OT: Gun Control in Virginia

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:8d6e40c0-84ee-4a1b-9bfc-f290d648bd84@googlegroups.com:

Duly corrected. But they oppose banning silencers which is even
worse as well as undefensible.

What is the issue with a silencer?

I can hit you with a curare dart and no blood no sound, you die.

So, a silencer is NOT really a silencer, but more of a muffler that
does not quite completely work. First off, the projectile has to
have a subsoonic muzzle velocity to start with, and many common
calibers and rounds do not. A std 9mm round is NOT subsonic.

Conversely, the .45 is subsonic and is actually the largest
subsonic caliber there is, and a silencer (supressor) would work
quite well with it.

Either way, if someone wanted you dead, and not having a silencer
stops them, then they didn't really want you dead. Suppressed
(silenced) guns are not the only way to kill silently.

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 10:04:19 AM UTC-5, mpm wrote:

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 12:06:28 AM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 11:28:55 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:

I think you may have totally missed my point about all guns being LETHAL.

Again, your arguments are flat because they literally ignore my point. My >point is there is no reason to allow people to have guns other than "Fuck off, >I like guns!". All the self protection crap is just that, crap.

OK - I'll engage with you just this once.... Let's see how far we get.

And your point is: "Fuck off, I don't want YOU to have that gun?"
Why would you even care?

I don't know that I have a problem with you having a gun. I do have a problem with you being able to buy a gun without restrictions or reviews of any sort.

You do realize that More Guns = Less Crime, right?
That concealed carry permit holders are even more law-abiding that the police?
(So why take their guns, or register, or etc…?)

I don't agree with that premise. If that were true we should be one of the most crime free countries in the world, but we are far from it.

I'm not sure I agree with the idea of concealed weapons. Doesn't it make more sense to display your arms so as to prevent problems rather than dealing with a problem by deadly force?

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/31489-more-guns-less-crime-concealed-carry-permit-holders-more-law-abiding-than-police

From the article: “In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at one-sixth of the rate at which police officers are convicted.”

So you are suggesting that criminals should get concealed weapon permits to make them less criminal? Or everyone should get a concealed carry permit to lower crime rate across the board? Really???

There are as many or more instances of a gun preventing, ending, or de-escalating violence. It’s rarely reported because it does not fit the media’s anti-gun agenda.

Here are some examples of guns saving lives:
https://bearingarms.com/category/guns-saving-lives/

So anecdotal evidence is your rock to stand on? How about the thousands of reports of people being killed by guns, or the many reports of mass shootings? It's ok that thousands die as long as we can feel good about a few dozen others.

The US is actually in 11th place when it comes to the Annual Death Rate from Mass Public Shootings (2009-2015). Surprised?
https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-us-leads-the-world-in-mass-shootings/

So you are saying we are good as long as we don't make it into the top 10???

And finally, here’s a whopper-full of evidence:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-faqs-what-you-should-know-about-mass-shootings/
1) 277 active shooter incidents (2000-2018). 64 meet the FBI definition of “mass shooting”.

64 is a good number? How many people were shot, how many died?

"The FBI does not have a formal definition of a mass shooting"

The FBI uses the term "mass murders" instead, clearly different. So you are comparing apples to oranges. Your article is precise giving us their definition of "mass shootings"...

"For the purposes of this article, the term mass shooter will be defined as an active-shooter incident in which a mass murderer used a firearm to indiscriminately target and kill at least four persons (excluding the shooter)." I would point out the FBI definition of "mass murder" includes deaths by other than shooting.

So by making the definition of "mass shooting" include the FBI's definition of "mass murder" it is already severely restricted compared to the definition by others and will even be more restricted than the FBI's number.

Still... 64 makes it ok???


> 2) Handguns (not the “AR-15) used far more than any other weapon. Nearly by half; and nearly in all cases when including mass shootings involving multiple weapons. The handgun is the preferred weapon, by far. (So why ban AR-15’s, and not handguns?)

We don't ban cars either. How is that a rational argument *against* outlawing assault weapons? Sounds like you want to outlaw handguns as well.


> 3) The number of mass shootings has not dramatically increased since at least as far back as the 1980’s.

"There were more mass shootings across the U.S. in 2019 than there were days in the year, according to a gun violence research group."

"By the end of 2019, there were 417 mass shootings in the U.S., according to data from the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive (GVA), which tracks every mass shooting in the country."

"GVA uses a purely statistical threshold to define mass shooting based ONLY on the numeric value of 4 or more shot or killed, not including the shooter."


> 4) According to the Rand Corporation’s extensive study on gun control policies, NONE of them show any change in the prevalence of mass shootings.

I don't see where they looked for that, so of course they wouldn't find it. You could read the review again to see what they did exactly.


> This means the following popular gun control measures are actually meaningless:

Not at all true. I will explain below.

The science: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/key-findings/what-science-tells-us-about-the-effects-of-gun-policies.html

a. Background checks

Moderate evidence of decrease in suicide and homicide.

b. Ban on sales of assault weapons and high capacity magazines
c. Child-access prevention laws

Their strongest level of reducing suicide and unintentional injuries.

> d. Concealed carry laws

Limited evidence of reduced unintentional injuries and homicides.

e. Licensing and permitting requirements
f. Minimum age requirements, and

Limited evidence of reduction in suicides

g. Mandatory waiting periods.

Note that the RAND research has already studied your idea of banning AR-15's (and high capacity magazines) and concluded it has no meaning effect on gun violence.

The RAND review (not research) looked at 63 existing studies. "These 63 studies provided evidence for 30 of the 104 main policy effects". So to start, they could only consider 30 relations of the 104 possible. They did not find conclusive evidence that assault weapon bans had a significant effect on mass shootings or violent crime. This is not the same as finding evidence there is no impact.

Interestingly they found moderate evidence that stand your ground laws increase homicides.

More importantly they said this,

"With a few exceptions, there is a surprisingly limited base of rigorous scientific evidence concerning the effects of many commonly discussed gun policies. This does not mean that these policies are ineffective; they might well be quite effective."

They attribute their results on the lack of scientific work regarding the effectiveness of gun policies.

You construct many arguments against things I never said. So clearly this is an argument you are having in your own head.

I've remedied that above, and I am now directly rebutting your arguments.

And I have now responded. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this.

The bottom line is owning a gun makes you less safe, not more safe.

That is demonstrably not true. (See above.)

Uh, what above??? You likely won't agree, but I think I have deflated every one of your arguments. I do see that you tend to cherry pick your evidence. How about looking at the likelihood you will die from gunshot if you do or don't own a gun? That's a pretty simple thing to check and it goes right to the heart of the matter.

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/160/10/929/140858

"Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4)"

Could that be any more clear???

I don't imagine myself being in a life or death situation from a violent >attacker and needing a gun to save me, because the likelihood of that >happening is minuscule.

Agreed. Same feeling here. The chances seem miniscule, but are clearly not zero. And BTW, technically, you just did imagine it. But you gave it no weight.

No, I didn't imagine it, I discussed it and considered it's likelihood, not imagined.

We have a larger chance of dying in an automobile.

Again agreed, but we don't ban people from driving (which is a privilege, not a Constitutionally guaranteed right!) We don't even effectively enforce the driving laws that are already on the books. (So why make more? Maybe the problem lies elsewhere?)

We do license and require testing of both the driver and car. I think we could do well by applying the same sorts of rules to guns that we do to cars.. BTW, there are many types of autos that are banned on the highways. While not an exact analogy, it is comparable in many ways.


> Statistically, you are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when being treated at the hospital! (About 90,000 die each year, and growing, from preventable medical errors.) I may provide the numbers in my next post. An eye-opener for many who just regurgitate the media's and anti-gunner talking points.

Not really an eye opener. More of a meaningless statistic. I heard the number was 200,000 but when I researched it I could find no source or verifiable data. It seems to be one of those numbers that people pass around without knowing who started it. I think this one, if false, is very damaging.

Still, you don't get treatment at a hospital unless you are sick. Surely you understand that sick people are more likely to die than well people. Medical treatments have risks and mistakes can be harmful. Is that really a surprise?

According to your statistic above, you should go to the worst areas of Chicago when you are sick, not hospitals. Is that what you do?

And yet many people give that short shrift in their life. But the idea of not >having a gun if it were ever needed terrifies them.

IDK. Hasn't been my experience.
I did not purchase my first handgun out of any feelings of terror. Rather, my job at the time often put me in some pretty bad neighborhoods and I affirmatively decided that it was better to be prepared than to rely on the unreliable actions of others, should I ever be a position to require their immediate assistance.

Ok, you couch it in terms of rational thought rather than "terror". But you have to admit is was about fear, fear of what might happen if you didn't have a gun. I can't say it was an unfounded fear. I simply know that if I were being put in a situation where I thought I should have a gun for protection, I would remove myself from the situation rather than getting a gun. You can always get a new job. Using a gun in that sort of situation will forever change your life. Doesn't that simply make sense to you?

I've come to realize that all thought, rational or otherwise is really about emotions, but that's a subject for another time.

As to the election, again you ignore the facts. Virginia has had a >Republican government for 26 years! The Democrats made a campaign issue of >gun control and won. What could be more clear than that??? How about a >referendum?

Google the word "pendulum".

Elections are not pendulums. They are about what the people want. While attitudes change they don't have a period and aren't predictable. In this case it is pretty clear a change is wanted to gun control laws.

I actually agree with you that the 2nd Amendment has become a disfavored right.
But speaking of referenda, how about a Constitution?
See the dissent from the denial of certiorari in Friedman v. Highland Park, a case concerning a local ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. In it, Justice Thomas correctly notes that (at the time) "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."

The most significant part of that paragraph was the word, "dissent".


> You may not like it. (And that's OK - I totally respect your right to have and express an opinion). But change the Constitution. Good luck with that, BTW.

As I've said a number of times, I don't have a dog in the fight. I don't have guns and I don't particularly care if others have them. But I do want to reduce the occurrences of violence from guns. Things only seem to be getting worse, so if the current path isn't working, I am ok with a new path.

What I was really writing about is how some people are literally crazy enough >about gun control to threaten violence or swear they will obstruct or ignore >the laws if passed.

Sounds a lot like the run-up to the Revolutionary War to me.

That's anarchy.

One man's anarchy is another man's civil disobedience.
Google "Three Precenters".

You said the problem is "sick individuals". I agree. And those sick >individuals will be locked up if they don't obey the law.

Doesn't appear to be the case. Witness: Nicholas Cruz (gunman at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School), and he's just the poster boy for my reply here. The list goes on and on. Sick individuals are NOT "locked-up" in this country. In the case of Cruz, literally everything that could be done to keep him in society, was done. Read the book: Why Meadow Died, by Andrew Pollack. He lost his daughter in that shooting - and EVEN HE doesn't blame AR-15's!!! How many more Cruz's are out there?

This Cruz guy worked the counter at the Dollar Tree store (less than a mile from where I work).

You missed my meaning. I was referring to those who threaten violence if they don't get their way in the Virginia legislature.

Wake up. (?)

Or not. It is your choice.
And it's a free country. Make whatever choice is right for you.
But don't choose for others, unless there truly is some impressive public benefit to be had by infringing on the rights of others. (and in this case, there isn't).

Do you feel a need to have assault rifles? Do you have any? I assume you have hand guns since you bought a gun to carry for protection.

--

Rick C.

-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 10:26:22 AM UTC-5, mpm wrote:

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 7:33:36 AM UTC-5, Michael Terrell wrote:
The machine gun served a different purpose. It was for battle on a large open space. Night fire had tracer rounds to let you see where the bullets were going. As the barrel heated up, the path changed. Too many fools believe old war movies of some moron holding a machine gun and running with it while firing. They quickly get too hot to hold, and continuous fire destroys the barrel. Our biggest problem is that the ACLU went to the courts to have the insane asylums shut down. All that did was put the nutcases out into the streets and make it harder to get them the help that they needed. No normal human would pick up any weapon to go on a killing spree.

It is amazing that supposedly grown men are terrified of a little piece of inert metal.

You know Mike, I actually have a box of 25 9mm tracer rounds in the safe.
I have no real need or use for them (and no place to legally shoot them), but they were only $10 at the gun show.

And BTW, I don't personally believe the arguments surrounding "full auto" vs. "semi-auto" achieve much with the anti-gunner crowd. To them, that distinction is hardly even worth a mention. Much better to argue the merits of gun ownership, rather than the features of any particular weapon. My opinion.

Someone brought up the intermediate of firing more than once per trigger pull, but not emptying the magazine. Does that have a name? My gun friend didn't know what to call it.

--

Rick C.

+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1bbd2385-bae0-4281-be8b-4c36f9e11ccf@googlegroups.com:

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 10:26:22 AM UTC-5, mpm wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 7:33:36 AM UTC-5, Michael Terrell
wrote:
The machine gun served a different purpose. It was for battle
on a larg
e open space. Night fire had tracer rounds to let you see where
the bullets were going. As the barrel heated up, the path changed.
Too many fools believe old war movies of some moron holding a
machine gun and running with it while firing. They quickly get too
hot to hold, and continuous fire destroys the barrel. Our biggest
problem is that the ACLU went to the courts to have the insane
asylums shut down. All that did was put the nutcases out into the
streets and make it harder to get them the help that they needed.
No normal human would pick up any weapon to go on a killing spree.

It is amazing that supposedly grown men are terrified of a
little piece
of inert metal.

You know Mike, I actually have a box of 25 9mm tracer rounds in
the safe. I have no real need or use for them (and no place to
legally shoot them),
but they were only $10 at the gun show.

And BTW, I don't personally believe the arguments surrounding
"full auto"
vs. "semi-auto" achieve much with the anti-gunner crowd. To
them, that distinction is hardly even worth a mention. Much
better to argue the merits of gun ownership, rather than the
features of any particular weapon. My opinion.

Someone brought up the intermediate of firing more than once per
trigger pull, but not emptying the magazine. Does that have a
name? My gun friend didn't know what to call it.

There were some german pistols that were modified to dump the clip
on a single pull. The M-16 and its variants have a triple 'burst'
(as it is termed) option. I think single, full, and triple are the
lever choices.

 

[mpm]

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 3:41:01 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

I simply can't go point-by-point on your rebuttal, the vast majority I mostly disagree with, and have presented what I believe to be some very compelling supporting evidence to the positions I have asserted here.

So like anything involving statistics, let's just agree that they can be manipulated to present any desired viewpoint. (Which is why I prefer to use my own common sense in the matter.)

However, I would just note that buying a firearm (in the US) isn't as easy as many folks believe. The process varies from state to state, but in all cases one must pass a background check. I am aware of the so-called "Gun Show Loophole", which is just another term from the private sale of firearms not involving a dealer or background check. I would support fixing that so long as it doesn't turn into yet another anti-gunner attack on gun ownership. For example, attaching exhorbitant fees, delays, registration requirements, etc... to the process. Otherwise, forget it. I'd personally rather live with the loophole.

That said: Background checks for firearm purchases have been running at all time highs for the past several years. (Some say: "Obama was the best gun salesman ever.", to which I would only respond, I voted for him.. twice.)

I don't recall when Justice Thomas uttered those words, but since then 12 Million more AR-15's are now in the hands of law-abiding citizens. So I have to believe (and will repeat here) that if the guns themselves were the problem - there wouldn't be any doubt about it. Crime on the streets would be rampant, of the kind you might expect in a lawless cartel areas of 2nd and 3rd world countries!

But just the opposite is true: gun sales are way up, and crime is actually down (and BTW, I'm easily convinced the two aren't as connected as many people suggest). I believe the causation has more to do with broader economic outlooks. Table that for now, though.

Here's what I agree with:

Senseless violence is unfortunate.
But, there are evil and crazy people in the world, and it's not particularly easy to remedy that situation. So, I at least take care of myself.

No amount of gun hardware, fancy gun branding or names, or readily accessible inexpensive stockpiles of ammunition are going to somehow magically convert me into an overnight mass murderer. And, none of my weapons are going to somehow magically jump off the couch (by themselves) and go out and shoot someone.

The reality is people think this "gun violence" issue is a bigger problem than it truly is. (i.e., they always include suicides to fluff the numbers, and that's really not "violence" to me) I support physician-assisted suicide.

Another reality is that criminals do not obey the law (including mass-murdering psychopaths). So I would argue no law is going to stop them.

Those laws can certainly make life more difficult for the average law-abiding citizen, but by and large won't affect the criminal (or crazy) element at all.

 

[mpm]

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 3:41:01 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

Do you feel a need to have assault rifles? Do you have any? I assume you have hand guns since you bought a gun to carry for protection.

Do you feel a need to have a Tesla?

I'm not exactly sure what an "assault rifle" even is?
All my firearms can kill, so if we define the taking of a life in self-defense to be an assault (that seems at least "somewhat reasonable"), then "Yes", everything I own is an "assault" something.

But more accurately: An "assault-reply"!

Your question to me just sounds preposterous. (Sorry)
I think if you were a gun-owner yourself you might better understand the "why" behind that sentiment.

I mean, I have an "assault foot" too.
If it came to that....

But, to your question: I own..

(3) handguns (all are Glock 9mm).
(1) Shotgun - that honestly, was an impulse buy and it spends all its time in the gun safe. I think I've shot 5-10 rounds through it total in its lifetime.
(1) AR-15 variant, (A Tavor X95, chambered in 5.56 NATO), and
(1) Ultra-long range precision rifle (Cost: ~ $9,200), which is really just another expensive hobby. And FWIW: this platform would be the absolute worst choice for a mass-shooter use since it's more than 50" long, has a bolt-action (single shot) and weighs upwards of 38 pounds!! Plus, the bullets cost $4 each.

All of these, with the exception of my current carry weapon (which right now is the Glock-19), "live" in my gun safe until I hit the gun range.

And I used to own a S&W Bodyguard compact handgun (chambered in 380-ACP), which I promptly sold after I decided I could not shoot it accurately enough to my satisfaction. (The gun grip is too small for my hands.) Plus, it was an under-powered piece of shit anyway that wasn't even fun to shoot. Against a large attacker, all you're going to do is piss him off with that thing - not going stop him dead in his tracks, unless you're a very lucky shot and manage to hit something vital.

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 4:24:55 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 3:41:01 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

I simply can't go point-by-point on your rebuttal, the vast majority I mostly disagree with, and have presented what I believe to be some very compelling supporting evidence to the positions I have asserted here.

So like anything involving statistics, let's just agree that they can be manipulated to present any desired viewpoint. (Which is why I prefer to use my own common sense in the matter.)

However, I would just note that buying a firearm (in the US) isn't as easy as many folks believe. The process varies from state to state, but in all cases one must pass a background check. I am aware of the so-called "Gun Show Loophole", which is just another term from the private sale of firearms not involving a dealer or background check. I would support fixing that so long as it doesn't turn into yet another anti-gunner attack on gun ownership. For example, attaching exhorbitant fees, delays, registration requirements, etc... to the process. Otherwise, forget it. I'd personally rather live with the loophole.

That said: Background checks for firearm purchases have been running at all time highs for the past several years. (Some say: "Obama was the best gun salesman ever.", to which I would only respond, I voted for him.. twice..)

I don't recall when Justice Thomas uttered those words, but since then 12 Million more AR-15's are now in the hands of law-abiding citizens. So I have to believe (and will repeat here) that if the guns themselves were the problem - there wouldn't be any doubt about it. Crime on the streets would be rampant, of the kind you might expect in a lawless cartel areas of 2nd and 3rd world countries!

But just the opposite is true: gun sales are way up, and crime is actually down (and BTW, I'm easily convinced the two aren't as connected as many people suggest). I believe the causation has more to do with broader economic outlooks. Table that for now, though.

Here's what I agree with:

Senseless violence is unfortunate.
But, there are evil and crazy people in the world, and it's not particularly easy to remedy that situation. So, I at least take care of myself.

No amount of gun hardware, fancy gun branding or names, or readily accessible inexpensive stockpiles of ammunition are going to somehow magically convert me into an overnight mass murderer. And, none of my weapons are going to somehow magically jump off the couch (by themselves) and go out and shoot someone.

The reality is people think this "gun violence" issue is a bigger problem than it truly is. (i.e., they always include suicides to fluff the numbers, and that's really not "violence" to me) I support physician-assisted suicide.

Another reality is that criminals do not obey the law (including mass-murdering psychopaths). So I would argue no law is going to stop them.

Those laws can certainly make life more difficult for the average law-abiding citizen, but by and large won't affect the criminal (or crazy) element at all.

OK, I'll respond in kind. Your statistics are mostly cherry picked and often not really directed to the issue such as your guns are up/crime is down statement. Those numbers may or may not be true, but it is just one data point. You want to prove your argument, so you accept fuzzy data as proof without even giving thought to the possibility that your premise may be wrong.

You have said as much by your statement that you doubt data and believe your "own common sense".

So if you are going to ignore any data I provide, including data from YOUR references, then there is no point at all in discussing the issue with you. That's too bad as I initially thought there was a chance that you might be interested in an actual discussion.

I have a friend of a friend who is very opinionated about politics. She hears sound bites on the shows she likes and adopts them without thought because her emotions get riled up. I have taken her down the path of reason several times by simply asking questions and eventually she sees the illogic behind that particular thought. Then she simply side steps to another issue and we repeat the process. She never learns that it is her method of thinking that is at fault. She never accepts that she is believing a point of view based on bogus evidence without questioning it at all. We have actually reached a point where I have pointed out that the source she is believing is not credible and she then takes the position that no source is credible since she can't tell which ones to believe and which to not.

So be it. Like I said, I'm not pushing for more gun control. I'm just not at all opposed to it. I do believe that placing stronger restrictions on who can have guns will lower deaths and injuries as even your own reference indicates. I also believe that is a good thing that is more important to anyone's desire to hunt with a weapon designed to kill people or admire their collection or any of the many bogus ideas that guns are important to self protection. So if others want to push for gun control, I won't argue against them. But if anyone posts BS arguments for or against stronger gun control I won't have a problems disputing the BS.

I will say that if you think gun control laws are going to make your life difficult, then I would suggest you take another look at your life. How big a part of your life can guns be???

Thanks for discussing the issue as much as you did.

--

Rick C.

+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 4:45:42 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 3:41:01 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
Do you feel a need to have assault rifles? Do you have any? I assume you have hand guns since you bought a gun to carry for protection.


Do you feel a need to have a Tesla?

Sorry, I thought you were done discussing the issue...


> I'm not exactly sure what an "assault rifle" even is?

The Federal government defined it in the 90s. You aren't aware of that?


> All my firearms can kill, so if we define the taking of a life in self-defense to be an assault (that seems at least "somewhat reasonable"), then "Yes", everything I own is an "assault" something.

Ok, so clearly you don't really want to discuss the issue rationally.

But more accurately: An "assault-reply"!

Your question to me just sounds preposterous. (Sorry)
I think if you were a gun-owner yourself you might better understand the "why" behind that sentiment.

You are being silly which makes it hard to discuss anything with you. You were happy using the term assault rifle previously. Why the sudden inability to use the term reasonably now?

I mean, I have an "assault foot" too.
If it came to that....

But, to your question: I own..

(3) handguns (all are Glock 9mm).
(1) Shotgun - that honestly, was an impulse buy and it spends all its time in the gun safe. I think I've shot 5-10 rounds through it total in its lifetime.
(1) AR-15 variant, (A Tavor X95, chambered in 5.56 NATO), and
(1) Ultra-long range precision rifle (Cost: ~ $9,200), which is really just another expensive hobby. And FWIW: this platform would be the absolute worst choice for a mass-shooter use since it's more than 50" long, has a bolt-action (single shot) and weighs upwards of 38 pounds!! Plus, the bullets cost $4 each.

All of these, with the exception of my current carry weapon (which right now is the Glock-19), "live" in my gun safe until I hit the gun range.

I asked because you were talking about protecting yourself on the street. Do you use the AR-15 type weapon for self protection?


> And I used to own a S&W Bodyguard compact handgun (chambered in 380-ACP), which I promptly sold after I decided I could not shoot it accurately enough to my satisfaction. (The gun grip is too small for my hands.) Plus, it was an under-powered piece of shit anyway that wasn't even fun to shoot. Against a large attacker, all you're going to do is piss him off with that thing - not going stop him dead in his tracks, unless you're a very lucky shot and manage to hit something vital.

So you keep your weapons in the gun safe unless they are in your hands. Do you keep the Glock-19 in the safe when you are at home? Or do you keep it out for ease of access? Where is it when you sleep?

--

Rick C.

++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Robert Baer]

Rick C wrote:

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 12:36:11 AM UTC-5, Robert Baer wrote:
Rick C wrote:
I was reading about the gun control legislation that is promised by the newly elected Democratic majority in Virginia. It seems this is angering a number of voters even if not enough to have controlled the election. There have been threats of violence and armed resistance to any new gun laws passed.

That is so illogical, the duly elected government, having run on a platform of enacting gun control in order to help reduce gun violence, is being threatened by those who oppose these laws with gun violence.

Yeah, that's why we have to have a government to do what we want done. Too many people believe they can get what they want by pointing guns at others. What they want is all that matters.

Fortunately for the rest of us, it won't work that way. When the laws are passed they will be enforced and anyone refusing to abide by the laws will be punished according to law.

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about gun control, but I sincerely believe that anyone threatening gun violence should never be allowed to have a gun again.

In practice, gun control laws do not work.
Anybody can get a gun, most especially illegal, most especially
criminals.
A gun has one function: kill.

The present arrangement doesn't seem to be going very well. I don't think the data supports your point. The US has some of the highest gun death rates in the world, right up there with out central and south American neighbors. Our Canadian neighbor has much more restrictive gun laws and have less than a quarter our homicide rate. Other countries like the UK and Australia with stiffer gun control laws have much, much lower homicide rates.

No, not anybody would be able to get a gun legally if they were more restricted. Not just anyone can get a gun now... not legally. If you don't think making something illegal makes it harder to get your hands on, should we make all drugs legal to buy and possess? Should radioactive materials be legal to buy and own? Clearly it is much harder to get things that are illegal even if they are still available.

I think Jim Jefferies said the Bushmaster gun that the shooter was going to use in Sandy Hook was $1,000 delivered to your door. In Australia it is $34,000 on the black market!!! Yeah, I think that reduces how many will be sold illegally.

In practice gun control laws do work even if it's not 100%. Do laws against bank robbery work 100%, no. But it's still illegal.

Yes, a gun has one function, to kill. So why do we need so many of them?

THAT question is directly to the point and needs serious research by
everyone that could be affected, including criminals.
Perhaps some ideas would be useful to reduce the number.
One stupid idea WRT gun control is to severely limit the manufacture
to the point of limiting the total amount in circulation.
Naturally, that would close down all makers for (wild estimate) 3 years.

 

[Robert Baer]

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Jose Curvo <jcurvo@mymail.com> wrote in
news:qveg98$1ipn$1@gioia.aioe.org:

On 01/11/2020 06:11 PM, mpm wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 4:18:08 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
How important can it be to have such dangerous weapons today
anyway?

I totally disagree with you.

But I just wanted to mention that ALL guns are dangerous.

blink> I got it! Embedded Linux and AI for the next generation
gun. Cloud connected.



Only fires if the targeted person 'deserves' it.

Uses the same database they use for deciding if you can have a gun
or not.

Sorry, do not remember title; sf re intelligent guns, but book is
relevant to above.

Guns of Asher?

 

>Single shot, three rounds or full auto. The third option was >eliminated because it just wasted ammunition

I have been saying that for some time now. If you need full auto, just give the rifle to someone who knows how to use it.

I still won't support many bans on ownership of almost anything, it is USING them that is really at issue.

Even in three round mode with a 20 round mag you get six full shots and one 2/3rds of a shot. I would rather make every bullet count.

Actually I like this nine, and it was cheap. But if I were to go on a mission... I would want a way to collect up the spent casings. We got the evidence factor plus the fact they can be reloaded. Ammo is not the cheapest thing in the world.

 

More than ever. The fake president has demonstrated that the entire
Constitution is negotiable.

BULLSHIT. Every fucking thing he has done is within his lawful power, granted BY the Constitution.

Name me ONE THING. Oh, sand don't try your leftist fucking horseshit with me I HAVE read the Constitution.

You want a Constitution ignorant motherfucker look to Obama. Most EOs overturned in the courts since FDR, who had four terms not just two.

Put your proof where your mouth is sheeple. You fucking hate who they tell you to hate. And you are going to LOSE.

Before you talk about the Constitution may I suggest you read it ? You obviously have not. That is why your punks can't stop him. If he really did something against the constitution they would have it in court on five minutes.. And now you house of clownpresentatives want to legislate down his powers as commander inchiefof the military.

For one they simply do not have that power and even if they did they didn't seem to notice that senate right up the hall.
Ad what about this impeachment. They got him dead to rights rights ? Well even Feinstein the jew bitch is telling Pelosi the moron to get on with it and send the articles to the senate. And now the cunt thinks she can dictate how the senate holds their hearings.

Not know the Constitution ? Trump knows more about the Constitution than Obama ever did. He is trouncing your clown car. And I know more than your assholes.

Bring in proof, bring in facts. YOU HAVE NONE.

 

jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in
news:4f68ba26-004f-4221-b86d-f9aa8e17c5d2@googlegroups.com:

BULLSHIT. Every fucking thing he has done is within his lawful
power, granted BY the Constitution.

BULLSHIT. Every fucking thing you've just stated is 100% false.

Powered by the total retardation caused to your brain by allowing
yourself to be hypnotized by a buffoon. A dnagerous buffoon.

It will cost American lives. You are a fucking putz to back the
stupid bastard.

 

>We do license and require testing of both the driver and car.

I would be OK with a policy that makes a mandatory and free class about how to handle guns, each type, all that for anyone's first gun purchase. Then they got a card and they don't have to do it again.

And since everyone is a constitutional scholar as competent as Obama (HAHAHAHA) arms means arms.


Anything the government would use against us. They would not nuke us, so no nukes. They would not use fighter jets against us so having one in your driveway is out. Biological, well margarine qualifies really. Chemical, nope, not much. They don't use them on us, they have Monsanto do it.

The supreme court may say the 2nd is interpretable but they also said something in the Heller case. They cannot keep you from having guns. Period. they cna keep you from carrying concealed in pubic and that might be a good thing with all the fucking nuts out there.

Open carry, some nitwit will call the law and you will have an encounter with the police. At that time they see your demeanor, that you are not drunk, high or otherwise out of it - they have to let you go. And in your house they got nothing to fucking say about it.

If you don't like the law go to merry old fucking England or something where you will be safe.

Oh, oops, they got a higher murder rate than NYC.

Well Baghdad then. forget Russia, you can have guns in Russia but they examine your record every five years to see if you went nuts, got busted for something nasty or something. Know what else ? A hunting license there is good for life and at least half the time you don't need a fishing license.

You can have them in Poland too, which has the fastest growing economy in the region. They got so many jobs they don't care where you come from. "Can I get a work visa ?". Sure, just go and apply for a job. Don't even pay taxes, we got plenty coming in. Just do your job.

See that is the other thing, people in other countries have guns. Maybe not the ones you hear about all the time like the UK possessions, but much of the world you can have them. Less people decide to get one but that is because many of those places are near civilised.

Know why they don't have mass shootings ? BECAUSE A THIRD OF THEIR POPULATION IS NOT ON PSYCHOTROPIC DRUGS. Look up all these mass shooters - you will find most of were them on anti-depressants or some shit. LOOK IT UP.

See here we do not counsel people who are troubled, that is too much work. So they drug them up. AND LOOK AT THE KNOWN SIDE EFFECTS ! Look that up while you're at it.

All this drug testing put forth as the reason for the ridiculous drug costs here, I want to ask something. At what point do they say "NO", do not sell this shit. What, if it doesn't kill within five minutes you are approved ?

No, the ridiculous cost is because of the lawsuits. There is even a class action hotline now, anything you got they will try to find someone to sue.

Trump has been working to lower drug costs, in fact under Obama it was illegal for pharmacies or anyone in the profession to even discuss shopping around for better prices. Trump fixed that and now on the TV there are ads for "GoodRx".

Push will come to shove though. he is going to have to make them a little less vulnerable to the ambulance chasers. And everybody, now it is talcum powder. Damn, there seems to have been a small amount of asbestos in it. Was it not there fifty years ago ? And when they tried to say second hand smoke was more dangerous than smoking it was over. You can't trust these motherfuckers for the time of day.

But you believe every bad thing they can possibly dream up about Trump. Well then riddle me this Batman, why were the articles of impeachment not sent to the senate ? I thought it was urgent.
Why did Pelosi finally allow a vote on the new North American trade deal ?

Democrats are not going to lose, they already have.

And by the way, I understand why they want gun control in Virginia. Many Washington politicians and their ilk live there and they know who deserves to be shot.

Time comes.

 

[mpm]

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 5:09:27 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

OK, I'll respond in kind. Your statistics are mostly cherry picked and often not really directed to the issue such as your guns are up/crime is down statement. Those numbers may or may not be true, but it is just one data point. You want to prove your argument, so you accept fuzzy data as proof without even giving thought to the possibility that your premise may be wrong.

You have said as much by your statement that you doubt data and believe your "own common sense".

Actually, No. The outcome of our discussion was entirely predictable, and I believe I said so at the start.

You basically want to believe that there is either no rational reason for someone to own, or want to own, an AR-15, and you recoil (no pun intended) at the thought that citizens might get angry with their government over its (constant and continuous) efforts to reign in a fundamental Constitutional Right. You then proffer that someone who engages in such civil disobedience over gun rights (perhaps via their First Amendment rights) defines exactly the sort of person who you say shouldn't be allowed to own one in the first place.

Fine. I get it. I just don't agree.
I say we forget the make and model of the [insert weapon here] and focus on dealing with the crazy nut jobs that cause the problems you want to solve. (which again, I submit is not a big enough problem to warrant more attention than texting and driving, preventable medical malpractice, etc...)

Furthermore, you have yet to provide any compelling evidence of a public benefit sufficient to restrict (let alone further restrict) the 2nd Amendment..

You don't own a firearm, so I'm forced to give you the benefit of the doubt here. But I can ASSURE you that I am an educated man, and I definitely do not parrot sound bytes or talking points. My views on firearm ownership run very deep and are the result of much forethought, research and deliberation. If you ever buy a weapon of your own, perhaps you will understand the responsibility that goes along with carrying it in public. Until then, it will likely prove very difficult to convince you that the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners are not a bunch of yahoo's who go out looking for the nearest crowd to mow down. (You might even be surprised which of your closest friends carry - I'll bet many won't tell you, or anyone.)

In fact, I'll even go so far as to say if I probably WOULD NOT get involved in a confrontation playing out in public. By that, if I saw a husband beating the shit out of his wife with a baseball bat - I WOULD NOT HELP. I'd be a good witness, but that's it. Now, if hubby takes a swing at ME, that's a different story. He'd better hope I have a way to avoid / retreat, or he's going to end up dead.

You know why I wouldn't help?
Because I am a licensed concealed carrier of a firearm. That's why.
Unless it's me or my loved ones, and absent the threat of immediate death or great physical harm, I'm not even going to pull the weapon out.

THAT's the kind of thinking someone is not likely to engage in UNLESS they own a firearm. And while I appreciate your armchair analysis, (and our discussion here), that's really all it is.

As for making life difficult... again, you have no frame of reference because you don't own a firearm. Let's start with basic carry. (In Florida, that's concealed carry because openly carrying a firearm is a crime.) So, now we're talking about the way you have to dress everyday. Or, maybe you can strap a small firearm to your ankle - how convenient and useful is that!?

Then, you go about your day...
Need to stop by the Post Office? Nope!!! Not with that firearm. (It's a felony to even drive in the parking lot - even with the weapon securely encased in the trunk, unloaded, even if the gun doesn't operate.) Best you can do is park off-site and walk it on foot.

Need to pick up the kids from school? Nope!!! Not with that firearm (another felony). (And some states, like Florida, leave it up to the individual schools to decide if it's a crime or not -- but you're unlike to know the school's official policy on firearms in advance of your visit, even if it's just the result of a wrong turn into the parking lot. Felony.

Need to pick up Grandma at the airport? Nope!!! In Florida, you can't even go into the non-sterile baggage claim portion of the airport with a firearm, loaded or not. (Another felony).

Want to stop by for a few drinks after work with your co-workers? Nope!!! Most states will not allow you to carry a firearm into any portion of the restaurant that serves alcohol.

Want to take a vacation by car? Nope!!! Drive into New York or New Jersey and you'll be arrested (another felony). Even if you just mistakenly take a wrong turn and end up there. Yep... Felony. Just driving through the State is also a felony. (I believe the same is now true for California.)

But what if you travel by plane. Nope!!! Even if you check your firearm with the airline (which is legal), if the plane is diverted to a State that doesn't allow you bring your gun then you better not accept it from the airline in that state. Instant Felony. Have the airline get it back to you some other way.

Want to vote? Better leave your gun at home. (Another felony to have a gun at a polling place).

Want to go to church? In some places.. Nope. Not with that firearm.

In some states, (not Florida), a "No Guns Allowed" sign carries the weight of armed criminal trespass. Get caught with a gun, (or sometimes even just one bullet), and you are going to jail.

Then we have States that don't have preemption laws. Basically, that means every little county, city and town can make up their own laws (which often conflict with adjacent municipalities), so unless you're extremely familiar with all the local laws, you're probably screwed.

And keep in mind, all of these examples I've just rattled off (and I could go on for much longer), apply to LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS WHO HAVE ALREADY PASSED AN FBI BACKGROUND CHECK!!!!!!!

And, as I have already pointed out, are SIX-TIMES LESS LIKELY than the police to commit crimes!

It's really stunning when you think about it.

But that's what happens to a disfavored Constitutional Right that has been encroached upon for years by the anti-gunner crowd. And that's why the divide between the two sides is so cavernous that nothing ever gets done -- even tweaks that are so agreeable to both sides, it's "common sense" to enact..

You say you don't have a dog in the fight, but I suspect deep down, that may not be true. (For all I know, maybe you have some black marks on your criminal record and are prohibited from ever owning a firearm - wouldn't be the first time a discussion like this has happened.) But I'll assume that's not the case here.

 

[mpm]

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 5:20:32 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 4:45:42 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 3:41:01 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
Do you feel a need to have assault rifles? Do you have any? I assume you have hand guns since you bought a gun to carry for protection.


Do you feel a need to have a Tesla?

Sorry, I thought you were done discussing the issue...

It's a valid question.

I'm not exactly sure what an "assault rifle" even is?

The Federal government defined it in the 90s. You aren't aware of that?

I'm aware (and apparently you are not) that the Federal Government has changed its definition of an "assault rifle" numerous times since the 1990's. (Some politicians change it on an as-needed basis to suit their purposes.) And many states, notably California, change it just about every other month.. Lately, they don't even bother with an official definition (hint: turns out, definitions are unworkable), so the State just keeps a list of which weapons are lawful to own, and which are not. It is a confusing MESS, and probably the #1 reason I will never live in California. Well, in the top-5 anyway.

And perhaps you are not aware of Turk's "white paper" (2nd highest ranking official at ATF) where he basically says the "assault weapon" designation is largely an ambiguous term invented by the anti-gun lobby in the 1980's.

But let's move on. (Although I care very little about the terminology, the words "assault rifle" have some magical meaning for you. I'll just acknowledge that my firearms are lethal, and designed to be so, and you can decide how you want to couch that.)

To your question: No, I don't use an AR-15 for protection on the streets.
But as a threshold matter, if I'm only using it for protection, why shouldn't I be allowed to?

That said, Florida gets really hot in the Summer (which most years, seems to last about 8-9 months!) I frankly have no desire to walk around town with an AR-15, even if it were legal to do so, which it isn't (unless you can conceal it, and have a concealed carry license). I'm confused why you would even ask?

And BTW, "need" has nothing to do with it.
If "need" were the test, I would argue you do not "need" a Tesla.
You could drive a Ford, or a Chevy. Or for that matter, you could walk.
That was my whole point. I think you missed it, or may have misinterpreted it somehow.

But I'll bite.
I don't "need" an AR-15 for protection. (And I don't use it for that purpose, and I never said I did, or even that I would - that's your own fabrication.)
I also don't need an AR-15 for hunting. Go back and read Justice Thomas' statement on the matter.

What else.. Oh yes, secure gun storage.

Yes - as a responsible, law-abiding gun owner, I know exactly where my firearms are at all times, whether they are loaded or not, and exactly what kind of ammunition they are loaded with. 99% of the time, my firearms are in the gun safe except whatever I am carrying. And I would say I carry probably 90%-95% of the time when I am out of the house. (In the hot summer months, I will often switch over to my Glock-26, which is a little smaller, a little less capable, but more comfortable and easier to conceal in the heat.) When I am home, my carry gun is NOT in the safe (where it would be unavailable if needed quickly). If I'm expecting company (maybe my teenage niece and nephews, or contractors working on the house), then I'll lock up the carry gun too. Otherwise, I know where it is. You do not. That is the whole point, isn't it.

When I sleep, it's in the bedroom, right where it SHOULD BE.
That's again a pretty curious question? Are you dreaming up ways to break into someone's home? (Florida has Castle Doctrine - I wouldn't recommend trying it here.)

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 2:03:14 PM UTC+11, mpm wrote:

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 5:09:27 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

OK, I'll respond in kind. Your statistics are mostly cherry picked and often not really directed to the issue such as your guns are up/crime is down statement. Those numbers may or may not be true, but it is just one data point. You want to prove your argument, so you accept fuzzy data as proof without even giving thought to the possibility that your premise may be wrong.

You have said as much by your statement that you doubt data and believe your "own common sense".

Actually, No. The outcome of our discussion was entirely predictable, and I believe I said so at the start.

Largely because you reject rational argument, in favour of "what the US does is right even if it looks wrong to everybody else".

> You basically want to believe that there is either no rational reason for someone to own, or want to own, an AR-15,

I don't think he thinks that. Rather, he seems to think that most people don't have any rational reason to own an AR-15, and those that do have to spell them out to licensing authorities.

> and you recoil (no pun intended) at the thought that citizens might get angry with their government over its (constant and continuous) efforts to reign in a fundamental Constitutional Right.

The fundamental right was to form a well-regulated militia, but the founding tax evaders didn't draft the amendment carefully enough.

The US constitution is pretty primitive piece of legislation, and has been patched up rather than cleaned up.

> You then proffer that someone who engages in such civil disobedience over gun rights (perhaps via their First Amendment rights) defines exactly the sort of person who you say shouldn't be allowed to own one in the first place.

Civil disobedience is non-violent. Waving guns around is threatening lethal violence, so it's got nothing to do with civil disobedience. The word "civil" is a meaningful qualifier, and waving guns around disqualifies protestors from claiming to be practising civil disobedience.

> Fine. I get it. I just don't agree.

In fact you cleary don't get it.

> I say we forget the make and model of the [insert weapon here] and focus on dealing with the crazy nut jobs that cause the problems you want to solve. (which again, I submit is not a big enough problem to warrant more attention than texting and driving, preventable medical malpractice, etc...)

The US leads the world in gun related deaths - mostly suicides, at 12.21 per 100,000 people. Civilised places are a factor ten lower.

It not a lot of people, but pretty much everbody else does a lot better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

> Furthermore, you have yet to provide any compelling evidence of a public benefit sufficient to restrict (let alone further restrict) the 2nd Amendment.

Ten fewer deaths per 100,000 people per year is a pretty compelling example - a lot more compelling if you happened to have known one of the people who died that way. Dunbar's number is 150 people so only one in six is likely to have felt the full effect.

> You don't own a firearm, so I'm forced to give you the benefit of the doubt here. But I can ASSURE you that I am an educated man, and I definitely do not parrot sound bytes or talking points. My views on firearm ownership run very deep and are the result of much forethought, research and deliberation. If you ever buy a weapon of your own, perhaps you will understand the responsibility that goes along with carrying it in public. Until then, it will likely prove very difficult to convince you that the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners are not a bunch of yahoo's who go out looking for the nearest crowd to mow down. (You might even be surprised which of your closest friends carry - I'll bet many won't tell you, or anyone.)

That isn't the problem. The real problem is that those gun-carrying friends are a lot more likely to die at their own hand when they get hit by a suicidal impulse. If they get hit by a homicidal impulse (which is quite a bit less likely) the results can be quite a bit worse.

The sad fact is that none of us a quite as sane as we'd like to believe, and the cost-benefit ratio of owning a gun is a lot poorer than gun owners like to think.

In fact, I'll even go so far as to say if I probably WOULD NOT get involved in a confrontation playing out in public. By that, if I saw a husband beating the shit out of his wife with a baseball bat - I WOULD NOT HELP. I'd be a good witness, but that's it. Now, if hubby takes a swing at ME, that's a different story. He'd better hope I have a way to avoid / retreat, or he's going to end up dead.

You know why I wouldn't help?
Because I am a licensed concealed carrier of a firearm. That's why.
Unless it's me or my loved ones, and absent the threat of immediate death or great physical harm, I'm not even going to pull the weapon out.

That's what you tell yourself, and it's true most of time, for most people. The problem comes when it turns out not to be true, and the US gun death statistics show that his happens often enough to kill quite a lot of people - several hundred thousand per year.

> THAT's the kind of thinking someone is not likely to engage in UNLESS they own a firearm. And while I appreciate your armchair analysis, (and our discussion here), that's really all it is.

The non-thinking you are engaged in here is another form of arm-chair analysis, and it leaves out a lot of people who end up dead who wouldn't have die if they'd lived in country that took gun control more seriously.

<snipped tedious list of the consequences of being silly enough to carry a gun around>

> And keep in mind, all of these examples I've just rattled off (and I could go on for much longer), apply to LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS WHO HAVE ALREADY PASSED AN FBI BACKGROUND CHECK!!!!!!!

Because the US is silly enough to let people carry guns, the lunatics who take advantage of the possibility can be law-abiding citizens. They are also lunatics, but manage not to realise it.

> And, as I have already pointed out, are SIX-TIMES LESS LIKELY than the police to commit crimes!

So what?

> It's really stunning when you think about it.

It's stunning that you think that you have thought through it properly.

> But that's what happens to a disfavored Constitutional Right that has been encroached upon for years by the anti-gunner crowd.

It's disfavoured because it never should have been written into the constitution in the first place.

> And that's why the divide between the two sides is so cavernous that nothing ever gets done -- even tweaks that are so agreeable to both sides, it's "common sense" to enact.

The business of propagating a commercially profitable silly idea is well established. Climate change denial and anti-gun-control propaganda make money for the people who pay for them. Gullible twits buy the specious arguments..

> You say you don't have a dog in the fight, but I suspect deep down, that may not be true. (For all I know, maybe you have some black marks on your criminal record and are prohibited from ever owning a firearm - wouldn't be the first time a discussion like this has happened.) But I'll assume that's not the case here.

Generous of him.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 10:03:14 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 5:09:27 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

OK, I'll respond in kind. Your statistics are mostly cherry picked and often not really directed to the issue such as your guns are up/crime is down statement. Those numbers may or may not be true, but it is just one data point. You want to prove your argument, so you accept fuzzy data as proof without even giving thought to the possibility that your premise may be wrong.

You have said as much by your statement that you doubt data and believe your "own common sense".

Actually, No. The outcome of our discussion was entirely predictable, and I believe I said so at the start.

You basically want to believe that there is either no rational reason for someone to own, or want to own, an AR-15, and you recoil (no pun intended) at the thought that citizens might get angry with their government over its (constant and continuous) efforts to reign in a fundamental Constitutional Right. You then proffer that someone who engages in such civil disobedience over gun rights (perhaps via their First Amendment rights) defines exactly the sort of person who you say shouldn't be allowed to own one in the first place.

This is something you have done the entire discussion. Instead of responding to what I say, you make up the argument you wish to counter and then put up your rebuttal to that.

For example, you say I "recoil ... at the thought that citizens might get angry with their government" when that's not the issue at all. I don't like the idea of threatening violence.

Then you characterize this as "civil disobedience" which is generally considered to be non-violence.

Do you not see how instead of listening to what I am saying you are hearing what you want to argue against?

Fine. I get it. I just don't agree.
I say we forget the make and model of the [insert weapon here] and focus on dealing with the crazy nut jobs that cause the problems you want to solve. (which again, I submit is not a big enough problem to warrant more attention than texting and driving, preventable medical malpractice, etc...)

Furthermore, you have yet to provide any compelling evidence of a public benefit sufficient to restrict (let alone further restrict) the 2nd Amendment.

I believe it is clear at this time that the second amendment is not a clear definition of what the framers intended, at least not in the eyes of the court. An assault gun ban was already in place for 10 years, so clearly either the courts feel it is constitutional, or no one cared enough to challenge it which I think is unlikely.

As to evidence, I don't know that is required. There is no evidence that there is no connection between assault gun bans and violence and as you say, it is "common sense" there would be a connection. Yes, there are very many such weapons out there, but if they are illegal to sell, then that serves the same purpose. It may take a very long time to see the numbers dwindle, but eventually they will be reduced.


> You don't own a firearm, so I'm forced to give you the benefit of the doubt here. But I can ASSURE you that I am an educated man, and I definitely do not parrot sound bytes or talking points. My views on firearm ownership run very deep and are the result of much forethought, research and deliberation. If you ever buy a weapon of your own, perhaps you will understand the responsibility that goes along with carrying it in public. Until then, it will likely prove very difficult to convince you that the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners are not a bunch of yahoo's who go out looking for the nearest crowd to mow down. (You might even be surprised which of your closest friends carry - I'll bet many won't tell you, or anyone.)

I have not said anything to the contrary. What did I say that makes you think I believe *everyone* with a gun is not law-abiding? This comes back to the issue that you believe I've said something I never said. You are arguing with someone in your mind rather than the words I post here.


> In fact, I'll even go so far as to say if I probably WOULD NOT get involved in a confrontation playing out in public. By that, if I saw a husband beating the shit out of his wife with a baseball bat - I WOULD NOT HELP. I'd be a good witness, but that's it. Now, if hubby takes a swing at ME, that's a different story. He'd better hope I have a way to avoid / retreat, or he's going to end up dead.

I've tried to follow the "stand your ground" cases. It seems they are being enforced with reason in Florida now. Recently someone was sent to prison because he used his gun to kill someone he only *perceived* as being a deadly threat when it was pretty clear he wasn't.

You know why I wouldn't help?
Because I am a licensed concealed carrier of a firearm. That's why.
Unless it's me or my loved ones, and absent the threat of immediate death or great physical harm, I'm not even going to pull the weapon out.

THAT's the kind of thinking someone is not likely to engage in UNLESS they own a firearm. And while I appreciate your armchair analysis, (and our discussion here), that's really all it is.

You made a fallacious connection. You attribute your thinking to all firearm owners. You say I think they all are not good candidates to carry arms and you clearly think anyone owning a weapon *is* a good candidate. I'm pretty sure Michael Drejka should not have had a gun.

As for making life difficult... again, you have no frame of reference because you don't own a firearm. Let's start with basic carry. (In Florida, that's concealed carry because openly carrying a firearm is a crime.) So, now we're talking about the way you have to dress everyday. Or, maybe you can strap a small firearm to your ankle - how convenient and useful is that!?

Then, you go about your day...
Need to stop by the Post Office? Nope!!! Not with that firearm. (It's a felony to even drive in the parking lot - even with the weapon securely encased in the trunk, unloaded, even if the gun doesn't operate.) Best you can do is park off-site and walk it on foot.

Need to pick up the kids from school? Nope!!! Not with that firearm (another felony). (And some states, like Florida, leave it up to the individual schools to decide if it's a crime or not -- but you're unlike to know the school's official policy on firearms in advance of your visit, even if it's just the result of a wrong turn into the parking lot. Felony.

Need to pick up Grandma at the airport? Nope!!! In Florida, you can't even go into the non-sterile baggage claim portion of the airport with a firearm, loaded or not. (Another felony).

Want to stop by for a few drinks after work with your co-workers? Nope!!! Most states will not allow you to carry a firearm into any portion of the restaurant that serves alcohol.

Want to take a vacation by car? Nope!!! Drive into New York or New Jersey and you'll be arrested (another felony). Even if you just mistakenly take a wrong turn and end up there. Yep... Felony. Just driving through the State is also a felony. (I believe the same is now true for California.)

But what if you travel by plane. Nope!!! Even if you check your firearm with the airline (which is legal), if the plane is diverted to a State that doesn't allow you bring your gun then you better not accept it from the airline in that state. Instant Felony. Have the airline get it back to you some other way.

Want to vote? Better leave your gun at home. (Another felony to have a gun at a polling place).

Want to go to church? In some places.. Nope. Not with that firearm.

In some states, (not Florida), a "No Guns Allowed" sign carries the weight of armed criminal trespass. Get caught with a gun, (or sometimes even just one bullet), and you are going to jail.

Then we have States that don't have preemption laws. Basically, that means every little county, city and town can make up their own laws (which often conflict with adjacent municipalities), so unless you're extremely familiar with all the local laws, you're probably screwed.

And keep in mind, all of these examples I've just rattled off (and I could go on for much longer), apply to LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS WHO HAVE ALREADY PASSED AN FBI BACKGROUND CHECK!!!!!!!

Everything you posted above is about people carrying guns. Obviously YOU are the one making your life difficult, not the law. The simple solution is to not carry a gun. It's amazing how many people manage to get though their day without a firearm by their side. Amazing!

And, as I have already pointed out, are SIX-TIMES LESS LIKELY than the police to commit crimes!

It's really stunning when you think about it.

Nothing stunning about it. You can't get a concealed carry permit in most places without a course in the matter. Then you need a strong motivation to carry on. Then there is the matter that many law violations are compounded by the simple act of carrying a gun. I think these things make a concealed weapon holder much more aware and responsible. Cops... I think they have a lot more exposure to making criminal mistakes. But as you say, you don't believe statistics, so I'm not sure why you are so excited about this one. Can you explain that?

But that's what happens to a disfavored Constitutional Right that has been encroached upon for years by the anti-gunner crowd. And that's why the divide between the two sides is so cavernous that nothing ever gets done -- even tweaks that are so agreeable to both sides, it's "common sense" to enact.

You say you don't have a dog in the fight, but I suspect deep down, that may not be true. (For all I know, maybe you have some black marks on your criminal record and are prohibited from ever owning a firearm - wouldn't be the first time a discussion like this has happened.) But I'll assume that's not the case here.

LOL!!! I didn't expect it would get to the point that you would just plain make up stuff. But there it is. The perfect reply to verify what I saw you doing. You aren't arguing against what I say other than very obliquely. You have these ideas in your head and ignore any evidence to the contrary.. Rather you respond to the imaginary enemy of arms you think you are debating with.

I will acknowledge the FBI have my finger prints on file, but not for a criminal background.

lol, you really are a trip!!!

--

Rick C.

+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[mpm]

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 5:09:27 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

BTW, I've been going back-n-forth a bit with the Tesla driving monkey (Sorry Rick!) on gun control.

I haven't mentioned one ugly thought I have about the topic:

If there's anything to Global Warming and the seas rise more quickly that humankind can adapt, then an armed populace become truly problematic.

Now, as I sit here putting on my flame-suit, I'm not saying Global Warming is real, or that it's even going to be a problem. But I can certainly see those in the government believing it to be real -- and foreseeing all the problems that will come with armed contests in the streets (or canals, depending upon your point of view). Better to grab the guns now?

Me? I agree everyone having guns with the seas gobbling up the shoreline is a problem. But not the only one. And I generally take a defeatist attitude about it anyway. Yep, a problem for sure. But get in line. Many more where those came from. (Loose translation: We're screwed anyway.)

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 10:57:11 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 5:09:27 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

BTW, I've been going back-n-forth a bit with the Tesla driving monkey (Sorry Rick!) on gun control.

I haven't mentioned one ugly thought I have about the topic:

If there's anything to Global Warming and the seas rise more quickly that humankind can adapt, then an armed populace become truly problematic.

Now, as I sit here putting on my flame-suit, I'm not saying Global Warming is real, or that it's even going to be a problem. But I can certainly see those in the government believing it to be real -- and foreseeing all the problems that will come with armed contests in the streets (or canals, depending upon your point of view). Better to grab the guns now?

Me? I agree everyone having guns with the seas gobbling up the shoreline is a problem. But not the only one. And I generally take a defeatist attitude about it anyway. Yep, a problem for sure. But get in line. Many more where those came from. (Loose translation: We're screwed anyway.)

Yes, it is exactly this sort of unclear thinking that makes me afraid of not the weapons, but the people who hold them.

--

Rick C.

---- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209