" necessary to keeping and bearing arms.
New Hampshire and North Dakota have already passed Constitutional Carry, becoming the 11th and 12th states to do so.
Will YOUR state be the next to pass Constitutional Carry?
Regardless of where you live, we need Second Amendment supporters like YOU to put their name on the record, reaffirming that the Second Amendment is the only "permit" needed to keep and bear arms.
Help us bring Constitutional Carry to every state. Sign the pledge right away!
https://nagr.org/2017/constcarrymove-p.aspx?pid=fbV15
Justify this...
http://www.salon.com/2017/09/12/silent-but-deadly-gun-industry-eyes-a-sneaky-and-dangerous-new-revenue-stream/
here's another case that could affect us in NJ in a positive way as it goes through the court system:
NRA files another lawsuit challenging California's assault rifle restrictions
The National Rifle Assn. has filed a second lawsuit challenging California’s assault weapons restrictions, this time alleging that regulations developed by the state Department of Justice are too burdensome and go beyond the agency’s powers.
The NRA had previously filed a lawsuit against a ban on the sale of rifles with bullet buttons that allow detachment of an ammunition magazine, which was approved by the Legislature.
The measure required people who owned guns with bullet buttons before the ban to register them with the state.
The new lawsuit, filed Thursday in Fresno Superior Court, seeks to block the new regulations, arguing that new rules requiring registration of existing assault weapons “go far beyond” the allowed registration process, and “unlawfully expand the scope” of the state’s registration requirement.
The lawsuit says the regulations require excessive personal information as a condition of registration, including where and how the firearm was acquired, and a requirement to provide the state DOJ with photographs of the firearm.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-nra-files-another-lawsuit-challenging-1504887910-htmlstory.html
Yankeefan, do you even know what a silencer is?
Sounds like great news to me!
Love how the article makes them seem so scary though.....all they do is quiet down the gun...actually making them more safe and more practical to shoot recreational. Seems like you bought it hook line and sinker though
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor
"In most countries, silencers are regulated by firearm legislation to varying degrees. While some have allowed for sporting use of silencers (especially to mitigate the costs of hearing loss and noise pollution), other governments have opted to ban them from civilian use."
there is no good reason to ban them at all, they help protect hearing, they limit noise pollution (yes, that's a real thing) and they are far from 'silent', they suppress noise but there is still quite an audible report from them,
suppressors also limit FPS quite a bit, rounds do not go as far or hit with as much energy.
average everyday citizens should be able to buy/own/use these things, what part of 'shall not be infringed' is so hard for the extreme progressives to understand? what are they so afraid of that they have to restrict the rights of everybody else? must be terrible for them living with that fear everyday of their lives. Maybe they should all move to a place where there are fewer guns in circulation, like Great Britain,
banning these devices is just wrong.
that and since you can make one yourself with an oil filter its not like they are not readily available already - its an entire bureaucratic nightmare waiting a year and necessitating a background check to buy a 200 stamp
Why even worry; I mean how many times have you said of guns and gun hardware: if they are banned, then criminals still have them, no problem. So just pick on up on the street and quit your kvetching.
And yes I know Darrin; I even know what a GhettoSilencer is and the need to use subsonic ammo to really lose more bang for your buck :>) By the by: "other then your continual post flips," Pick one D-man. Spill the list. Or quit the lame name game stuff. I mean according to you I simultaneously never change my liberal-scripted mind and "continually" flip, flop at the same time.
Oh yeah. Police thing. Rhetorical question, Dude. Rhetorical.
Meanwhile......while you all are very good at "continually" expressing your beliefs that I am just like all liberals and all liberals are just like me, and that I, once again, am attacking your God given, Constitutionally sanctified right to your great equalizer; you dance around the questions with more feverish diversion than a live shrimp on Benihana's hot grill.
In all of this, my main point was supposed to be: "Beyond all the sun burned herrings here, my point is what kind of world have you created where you feel you have to be armed 24x7? One where everyone in the Taco Bell is locked n loaded. Are you happy with that outcome? I mean you might feel safer about having a gun in you holster, but do you really feel safer with all those other Taco Bell lovers lock and loaded as well?"
So is that your expected outcome and are you happy with that? I am guessing through your silence or affirmations, you are.
And the questions still unanswered. Darrin came closest describing a gun-for-home-safety scenario. Obviously, a gun for home defense is a good idea. But that wasn't the question was it?
"...do you carry in all public locations 24x7?"
"Do you feel that, in America, one needs to be packing at all times?"
That was the question.....again.
Along the way, you (and I responded) diverted a lot and we dragged out the NRA and a bunch of other gunephile lettered organizations but only Mark Mc claimed he (and some mythical "we") belonged to everything except the NRA. I can understand your continued silence on the subject of how you are waging your fight against your stated intolerable regime depriving you of your basic God Given rights as some continue to live in that Godless state of New Jersey. SSSSSSsh,,,,,,,antigunites might be listening..... :>)
I carry anytime I don't plan to consume alcoholic beverages - I am fairly sure 85% of the people I am near at any given time have a firearm either open, concealed, or in their vehicle. Seeing a an employee of a business and customers carrying a sidearm is not an uncommon occurrence.
SD have you ever carried a gun openly? nobody notices - people are too busy on their phones. I would bet that I could walk main street from the elks to stiger street and back with a gun in a holster and nobody would call the police.
"bunch of other gunephile lettered organizations but only Mark Mc claimed he (and some mythical "we") belonged to everything except the NRA."
Why are you so obtuse SD?
You really can't keep track of two (count 'em, two!!) other organizations I mentioned. Man, what an extensive "bunch" that is!
... and I never said I wasn't an NRA member. I was listing the organizations at the forefront of current court battles. NRA concentrates more on legislative issues.
... and oh, the mythical "we". So hard to understand that I was referring to gun owners, huh?
N.J.’s population density reason to support concealed carry, 2A attorney says
New Jersey’s high population density is often cited as a reason that concealed carry won’t work here. Second Amendment attorney Daniel Schmutter disagrees.
“Population density is a reason to have shall issue, not a reason to avoid shall issue,” he asserts. “Densely populated areas tend to be higher crime areas, and thus the need for lawful self-defense is typically greater.”
New Jersey will likely become a shall-issue state for concealed carry permits only “if the right-to-carry issue is resolved favorably by the Supreme Court,” he adds
Having addressed “The Future of Right to Carry in the Courts” at the first NJ SAFE in 2015, Schmutter says CCW makes especially perfect sense for a state as populous as New Jersey.
https://njsafecon.net/nj-population-density-reason-to-support-concealed-carry/
what part of 'shall not be infringed' is so hard for the extreme progressives to understand?
what are they so afraid of that they have to restrict the rights of everybody else?
must be terrible for them living with that fear everyday of their lives. Maybe they should all move to a place where there are fewer guns in circulation,
Mark said - "... and I never said I wasn't an NRA member." - - - yeah, reading comprehension has never been a strong skill set with some and their intellectual dishonesty is worse than it has ever been, runs right into 'troll-like' territory.
I find being called obtuse to be very offensive. Speaking of obtuse, right back at ya:
You seem to be trying to say that all gunephiles belong to "....the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Gun Owners of America (GOA), etc?" Count em. That's three, at minimum, three. Not two, it's three....or more. Count em... Not sure what you are driveling on about "extensive" but also don't believe you are a member of either of these and especially you are not part of etc. Nor is any other of your HL gun clubbers. Yugely obtuse man.
I never said you weren't an NRA member. I just said you didn't claim to be one. And you never have said you were. Still. This time you said: "... and I never said I wasn't an NRA member." Totally obtuse dude.
But here's the best one " I was listing the organizations at the forefront of current court battles. NRA concentrates more on legislative issues." Ah, court cases and legislative issues are different.....except NRA-ILA is in court a lot over all sorts of issues like "While NRA is a single-issue organization, the Institute is involved in any issue that directly or indirectly affects firearms ownership and use. These involve such topics as hunting and access to hunting lands, wilderness and wildlife conservation, civilian marksmanship training and ranges for public use, law enforcement-related issues, product liability, trapping, crime victim rights and criminal justice reform."
Obtuse or not. You be the judge. Just saying.
Meanwhile ---- in your diversion, you still didn't answer the question. Skippy dared to get closer "I am fairly sure 85% of the people I am near at any given time have a firearm either open, concealed, or in their vehicle." OK, cool, certainly in the car, I can see that. Skip the 85% Skippy "fairly sure" and tell us fer sure --- are you packing when you go to Taco Bell, not the drive through, or any other establishment?
As for the bet Skippy, what's the amount and what's the caliber? I believe we might have some takers. Maybe make it a BID event?
check out the 2nd amendment conference coming next week:
NJ SAFE Conference is back Sept. 23rd 2017!
New Jersey’s Second Amendment Conference returns September 23rd! The conference is an educational forum hosting speakers, discussion panels, and exhibits for the gun owning community in New Jersey. It focuses on education in topics related to New Jersey’s Gun Laws. To that end, NJ SAFE produces an event comprised of speakers who are experts in their respective fields. They may include expert firearms trainers, attorneys specializing in firearms law, or leading advocates for the 2nd Amendment here in New Jersey. We also provide opportunities for training. With our CLE program, attorney’s are able to obtain credit or attending our Firearms Law courses. The courses typically occur the day before the conference, so there is no need to miss any of the presentations.
https://njsafecon.net/nj-safe-conference-is-back-sept-23rd-2017/
Wow SD, if you can't even keep track of two (or three) items that I list, I'm not sure I can help you anymore. Maybe now you know how we feel when you ramble on for 47 useless paragraphs.
Regarding the NRA, pretty sure I posted a picture of one of my membership receipts on here a while back... As to the other organizations, I don't care what you "believe" about my membership status. I would list some, but you may run out of fingers to count them on, and I don't want to strain your brain.
Heck, even if I just belonged to the one, it's more "investment" in the fight than any of the organizations you may belong to. NRA and others actually have membership dues beyond just a "like" on Facebook.
Sorry if I hurt your wittle feewings.
Suppressor Deregulation Bill Gains Momentum in the House
A year ago, amending the provisions of the overbearing and unconstitutional National Firearms Act would have been considered “a long shot.”
And yet, here we are. A free-standing bill to remove suppressors from the act -- dubbed the “Hearing Protection Act” -- has 146 cosponsors, including several Democrats.
That bill is H.R. 367.
Now Representative Jeff Duncan (R-SC) has included the Hearing Protection Act in a larger “Sportsmen’s” bill, which is expected to shortly move in the House.
This second Duncan bill is only in working draft form right now and has not been introduced as a free-standing bill.
This draft bill is expected to be considered in committee this week, which means that suppressor could soon be moving to the full House.
The reality is this: Foolishly, the antiquated Depression-era National Firearms Act treats hearing protection devices like suppressors as though they were machine guns.
There is a full-scale FBI background check, together with fingerprints and a $200 transfer tax -- all for a “health protection” device which is little more than an elaborate tube.
And frankly, this foolishness is perpetuated by a myth: that suppressors completely silence the sound of firearms, and, hence, are the “weapon-du-jour” for Mafia hit men.
The facts are different. In fact, in places like Norway, where guns are strictly regulated, the use of hearing protection is actively encouraged.
Please help me ensure that hearing protection for hunters and shooters is encouraged here, as well.
Urge your congressman to cosponsor H.R. 367, the Hearing Protection Act.
GOA’s Legislative Action Center automatically sends “thank you” letters to those Representatives who have already cosponsored the bill -- and urges those who are not on the bill to cosponsor it right away.
Finally, your letter will provide your congressman with an excellent Fact Sheet -- highlighting the health benefits from using suppressors -- that has been prepared by Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership.
Thank you for taking action.
https://cqrcengage.com/gunowners/app/write-a-letter?0&engagementId=364233
Here in NJ, we law-abiding gun owners are done when the next democrat governor is elected. Thank goodness most of the country is going the other way. Those who have escaped this statist hellhole are lucky. At least we are in the conservative stronghold corner of the state, for as long as it lasts...
As for organizations,
NRA
GOA
NJ2AS
Personally, I think GOA is the most principled/no-compromise one. And no compromise is exactly what we need, since every single gun control law on the books IS ALREADY a compromise. NO MORE.
Thanks for the weasel words JR. Great list. Are you actually really a dues-paying member OR do you just like to create lists? Funny to see so many appear to belong to GOA and NRA; would have thought you would swing one way or the other. Interesting.
For a bunch of straight shooting, no nonsense, serious fellas, what a bunch of weasel wording wimps unable to pull the trigger on the gunnyphile groups you belong to. I have no issue in fessing up. It's easy: either you are a card-carrying, dues paying, member or you are not. No need to respond, I really don't care, you all brought up the "we actively fight for the cause" issue to begin with, not me.
Myself, I do not belong to any anti gun organization unless you count other tangential progressive non-profits. It's just not that important. I am not in this fight, never have been. Didn't, like you, claim to be (which caused the question). I have written letters to most of my legislators on my feelings. Also have written the NRA and NRA-ILA with my idea on having the NRA monitor gun registrations and traces. No response ho ho ho but that's the extent of my involvement thanks for asking. And no Mark, I am pretty sure your civic involvement in total falls a tad short of mine. Sorry.
But Jr has a list, Mark has fessed up to the NRA and weasel worded the rest of his so-called involvement in the fight claiming I can't count so why bother. Mark, that is obtuse which is very alliterative with obnoxious and offensive. Not that you are obnoxious or offensive. Just that they are alliterative.
You claim I am count-challenged when you screwed the pooch on that one ha ha ha self-admitting your attempt at uselessness while claiming to save my limited brain by not telling the truth. "Wow SD, if you can't even keep track of two (or three) items that I list, I'm not sure I can help you anymore. Maybe now you know how we feel when you ramble on for 47 useless paragraphs." Still can't figure out if it's two or three items eh.....? Here's a buck, buy a clue. It's a MINIMUM of three items. MINIMUM of three. Could be more, don't know, author is not talking....except trash.
Don't worry about my "wittle feewings" oh thin skinned one. Learn to count and to speak straight.
But back to the real questions that caused all this vitriol.
"And the questions still unanswered." "...do you carry in all public locations 24x7?"
"Do you feel that, in America, one needs to be packing at all times?" "That was the question.....again." again.
And Skip ---- what's the amount for the bet? heh, heh.
All arguments aside, based on the Taco Bell story, I was struck by the dichotomy of our approach to life, security, and safety in America. And perhaps I am wrong. But it explains my questions.
It just appears that you feel, to be safe, to be strong, that you need to be armed 24x7, either OC or CC. Having the right is one thing, but having the need is something else completely different.
More important, you feel that being armed 24/7 is a normal, natural thing and you would expect nothing less from the society you live in. It is the natural state that you strive for. It's the need. Everyone armed, all the time, everywhere, because they need to be.
Feelings so strong that you would move to fulfill this need.
But for some reason, when asked, you can't admit whether you carry, or need to carry 24x7.
My view is that a 24x7 fully armed society is not as strong as a society where you don't feel you need to be armed 24x7 to be virtually safe (no one can be 5 9's safe in reality). A society where there is no need to be armed all the time, everywhere, because you are relatively safe. It is the natural state that I strive for admitting we have a ways to go.
But not as far as we had to go in the past.
Beyond the discussion diversions, what's really funny in all this is that your feelings about the needs to be fully armed, all the time, everywhere, grows stronger as the crime statistics get smaller and smaller. Ironic ain't it.
good points JR.
what part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" is so hard to understand ?
"unable to pull the trigger on the gunnyphile groups you belong to"
Really, that's the best you got? Asking to see our membership cards? That's really scraping the bottom of the barrel, even for you.
Then you claim that you're not a member of *any* group on your side of the cause, but ridicule *us* for not fighting? Laughable.
Concealed means Concealed, nobody needs to know if you are carrying. There is a reason it is is called "concealed" and to publicize it to an unknown audience is absolutely wrong.
"Funny to see so many appear to belong to GOA and NRA; would have thought you would swing one way or the other. Interesting. "
Why is that, SD? Both are 2A-protecting organizations.
Why the he'll does SD keep saying that no one has answered his questions....both I, and Skippy posted responses to your 2 questions....so what are you talking about SD? maybe read a little of there's posts???
The country as a whole needs to know that we the people may freely choose to exercise our 2A rights and that there is a 100% chance that any American they come in contact with MAY be carrying.. I don't advertise it and I don't put it in writing.
Concealed means concealed, and nobody needs to know if you are carrying, and certainly not nosy bloviating internet bloggers/trollers. That kind of personal information is above their pay grade and none of their damn business.
Before you continue too far down the rabbit hole ----- I honestly don't care what groups you belong to Darrin. I mean that would be scraping the bottom of the barrel, even for me :>) Yeah, right. And I fully admitted I am not in the fight which creates some sort of mind storm for some.
Although I did not see where you actually said where your membership was, you did tell us about keeping a gun at home and in the car which also did not answer the 24/7 question ----- or did it? I mean if I guess I would say NO, you don't carry 24/7 and you don't feel you live in a world where you have to. But hey, I am just guessing based on the way you did not fully answer that question. And you take real issue with anyone attempting to interpret your musings.
The membership question came from someone stating they were active gunny crusaders. So I asked which groups. Seemed fair enough given they opened the door. Response was often weasel worded but did get enough answers to say: "yes, a number of you are obviously active in your support of this subject."
Not one of your brave gunbots could answer the real question I posed based on the Taco Bell incident:
"And the questions still unanswered." "...do you carry in all public locations 24x7?"
"Do you feel that, in America, one needs to be packing at all times?"
"That was the question.....again." again."
Just saying.
JR: thought GOA and NRA differed on enough issues that many belonged to one or the other, not both. Sounds like not true.
But the Dog takes the cake when he said: "Concealed means Concealed, nobody needs to know if you are carrying. There is a reason it is is called "concealed" and to publicize it to an unknown audience is absolutely wrong."
Where did this come from? I mean if BD is saying anonymous posters answering my question are unmasking their concealment which is a bad thing, wow. Or maybe he's an uber grammarian and thinks anonymous answering will mean he can't call it concealed anymore.....wow :>) Now that's principled.
Just as a side note, Dog, the founding fathers, and the rest of society at that point, though concealed weapons to be the act of the dastardly, evil, unprincipled heathens. Real men OC.
Govt's banning CC started in America in the 1800's. For example, Western towns in the 1800's had more gun restrictions than your town today. In Dodge, only concealed carry was not allowed since it was the act of the scoundrel. Tombstone banned OC as well. Before this, the founding fathers also evinced the ideal that only a person of low birth would CC. Of course, there arms were mostly long guns and even the pistols were pretty darned bulky.
Now I am not saying CC out, OC in. I get the modern perspective of keeping your little friend a secret. I am just noting that the concept of legal CC is a pretty modern concept that our predecessors would have viewed as low morality. Pretty funny for guys who live by the unchanging founding father meaning of the 2A unchanged by the times. Didn't it say: "the right of the people to keep and conceal Arms,"
JR: thought GOA and NRA differed on enough issues that many belonged to one or the other, not both. Sounds like not true.
The only differences between the GOA and NRA are, largely:
The NRA is much larger, with a much larger legal arm, however they are open to compromises in certain gun control areas. Some of their membership is ok with this, some are not. I know people who have left the NRA because of this issue. The NRA also has a huge educational arm, with programs in schools, safety classes, etc.
The GOA is a no-compromise organization, they are the "constitutionalists" of Pro-2A groups, if you will. They are really only concerned with the legal issues of gun control. Ron Paul is a fan.
Ideally, the "perfect" organization would be the one with the NRA's size, political power, education & safety programs, with the GOA's no-compromise/constitutionalist legal arm.
IMO, of course. :)
America’s gun owners have been waiting for many years for Congress to send the SHARE Act to the president’s desk. Their patience may now be rewarded with the strongest, most far-reaching version of the Act yet. Ask Your U.S. Representative to co-sponsor H.R. 3668, the Share Act.
https://act.nraila.org/takeaction.aspx?AlertID=1798
Those who choose not to carry need to know that others around them may freely choose to exercise their 2A rights and that there is a good chance that any American they come in contact with MAY be carrying..
I don't advertise it and I don't put it in writing.
No one need know if you someone else may be carrying, and certainly not nosy bloviating internet bloggers/trollers. That kind of personal information is above their pay grade and none of their damn business.
That's a good one. I can see where you need not to reveal all. The horror of it all. And everything you said is true without or without legal CC. But it's your world....and a one and a two:
"I could take another little ride in the country
Drive my mule down a lane or two
Maybe I'll recall what it was by the country
That made me so excited when I moved downtown
Or maybe it's the noise in the streets and the car parks
Maybe it's the kids as they swarm around
Maybe it's the tires that they burn past my window
Or maybe it's the corner where they all hang out
I got no idea where we go from here
Maybe that's why we're living in Bunkers
I got no idea where we go from here
Maybe that's why we're living in Bunkers
We're living in... we're living in... we're living in..." thank you, The Vapors.
Read again SD, I did answer those questions........
Just goes to prove that you really arn't reading what we post anyways....so why bother
"You did tell us about keeping a gun at home and in the car which also did not answer the 24/7 question ----- or did it?"
WRONG....I said::::::
@Darrin (3 Days ago) "To answer your question about carrying 24x7 obviously not....its against the law in nj.... but when i am home or at my property in pa, you bet ya, i have a loaded gun close at all times. And mainly because of bears not criminals i must add."
As far as is this the world we want???? Guess what...it's the world we live in, and it has become a necessity to defend yourself.
If you have a plan on fixing it immediately, as to not make it worse before it gets better, or as to not take a long time, please enlighten us with the butterflies and daisies of how you think we could have a perfect world with no bad guys, no criminals, and no one who wants to harm anyone else....go ahead....enlighten away...i am waiting
Bill With Silencer Reform and Protections for Gun Owners Passes Committee
SHARE Act moves forward
A bill that would reform silencer regulations and add certain protections for gun owners and hunters passed out of a committee in the House of Representatives on Wednesday.
H.R. 3668, known as the SHARE Act, passed through the House Committee on Natural Resources after hearings on it were held in the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands yesterday. The bill includes a number of gun reforms that gun-rights and hunting activists have been pursuing for years. Silencer deregulation, further protections for interstate transport of firearms, further protections on the importation of firearms and ammunition, further protections on certain firearms and ammunition from reclassification in order to make them illegal, and increased access to federal public lands for hunting and fishing are all included in the bill.
Rep. Jeff Duncan (R., S.C.), who introduced the SHARE Act, said its movement out of committee is a "win for the sportsmen and women of America" and will serve to protect the country's hunting tradition.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/bill-silencer-reform-protections-gun-owners-passes-committee/
I don't think everyone should be carrying - some persons suffer from legal or physical / mental disabilities which preclude them from carrying. I also think that unless you have made the decision to be ready to respond with deadly force and cope with the aftermath then you should not be carrying.
so both questions now answered
do I carry 24x7? - almost - I carry every place its legal to do so (no post office etc.) and when I go out to dinner and want to have a drink I do not.
do I think every one should carry? - no - but I think every person that wants to make a commitment to personal defense and all that goes with that should get the training and do so.
In re suppressors - thats what they are - think of a muffler - DO NOT silence a firearm and
1. make it harder to conceal the firearm
2. reduce the amount of felt recoil, eliminating dangerous muzzle hop/climb, ensuring more control over the firearm and greater accuracy.
3. make shooting more enjoyable and less offensive to others at the range and the neighbors
4. ensure that no noise ordinances are violated if you're shooting on private property.
I cant think of one negative aspect - so why are you against them SD?
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/most-heavily-armed-states-in-america/40/
article on gun ownership by state
Very good points skippy, and I agree with you 100%
Hmmm...wonder where yankee went....said "justify this"....and we have.....and nothing but crickets!
for those who think you couldn't have concealed weapons in the days of the founders, here is one example of a piece we used to have in our collection, the one we had was a single barrel but otherwise the same as the one in the picture, spring loaded dagger on the side in case you missed, easily concealed in your jacket or boot, where there's a will, there's a way
Hey, it also wasn't "the right of the people to keep and open carry arms"...
Bear means carry, the method doesn't matter.
Actually, as is true for all the words in the 2A, it may or it may not.
In other words, according to our current definitions and usage, you are correct. And I think, in this case, the modern meaning and usage should prevail for all sorts of reasons mostly governed by changing times, changing technology, and changing attitudes. But, and this is a big but ---- if you are a strict Constitutionalist, should you not know exactly what the founding father's meant by "bear arms?"
Are you correct with the meaning in the late 1700's? Perhaps not as I have suggested that the founding father's definition of "bear arms" was open carry and not concealed carry that they found to be the refuge of the scoundrel.
More on this later, but it's too nice out. Break over, back to it.....
Safety concerns spur more black women in Chicago to receive concealed-carry gun permits
At first glance, nothing differentiates Vernetta Robinzine from passers-by in the Beverly neighborhood on Chicago's Far South Side. On a recent evening, like most people on a workday, she donned business casual attire with a loose, bright blouse. But her daily wardrobe includes something unseen that gives her confidence.
Robinzine, 51, is a gun owner with a concealed carry license. Since she received her permit in late spring, she carries her firearm wherever she goes.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-black-female-gun-owners-chicago-20170831-story.html
Looks like DC may get "shall issue" before NJ.
Here's a key quote from the appeals court ruling (that denied a review of the "may issue" strike down).
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/09/daniel-zimmerman/imi-systems-quote-day-shall-issue-concealed-carry-d-c-passes-another-hurdle/
Well once Murphy is appointed governor, him and Loretta weinberg will see that you are only allowed to carry muzzle loaded smart guns
Well, hats off to everyone for avoiding the gun discussion for the Vegas shooting, or at least more or less....but let's go.....
I think I have the answer (yeah, sure)
But first ----- what are the rational reasons we own guns --- I will list some, feel free to add, delete or modify......
1. personal/family protection, inheritance
2. crime
3. historic or other collection
4. hunting
5. target practice, sport, fun
6. government takeover, foreign or domestic
Think that covers it, what do you think?
I think it’s fun but others may not - long range rifle target cauclating for windage and drop as well as reloading to different specifications to improve accuracy. Different kind of fun than just mag dumping. Then again I enjoy physics and math.
Also don’t forget passing on a heritage of self reliance in both defense and hunting for food if necessary.
Investment in curios and relics as well.
I think you covered those SD but I’m just fine tuning.
with number 1 there is no reason for number 6
and none of us own a gun so we can commit a crime, so remove it
add investment as well
Thanks for the input, think we have our list. Investment is good, but think it falls within "collection," black powder is s type of gun, not a reason and probably fits in under target practice unless you are collecting them. And self-reliance, gathering food (in the event of a zombie apocalypse :>) fits in under good parenting :>) and hunting..... I think.
OK, next is things you think about impacting your 2A rights, and mine, including some that are perhaps a bit out there such as:
1. registration creates confiscation list
2. paperwork too cumbersome
3. want my gun with me all the time, concealed carry
4. want access to all firearms, big ones too
5. want to exceed or match criminal firepower
6. want to exceed or match government firepower
And problems resulting from our current gun environment:
1. too many people dying from gunshots, too many mass deaths
2. terrorism
3. too much crime
4. too many laws, confused by different laws in different places
5. hard to track crime guns in timely manner
6. registration loopholes
7. lax liability prosecutions (it's a tragedy)
8. not pursuing current laws
9. mental health (most mass completed by mental defects, 2/3 gun deaths are suicide)
Best I could do, again see what you think....
ar-15s should not be outlawed here in NJ as they currently are, it's unconstitutional, magazine capacity limits also are unconstitutional.
The SCOTUS has said neither is unconstitutional, according to law. Otherwise, your NRA buddies would have prevailed already. But ---- beyond the point of my discussion so sorry, you must be opening a new thought.
the muzzle loading black powder shooting i do is in local marksmanship competitions, not 'target practice'
there is also a black powder deer hunting season in this state
Impacts:
1.Registration leads to confiscation. Don’t say that it doesn’t. New York state, for instance, sent out threatening letters to gun owners about weapons that because of a law change were suddenly illegal. They knew where to find them because the records were in a database. Darren has posted it numerous times.
2. Retailers must maintain A&D records and the Form 4473 for 20 years. FFL status can be jeopardized by mandatory record keeping requirements imposed by Federal (and State) laws. thats patently ridiculous. You need two forms of government issued ID (depending on the state), have to fill out a 4473, in NJ need a pre-existing Firearms Owners ID card that requires fingerprints and an interview and then a separate NICS check AGAIN when you pick up the guns - all to exercise a constitutional right....
3. Yes I do and ill tell you why - SCOTUS has ruled the police are under no obligation to keep you safe. See Warren vs. District of Columbia. The court ruled, and I quote: “The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.” In a more recent case, the Manhattan Supreme Court ruled that the city of New York could not be sued after NYPD officers failed to stop a man from being brutally stabbed on a subway, even though the officers were present when the attack occurred. The court again found that the police had “no special duty” to protect citizens as individuals.
4. define big? we talking full auto or a Barrett? Did you know that in much of Europe suppressors are sold over the counter and encouraged to protect hearing and reduce noise pollution. in NZ they cost between $20-$65. This is a device that anyone that can screw in a lightbulb can assemble in about 5 minutes with parts from NAPA autoparts- the NFA does nothing to protect anyone (google NAPA solvent trap)
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/08/dean-weingarten/new-zealand-silencers-cheap-and-unregulated/
5. I want to take more responsibility for my safety and that of my loved ones - I don't think there is a criminal arms race.
6. it's not just about fighting the government but protecting this great nation from threats foreign and domestic (and that includes a tyrannical government.
As Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said in 2013: "Societies have to think about how they're going to approach the problem [of terrorism] . . . . One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that . . . Ask yourself: If [the Westgate Mall Massacre in Nairobi] was Denver, Colorado, if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-chief-ponders-armed-citizenry/story?id=20637341
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." -- George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788.
an armed populace means that the United States overall presents hard, not soft, targets to terrorists.
"And problems resulting from our current gun environment:"
This is where you go wrong. Back in the 1950's, kids used to take their hunting rifles TO SCHOOL with them, leave them in their locker all day, then go hunting after school. No school shootings back then, and it's got nothing to do with them being hunting rifles instead of semi-autos. Guns are not the problem is. The current society and culture is. Sure, I don't deny guns are being used illegally to carry out these mentally-ill/hatred-filled acts... but it's not the guns' fault, and never has been. Guns have been around forever- many schools had SHOOTING teams. No mass shootings. This all started around the time of Columbine.
Also, you need to include SUICIDES (and not even all by gun) in your "violence" statistics... bullying seems to be at an all-time high, thanks to social media. Children are killing themselves due to cyber-bullying.
If you want to REALLY address the problem, you'll need to address the culture and society:
-cheapness and devaluation of life
-glorification of violence (movies, rap music, etc)
-the outrage culture... if you aren't outraged, offended, or don't hate the other political side, then you "aren't doing it right", "don't care", and "are a part of the problem", apparently.
I'm sure it goes much deeper than that, I'm not a psychologist... but guns aren't the problem. If you took ALL the guns away, people would just start using cars. How many people you think you could kill/injure speeding into a smalltown parade? Or onto a high school football field during the game? Or thru the front window of the local pizza parlor where all the "cool kids" (of which you are not one) hang out?
Guns aren't the problem. Fully automatic rifles have been all but banned since 1968. As for the JOKE "assault rifle ban", there's ZERO difference between an AR-15 and an M1 garand/carbine, as far as being semi-auto and being able to reload quickly. If you want to ban all semi-autos, you'll have to include double-action revolvers, because they are a form of semi-automatic weapon, and can be reloaded very quickly with speedloaders (better ban them too).
Gun control is not, and has never been, about stopping violence. And if you think it is/has, you are a fool who has been played. Just ask Chicago how well severe gun control has lowered their crime/murder rate....
Timothy McVeigh didn't use guns. (I don't how how he accomplished this, since blowing people up is ILLEGAL)
The boston bombers didn't use guns. (see above)
Worst School Massacre in US history: Bath, Michigan School Massacre. 1927. Murder accomplished with explosives. 44 victims (equal to the Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres combined). (see above)
Problems:
1. too many people dying from gunshots, too many mass deaths
2. terrorism
3. too much crime
4. too many laws, confused by different laws in different places
5. hard to track crime guns in timely manner
6. registration loopholes
7. lax liability prosecutions (it's a tragedy)
8. not pursuing current laws
9. mental health (most mass completed by mental defects, 2/3 gun deaths are suicide)
1. Even Mother Jones magazine suggests there have only been four mass shootings in the U.S.prior to the 2015 San Bernardino terrorist shooting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/how-many-mass-shootings-are-there-really.html?smid=re-share
2. outlaw airplanes, box cutters trucks, cars and pressure cookers they have killed way more people in the hands of a terrorist than guns ever have.
3. Crime has been on the decline the last quarter century
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/21/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/
Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
4. I agree. it is extremely difficult to be a lawful gun owner - especially if you fly.
5. then give private parties access to NICS - also see the 20 year 4473 / bound book requirement above.
6. where? and registration leads to confiscation. “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.” U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993
7 / 8. One major issue is the near total lack of enforcement for perjury on application forms for background checks. In 2010 alone, 76,142 fraudulent ATF Form 4473 applications were submitted. Only 4,732 of these cases were referred to law enforcement agencies, and less than 62 of those resulted in arrest and prosecution. Only 13 were found guilty or plead guilty. That means slightly under one-tenth of 1% of those illegally attempting to purchase a firearm from a licensed gun seller were even charged with a crime, let alone prosecuted for it. Please prosecute that..
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf
Nothing will change until gun laws already on the books are more strictly enforced. There are hardly any prosecutions for people lying on the background check form. Those who are caught typically have the gun charge plead away. The National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) found in 2010, of 6 million Americans who applied to buy a gun, less than 2 percent -- or 76,000 -- were denied. Of those, the ATF referred 4,732 cases for prosecution. Of them, just 44 were prosecuted, and only 13 were found guilty or plead guilty for lying or buying a gun illegally. More laws that aren't enforced are just more laws that don't solve problems.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf
9. We have a serious social and mental health problem in this country. The guns don’t just jump and shoot themselves. People seem to have this desire to hurt other people.
from above:
“Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.” U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993
BOOM.
BDog --- sorry. By sport, I mean competition.
Black powder is a type of gun; the action of sport or hunting is the same independent of weapon use. Otherwise, we can just open up the same categories as different depending on weather type....
Skippy: thanks for the background on impacts mentioned.
JR: so what? Off the topic but thanks anyways. You are lost in the weeds as to the topic in question throwing many red herrings of wrong-headed facts and fantasy. For example, you say: "No school shootings back then" (1950's) when anyone would tell you there was a school shooting in 1764 (10 dead, dude), 1840, 1853, 1856, yada, yada, yada..... But still off point. Just wait, hold that knee jerk, you will get your shot for misinformation in a moment.
I think we have our: reasons for owning guns (not that we need any with the 2A), 2A issues for gun owners, and some problems with guns in our current societal environment.
Next, my solution...... (they you can do that thang you do JR :>)
"Off the topic but thanks anyways. You are lost in the weeds as to the topic in question throwing many red herrings of wrong-headed facts and fantasy. For example, you say: "No school shootings back then" (1950's) when anyone would tell you there was a school shooting in 1764 (10 dead, dude), 1840, 1853, 1856, yada, yada, yada..... But still off point. Just wait, hold that knee jerk, you will get your shot for misinformation in a moment."
ROFL. Talk about a "red herring"... I say "no", and because it doesn't literally mean "zero" everything I say is invalid? Keep practicing those Rules for Radicals, comrade.
Rule #5: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
Just when I think you want to have an ACTUAL INTELLIGENT discussion on the issue, you prove me wrong. Again, and again, and again.... IDK why I ever believe your fake sincerity, it's like the boy who cried wolf...
Don't worry, you'll get your bump-stock ban... and that's ALL you get. That'll be your bone. Enjoy it, because it's going to be a very dry 1198-2658 days for you....
While Jr keeps chumming the waters with the F-word again, here's Strangerdanger’s answer to everything guns. My intent is to have background checks, instant crime gun tracking, and less firepower on the streets while giving you faster background checks, much more firepower, and universal concealed carry. With regards to criminals, I want to get you the same or better firepower.
I am looking for a win-win, a way to get you the equal protection from criminals that you want, universal cc, get as many high-powered, huge clipped, semi-autos off the street, get you access to these and even yuger weapons for fun and real protection against tyranny while being unfettered by registration lists and confiscation for the guns in your possession.
The overarching caveat for all of this is --- it’s federal. Just like the 2A is federal. No more Chicago is tough gun law city but Illinois isn’t. Or you can cc here but don’t’ cross that line. The only borders for illegal guns to cross now are Mexico, Canada, and the coasts. No more will criminals need a law degree to figure out their risk in using a gun: the penalties will be simple and severe . All America will be subject to the same SCOTUS-approved laws.
No solution deters a mad man or a criminal from breaking the law. These provisions reduce the firepower on the street, the firepower available for mass murder, and the frequency of occurrence of criminal gun activity. Yes, where there’s a will, there’s a way, but that way will be much harder to accomplish with a far greater penalty when caught.
First --- registration et al……
1. Universal Background Checks for EVERY gun transfer of any kind retroactive to every gun in our house. Otherwise, it’s a crime gun. Make UBC’s very thorough and wait periods national. Allow “frequent flyer” fast passes (as in, if you clear this hurdle, you are expedited for x amount of time for rapid no-wait purchase or before a full UBC must be repeated). So, clean this up and make it as easy and as fast-as-possible, especially for frequent flyers.
2. Do not register with the government. Register every gun with the NRA who will responsible for protecting said list (I suggest an off-net server…..) with a NRA-designed self-destruct doomsday button feature.
3. NRA to provide instant response to all ATF crime gun checks authorized by the courts; ATF to work expedited court request process.
OK, that should get us registration, instant crime gun tracking, UBCs for all transactions and privacy of all gun registration information. Now, if you want to put additional search clauses in, like the one that tracks too many opioid purchases in too short a time frame for drug abuse or the one that tracks pressure cooker sales for terrorism, that’s between the people, the govt., the NRA, and the courts but since the NRA has the data, you have a strong voice.
Second --- crime et all……
1. Today there is a mish-mosh of different laws and sentencing depending on the State where the crime occurred. Penalties differ wildly whether you kill, wound, or just make a good showing. Let’s take the luck of location (where you are and did you miss?) out of it. Instead, make gun crimes federal crimes, put strict sentence guidelines on anything that is gun related including brandishing, liability cases (child deaths). Even stricter and now mandatory sentencing minimums for repeat offenders. Make brandishing a gun in a crime or even as a threat just as criminal as firing a gun illegally. In other words, even if you just whip it out, if that’s for unlawful purposes, you face the penalty. So, you better be right, it better be a DGU or some other lawful purpose.
Third ----- firepower, types of weapons
1. SCOTUS says gun restrictions are legal. That is the law, that is the Constitution. Restrict gun firing speed and clip size, we can argue where the line is. Provide buybacks and equivalent charitable transfers (to militia) for illegal guns hopefully arming militias at a basic level for free. Make owning a restricted gun a federal offense with severe mandatory sentencing.
2. Allow registered, regulated militias to own all restricted weapons and more. Tanks, bazookas, etc. Make militia’s truly armed forces to be reckoned with. Regulation in this case means safety concerns for militia operations and gun safety. Now ----- it’s up to the militia owners to determine their own doomsday plan for domestic or foreign government takeover. I am sure you all can determine how to react nationwide in this event in order to secure most of the arms. And now you have bigger ones to play with or for defense.
3. Make cc a federal law and make it upon request based on UBC clearance. In other words, use the UBC process to determine if you are “viable” for cc. Simple.
Fourth --- mental health
1. I think mental health has a great chance of improving our current statistics. I mean if we could somehow, magically, reduce suicide attempts, the total number of gun deaths could drop significantly. A slippery slope since once deemed a mental defect, all sorts of constraints can apply. I honestly don’t have a great solution here. You can’t blame the DR’s or they will mark us all looney. If you force everyone to mental health checks, a lot of people will just obtain guns another way versus being marked crazy. Hard to find a win-win here. Even if you make it free, who wants to raise their hand and admit being a tad off.
2. That said, all UBCs would include a mental health check; this check must be reviewed within a year of any purchase or transfer.
3. Somehow, create facilities to head off suicide attempts before they occur (whatever that is).
Background checks:
Why do we need more background checks when we can’t even correctly use the ones we perform now? It’s worth noting that almost every recent mass shooter has passed background checks in order to acquire his guns. So if that’s the problem you’re trying to solve, imposing background checks on private transactions doesn’t seem like it’s going to do much good.
Here’s why universal background checks are undesirable:
They are largely ineffectual without a registry; this is why the Manchin-Toomey bill failed, the anti-gunners wouldn’t drop the requirement for a registry.
It forces an additional cost into the transaction that is the exercise of a right. It’s odd that so many can argue that obtaining an ID for voting is a burden on the poor but don’t mind introducing an extra $35-$70 dollars on a firearms transaction - such a law is discriminatory. As far as the Constitution is concerned they seem to be equal and any barrier to either one is a cause for concern.
The government is now forcing you to do business with a private entity, the Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder, in order to exercise your right. What if I proposed that everyone who wanted to vote needed to go to a privately owned business and spend $50 to make sure they’re not a convicted felon and are legally allowed to vote? We'd be able to hear the screams all the way to Barrow, Alaska and rightly so.
Political entities will attack FFL holders as a backdoor method of barring the purchase of firearms. Cities, Counties, States, even the Federal government, will introduce burdens on FFL holders so onerous that they simply can't remain open. This isn’t conjecture either, it happened in San Francisco.
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/san-franciscos-last-gun-store-closing-doors-for-good/
type and capacity of firearms:
There are so many gun laws on the books already, and they're not working (looking at you Chicago) why impose more that probably won't work either, thus making criminals out of what once were otherwise law-abiding citizens? Like, for example, suddenly mandating that all private gun transactions require a visit to the FFL for a background check, or for instance suddenly saying a magazine that held x rounds yesterday was legal is suddenly illegal to own today (witness Los Angeles' recent legislation). It's one thing to enact and have laws, it's another to have and enact worthless, easily surmountable, unenforceable laws. That's the real question here.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-500th-homicide-tribune-data-20170917-story.html
A shooter can swap out a magazine in two or three seconds. Watch this video to see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjnsBH9jGxc
Why wouldn’t a shooter just carry a bag of handguns, then? No need to reload them, just keep firing. Ask Canadian gun owners. In Canada, semi-auto rifles are limited to 5 rounds and handguns to 10 rounds. They also need to present a firearms license to purchase ammo. This hasn’t stopped local biker gangs from getting prohibited (armor-piercing) ammo and firearms (Mac-10's, etc.). The theory behind the law was that bad actors would have to reload sooner and more often thus giving the police a chance to take them out. The problem is, - criminals don't use the legal mags or follow the law, never have. They either get full capacity magazines illegally, drill out the rivet from legal mags (thus making them full mags), or make their own. What is stopping a criminal from simply using one of the tens of millions of magazines already in circulation? And do you know how easy it is to make a large magazine out of two smaller ones? Again, your proposition only inconveniences responsible gun owners who already follow the law, and does nothing to stop criminals who by definition choose to break it.
There comes a point where if you keep insisting on making unreasonable and unenforceable laws, like this one you propose, then people are simply going to ignore them. In 2015, Los Angeles put a law in place mandating city residents owning “high capacity” magazines had to turn them in to police or otherwise dispose of them within 60 days. At the end of 60 days, guess how many got turned in? ZERO.
http://www.ammoland.com/2015/11/los-angeles-bans-highcap-mags-not-1-turned-in/#axzz3sMz8vSst
There is no crime you can commit with three 30-round magazines that you can't commit with nine 10-round magazines. The only person for whom it makes a difference is someone trying to defend himself from multiple assailants
By your own admission most gun deaths are suicides, so how will reducing magazine capacity or banning scary guns do anything to stop the vast majority of gun deaths? which brings me to...
Mental Health.
HIPAA regulations prevent people’s medical records from being accessed by the government due to privacy concerns. This prohibition is something the left-wing ACLU supports. The fact that both conservatives and liberals are wary points to the fact that changes to privacy laws are complex and controversial. Any rational person agrees that the mentally ill should not be able to legally purchase firearms. But just try to share that data with the FBI / BATFE and see how many attorneys come out of the woodwork.
"There was systematic political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union, based on the interpretation of political opposition or dissent as a psychiatric problem. It was called “psychopathological mechanisms” of dissent. During the leadership of General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev, psychiatry was used to disable and remove from society political opponents (“dissidents”) who openly expressed beliefs that contradicted the official dogma. The term “philosophical intoxication,” for instance, was widely applied to the mental disorders diagnosed when people disagreed with the country’s Communist leaders and, by referring to the writings of the Founding Fathers of Marxism–Leninism -- Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Vladimir Lenin -- made them the target of criticism. Article 58-10 of the Stalin-era Criminal Code, “Anti-Soviet agitation,” was to a considerable degree preserved in the new 1958 RSFSR Criminal Code as Article 70 “Anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda.” In 1967 a weaker law, Article 190-1 “Dissemination of fabrications known to be false, which defame the Soviet political and social system,” was added to the RSFSR Criminal Code. These laws were frequently applied in conjunction with the system of diagnosis for mental illness, developed by academician Andrei Snezhnevsky. Together they established a framework within which non-standard beliefs could easily be defined as a criminal offense and the basis, subsequently, for a psychiatric diagnosis."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union
I’m really really skeptical of requiring sanity tests to exercise my Constitutional right. Some anti-gun people say that by definition anyone who wants a gun is mentally ill. I also feel it will be a deterrent to people seeking mental health help! If you think you might lose your guns if you seek treatment, you’re far less likely to ask for help. You are already prohibited from owning a gun if you’re a felon or have been adjudicated to be mentally ill, or involuntarily committed to a mental hospital. There are already safeguards in place to prevent mentally ill people from passing background checks. Where do you draw the line? If someone was put on Prozac 20 years ago for an episode of depression, does that mean he still isn’t allowed to own a gun today, even if he’s doing fine now? If not, why is allowed to operate other dangerous equipment like cars? Who will adjudicate whether or not a person is mentally healthy? Doctors are not judges--they can’t make the call themselves to deny a person his civil right. At least I don’t want them to be able to. We need due process of law as is guaranteed by the constitution.
Gangs have autos. So we get autos, right?
We already have background checks. Not sure what else you can do with that one. For handguns, some places (like NJ) even have a waiting period.
All your "solutions" sound very "reasonable", however... how do you seriously intend to get "firepower off the streets"? You know criminals don't buy guns legally. So no law you pass will make a bit of difference. But you know this. You are still trying to obfuscate the real mission (stated by Janet Reno above), so you don't SOUND like it's your mission. Please. I can't go around in circles with you anymore, because you are TRANSPARENT and ridiculous.
So please let us know what actions would not further infringe on legal gun owners 2A rights, while at the same time "removing firepower from the streets."
How about this for a "compromise": NO MORE gun laws. Obviously the ones we have on the book don't work. No amount of them, short of a full ban and confiscation, will work. So way keep passing them? I'm serious.
Las Vegas would have happened with or without the bump-stock.
2A has already been infringed, over and over again... and it's not working, because people are still dying. So now what, Einstein? We've got auto bans, we've got capacity limits, we've got waiting periods and background checks. NOTHING WORKS.
So come on... let's hear it. Let's hear your bright idea that will not further infringe on 2A, but will somehow magically "keep weapons off the streets" and stop mass shootings. WE'RE ALL EARS.
Before we change anything we need to revamp the current system and repeal anything not working before we impose anything new
So, no good ideas in there eh? Or as JR says: "How about this for a "compromise": NO MORE gun laws." And then the name calling, the funny pictures, sort of detracts from his earlier......and I quote:
"Just when I think you want to have an ACTUAL INTELLIGENT discussion on the issue, you prove me wrong. Again, and again, and again.... IDK why I ever believe your fake sincerity, it's like the boy who cried wolf..."
You may have called me EINSTEIN but even I know when you mean stupid. We're done, no need to say "pot kettle" or nah-nah.
Skippy, I think we agree as to the difficulty of mental health checks beyond adjudication and even there is slippery slope before Drs take the easy route and declare everyone they see as bonkers. But I take issue with "Why do we need more background checks when we can’t even correctly use the ones we perform now?" That's like saying, because it is broken, we should not fix it. Or the famous, just use the laws on the books. Yeah, because to get to UBCs, all we need to do is BCs.....Having lost sight of our objective, we decided to double our ineffective efforts.
As to the undesirables:
1. I offered a UBC system where the NRA is the registry so, from the gunnies standpoint, the government has no registry. Sorry if you think perfecting the non-universal-loop-holed BC system is a better solution.
2. Extra cost. No problem. Erase the Cost Mexico will pay for it... No, seriously, it can be funded by taxpayer dollars and your current NRA dues not that the NRA will not have to lobby on this issue :>) It's a right, not a license. Good idea Skippy.
3. I don't see how you remove FFLs from the loop, however, you and the NRA can devise a way as you come up with the gun registration lock box :>)
4. The rest. Hey, I put a lot on the table, including big-time weapons of war that I trust you will not misuse. If we are to take guns off the street, we need to take them off the street and to do that ------ there will be a time where there will be some hold outs. What do you want to mitigate risks? I offered by-backs, I offered really severe like end-of-days penalties for illegal guns and illegal use of guns. What do you think the penalty for illegal use of illegal gun would be???? Make it up, throw away the key, I don't care.
You also dropped Chicago, LA, and even (and its a stretch) Canada. Wanna bet all the Canadian guns came from America? Crikey --- we were smuggling to and from Canada all the time; it's no different than Chicago.... Point is that any type of restriction is useless with porus borders. Chicago's are nonexistent. So are LA's. If we go Federal, as I noted, now we have only Canada and Mexico borders and Canada don't make these guns.
But, in the beginning, there will be a time where restricted illegal weapons will be in greater numbers than a month from that date, less in six months, a year and then, one day.... Point is that every opportunity has inherent risks of one sort or another.
It's OK. I really didn't expect a pat on the back. Still say that this provide the benefits I noted at the beginning. Just has to.
skippy said - - - "It’s odd that so many can argue that obtaining an ID for voting is a burden on the poor but don’t mind introducing an extra $35-$70 dollars on a firearms transaction - such a law is discriminatory. As far as the Constitution is concerned they seem to be equal and any barrier to either one is a cause for concern."
it's quite true, the rights are equally fundamental, why impose draconian unconstitutional restrictions on one and not the other?
what part of "Shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
SD-
" If we are to take guns off the street, we need to take them off the street and to do that ------ there will be a time where there will be some hold outs."
What, EXACTLY, do you mean?
" I offered by-backs,"
Don't work.
"I offered really severe like end-of-days penalties for illegal guns and illegal use of guns. "
I think everyone is with you on this one.
"What do you think the penalty for illegal use of illegal gun would be???? "
I think it's time for an-eye-for-an-eye, if you ask me. Let the victims' survivors decide.
Still waiting to hear your brilliant solution... because you haven't offered one yet. OTHER than more gun laws, since they have been an obvious "failure" to stop the violence you are seeking to stop.
I TOLD YOU- it's not the guns, it's society and the culture. Those are things you need to be targeting (pun intended) if you want to fix this crap. Guns have been around forever, mass shootings are a fairly recent thing, and gun tech hasn't changed since WWII (and full auto has been virtually illegal since 1968)
You definitely put a lot of thought into that and give you credit there - my point bringing is we have a system in place now we don’t use properly - also if lawful gun owners could get access to NICS for private transfers a lot of this goes away.
"what part of "Shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?" Apparently the part that the SCOTUS defined for you...... I mean if this stuff was so undeniably crystal clear as you see it, why oh why can't you do anything about it? Whatever could be blocking you? Constitutional meaning as defined by the nine?
"my point bringing is we have a system in place now we don’t use properly" And my point is why do we feel using a broken system properly will be an improvement. I mean if BCs are not universal, are they not useless by definition?
As far as "lawful gun owners could get access to NICS for private transfers a lot of this goes away" is just another way to get closer to UBCs, so sure, why not, just make it work equivalently to the FFL version. But listen to yourself ---- "a lot of this goes away" is not exactly a rousing vote of confidence that you are fixing things. I mean last time I checked, universal does not mean "a lot of this...." :>)
The real problem is that you guys have no solutions except less is more. No suggested solution will suffice. My recommendation is not only progressive, but also gives gun owners, vis-à-vis the NRA, control over the registration process and data. I offered "frequent flyer" UBCs to expedite purchases for you; I offered access to arms you can not touch today; I offered you a real militia with real firepower, I offered you universal cc without geographic restrictions and all I asked for is to remove extreme firepower from the streets and grant you access to it all plus more from your local registered and regulated militia.
Point is that I suggest a way to perhaps get some win-wins in all this. Ultimately any improvement in all this is really up to gun owners; the rest of us just can't do it by ourselves. You have the 2A's codification and the NRA's support, a tough duo to override. At least until your inaction combined with the reactions of a few mad men to what you have created will finally galvanize the people to constrain your gun rights far more than they are today.
And what would you get from my proposal. Not much but then again, everything. You get "a win-win, a way to get you the equal protection from criminals that you want, universal cc, get as many high-powered, huge clipped, semi-autos off the street, get you access to these and even yuger weapons for fun and real protection against tyranny while being unfettered by registration lists and confiscation for the guns in your possession."
I agree. A lot of what was discussed is already in place but not properly used.
Prove you can properly use what you have before adding more.
That's like buying a Charger SRT-8 and crashing it off the road because you couldn't handle the power, then buying a hellcat to replace it!
"And my point is why do we feel using a broken system properly will be an improvement. I mean if BCs are not universal, are they not useless by definition? "
Your definition of "broken" is "not prevalent enough".
Our definition of "broken" is BG checks don't stop criminals, EVEN WHEN THEY GET A BG CHECK (i.e. all of the guns this guy owned were purchased legally, some even in California which I'm sure is on board with every possible feed into their BG check system). Doing "more" of something that doesn't work, will (surprise surprise) not work.
"if lawful gun owners could get access to NICS "
Which they have flat out refused to allow - that should tell you all you need to know about whether its primary purpose is "background checks" or "registration". NICS should be a go/no-go decision - and then have NO IDEA if you actually purchased something, multiple things, or nothing - let alone make/model/serial numbers.
that is UBC - every transfer would go through NICS - just private party transfers would be done through an app / web portal. doing it through an FFL introduces undue burden on them for record keeping and introduces risk whereas they can be held accountable for a firearm they never sold in the case of a private party transfer.
I am still not convinced we have a gun problem that needs to be solved.
the ubc could be run to determine if a buyer is legally entitled to buy a firearm, they type, model and make of the firearms need not be required, no reason for the government to know what exactly is being sold, just that the buyer still retains their 2nd amendment rights to legally obtain a firearms.
otherwise you have constructed a national registration scheme that chucky cheese schumer would love to use for confiscation purposes.
good argument for firearms and firearms policy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uS-Ta4cZOw
what part of 'shall not be infringed' is so hard for the modern day liberal/progressive to understand?
what are they so afraid of that they have to restrict the rights of everybody else?
must be terrible for them living with that fear everyday of their lives.
"what are they so afraid of that they have to restrict the rights of everybody else?
must be terrible for them living with that fear everyday of their lives."
Maybe not getting shot while you're at a concert, or sporting event, or school cafeteria, or etc. etc. etc. My right to life is not as great as your completely unrestricted and unregulated right to own weapons?
You folks NEED to arm yourselves to the HILT with weapons of all sorts and WE'RE the ones who live in fear? Do you realize how insane that sounds?
The fact that many (most) of you gun advocates think there is nothing wrong with the gun violence problem in this country is a huge problem, and maybe speaks more to the mental health problem.
it's to protect the right to life is the reason that the right to keep and bear arms is so significantly important
did you just call all gun owners insane? wow!
I agree with you Tracy - but the lawful gun owners in this country are not your enemy.
I agree and fear terrorism as well but the mechanism is not the issue. Trucks, and pressure cookers can cause alot of havoc.
there are 250MM legal guns in this country and billions of rounds of ammo - if we were the issue you would know it
Tracy, sorry about the e in your name above, (im a horrible typist ,just ask anybody)
thought this might shed some perspective on the issue:
The simple truth is that guns help, not hurt, millions of Americans
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Words are inadequate to describe the horror of the Las Vegas shooting. There is evil in the world.
What is most shocking, however, is that for liberals, evil realized is merely another opportunity to score political points.
The dead were still being identified when liberal politicians, celebrities, pundits and activists began blaming the carnage on anyone who did not endorse the standard left-wing agenda. Even though none of the panaceas advanced by Democratic politicians would have stopped Stephen Paddock — who exhibited no signs of mental illness, radical political sentiments or criminal intent — from committing mass murder.
Television host Jimmy Kimmel said GOP leaders should pray for forgiveness for “letting the gun lobby run this country.” If he meant the NRA, it barely breaks into the top 500 political contributors nationally. And the NRA is actually tens of millions of peaceful, law-abiding people across the nation.
South African “comedian” Trevor Noah of “The Daily Show” went even further. He said he’d “never been to a country where people are as afraid to speak about guns.” He said that … on national TV, to every American who tuned in.
Leftie columnists Nicholas Kristof and Richard Cohen regurgitated their usual proposals for restricting gun ownership, even though those proposals would not have impeded Paddock.
Their objective is not just to win votes for Democrats. It is to write out of polite society anyone who doesn’t share their views.
To liberals, Paddock wasn’t responsible for the atrocity in Las Vegas. It was those who don’t believe in taking away guns from everyone else in America. Liberals believe every gun owner to be complicit in the Las Vegas murders.
If the left were serious, it would try to understand the facts of the crime: Paddock gave off no obvious warning signals; the only way to prevent him from owning a weapon would have been to stop every American from owning a weapon.
the left refuses to acknowledge the benefits of gun ownership to millions of Americans. Guns provide protection, especially for poorer Americans who live in neighborhoods which receive less police attention. They also are widely used for sport, from hunting to target shooting.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t problems that we should address. One is crime. Gun control would ensure that only criminals had guns. We need to do better at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals instead of harassing the law-abiding.
Women need improved protection from domestic violence. A knife, or even a fist, can kill.
http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/354618-the-simple-truth-is-that-guns-help-not-hurt-millions-of-americans
"The real problem is that you guys have no solutions except less is more. "
And you have none except more is more- more of the same FAILED laws that have yet to stop the violence you're trying to stop. As I have been repeating ad nauseum, it's not the guns.
"No suggested solution will suffice."
Nor for you- except more failed gun control. Your model of gun control matches that of the war on drugs- how's that one going?
"The fact that many (most) of you gun advocates think there is nothing wrong with the gun violence problem in this country is a huge problem...",
Not one of us has said this violence isn't a problem, and I have even suggested causes (hint: the guns aren't the cause)
"...and maybe speaks more to the mental health problem."
If you believe that, perhaps you are the one who has a touch of "mental illness" (not really- you're just suffering from the same delusional hatred of the "other side" like alot of people in this country are right now... recreational outrage.
i think Tracy is sincere and is speaking from her heart, she has always posted here with an authentic credibility that other posters are severely lacking.
I just wish i could find the right words to communicate convincingly why we feel so differently on this subject.
with that in mind here's something that may add perspective to the issue:
A progressive correspondent asks: “If you were drafting the Constitution in 2017, would you include the Second Amendment?” It’s an ignorant question, but one that was asked in good faith, and the answer may be illuminating to some of our friends who are mystified by conservative thinking on the question.
The short answer is: Yes, of course a 21st-century Bill of Rights should codify the right to keep and bear arms. The document does not create the right; the right precedes the document, which merely recognizes it and ensures that the government is constrained when, inevitably, its all-too-human members are tempted to violate that right. Progressives take a tabula rasa view of the human condition, the human animal, the human experience, and human society. In this view human beings, individually and corporately, can be shaped into . . . whatever we desire to shape them into. Rights, in this understanding, come from the state: We decide together, through democratic and other political means, what rights and obligations people are to have, and the state acts (in theory) as our instrument in that matter. If you take that view, then the progressive attitude toward the right to keep and bear arms — that it is more trouble than it is worth and that it therefore should be reduced or eliminated altogether — is entirely understandable.
Conservatives take a different view, one that is rooted in the nation’s foundational philosophy. The American premise is a theological premise: that all men are endowed by their Creator — not the state — with certain unalienable rights.
For our Founding Fathers, who were steeped in the Anglo-Protestant liberal tradition, this was not only the truth but the “self-evident” truth. The right to keep and bear arms, like the right to speak one’s mind, worship as one sees fit, and petition the state for redress of grievances, is not the king’s gift to give or to withhold — the matter was settled by no less an authority than God Himself. For those who are not of a religious cast of mind, the same conclusion can be arrived at through the tradition of natural law and natural rights, which the Christian liberals of the 18th century understood as complementary to their discernment of Divine intent. Whether one believes that man was created by God or by evolutionary processes, the conclusion ends up being the same: Man has reason, individual and corporate dignity, individual and corporate value, and these are not subject to revision by any prince, power, or potentate. Put another way: The right to keep and bear arms would still be there without the Second Amendment. Like the right not to suffer political or religious repression, it exists with or without the law. It is an aspect of the human being, not an aspect of the governments that human beings institute among themselves. The state does not grant the right — the state exists because the right exists and needs protecting from time to time. The state protects our rights from criminals and marauders, and the Constitution protects our rights from their protectors.
there is more to read at this link:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452432/second-amendment-timeless-natural-right-protected
As far as a "Constitution for the 21st century"...
Something I think most of the leftists/progressives/anti-gun people are missing is...
The Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments, are INALIENABLE. That means they are NOT GRANTED to us by government, therefore they CANNOT be REMOVED by government. That is the ENTIRE POINT of the Bill of Rights. Those rights EXIST- they are natural laws, whether you want to say granted by God or by the universe or by mere existence... those laws EXIST NATURALLY, and the government cannot take them away. The Bill of Rights is a "do not tread here" instruction list for the government.
Of course, it didn't take long for the govt to overstep it's bounds: the 2nd President, Adams, jailed journalists who said anything negative about his administration. Completely unconstitutional. Thank God the next President, Jefferson, did away with that immediately. The govt has been pushing against the bill of rights since the country's founding. 2A is there, in part, to insure WE can push back hard, if ever becomes necessary. JUST LIKE THEY HAD JUST FINISHED DOING TO ENGLAND.
BACK TO THE POINT... What's so frustrating is, they (the leftists) DO believe the right of free speech is inalienable/unassailable, and are willing to do violent things to protect that amendment (violent protests, property destruction, heck they even limit OTHER'S 1A rights as their demonstration of THEIR 1A rights (hello UC Berkeley)
But when it comes to the 2A, they don't believe that all. Heck, they think ALL the amendments should be untouchable EXCEPT the 2nd. That is hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty, and pure partisan politics. And it's eventually going to start a war. Legal gun owners will not be the cause of this war; the liberal left and overreaching government will be the cause.
And for those who think "oh don't be ridiculous"... that's probably exactly what people said years before the Civil War became a reality. And years before the Revolutionary War became a reality. Reality has a funny way of making believers out of naysayers....
Jefferson,
"I am still not convinced we have a gun problem that needs to be solved."--skippy
???
Brotherdog, I appreciate the comments. I feel the same about you. I don't normally even bother to post on this thread, though I do read it and follow along. Your comments about living in fear kind of struck a nerve. I don't live in fear, nor do I feel the need to arm myself for protection. I understand that not everyone is as lucky as I am to live in a safe neighborhood with a loving family, but I don't believe the unrestricted and unregulated proliferation of guns is the answer to the fear. I believe there are "good guys with guns" and most legal gun owners are responsible. But there are so many that are not, or that turn into a bad guy. I don't have the answers, but I don't think doing nothing is the solution.
Skippy, I just wanted to respond to this comment as well,
"I agree with you Tracy - but the lawful gun owners in this country are not your enemy."
Besides the startling frequency of mass murders by guns, the other gun problem that I see all too often is children shooting children or "accidental" shootings. Maybe it's not as often as it seems, but I feel like I read about it constantly. I understand that these are usually legal gun owners, but responsible? I don't think so. Are there consequences of these "accidents" being levied against the gun owner? And what is being done to enforce legal (but stupid) gun owners from leaving their deadly weapons accessible to children?
Tracy,
Are you directing something towards me? You're quoting BrotherDog...?
"Are there consequences of these "accidents" being levied against the gun owner?" the NRA and it's over 5 million average everyday Amercian members have recommended that all charges be filed in any gun related crime.
in cases of 'criminal negligence' far too many of these family related 'accidents' are not not pursued as such by local DAs, that needs to change,
quoted from the linked article above:
"So, a Second Amendment even in the 21st century? Yes. There are permanent things and non-negotiable truths. The Second Amendment did not create the right to keep and bear arms; it was created by it."
the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right that is an inherent part of our beings. Granted to us by our creator. Which is why the 2nd amendment proscribes the government from taking it away. The government doesn't grant us the right, we all already have it by virtue of our being alive.
which is why i keep asking folks; What part of 'shall not be infringed' is so hard to understand?
JR, you said:
"Not one of us has said this violence isn't a problem, and I have even suggested causes (hint: the guns aren't the cause)"--JeffersonRepub
and I responded with a quote from skippy from just up the page.
"I am still not convinced we have a gun problem that needs to be solved."--skippy
???
I expect that there are MANY more gun advocates, as I mentioned, that feel the same way. There is no problem.
"i think Tracy is sincere and is speaking from her heart, she has always posted here with an authentic credibility that other posters are severely lacking."
Unless you are referring to your gunny-buddies here, I am the only other poster whom I gather you feel in "serverely lacking" in "authentic credibility." Nice backhanded semi-slam. Very passive aggressive of you as usual.
"I just wish i could find the right words to communicate convincingly why we feel so differently on this subject." but alas you seem incapable of individual thought so once again you will cut and paste someone else's opinions. NOTE: hey, how about quote marks at least to show respect for the author or maybe, better yet, just post the link. We know you can cut and paste. Good boy. Sit.
in some states its already illegal
California
It is an offense to store or leave a loaded firearm within easy access of a minor (under the age of 18), where the minor obtains unauthorized access to the firearm and the minor threatens someone, injures someone, or carries the firearm off the premises. The law does not apply if the firearm was stored in a locked or secure container or had a child-safety lock.
Penalty - misdemeanor or felony, depending on circumstances
Florida
It is a crime to store or leave a loaded firearm within the easy access of a minor (under 16) if the minor gains access to the gun. The law doesn't apply if the firearm is kept in a locked box, secured with a child-safety lock
Penalty - misdemeanor or felony if the minor injures someone
Illinois
It is an offense to store or leave a loaded firearm in a way that allows a minor child (under 14) to gain unauthorized access to the firearm and use it to injure or kill. The law does not apply if the firearm is secured by a child- safety lock and is placed in a locked box or some other location that a reasonable person would believe to be secured from a minor.
Penalty - misdemeanor
New York
Gun owners are not accountable for leaving a loaded firearm within easy access of a minor, even if the firearm is then used to injure or kill.
Texas
It is an offense to fail to secure a readily dischargeable firearm or to leave the firearm in a place which one knew or should have known that a minor would gain access and a minor (under 17) gains access to the firearm.
Penalty - misdemeanor
http://leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/LAW/Documents/SummaryOfStateChildAccessPreventionLaws.pdf
Tracy,
Wow... you need to slow down when you read. What I said is true and stands- read it again:
"Not one of us has said this violence isn't a problem"
Note the word "gun" is not in there. YOU are putting it in there. Because to you, it's not "gun VIOLENCE", it's "GUN violence", which is S.O.P. for anti-gunners.
What was Boston... "PRESSURE COOKER violence"?
What was Oklahoma City... "TRUCK violence"?
What was 9/11... "AIRPLANE violence"?
We all admit violence is an issue. Where we differ is that YOU think guns=violence, remove the guns remove the violence, and WE think there's alot more to it than that, much of which has nothing to do with guns. Not to mention all these many years of gun control obviously HASN'T WORKED, or we wouldn't be having these events. Just ask Chicago- one of the strictest gun control areas in the country- about their 50+ murders every MONTH. There is a Las Vegas Massacre in Chicago EVERY MONTH, where gun control is extreme.
Read my earlier posts on culture, society, hatred, and outrage.
IMO, you fellows have once again posted the same old lame-o ascertains and opinions with very little support. You talk natural rights, Constitution, whatever, failing to grasp that restrictions are Constitutional and natural rights as well.
I provided a strawman. You tossed it unilaterally concluding it's human nature, so fix that. For example, JR boldly admits violence is a problem, we need more guns. Or that we need to perfect implement imperfect laws filled with loopholes before we fix said laws attempting improvement or even universality. Or the conclusion that it's a infrequent occurrence that the gun has little to do with so let's fix the bigger problem: cars.
Recently a deranged white guy wounded or killed close to 600 people and killed close to 60 in less than 15 minutes from hundreds of yards away. No good guy with a gun in the audience stopped him. You say it's an infrequent occurrence that would have happened without 23 guns including full automatics, scopes, large clips, all presumed to be totally legally obtained. If he was Muslim you would immediately call for war to decimate his country, kill his family, friends and neighbors; place a ban against all people of his faith from certain locations, build a wall, and few other restrictions to our freedoms. You say we must keep those inalienable guns even though you agree that some guns should be restricted..... If this killer was a black man, you would have railed against Black Lives Matter, screaming Bill Ayers, Black Panthers, as the culprits and we are not racists.
But it was a white guy, probably Christian, so you say: Oh well, shucks, stuff happens, what a tragedy, let's light some candles and start a fund. And you said "What part of 'shall not be infringed' is so hard to understand?" Maybe it's the part where a guy takes 23 guns, some with full auto, and wounds or kills close to 600 people, close to 60 killed in less than 15 minutes.....
I say that the gun is the easiest to obtain, most effective, and most efficient mass murder weapon of war available. No other weapon is easier to find (millions and millions out there, don't even legally need a background check), easier to modify for increased lethality, most effective (weapon/suicide lethality index), or more efficient (just point n click). No other weapon comes close. Yes, you can wreak havoc in other ways, it's just either harder to obtain and implement, less lethal, less efficient or a combination of those factors. It is the gun that makes mass murder so damned easy.
So once again we mass murder by gun, once again we raise the issue, once again we are told it isn't the time, we are being unsympathetic, and once again nothing will happen. Perhaps bump stocks will be restricted but who cares, they are out there, there are other ways. It's the gun that allows full auto ---- not the appliance.
You say cars are worse weapons of death. Besides the fact that one is a tool for travel and the other is a tool for death, I say cars have more protections, laws, regulations, restrictions, licenses, penalties, safety classes you name it ---- than the gun. Matter of fact, I am hard pressed to note one relevant safety feature built into a gun in decades. I say car accidents per capita are down, fatal car accidents have been decreasing for decades. Gun deaths are constant or rising and have replaced car deaths in number which is amazing given homicides, which are usually done with a gun, are down. It's the difference between regulation for civic restraint and unbridled greed in the guise of patriotism.
Some even dare to say: "The Second Amendment did not create the right to keep and bear arms; it was created by it." "the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right that is an inherent part of our beings. Granted to us by our creator"
Wow, you actually seemed to say that it's God's will that we keep and bear arms. Just wow. I must have missed that sermon.
But like said, who cares, nothing special beyond grief will happen after Vegas. As a nation, as a town board, apparently we don't want or believe we need to make improvements. Here's what will happen. Mandalay Bay will be class-action sued losing millions. At minimum, there will be a huge profit loss and new management installed. Businesses everywhere will notice.
Our gun mass murder record now stands at close to 60 dead, 600 dead or wounded. The last record was set in Orlando in 2016. At some record the walls will crash, the pendulum will swing, and you will be forced to do something. Something. I only tried to provide a strawman for discussion of possible elements that might provide some level of help. There was lots of push back and little discussion of my ideas. There were no good ideas in there apparently, not even a glimmer. So we wait till the next time.
You seem pretty hateful and outraged to me, JR. And you do love those same old tired talking points about Chicago. And the usual deflection about pressure cookers, trucks and airplanes. I guess we'll just keep doing nothing, and in another few months or a year, we'll have 70-100 people killed by someone who buys 33 guns in a year without question.
Skippy, do you think the laws you posted above are adequate? I think they're laughable.
Deflection? Try TRUTH. Which you unfortunately can't handle, apparently.
I'm not outraged at all. You know who was/is? The VP at CBS who got fired for her asinine comments. The Las Vegas shooter. Anyone calling for more ineffective gun control.
When you want to REALLY address the problem, which is CULTURAL, let us know. I don't expect to be hearing from you...
Come on everyone...
You're missing the bigger picture here: Should I buy a Mossberg Shockwave or a Remington TAC-14 at the local gun show this weekend?
. Are there consequences of these "accidents" being levied against the gun owner? And what is being done to enforce legal (but stupid) gun owners from leaving their deadly weapons accessible to children?
I answered with the above - I am all for harsh punishment for those that fail to secure their firearms but that was not part of the question. You may get a better response from folks if you did not call them stupid - then again that seems to be the MO. True fact - having a swimming pool increases the chances of a drowning over those living in a home without a pool. As a responsible pool owner, I take steps to avoid accidental drownings - same with my firearms - as it should be. Someone who has one rifle in their house that they keep unloaded and locked in a gun cabinet does not have the same level of risk as a meth head with five children living in a trailer with a loaded hi-point on the coffee table at all times. The latter should be punished severely.
Do you know in the 60s students would take their hunting firearms on the bus to school during deer season? There was a riflery team in most schools? Back then you could get a rifle shipped right to your doorstep without a background check from Sears. Something has changed between then and now, and it is not the availability of guns. Guns have been there all the while - It is just more noteworthy now with 24 hour news cycles.
Looking at the actual numbers, almost no one who has a gun has ever used it to harm another human being. Almost no one who has a gun has ever used it to harm themselves. Almost no one who has a gun has accidentally injured themselves or others. Annually, we've got 10k murders involving a firearm. 20k suicides. A few hundred accidental deaths. This is out of 350 million guns in America, with a little less than half the population owning a gun.
shockwave - but it in a parking lot of a bo-jangles
Skippy, I wasn't calling gun owners stupid. I thought I was clearly referring to gun owners who leave their weapons accessible to children. Are they not?
"It’s easier to blame the mechanism than the underlying social problems." Actually......actually you really can't say that any social problems are causing this. Really.
Because JR says its cultural. Which, of course, he can not know either.....
Skipp --- recognize I said for any crime a gun is used, lock em up and throw the key away for bad parenting of a monumental level.....
And I am sorry for this Skippy, you know I love ya man, but this has got to be the stupidest thing you ever penned. Let's say it got away from you...... MY comments in Clintonian ()'s.
Looking at the actual numbers, almost no one who has a gun has ever used it to harm another human being. (this is the defense most Germans used about the Holocaust. Hey, almost no German who ever knew a Jew ever harmed one)
Almost no one who has a gun has ever used it to harm themselves. (yet most people who harm themselves use guns)
Almost no one who has a gun has accidentally injured themselves or others. (ditto above)
Annually, we've got 10k murders involving a firearm. 20k suicides. A few hundred accidental deaths. This is out of 350 million guns in America, with a little less than half the population owning a gun. (I know they don't matter, its an very small number and they are very small people, but you forgot the children....)
OK, next we will take the Skippy theory of relevance and apply it to child porn. I mean barely affects anyone when viewed against all the normal kids......Come on Skipp, you're just baiting.
Remember what Father Flannagun said: "there's no such thing as a bad gun...."
"Actually......actually you really can't say that any social problems are causing this. Really."
Actually.....actually you really can't say that any GUNS are CAUSING this either. Really.
That'd be like blaming alcohol for drunks (they did that once- remember prohibition?)
That fact you say that means you think YOU CAN say, absolutely, that guns are causing this, which is laughable (that YOU know, but no one who disagrees with you does.)
last I checked the punishment for possessing child porn was of significant consequence - as is the consequence to misuse a firearm. Both can present catastrophic outcomes and are statistically infrequent. The difference is there exists no Inalienable right to exploit children in the United States - if thats what your looking for may I suggest Jeffrey Epstein’s “Lolita Express” - Bill Clinton gives it high marks.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2922773/Newly-released-flight-logs-reveal-time-trips-Bill-Clinton-Harvard-law-professor-Alan-Dershowitz-took-pedophile-Jeffrey-Epstein-s-Lolita-Express-private-jet-anonymous-women.html
There is no correlation between firearm ownership rate and intentional homicide rate globally or regionally when reviewing the intentional homicide rate compared to firearm ownership rate.
http://blog.landonswan.com/post/45143952046/gun-control-vs-murdercrime-rates-a-statistical-look
OECD standard developed countries.
https://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/
Global Scale Stats
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/03/guns-neither-increase-nor-decrease-crime-rate.html
We are reviewing homicide rates - not just firearm homicide rates. This is because I am of the opinion we are having this discussion to offer solutions to that problem. I am sure you will agree that persons who are stabbed to death, beat to death, or shot to death result in an equal outcome. There exists no extra moral weight to a death where a firearm was the mechanism of injury.
Firearm ownership is statistically essentially uncorrelated with homicide rates, and there were 17,250 murders (all mechanisms) in the US in 2016,
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/violent-crime/murder
Estimates of Defensive gun use are in the range of 55k annual total - and thats conservative. to put that in perspective thats 16.7 per 100k ( taking US population at ~ 330 million), It has been estimated to be closer to 200k annually, or about 60.6 per 100k.
What would the homicide rate look like if we citizens could not carry firearms?
"in the 60s students would take their hunting firearms on the bus to school during deer season? There was a riflery team in most schools? "
yes spot on skippy, and a big +1 to you , i am old enough to remember this, it wasn't all that long ago, and it's sad to see these things fade away due to fear
JR is spot on correct, it's not the guns that have changed it is society's reaction to them that has changed, (and for the worse) we are a much courser culture today than in the past, a lack of respect for ourselves and others . the cruder world we live in is more cynical than ever (just review a few of the posts in this one thread alone for proof) and this is one of the primary drivers in the misuse of firearms . JR you are correct in pointing this out.
I would also add that the over use of prescription medication sis also a contributing factor here.
Since you brought up the Nazis - (which is the default route of any conversation here that goes more than 3 rounds ala Godwin's law), Historical precedent dictates that prior to every genocide of the 20th century step one was to disarm the population. The Ottomans disarmed the Armenians. The Nazis disarmed the Jews. The USSR and China (nationalists and communists) disarmed everyone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
This to thankfully is statistically insignificant as far as a cause of death - oh wait not so much (same source above)
The US represents ~4.5% of the world population.
.045 × 262,000,000 / 100 = 123,514 murders per year by tyrannical governments on average for a population the size of the US.
The statistical probability of being killed by a despotic government is well beyond sufficient to justify any additional risk that an armed populace could ever represent.
You're Welcome...
DGU link from above post - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use had too many URLs
the inalienable rights possessed by all individuals do indeed come from our creator according to the constitution:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
seems that some here need a remedial course in basic american history:
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
the individual right to keep and bear arms is a natural right given to each of us by our creator, the government is proscribed form interfering with this right by constitutional law.
that's why the question - - What part of 'Shall not be infringed' is so hard to understand ? - - is spot on and germane.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because it is a natural right endowed on each of us by our creator. (according to the declaration and the constitution)
" What part of 'Shall not be infringed' is so hard to understand ? - " Apparently, for you, the part where the Supreme Court says so, Constitutionally of course. Should I list some cases for you? And I guess since the SCOTUS is a Constitutionally ordained body, they must speak for God........
Yeah, you keep asserting that the wording in the Declaration of Independence is more than a document declaring and rationalizing our independence. You seem to assume that the Declaration's wording controls our Constitution assuming that the Bill of Rights are God given. Have you looked at some of the amendments God has spoken? After God gave the founder's this information, what happened? I mean it was God given, right? So.......help me......why have amendments? I mean it was God, right? Couldn't get it right the first time, needed amendments huh :>)
Wow, again.
"The statistical probability of being killed by a despotic government is well beyond sufficient to justify any additional risk that an armed populace could ever represent." Except you miss the part of the futility of your response. I mean how did your own example of the German population work out? They had guns, then they didn't. Do you have examples where folks kept their guns? Do you expect an American example to be different? How would you stand up against the military? Manpower? Organization? Logistics? Guns? Nope --- I think you lose on every vector. I suggested a way to level that playing field --- no good apparently.
DGU --- you know you have no good numbers and a huge range of estimates covering a wide range of definition of the DGU. There is no consensus at all here.
Correlation between gun ownership and homicide: Links saying sure, it's so:
- here's one to say, no on stranger guns, and yes to known guns. Thank God, you're mostly killing your own. Just a matter of time until you evolve :>) " We found no robust, statistically significant correlation between gun ownership and stranger firearm homicide rates. However, we found a positive and significant association between gun ownership and nonstranger firearm homicide rates" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4167105/
And when you put it all together: "We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/
We've done this many times, many different ways. To be honest, I just opened a discussion as to my recommendation. Rehashing this is stupid. But continuing on in that vein, even a non-statistician can review homicide rates by state, then compare state's gun ownership, or loose gun laws as a surrogate, and pretty much the correlation jumps out. Even a non-statistician can review gun ownership and homicide across developed countries to see the correlation jump out.
Harvard, using a series of reports concludes:
1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review)
2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide
3. Across states, more guns = more homicide
4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)
5. A summary of the evidence on guns and violent death
6. More guns = more homicides of police
Enjoy! https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
SD - the enumerated bill of rights are considered Natural rights or those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable, ergo all persons possess them and its outside of power of the government to grant or take away
Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system and can be modified.
https://www.docsoffreedom.org/readings/equal-and-inalienable-rights
I am sorry, but the Constitution does not mention natural rights.
And check out your article on what it says about the Declaration. That is NOT what BDog is saying. And look at the rationale given for inserting God or natural rights --- again NOT what BDog is inferring.
Someone tells me "God said I can have this gun" and I'm stepping off that elevator on the next floor :>(
from the article linked above:
The American premise is a theological premise: that all men are endowed by their Creator — not the state — with certain unalienable rights. For our Founding Fathers, who were steeped in the Anglo-Protestant liberal tradition, this was not only the truth but the “self-evident” truth. The right to keep and bear arms, like the right to speak one’s mind, worship as one sees fit, and petition the state for redress of grievances, is not the king’s gift to give or to withhold — the matter was settled by no less an authority than God Himself. For those who are not of a religious cast of mind, the same conclusion can be arrived at through the tradition of natural law and natural rights, which the Christian liberals of the 18th century understood as complementary to their discernment of Divine intent. Whether one believes that man was created by God or by evolutionary processes, the conclusion ends up being the same: Man has reason, individual and corporate dignity, individual and corporate value, and these are not subject to revision by any prince, power, or potentate
Geeez BDog, it's an opinion piece in the The National Review which is right wing MSM and, in this case, a very right wing author....
I argue the facts of what is actually written in the Constitution versus what is written in the Declaration. Skippy posted a piece explaining and rationalizing why "God" is in the Declaration. I have challenged you to show us the part in the Constitution where the Bill of Rights is ordained by God......
It's amazing that when you argue the 2A, the words are sacrosanct, but when discussing the Constitution, you merge the words of the Declaration right on in to fit your paradigm where God told you to get guns.......
Wonder how God feels about bump stocks.
Here, try this one, it's titled "The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery." http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
Or this one: "The Slave-State Origins of Modern Gun Rights" in The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-origins-of-public-carry-jurisprudence-in-the-slave-south/407809/
OK, OK, maybe the 2A is ONLY about slavery: http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery/
Further, there is a strong argument to interpret the 2A just as it is written in regards to being solely about "a well regulated militia" with the personal rights being focused on that, and not today's bastardized SCOTUS definition. "we provide historical evidence for each of the above claims. Keep in mind we aren’t arguing against a modern interpretation that defends the right to keep and bear arms in the name of personal defense, we are simply pointing out the original intention of the Second (which is constantly muddied by our divisive modern politics and special interest groups) and how it has been interpreted over time" http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-point-of-the-second-amendment-is-to-protect-the-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.349497ef8233
FiveThirtyEight came to the same conclusion I did after a 90 day deep dive SD.
1. mass shootings are rare and the data set is therefore inconclusive
2. banning firearms has little effect on the outcome.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/
"1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review)"
Hmm... where there are more LEGALLY-OWNED guns, or just more guns including ILLEGALLY-OBTAINED ones? I mean, really... not many legally-owned/obtained guns in Chicago anymore, very strict gun control, yet they average over 50 deaths-by-firearm per month. You aren't drawing a line between legal and illegal. But then, I wouldn't expect you to- I'm sure you don't for all the illegal immigrants either.
That's the problem with blanket gun control laws: they punish law-abiding gun owners, while not punishing criminals (because of course criminals don't abide laws, that's why they are criminals.)
You should be trying to do something about ILLEGAL guns, not ALL guns. Passing more gun control laws and, like the NY SAFE Act did, making legal gun owners INSTANTLY illegal, is like passing a prohibition law, making someone a criminal because they possess alcohol bought legally before the ban.
I'm just glad most of America is agreeing with US at this point... because if they were agreeing with YOU (and you can't use the MSM or celebrity tweets as any sort of realistic gauge), we wouldn't have been able to push back after Sandy Hook, and win. We wouldn't have made it through Obama's 8 years relatively untouched. No- now the OPPOSITE is happening: a growing demand for national concealed carry and/or reciprocity. Even with recent mass shootings, the majority of the people are going the OTHER way, Thank God. It's one of the reasons Trump got elected.
of course the 2 documents work together, the constitution effectuates and mechanizes the principles of natural law inherent in each of our beings by our creator that the declaration delineates
not to be aware of, acknolwlege or recognize that simple fact is being self denying obtuse.
the rights are there, period, they exist in each and everyone of us by the simple fact that we are alive, the constitution proscribes the government from infringing on these natural creator given rights as described in the declaration of independence,
quoted from the declaration: "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
just read the documents, it's all right there, easy peasy except for those who feel that they (through the force of government) have the right to implement their own personal restrictictions on the natural creator given rights of other individuals, that's not what the declaration and the constitution say, (but it's typical for those on the extreme left who want to manage everyone else around them, that's not cool and not american, history proves it)
what part of 'Shall not be infringed" is hard to understand?
"Whether one believes that man was created by God or by evolutionary processes, the conclusion ends up being the same: Man has reason, individual and corporate dignity, individual and corporate value, and these are not subject to revision by any prince, power, or potentate"
What part of "Shall not be infringed" is so difficult to understand?
Spokane Police will add suppressors to rifles, citing concerns about hearing damage
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/oct/07/spokane-police-will-add-suppressors-to-rifles-citi/?amp-content=amp
"Scientific studies have consistently found that places with more guns have more violent deaths, both homicides and suicides. Women and children are more likely to die if there’s a gun in the house. The more guns in an area, the higher the local suicide rates. “Generally, if you live in a civilized society, more guns mean more death,” said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. “There is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime. None at all.”
After a gruesome mass murder in 1996 provoked public outrage, Australia enacted stricter gun laws, including a 28-day waiting period before purchase and a ban on semiautomatic weapons. Before then, Australia had averaged one mass shooting a year. Since, rates of both homicide and suicide have dropped 50 percent, and there have been no mass killings, said Ms. Peters, who lobbied for the legislation.
Distinctive factors contribute to the high rates of violent crime in Latin America. Many countries in the region had recent civil wars, resulting in a large number of weapons in circulation. Drug- and gang-related violence is widespread. “It’s dangerous to make too tight a link between the availability of weapons and homicide rates,” said Jeremy McDermott, a co-director of InSight Crime who is based in Medellín, Colombia. “There are lots of other variables.”
Still, he said that the recent sharp increase in homicides in Venezuela could be in part explained by the abundance of arms there. Although the government last spring imposed a one-year ban on importing weapons, there had previously been a plentiful influx from Russia. There is a Kalashnikov plant in the country.
In 2011, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Honduras led the world in homicides, with 91.6 per 100,000 people. But rates were also alarmingly high in El Salvador (69.1), Jamaica (40.9), Colombia (31.4) and Guatemala (38.5). Venezuela’s was 45.1 in 2010 but is expected to be close to to 80 this year. The United States’ rate is about 5.
THOUGH many of these countries have restrictions on gun ownership, enforcement is lax. According to research by Flacso, the Guatemalan Social Science Academy, illegal guns far outnumber legal weapons in Central America.
All that has spawned a thriving security industry — the good guys with guns that grace every street corner — though experts say it is often unclear if their presence is making crime better or worse. In many countries, the armed guards have only six weeks of training.
Guatemala, with approximately 20,000 police officers, has 41,000 registered private security guards and an estimated 80,000 who are working without authorization. “To put people with guns who are not accountable or trained in places where there are lots of innocent people is just dangerous,” Ms. Peters said, noting that lethal force is used to deter minor crimes like shoplifting.
Indeed, even as some Americans propose expanding our gun culture into elementary schools, some Latin American cities are trying to rein in theirs. Bogotá’s new mayor, Gustavo Petro, has forbidden residents to carry weapons on streets, in cars or in any public space since last February, and the murder rate has dropped 50 percent to a 27-year low. He said, “Guns are not a defense, they are a risk.”
William Godnick, coordinator of the Public Security Program at the United Nations Regional Center for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean, said that United Nations studies in Central America showed that people who used a gun to defend against an armed assault were far more likely to be injured or killed than if they had no weapon.
Post-Sandy Hook, gun groups in the United States are now offering teachers firearms training. But do I really want my kid’s teachers packing a weapon?
“If you’re living in a ‘Mad Max’ world, where criminals have free rein and there’s no government to stop them, then I’d want to be armed,” said Dr. Hemenway of Harvard. “But we’re not in that circumstance. We’re a developed, stable country.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/sunday-review/more-guns-more-killing.html
"There have been more than 1,500 mass shootings since Sandy Hook." (VOX 10/2/2017)
Skippy says: "1. mass shootings are rare and the data set is therefore inconclusive
2. banning firearms has little effect on the outcome" and we should look to cure the evil in man's heart to improve our unique-on-the-planet situation.
I say that's a lot of red dots and perhaps guns have something to do with it. I mean these are shootings: where are the 1,500 bombings, mass murder by driving or 50-people dead by stabbing incidents?
I don;t get why people make a big deal out of how many guns he had
At this point does it really matter if he had 1 or 1000?
You can have 1 with 1000 magazines, or 1000 with one magazine each
Whats the difference? You can still only shoot one at a time.
A deranged person will do the damage they want with whatever tools they can, if it's not one thing it's another.
"You can have 1 with 1000 magazines, or 1000 with one magazine each. What' s (sp) the difference? You can still only shoot one at a time." Methinks you need to turn in your NRA veteran's badge......
"America has six times as many firearm homicides as Canada, and nearly 16 times as many as Germany. This chart, compiled using United Nations data collected by Simon Rogers for the Guardian, shows that America far and away leads other developed countries when it comes to gun-related homicides. Why? Extensive reviews of the research by the Harvard School of Public Health’s Injury Control Research Center suggest the answer is pretty simple: The US is an outlier on gun violence because it has way more guns than other developed nations." (VOX 10/2/2017))
geez, even the liberal leaning 538 guy knows better:
as skippy correctly points out:
FiveThirtyEight came to the same conclusion I did after a 90 day deep dive SD.
1. mass shootings are rare and the data set is therefore inconclusive
2. banning firearms has little effect on the outcome.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/
spot on skippy, +1
btw when do the extreme anti-gunites go after everybody's hammers and swimming pools? i mean how may more have to die before they get serious about limiting/restricting these things? and when do we get serious about killing babies, (i guess that's ok somehow) bunch of hypocrites if you ask me.
and skippy's is right as rain to point out this story about an anti-gunnie who was born again after seeing the actual data for himself.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.349497ef8233
thank the good lord he finally saw the light.
SD,
Other then correcting a missed keystroke, your data proves nothing to my statement, and my statement still stands.
and the dems keep coming for the guns, they will never stop, whenever they say they don't want to take anyones guns away, don't believe them, they are lying:
House Dems propose bills to stop online ammo sales, ban mags
House Democrats have introduced a number of new gun control measures in the wake of a deadly mass shooting in Las Vegas.
Among the proposals are HR.3962 to ban online ammunition sales, H.R. 4025 requiring gun dealers to report the sale of two or more rifles to the same person in a five-day period, and HR. 4052, which would ban magazines able to hold greater than 10 rounds.
“Several of my colleagues and I have introduced commonsense legislation that, if enacted, would reduce gun violence and the tragic impact it has on our communities,” said U.S. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, the New Jersey Democrat sponsoring the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act.
http://www.guns.com/2017/10/13/house-dems-propose-bills-to-stop-online-ammo-sales-ban-mags/
Attacker with knife flees after woman reveals her concealed carry gun, police say - Fox News
https://apple.news/A-qAOsrEETDSxRwsXsxazBA
Declaration/Endowed/Creator/Inalienable Rights
http://www.glennbeck.com/2017/10/13/glenn-on-understanding-the-declaration-of-independence/
they do ineed wnat to take everyones guns awya:
Quotes by Gun-grabbers:
"There is little sense in gun registration. What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament .... Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands .... Given the proper political support by the people who oppose the pro-gun lobby, legislation to remove the guns from private hands, acts like the legislation drafted by Senator John Chafee [to ban handguns], can be passed in short order."
signed by Henry Cisneros and Kurt Schmoke (Cisneros is the former Secretary of the US Dept. of Housing and Urban Developement; Schmoke was Baltimore Mayor); "The Case for Domestic Disarmament", Communitarian Network
That's what we've been saying this whole time... people like SD want to APPEAR to be "reasonable", blah blah blah... when the truth is, everyone knows what the end goal is: disarmament. There can be NO other reason, as has be shown ad infinitum, and stated by me in this thread: gun control laws have failed. The violence continues. SO NOW WHAT? More laws? No, that is subterfuge... the end goal was stated by Janet Reno and others. They can never get enough voted to amend the constitution (nullifying the 2A), so they will do anything in their power to CIRCUMVENT the Constitution- "there's more than one way to skin a cat"...
What they don't realize is (maybe they DO?- chaos is government's ally) is that this action will start a war. Call it a 2nd revolution, call it a civil war, call it an uprising, call it whatever you want- but it WILL start a war. IF/when they ever get to the point of confiscation (or even to the point of jailing people for not turning in weapons suddenly "made illegal" by some asinine law), the S will hit the fan.
No apocalyptic wishes from me, just stating facts as I see them. As I said, right now, we are lucky that alot of us have woken up and are fighting back this nonsense. If they couldn't get any serious gun control passed with a progressive as president and mass shootings such as Sandy Hook, I think we (the people) are currently in a position of power on this issue.
But it requires eternal vigilance.
"You can still only shoot one at a time." Actually Darrin, I would think any good gunny would know you can shoot two at a time..... I turn you to most Westerns or any Rambo flick......But seriously, you can not fathom the value to this shooter of having multiple guns? You have multiple guns. Ever take out more than one at a time?
In this case, I think the shooter had about a dozen were legally outfitted as automatics firing with the bump stock, all legal guns and accessories still available and now with sales surging. In this case shooting about 90 rounds a second, our killer also used scopes n stands to increase the less than accurate automatic fire. Why multiple guns Darrin? Well one reason was multiple windows and multiple set ups. The second reason is when firing at 400 to 800 rounds per minute, after a few thousand rounds, you may want to jump to a second gun before barrel meltdown occurs. Although if this guy bought a Stag, those barrels are warranted and they will replace them for free! The warranty is good even for modified rifles.
Since I figure you all have this equipment, hope this helps with your endeavors to protect your family, have good sport, and some fine hunting.
Meanwhile....."America has 4.4 percent of the world’s population, but almost half of the civilian-owned guns around the world" (VOX 10/2/17)
"That's what we've been saying this whole time... people like SD want to APPEAR to be "reasonable", blah blah blah... when the truth is, everyone knows what the end goal is: disarmament."
OK, so you are basically calling me a disingenuous liar, I can live with that bit o passive aggressive name calling if I consider the source :>) And speaking of sources, pot to kettle, I guess that means you are aren't really good guys after all, are you? That's what you've really been saying this whole time... people like you want to APPEAR to be "good guys", blah blah blah... when the truth is, everyone knows what the end goal is.
FACT IS that in American, EVERY DAY, some good guy goes bad and launches a MASS SHOOTING. America, every day, mass shooting, bad dudes who were good. How do we know they were good? Mostly legal guns. How do we know they were guys? Because it's always the guys.
And it's your contention that each of these mass shootings, or the damage therein, would have been conducted if the legal guns did not exist. Balderdash. Proven untrue in state after state, country after country.
"On average, there is more than one mass shooting for each day in AmericaWhenever a mass shooting occurs, supporters of gun rights often argue that it’s inappropriate to bring up political debates about gun control in the aftermath of a tragedy. For example, former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a strong supporter of gun rights, criticized former President Barack Obama for “trying to score cheap political points” when Obama mentioned gun control after a mass shooting in Charleston, South Carolina.
But if this argument is followed to its logical end, then it will never be the right time to discuss mass shootings, as Christopher Ingraham pointed out at the Washington Post. Under the broader definition of mass shootings, America has nearly one mass shooting a day. So if lawmakers are forced to wait for a time when there isn’t a mass shooting to talk gun control, they could find themselves waiting for a very long time.
" (VOX 10/2/2017)
"FACT IS that in American, EVERY DAY, some good guy goes bad and launches a MASS SHOOTING."
LOL, and you say *I* have a problem with "facts"? Which "America" are you living in? Because we don't have "mass shootings every day" in this one.
"And it's your contention that each of these mass shootings, or the damage therein, would have been conducted if the legal guns did not exist."
That is not my contention. My contention is that these mass KILLINGS would have happened even without legal gun ownership... guns aren't required for mass killlings, Timothy McVeigh demonstrated that pretty well, as did the boston bombers (altho their's was more carnage and dismemberment than killing).
France:
" [gun laws] are certainly tough: There is no right to bear arms for the French, and to own a gun, you need a hunting or sporting license which needs to be repeatedly renewed and requires a psychological evaluation."
"On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19 tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds of people celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people and the injury of 458 others. The driver was Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, a Tunisian resident of France."
You don't need guns for mass killings. Frankly, using a car would be MUCH easier... just not as dramatic, since no "evil guns" are involved.
As far as a "logical end", I've stated it: the end of civilian gun ownership. That is your logical end. All this other stuff is merely flotsam and jetsum to get your side to that point.
Is someone still rambling on?
My new acquisition (on top) compared to my already pretty short (18" barrel) SXP.
Are these legal in NJ?
Was thinking of grabbing a Kel-Tec Sub2000 as well, but maybe I'll save that for the next gun show.
Just a rambling man, man. Then again, you just another good guy with too many guns. Looks like you got some great crowd disbursement tools there my friend. Then again.......you just can't believe, can you. Aren't you a northwestern, upper right, quadrant sort of guy?
"Using data from a study in Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mother Jones put together the chart above that shows states with more guns tend to have far more gun deaths. And it’s not just one study. “Within the United States, a wide array of empirical evidence indicates that more guns in a community leads to more homicide,” David Hemenway, the Harvard Injury Control Research Center’s director, wrote in Private Guns, Public Health.
Read more in Mother Jones’s “10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down.”
But not to worry. All of us, together as Americans, can be so proud of your accomplishments.
Mother Jones?????
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Might as well be using ALEX Jones as an unbiased data source ROFLMAO
We try to keep it seasonal and topical.
Orange you glad you live in the South where you need guns but in NJ, you can get a nice Tan instead. Ever notice how
"States with tighter gun control laws have fewer gun-related deaths?"
"When economist Richard Florida took a look at gun deaths and other social indicators, he found that higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness didn’t correlate with more gun deaths. But he did find one telling correlation: States with tighter gun control laws have fewer gun-related deaths. (Read more at Florida’s “The Geography of Gun Deaths.”)
This is backed by other research: A 2016 review of 130 studies in 10 countries, published in Epidemiologic Reviews, found that new legal restrictions on owning and purchasing guns tended to be followed by a drop in gun violence — a strong indicator that restricting access to guns can save lives." (VOX 10/2/2107)
"Is someone still rambling on?" are they ever, but nice pics of your new acquisition(s).
again there is no need for the government to know which firearms you have bought or which you own. none.
keep up the good work Mark.
yes mark i can see that it does work
vox knows less about guns than most, that's for sure
Vox is quoting other analysts and researchers. I wouldn't believe it if I were you either.
SD "You can still only shoot one at a time." Actually Darrin, I would think any good gunny would know you can shoot two at a time..... I turn you to most Westerns or any Rambo flick....."
I DARE you to be able to answer this question......I would like to know how you could ever possibly shoot two guns with bump stocks at the same time......(It's impossible)......(My point)
Let alone shooting two AR's at the same time (You would have very little to no accuracy).
"Me thinks" you have been WATCHING too much TV!
"FACT IS that in American, EVERY DAY, some good guy goes bad and launches a MASS SHOOTING. America, every day, mass shooting, bad dudes who were good. How do we know they were good? Mostly legal guns. How do we know they were guys? Because it's always the guys. "
You have (at least not provided) any factual information to prove this statement, and I challenge it to you. Your statement is that Every day a good guy turns bad and commits a mass shooting.....prove it is "always" a good guy turned bad as you claim....please
JR considers the source, dismisses the facts.
MotherJones is reporting out on third-party scholarly research efforts. So unlike your kneejerk (emphasis on 2nd syllable:>) unscholarly reaction, these are legitimate studies which you can attack on the merits vs. your lame name calling body slam against the news outlet. As I said, but you apparently overlooked: "Using data from a study in Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
"LOL, and you say *I* have a problem with "facts"? Which "America" are you living in? Because we don't have "mass shootings every day" in this one." Look at the facts, look at the definitions. No, there is not a mass murder every day. But YES there is a mass shooting every single day in America. Given the definition of mass shootings, it's a fact, jack.
Having lost sight of his objective, Darrin changes the premise and trudges forth.. OK, started with a two gun scenario, now it's two guns with bump stocks. Why? Only 50% of the shooters guns had bumpstocks, why do you now shift to a 50% possibility scenario? Does that include stands and scopes? Just want to get it right the third time..... :>)
Why do I get for the DARE?
"“Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of deranged criminals.” Peppy Lepew
"You have (at least not provided) any factual information to prove this statement, and I challenge it to you." Really? Actually you all provided it when you said that most mass murders by guns are accomplished with legally obtained guns. Beyond the fact that you all forget your prime directive that guns don't kill, even legal ones, your stated fact remains that these are mostly legal guns, full background checks, waiting periods, and you-all's statements about how most legal guns never do anything wrong.
OK, sure I used hyperbole here and you jumped on it. Good for you. Try most. Matter of fact, try 75% of all mass murder guns are legally obtained. Here's the list: https://www.csgv.org/mass-shootings-by-good-guys/
Sure, they aren't all nice guys. But, according to the NRA and you, they are good guys to which you defend their right to buy assault weapons, full automatic accessories, body armor, etc. Matter of fact, they are such good guys that you want them to cc and to have even greater firepower if you can just get the votes.....
vox is a liberal agenda driven mouthpiece run by extreme ideologues. quoted from their web site's 'about us' page:
"Vox explains the news.
We live in a world of too much information and too little context. Too much noise and too little insight. And so Vox's journalists candidly shepherd audiences through politics and policy, business and pop culture, food, science, and everything else that matters. You can find our work wherever you live on the internet — Facebook, YouTube, email, iTunes, Snapchat, Instagram, and more.
Vox was launched at Vox Media in 2014 by founders Ezra Klein, Melissa Bell, and Matthew Yglesias."
"Vox explains the news" ????
"Vox's journalists candidly shepherd audiences through politics and policy, business and pop culture, food, science, and everything else that matters" ???
what they will tell you is what they decide you should be thinking. and how you should be thinking about it. just one more liberal opinion site which is preaching their version of how you should interpret facts (and many of their 'facts' are questionable)
honestly, what a total load of donkey dust
from a media fact check site about Vox and it's extreme liberal agenda driven editors::
LEFT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.
Notes: Vox is an American advocacy news website run by Vox Media, co-founded by liberal columnists Ezra Klein, Melissa Bell, and Matt Yglesias and launched in April 2014. Vox presents with left wing bias in reporting and story choices. There is some use of loaded words, but most articles are sourced to credible information. (5/15/2016)
Again.....the presentations I have posted refer mostly to third-party new articles and scholarly research papers including actual surveys and studies. VOX is an aggregator in this....... And yes, they lean left, and yes, they told you that. To perhaps clarify: "explains the news" is a euphemism for "opinon" which you might consider to be "too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing" for your sensitive ears ("Merriam-Webster"). You know, sort of like every source you omit to source when not sourcing material you sourced as your own.
Ezra Klein, "extreme ideologue," that's a rich one......like Hannity but leaning left eh?
Do you even bother to quote or source the stuff you plagiarize any more? Where did this tome come from for example ---- looks like you might have cut and paste a whole mess or original thinkers this time to claim as your own thoughts......
II have finally found the problem:
Nonsensical
Rifle
Addition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-o9pwWUzz0
"now it's two guns with bump stocks. Why?"
Because that was the original question ....seems to me like you lost touch with the original question
To refresh your memory....
@Darrin "I don't get why people make a big deal out of how many guns HE had
At this point does it really matter if HE had 1 or 1000?
You can have 1 with 1000 magazines, or 1000 with one magazine each
Whats the difference? You can still only shoot one at a time."
I was talking about the CURRENT topic...which YOU brought up
AGAIN....to refresh your memory......
@SD "Well, hats off to everyone for avoiding the gun discussion for the Vegas shooting, or at least more or less....but let's go....."
As usual, a actual gun discussion goes down the toilet to selective "memory", lame a** sly comments, and putting words in peoples mouths that were never said.....
I am out!
it's all sourced, you missed it
darrin said - "selective "memory", lame a** sly comments, and putting words in peoples mouths that were never said"
+1000 Darrin, you are correct
"Ezra Klein, "extreme ideologue," that's a rich one......like Hannity but leaning left eh? "
Exactly. Glad you finally understand.
chucky cheese schumer is out fornt about wanting to take guns away from law abiding americans.
"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true! We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We're going to beat guns into submission!"
Charles Schumer (US Representative, D-NY); quoted on NBC Nightly News, 1993-11-30
"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!"
Charles Schumer (US Representative, D-NY); quoted on NBC, 1993-12-08
How many gunnies does it take to explain Darrin's posts? Let's see, we got's Curley, we got's Larry, and we got's Pavlov's slobbering friend....
Yes, after a thoughtful new approach presented on common sense gun laws was dismissed with a "I am still not convinced we have a gun problem that needs to be solved..." and a firm conviction that God is speaking to the gunny's with a "The right to keep and bear arms, like the right to speak one’s mind, worship as one sees fit, and petition the state for redress of grievances, is not the king’s gift to give or to withhold — the matter was settled by no less an authority than God Himself." That's God himself, mind you.
Gunny's exist on fear, they live for it. They have lots of it and they like to spread it as compost for their next crop of new guns. One summed up their approach to what they see as a non-existent problem with guns in America: "and the dems keep coming for the guns, they will never stop, whenever they say they don't want to take anyones guns away, don't believe them, they are lying." Yeah, sure. Now you said it. You think anyone who does think there's a problem with guns in America is a liar hell bent on confiscation of your little guns.
With all due respect and reverence to God, I presented a series a factual data pieces, mostly statistical studies conducted by legitimate professionals as scholarly works about guns in America. This was totally dismissed on it merits of being collected and re-published by a clearly stated, publically announced, left-leaning editorial board.
Then we moved on to the gunny-described critical issue of the Vegas tragedy: why is everyone so mired in the 23 guns when everyone knows you can't fire two guns at once.....No one mentioned bump-stock outfitted guns. Not Darrin. Not I. Not the stooges. When I pointed out to our gunny's that indeed, you can fire two guns at once, the author doubled down of his mistatement. I reiterated that not only can you fire two guns at once, but that the shooter had two stands set up (note the two broken windows) and that auto's tend to overheat the barrels necessitating the use of multiple guns (or barrels) for extended use.
The response, predictably, was not on the issue but my misunderstanding of the obvious in the original question which was NOW stated as "I DARE you to be able to answer this question......I would like to know how you could ever possibly shoot two guns with bump stocks at the same time......(It's impossible)......(My point)" Like if we are talking Vegas, if we are talking 23 guns with only 50% equipped for bumpstocks, that any discussion about Vegas MUST be only about bumpstocks......
Then we had pile on with ooo's and xxxx's, some typical name calling, and the suggestion of other nefarious spin techniques.....Heck, one even just doubled-down on the name calling alone......
So, for the record, which anyone can check in the thread above, Darrin misstated his question, doubled down on his misstatement and then restated his question as if that was the original question all along. It was only a misstatement until you decided to mimic Trump techniques. Very Trumpian of you all but it will not fly. You didn't even use Trump "" marks. Now it is a lie that you all decided to support together. It is a lie you can see in plain writing. It is plainly a lie. And it is a lie about one of the most insignificant topics within either the gun debate OR any discussion over the Vegas mass shooting by a good guy. And you are right, you are out-ted.
painfully clear in this thread: facts do not matter. Actual numbers, actually recorded events, undeniable facts just don't matter when people have pre-set minds - and he more intelligent and able the "listener," the more adept they are at the "ya but" and the "slant piece" arguments countered by "perspective" pieces - and absolute ignoring of facts... this will be an endless back and forth, with no one listening to each other at all.
rleaf 
By George, I think he's got it...... But where does he stand?
Actually, facts do matter, America matters..... and Americans say that "specific gun control policies are fairly popular."
"Although Americans say they want to protect the right to bear arms, they’re very much supportive of many gun policy proposals — including some fairly contentious ideas, such as more background checks on private and gun show sales and banning semi-automatic and assault-style weapons, according to Pew Research Center surveys.
This type of contradiction isn’t exclusive to gun policy issues. For example, although most Americans in the past said they don’t like Obamacare, most of them also said they like the specific policies in the health-care law. Americans just don’t like some policy ideas until you get specific.
For people who believe the empirical evidence that more guns mean more violence, this contradiction is the source of a lot of frustration. Americans by and large support policies that reduce access to guns. But once these policies are proposed, they’re broadly spun by politicians and pundits into attempts to “take away your guns.” So nothing gets done, and preventable deaths keep occurring." (VOX 10/2/17)
It's a Trumpian era with Trumpian facts, logic and fake news. And the Trumpers love guns.
"Gunny's exist on fear, "
We exist on liberty. You should try it sometime. Inalienable, constitutional, un-infringable, INDIVIDUAL, RIGHTS.
If this kind of attack was happening on the 1st Amendment by Trump (like trying to prosecute journalists for 'fake news'), you would be screaming from the treetops about "Constitutional Rights", but since it's a right you don't agree with (2A, specifically the INDIVIDUAL'S right to keep and bear arms), you're A-OK with all the attacks on it.
Hypocrite.
"Gunny's exist on fear"
No... gun control exists on fear.
Good guys might become bad guys, oh no!
Why does he need so many guns, oh no!
That's a large magazine, oh no!
Some have been so afraid that they have actually called the police on people carrying umbrellas!
http://www.greensboro.com/news/crime/police-umbrella-mistaken-for-rifle-in-n-c-a-t/article_f2888760-96eb-5bc6-b6d6-6955355554e8.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/burlington-mall-gun-scare-it-was-an-umbrella/
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Cal-State-San-Marcos-Threat-Campus-San-Diego-Armed-Subject-272013041.html
We're the ones that actually trust the vast majority of Americans (our friends, relatives, and neighbors) with the right to own and carry firearms. Yours is the side that is "afraid" of that...
Sure, we acknowledge that there are criminals who would like to do harm... but carrying a firearm is being prepared, not afraid.
"If this kind of attack was happening on the 1st Amendment by Trump (like trying to prosecute journalists for 'fake news'), you would be screaming from the treetops about "Constitutional Rights" Except the attack on the 1st Amendment by Trump is underway and I am not "screaming from the treetops about" it.
"Hypocrite." Except I am not "screaming from the treetops" about it, now am I?
"Gunny's exist on fear"
"No... gun control exists on fear."
No you do, no you, no you......
Finally, Makiemarksman gets it when he says
"Good guys might become bad guys, oh no!
Why does he need so many guns, oh no!
That's a large magazine, oh no!"
By George, another gunny finally hits the target. Time for him to support his ascertain by rolling out the anecdotal data pretending it's statistical data: "Some have been so afraid that they have actually called the police on people carrying umbrellas!" Wow, there's an occurrence we are certain is on the rise proving something for gunnies everywhere. Wait, there's more. Here are some unsourced anecdotes you'll certainly relate to. These are some story titles for your peeps, everyone of them having been Eddie Eagle'd expertly trained (not really, Darrin, that was a joke:>) "Good Samaritan helps Florida man who accidentally shot himself in the penis." That's a great anecdote and icebreaker for your next gunny get-together. How about: "Armed good Samaritan tries to stop carjacking, accidentally shoots victim in head." That's got to hurt... Or this story's first line: "Gregory Dale Lanier, 35, of Frostproof, Florida was driving his pick up when his dog kicked a 9mm that was on the floor, causing it to discharge." Man's best friend for sure.....
You get the idea. And I would never say Markie, Skippy, Bdog were just like these folks. Jr......maybe :>) Not.
And then Mark's penultimate close (gonna have to look that one up, aren't you:>) "We're the ones that actually trust the vast majority of Americans (our friends, relatives, and neighbors) with the right to own and carry firearms. Yours is the side that is "afraid" of that..." OK. I can agree to that, kind of. IMO, I am afraid only of certain guns, certain clips, certain accessories, a lack of trace-ability, and a completely swiss cheese loop hold riddled background check system which is less than useless in implementation. And yes, based on the facts, I am afraid for America's children.
And Mark's close "Sure, we acknowledge that there are criminals who would like to do harm... but carrying a firearm is being prepared, not afraid." And a one, and a two..... (with parody apologies to Tom Leher but on this one, I think he would approve!)
Be prepared!
That's the Gunny's marching song
Be prepared!
As through life you shoot along
Be prepared to lock your stockpiles up pretty well
Cuz when kids kill other kids it's not so swell
Be prepared!
To hide your pack of cigarettes
Don't sell your guns
If you can't background the buyer vet
And keep those reefers hidden where you're sure they won't be found
And be careful not to smoke them, when the NRA's prez is coming 'round
For Wayne will only insist that it be shared.
Be prepared!
Be prepared!
That's the Gunny's' solemn creed
Be prepared!
And never discharge your gun into the weeds
And don't pimp out your values, that's not nice
Unless the NRA gets a percentage of your moral price
Be prepared!
And be careful not to do
Your gunny deeds
When someone else is watching you
And if you're looking for adventure of a new and different kind
And you come across a gunny girl who is similarly inclined
It's a first so don't be nervous, don't be flustered, don't be scared
Be prepared!
so don't; believe what the declaration says, that's on you, but it says what it says, and it says it for a reason:
quoted from the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Either you believe that man was created by a Creator or created by evolution, makes no difference - - - Everybody possesses these rights, these are part of our being , an inherent part of each one of us, and as the declaration says "endowed by their creator" The constitution mechanizes these by enumerating the rights and thereby restraining the Government from infringing upon those same individual rights. We already have them. the government does not 'give' them to us. they are already there in each one of us. Not to realize this is to deny our history. Not to study the Declaration of Independence in conjunction with the Constitution of the United States is close minded, they work together, now, and in the past, nothing about that relationship has changed.
For our Founding Fathers, this truth was/is the “self-evident” truth. The right to keep and bear arms, just as important as the right to free speech, freedom of religion, and that's why it is a part of the declaration of independence, the guiding principles which are reflected in the constitution and the bill of rights, (individual rights)
So of course the 2 documents work together, and as is amply described in the founding documents of the nation these rights have been 'endowed by our creator' (quoted from the declaration of independence)
not to be aware of, acknowledge or recognize this simple to understand fact is living in a fantasy world of slef-denial.
the rights are there, period, they exist in each and everyone of us by the simple fact that we are alive, the constitution proscribes the government from infringing on these natural creator endowed rights as described in the declaration of independence,
all you have to do is just read the declaration for yourself: http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
it's meaning and intent is plain. everything i've posted is accurate and correct.
What part of "Shall not be infringed" is so difficult to understand?
You repeat yourself when under stress, you repeat yourself when under stress......
My goodness. Don't even need to trample across that "all men are created equal" by slave owner's road to trample this one. Just amazing what true Trump supporters, (you're a Trump voter, right?) come up with.
The Declaration of Independence does not trump (heh, heh) The Constitution. Never has, never will except in some people's minds...... Apparently, many scholars not only disagree with you, they take extreme exception to your bastardization of what the founding fathers actually said daring, instead, to fake news your way to a different story.
For example:
"Unlike the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution contains no reference to God. At first, this may seem odd. Why did the men who drafted the Declaration invoke a Supreme Being several times, while the men who drafted the Constitution did not mention a higher power even once?"
"The threefold answer lies in the stated purposes of the Constitution, its religious neutrality, and the theory of government it embodies. Whereas the Declaration explained and justified a rebellion to secure God-given rights, the Constitution is a blueprint for stable and effective republican government in a free country. The Preamble to the Constitution declares that its purposes are “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.” These are wholly secular objects; religious references are extraneous in a document drafted to further them."
https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/02/why-god-is-in-the-declaration-but-not-the-constitution/
"Be prepared! That's the Gunny's marching song."
Oh how horrible to be prepared.
But don't worry, I'm sure when you have a problem the government will come to save you... eventually... maybe... when it's safe for them to do so.
wrong on the substance and the facts, and thereby purposely missing and obfuscating the point, the rights are ours, we already own them, we have them in us, they are part of our beings, as the declaration of independence declares for all to see, and the constitution limits the government from infringing on them .
of course the two documents work together, no amount of revisionist spin can change the history of that.
and once again, Darrin is right when he said "selective "memory", lame a** sly comments, and putting words in peoples mouths that were never said"
the false strawman techniques constantly employed are in fact, as you admittedly accepted and validated in your prior posts, are intellectually and disingenuously dishonest, you are consistent in character and you keep proving my points for me , good job, good work,
What part of 'Shall Not be Infringed' is so hard to understand ?
quoted from the linked story above:
"The genius of the Declaration is the inclusive way the divine is given expression. The appellations of God are generic. Adherents of traditional theistic sects can read the words “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Supreme Judge,” and understand them to mean the god they worship. The claims made on numerous Christian websites attest to this. Yet opponents of dogma read those same words and see an embracive, non-sectarian concept of divinity. This is no small testimony to the wisdom and foresight of the Founding Fathers. All Americans could support the Revolution and independence. All can regard their rights as unalienable, their liberty as inviolable."
What part of 'Shall Not Be Infringed' is so hard to understand?
"Every coin has two sides. Which side you prefer is just that-preference."
I don't disagree with this, BUT... my problem has always been this:
STOP circumventing the constitution.
If you don't like guns, fine. That's your choice.
If you don't like citizens owning guns/2A, fine. That's your choice.
So...change the Constitution. We have a system in place to accomplish that. If enough of America agrees with you (like the anti-gunners claim), they should have no problem calling a constitutional convention, and amending the constitution. It's been done before. Remember prohibition?
Until then... BACK THE HELL OFF and stop with the judges legislating form the bench crap. Our Constitution guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms. It's been shown time and time again that that was the original intent. And if you want to keep holding up SCOTUS as some kind of God-being/omniscient, then: Columbia vs. Heller.
"Our Constitution guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms. It's been shown time and time again that that was the original intent. "
+1000 JR
What part of 'Shall Not Be Infringed' is so hard for the anti-gunners out there to understand ?
ah, right in character for the intolerance of the tolerant crowd:
"NRA spokeswoman says she’s moving due to gun control death threats"
"The spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association says death threats from “gun control advocates” have forced her to move her family from their California home.
“Spent my weekend preparing to move due to repeated threats from gun control advocates,” NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch tweeted Sunday"
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/355717-nra-spokeswoman-says-shes-moving-due-to-gun-control-death-threats
Fortunately or unfortunately BDog, the answer is the part as determined Constitutional or un-Constitutional by SCOTUS. The rest is just opinion. As someone said earlier: Heller et al. As to the "original intent," that can change over time now can't it. Frankly with the current interpretation skewing away from militia towards individual rights has worked in favor of "you-alls" although I am sure not enough to satisfy you. That part was only defined by the SCOTUS in 2008, not 1776, or by God.
Previous to this, the 2A definition, as stated in the 2A, dealt with militias. In 2008, in Heller, the court said, for the first time in American history, that an individual has the right to possess a firearm for self-defense in the home. That was a landmark decision and interpretation of the 2A which, nowhere in those 31 charming little words mentions the concept of individual or home protection instead invoking "militia," "the people," and "the state" and not the individual or the home.
But before you party down and have to lock up the guns, Heller also affirmed that the 2A did not include the “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose” specifically noting restrictions on felons, mentally ill, locations like schools and government buildings, "dangerous and unusual weapons" as well as affirming restrictions like mandatory storage, etc.
Again, this is the SCOUTS interpreting the Constitution, as they are Constitutionally anointed to do, for the 2A in a different manner in 2008 that the 2A had been defined for hundreds of years.
That part.
Oh yeah, since apparently you are arguing with me.....and me alone.....we both agree that God is all over The Declaration of Independence. Some scholarly reasons I have posted above, can get you more. Makes sense to me to put God in this.
But God is not in The Constitution, God did not ordain you to buy guns, and that rationale too is posted above and makes sense to me.
I can get you plenty more scholarly views on this; your view is mostly espoused by gunny websites of a non-scholarly nature. I don't think even any Churches hold this view; perhaps you have some sources for Church support for God's words on the 2A......You know, the "thou shall shoot" parables or something...
Gee, no one reviewed the video.......too close to home?
the rights are ours, we already own them, we have them in us, they are part of our beings, as the declaration of independence declares for all to see, and the constitution limits the government from infringing on them .
"the people"
"The people" also have 1st and 4th Amendment rights (among others). Are those individual or group rights? Do you need to belong to "the press" to speak freely or make sure you have a certain size group to peaceably assemble? 5 friends is legal but if it's just 2 (or you alone) you get arrested?
Does each individual citizen have the right to vote or just "citizens" as a group (as written in the 15th, 19th, and 24th Amendments)?
I think it's clear that each person is a part of "the people" or "citizens".
"Our Constitution guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms. It's been shown time and time again that that was the original intent. "
good point JR
what part of 'Shall not be infringed' is so hard to understand?
"the rights are ours, we already own them, we have them in us, they are part of our beings, as the declaration of independence declares for all to see, and the constitution limits the government from infringing on them ."
That's exactly it, and anyone who doesn't see that is doing it by CHOICE. Because that is what it says, and that was the original intent. The Declaration acknowledges these rights, and the Constitution is a handcuffs on govt. from infringing on them.
Obama had it right: the Constitution describes what the govt. CAN NOT DO TO the people. He had it exactly right. It is a paper of NEGATIVE rights- for the GOVERNMENT.
(of course we all know he didn't agree with this approach, thank God he and others like him weren't founding fathers.)
SD the 2nd protects individual, not collective, rights - as affirmed by Heller. The Second Amendment mentions “the people.”
“The people” means the people.as it does everywhere else in both the Bill of Rights and in the common law that preceded it.
A reading of the Federalist Papers clearly defines the meaning behind the 2nd Amendment to mean that bearing arms is an individual right.
That's what I said Skippy :>) at least until your last paragraph.
Come on ---- clearly defines the meaning behind the 2nd? Come on, be frank. How can anyone really say that any 31 words is a clear definition of anything much less that of another document, especially if said first document was intended to spur ratification of said second document. Like if the Papers were written by Trump, they would say "you can get any guns you want with your free sign-this-constitution dinner at the Trump Tower restaurant, excepting Melania..... (sorry, Arlo)
Can I refer you to Federalist 46, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
Sounds like militia's were key to the nation's survival at the time. Not sure they were looking at protection from gangbangers.
What FP glories do you have to offer?
Maybe if we are going to "negotiate" the 2nd....we should also start "negotiating" the first?....Hell, why not negotiate them all?
" . . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" ; period .
http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf
pg 138 of the Federalist - Hamilton - "On the Necessity of a Government - paper 28"
" If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then
no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defence,
which is paramount to all positive forms of government; and which, against
the usurpation of the national rulers, may be exerted with an infinitely better
prospect of success, than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In
a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers,
the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts, of which it consists, having no
distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defence. The
citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system,
without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed
with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo.
The smaller the extent of territory, the more difficult will it be for the
people to form a regular, or systematic plan of opposition; and the more easy
will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained
of their preparations and movements; and the military force in the
possession of the usurpers, can be more rapidly directed against the part
where the opposition has begun. In this situation, there must be a peculiar
coincidence of circumstances to ensure success to the popular resistance.
"Maybe if we are going to "negotiate" the 2nd....we should also start "negotiating" the first?....Hell, why not negotiate them all?" OK, but I think a Constitutional Convention will not produce results and may double the national debt :>) What we do allow is what the founder's set up as a structure for our government knowing that things change over time, including meaning. That is, we all abide by the Constitutional interpretations of the SCOTUS based not on theory, not on original intent, not on transformational intent, but on actual cases heard by the court. That is the job we gave them and the form of government we all agreed to accept as citizens. Neither you or I like all the 2A decisions by the SCOTUS. But we know that "" . . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is tempered by the decision of the SCOTUS interpreting the Constitution in specific cases. "Period."
Skippy, this whole section is about militias and those armies not to be named (federal forces) and the populace joining one or the other for different types of insurrection and governmental malfeasance. I mean really.... Did you really think Hamilton was saying "grab your gun and do your own thing, by yourself, in defense of yourself. Try full context of preceding and following paragraphs.........Nice try though.
Its not that the Founders were avoiding personal protection and self defense. But that's local police level stuff ----- we're talking states and federal here........
except the constitutional scholars agree with me and neither of us is an expert in this area.
In the above captioned Federalist 28 Hamilton explains that the national government may occasionally need to quell insurrections and it is certainly justified in doing so - I agree with you.
did you miss this part "the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
Hamilton clearly states there exists a right of self-defense against a tyrannical government, and it includes the people with their own arms - how do you not get that?
or this portion
"The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. "
Hamilton clearly states the militia is the ultimate check against a state or the national government. That is why the founders guaranteed the right to the people as opposed to only active militia members or a state's militia (National Guard)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
also see Federalist 29 on militia
https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-29
skippy is right on when he qutes hamilton:
" . . . citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
" . . . citizens must rush tumultuously to arms . . . "
and an organized, well defined militia membership is not required which is why their individual right to keep and bear arms exists so that they . . . ". . . must rush . . ."
". . . . without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
with their own arms, the ones they possess themselves, that they "keep and bear"
Again, context gentleman. I think the paragraph you are referring to is speaking specifically to smaller locations, as it states: "The smaller the extent of territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular, or systematic plan of opposition (SD: isn't that a militia?) and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements; and the military force in the possession of the usurpers, can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation, there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to ensure success to the popular resistance."
The context I think you may have missed is the next paragraph which reads....."The obstacles to usurpation, and the facilities of resistance, increase with the increased extent of the state: provided the citizens understand their rights, and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small; and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny. But in a confederacy, the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will, at all times, stand ready to check the usurpations of
the state governments; and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other, as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them, by cherishing the union, to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!"
I repeat: "The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other, as the instrument of redress."
Context gentlemen, context.
While, IMO, the Founding Fathers certainly believed in the personal right to own arms, the personal right to defend one's self, for the most part The Constitution and The Federalist Papers is about government, not personal defense or protections. That's for the local police. And when it comes to protection against government, sorry, militia rules the day, at least according to the founders. Now, the SCOTUS has fleshed out the interpretation as noted before, but let's not pretend the Founder's addressed your personal needs for protection as part of The Constitution. Further, as you remember, when it comes to tyrannical protections, my recommendation is to give you, via a regulated and registered militia the weapons that can do exactly that versus the chump change you are packing today.
Just saying :>)
"when it comes to tyrannical protections, my recommendation is to give you, via a regulated and registered militia the weapons that can do exactly that versus the chump change you are packing today. "
Cool. So we can form a "regulated and registered militia" and you will allow us to have fully-automatic weapons? Sign me up! Machine guns, rocket launchers, bazookas, body armor, armor-piercing rounds and depleted-uranium tank-busting ammo?... ALRIGHT!!! COME ON GUYS!!!
"via a regulated and registered militia"
So a militia, for whom you claim its only purpose is to be able to overthrow a government, is to be registered and regulated by said government (which they may need to some day overthrow)?
Makes sense...
"versus the chump change you are packing today"
Wait, I thought AR's are "weapons of war"... you guys really need to agree on your terms.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/10/18/mass-killings-shootings-research-university-illinois/
Mass killings are not on the rise
" . . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
What does "Shall not be Infringed" mean to you ?
keep up the good work on engaging folks to open their perspectives, we change the world one mind, one conversation at a time:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Former NPR CEO: I Changed My Mind About Supporting Gun Control After Writing Book on Conservative America
The former CEO of National Public Radio came back from a reporting trip on conservative America having changed his mind about the efficacy of gun control measures, he said on Tuesday.
Ken Stern appeared on "Morning Joe" to discuss his new book, Republican Like Me: How I Left the Liberal Bubble and Learned to Love the Right. Stern, a Democrat, wrote he realized he was cordoned off in a liberal bubble and set off into conservative enclaves of America to expose himself to new ideas.
Co-host Willie Geist asked him if he altered his views on any key issues as a result of the book. Stern said he had changed them on guns, and it began with a notion he hadn't thought of before: that gun homicides have declined significantly over the past 25 years.
"The most extraordinary trend in modern American criminal history," Stern said. "At the same time, the number of guns have gone up. Those two things aren't correlated, but it's clear we know how to drive down gun murders without gun control, and the question is why are we talking about gun control when there's other things that we've been doing for 25 years that actually have reduced murders in this country by an extraordinary amount."
In an editorial printed in the New York Post, Stern criticized the media for being roped off from understanding America, saying, "the media should acknowledge its own failings in reflecting only their part of America. You can’t cover America from the Acela corridor, and the media need to get out and be part of the conversations that take place in churches and community centers and town halls."
http://freebeacon.com/issues/npr-ceo-changed-supporting-gun-control-book-conservative-america/
Henry's are supposed to be good. Probably on my "to buy someday" list. Also want to get an older Marlin (before they sold out to Remington).
+1 on Henrys. It's a bucket list item... I just can't decide on a caliber!
Some say the "real" calibers, like the .45-70, being an "original" caliber for lever actions, is the real way to go. But others say it kicks pretty darned hard. For hunting, it's the way to go. But for fun, most people seem to think the .357 is a better choice.
henry is a great rifle, well designed, well engineered, well built and still manufactured here in Jersey. they come with a best in class warranty as well,
american jobs right here in america and guns being manufactured in the gun hating state of NJ is a great reason to buy one for sure, keep yer dollars local to help us all out i say,
.45-70 in henry's are something to think about, particularly with the hotter +P powders used these days, the actions and the block inside the Henry's take a pounding with metal fatigue setting in earlier and wearing out parts quicker than in the winchester 94 actions which are the preferred level action model for this powerful heavy cartridge.
.44 mag is a better choice in the henry for this reason
If you are settled on .45-70 in a lever action , then chose between the winchester 94 and Marlin 94, (don't even think about the rossi in this caliber)
if you are a cowboy action shooter, the herny in .357 mag/.38 special is a good choice for cheaper ammo, long rifle life, and easier on your shoulder after firing all those rounds,
can't dismiss the 'bling' factor of henry rifles , they are beautiful , good looking guns that catch everyone's attention.
darrin, the all weather alloy that Henry uses is proprietary to them, they call it the silver rifle, but it's not really silver, just silver in color which distinguishes those henry's from the brass alloy 'henry golden boy' rifles that everybody goes gaga over (and for very good reasons) it's an element resistant alloy that they developed themselves that produces a metal that's not only resists rusting but also builds strong actions.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/31/us/new-york-shots-fired/index.html
Looks like someone used the “Home Depo” loop hole to kill 8 and injure 15 - anyone for banning rental trucks ? Good guy with a bus won out though..
* Perpetrator shot twice by police
* Suspect arrested and ALIVE
* Suspect hit numerous people on a bike path near WTC with a rented Home Depot truck
* Good Samaritan used empty School Bus to hit the suspect's truck
* Multiple fatalities confirmed, no confirmation of cause of death
* Witnesses reported suspect 'screaming', reports of suspect shouting 'Allahu Akbar' -- NYPD CONFIRMS
* Reports that suspect's weapons were imitations; paint ball gun and BB gun - guess gun laws work
can't believe they rent trucks to just anyone without a background check.
how come there isn't a 72 hour waiting period when renting a deadly instrument like a truck?
how come everybody isn't on board with these 'common sense' reforms? ("how many more?" . . . "if it saves even one life . . . .") ("I cant believe the high paid lobbyists of the trucking industry and their ilk has put there own selfish interests ahead of the safety of innocent victims")
I was a handful of blocks away in the East side when it happened, and holy cow did cars you would never expect suddenly have like lights and sirens, police, fire, and presumably fbi flying all over.
Homeowner gets shot by intruder, shoots back and kills him- NEW JERSEY
http://newjersey.news12.com/story/36742876/home-invasion-bid-ends-with-intruder-dead-homeowner-wounded
Gee, I wonder if NJ is going to prosecute the crime VICTIM - the HOMEOWNER - on this one? I'm sure they are digging deep, looking for any and all reason to.... maybe they'll find a high-capacity magazine somewhere in his house, or perhaps an unregistered handgun, or maybe a lone hollowpoint bullet that rolled out of his garage while he was cleaning his weapons once....
I'd love to hear more details of this story.... "standing your ground" is a good way to end up in prison in the People's Republik of New Jersey. I mean, this guy KILLED someone!! OMG!!! No possible excuse for that to be a GOOD & PROPER outcome of this situation... he is obviously a danger to society... unlike the poor, misguided person who broke into his house and shot him first... he's just a victim of society and culture, and needs to be understood and helped, and now we can't do that because the evil homeowner KILLED him.
Of course, if the criminal had succeeded in killing the homeowner, it would be "oh, what a shame, something needs to be done about crime, EVIL GUNS"...... just another police blotter item, nothing to see here. Let me write a check to Bloomberg to help stop all the gun violence in this country....
Citizen: 1
Criminal: 0
GRTmedRES There will be no "first".
*EVERY* gun control bill will be re-introduced (and then some).
*EVERY* bill will pass the assembly/senate.
*EVERY* bill will be signed by the governor.
Does it matter which one is on the top of the stack?
(Oh, and by the way... Camden, Newark, and Trenton will continue to be our own domestic s***holes and crime will in no way go down.)
"Camden, Newark, and Trenton will continue to be our own domestic s***holes and crime will in no way go down.)"
Except: " Crime is down in the state's largest city by the largest amount in almost 50 years." http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2016/12/newark_crime_down_in_2016.html
For 2017, "There were 70 homicides to date this year -- about a 28 percent drop from the year prior," Now, it's still a dangerous place but Newark is not unredeemable Mark and it's a place I enjoy on a regular basis. http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2017/12/newark_reports_year-end_crime_stats.html
If those damn guns were just not so, so easy to get, even for mental defects and suspected terrorists. There's lots of good to hope for in Newark, I wouldn't give up on our largest city quite yet.
Trenton --- nope, not getting better hear and 40 times worse than the nation on the average and you can only find 5% urban areas that are worse, if you are that unlucky that is.
Camden ---- Well, higher in 2016 but markedly down last year.
These are all still very dangerous and crime-ridden poverty centers, yet crime can come down given the right impetus. Still, one out of three ain't bad for you Mark even though your conclusion is unfounded.
Except: " Crime is down in the state's largest city by the largest amount in almost 50 years." http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2016/12/newark_crime_down_in_2016.html
For 2017, "There were 70 homicides to date this year -- about a 28 percent drop from the year prior,"
Thank you, Gov. Christie :)
Watch those numbers RISE again in coming years....
"Still, one out of three ain't bad for you Mark even though your conclusion is unfounded."
Actually one out of three sucks. Making a s***hole slightly less of a s***hole isn’t something to warrant a “Mission Complete” celebration - especially when the state claims that it’s gyn control laws are some of the toughest in the nation and it continues to have some of the worst/most violent cities in the nation.
I’m sure you wisely pick and choose which areas of Newark you frequent. I wonder what the racial and economic demographics are for the areas you visit versus the ones you don’t. Might be interesting...
SD "If those damn guns were just not so, so easy to get, even for mental defects and suspected terrorists."
Yeah, because LEGALLY OBTAINED guns are obviously the issue in those areas.......
I suppose you think gang members (which are obviously quite predominant in the areas you listed) are going to the local gun shop or bass pro and going through the legal means to obtain the guns that are causing all this?
think you should fact check legal vs. illegal gun crime in those areas and report back......
"gyn control laws"
Gun control... anyone else hate the iPhone keyboard (or phone typing in general)?
think you should fact check legal vs. illegal gun crime in those areas and report back......
LOL! Nicely played Darrin.
scottso BUT DON'T YOU GUYS SEE? If we make ALL the guns illegal, then ALL gun crime will be with illegal guns. That way, we can pass even more restrictive gun control laws!
Uhh...wait a minute....
Oh I see.....the basis of creating laws due to people who don't follow laws completely lacks common sense
how anyone, be them liberal, conservative, whatever you may be can ignore this is absolutely beyond me.......
"but if it only saves one life!!!!!" also a one sided statement....what about the people who do not have power or means to properly defend themselves due to law controlled rights?
Let’s deny millions constitutional rights due to criminals who don’t follow the law by definition - brilliant
I watched a liberal this morning on Fox say how we need more gun laws after an illegal gunned down 2 cops and during his trial said he wished he killed more. Uh the guy obviously didn't get his guns legally so what are more laws going to do... Liberalism truly is a disease....
Metsman "I watched a liberal this morning on Fox say how we need more gun laws after an illegal gunned down 2 cops"
Sounds like we need ILLEGALS control.
BUILD THE WALL. "If we could only save ONE life..."
Commenting is no longer available.