OT: Gun Control in Virginia

[mpm]

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 10:52:04 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

I'm smart enough to know I'm not able to single-handedly change the world, or even just the United States.

So every time you point out how fucked up the United States is when it comes to gun control, I'm going to throw it right back at you.

BECAUSE IT'S FUCKED-UP, that's why I choose to carry.

Any more questions?

I think you make my points perfectly.
We could argue over the finer details about which policies might produce the most public good, assuming of course that's even a worthwhile endeavor.

But I don't even care, frankly.
I personally think there are FAR TOO MANY PEOPLE on the planet as it is.
And if some subset of them want to kill each other in the streets, or want to end their existence via suicide in some lonely, dimly-lit back room, so be it.

I really don't care.

There are something like 3.5 BILLION more people on the planet than when I was born. 15,000 (non-suicide) gun-related homicides a year is nothing. It's statistically insignificant. We got bigger problems. (Not that we're likely to fix those either.)

I'm in my late 50's and I think you once said you were 70's.
So, with any luck, you and I will live just long enough to not have to deal with it. But the upcoming generation is probably screwed. I mean, in big generalized terms. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it. (And it matters not, anyway.)

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 2:57:11 PM UTC+11, 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.

Sea level rise is an aspect of global warming. There's about 10 metres of sea level rise in the ice sheets are likely to slide off into the sea at some point - the Greenland ice sheet and the East Antarctic ice sheet and - which will mess up great deal of expensive sea front real estate, including the wharves where ocean-going freighters unload, but it is the kind of thing that will get people out on the street waving guns.

The forest fires which are currently devastating substantial chunks of the east coast of Australia are probably more represneative examples of the kinds of problem we are going to have more of as the warming goes on.

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.

You ought to know enough to realise that it is real, going on right now and creating problems right now.

> 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).

What would those armed mobs be trying to achieve by wandering around and waving guns?

They aren't going stop the sea level rising, and forest fires don't pay any attention to people armed with guns. Fire hoses aren't much more effective, but they do have some effect.

More intense tropical cyclones are similarly inattentive to gum wielding mobs, and are leading people killers at the moment.

> Better to grab the guns now?

In the hope of doing what?

> 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.)

If you don't have a clue about what's going on, you really are screwed. Getting educated would pay off better than getting armed. When a lot of the population actively resists getting better informed, getting educated isn't as helpful as it might be - you get written off as troll, when you try to correct the misinformation being spread around.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[mpm]

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 10:55:53 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

> 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!

What's amazing is 15,000 people killed every year believing someone else is going to protect them.

And as far as "me" making my own life difficult abiding these ridiculous and ineffective gun laws -- I'm not falling for it.

You're bright enough to know making something so cumbersome as to be impossible to comply with is just an end-around the 2A.

Sort of like wanting to outlaw abortion clinics, but can't.
So you set up a cumbersome (ie., impossible) myriad system of zoning regulations and hospital admittance privileges that no doctor or company could possible meet. Mission accomplished!!

 

[mpm]

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 11:22:05 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

Better to grab the guns now?

In the hope of doing what?

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.)

If you don't have a clue about what's going on, you really are screwed. Getting educated would pay off better than getting armed. When a lot of the population actively resists getting better informed, getting educated isn't as helpful as it might be - you get written off as troll, when you try to correct the misinformation being spread around.

No, I meant the government grabbing the guns now. (not citizens)
Sorry about that confusion.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 3:27:26 PM UTC+11, mpm wrote:

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 10:55:53 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

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!

What's amazing is 15,000 people killed every year believing someone else is going to protect them.

The US had 14,542 gun homicides in 2017

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Why you should imagine that any of them believed that someone else was going to protect them is difficult to understand. The implication that if they had a had gun they wouldn't have been killed is even sillier.

Somebody who is trying to kill you with a gun is going to try and do it before you can do anything about it. Quite a few people who have been killed by gun-fire were not the intended target so carrying a gun wouldn't have helped them

> And as far as "me" making my own life difficult abiding these ridiculous and ineffective gun laws -- I'm not falling for it.

Of course you aren't. You've made up your mind and mere evidence isn't change to change it.

You're bright enough to know making something so cumbersome as to be impossible to comply with is just an end-around the 2A.

Not exactly. Allowing people to carry a concealed gun is a really bad idea, and one that is even worse in a lot of situations. The second amendment doesn't make any difference to that.

Sort of like wanting to outlaw abortion clinics, but can't.
So you set up a cumbersome (ie., impossible) myriad system of zoning regulations and hospital admittance privileges that no doctor or company could possible meet. Mission accomplished!!

Until somebody notices.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 3:29:32 PM UTC+11, mpm wrote:

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 11:22:05 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

Better to grab the guns now?

In the hope of doing what?

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.)

If you don't have a clue about what's going on, you really are screwed. Getting educated would pay off better than getting armed. When a lot of the population actively resists getting better informed, getting educated isn't as helpful as it might be - you get written off as troll, when you try to correct the misinformation being spread around.


No, I meant the government grabbing the guns now. (not citizens)
Sorry about that confusion.

The confusion that you ought to worry about was the one that lead you to try to relate gun control to global warming. Right-wing nitwits do have silly ideas about both, so perhaps you were just saying "don't talk to me because I can't think straight".

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 11:27:26 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 10:55:53 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

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!

What's amazing is 15,000 people killed every year believing someone else is going to protect them.

And as far as "me" making my own life difficult abiding these ridiculous and ineffective gun laws -- I'm not falling for it.

You're bright enough to know making something so cumbersome as to be impossible to comply with is just an end-around the 2A.

Sort of like wanting to outlaw abortion clinics, but can't.
So you set up a cumbersome (ie., impossible) myriad system of zoning regulations and hospital admittance privileges that no doctor or company could possible meet. Mission accomplished!!

It is amazing that you can't understand how poor your arguments are. But then you never actually address anything I say, so I guess you know that you can't actually defend your positions against the counter arguments.

You say 15,000 homicides a year (in the US only) is nothing compared to the world population (mixing apples and oranges a bit). But that makes your arguments groundless as well since you are only one person and so 15,000 times less important. Why should I care if you have protection from unnamed people??? Others will be safer if you and others like you don't have guns.

I do agree with you on one point. There is no point in the two of us discussing it. You may notice there is one big difference between us. I don't directly insult you or call you names.

I think we are done with this topic.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2020-01-13, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

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?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weapon_Shops_of_Isher

--
Jasen.

 

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

Prove it.

 

jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in news:5dffb65f-5934-4ab9-969c-a5d9f820aa73
@googlegroups.com:

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

Prove it.

Not allowed to go against your oath, no matter what your office is.

He went against his oath on day one when he told security officials
that his son in law did not need a security clearance. That is a
violation of federal law.

Sorry, punk. You lose.

 

[mpm]

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 1:21:22 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 3:27:26 PM UTC+11, mpm wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 10:55:53 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

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!

What's amazing is 15,000 people killed every year believing someone else is going to protect them.

The US had 14,542 gun homicides in 2017

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Why you should imagine that any of them believed that someone else was going to protect them is difficult to understand. The implication that if they had a had gun they wouldn't have been killed is even sillier.

So?
A huge chunk of that number is comprised of:
~12% Law enforcement action
~17% The result of criminal activity, including "gang-on-gang"
~10% Drug trafficking
~3% Accidental discharge, including from the police

You may quibble with the percentages but appear directionally correct to me..
And, I would argue, that 40% +/- just described probably deserves to eat a bullet. You don't run from the police. (That's just STUPID, ..and disrespectful!)

What's left is mostly Domestic Violence (usually "man vs. woman"), and again, I say that taking MY weapon isn't going to help some unknown couple with their domestic squabbles.

Road rage is in there too. Same argument.
Nut jobs. Same argument.

After all that, what's the number look like now?
Because AT BEST, that would be the total preventable census that (presumably) restricting my gun rights is going to affect. And as I've said, that impact is so miniscule as to be un-measureable. (Like outlawing spoons to combat obesity: Attack the thing, not the person?) Huh??

Somebody who is trying to kill you with a gun is going to try and do it before you can do anything about it.

Yes (well MAYBE), and "quite a few" people have taken out the perp too.
I can send you a YouTube playlist if you like.

>Quite a few people who have been killed by gun-fire were not the intended target so carrying a gun wouldn't have helped them

But you discount that maybe someone else with a gun might have taken out the shooter before that stray shot was fired. Sure would have been helpful in the MSJ school shooting!! (We can do this all day. What is the point?)

And as far as "me" making my own life difficult abiding these ridiculous and ineffective gun laws -- I'm not falling for it.

Of course you aren't. You've made up your mind and mere evidence isn't change to change it.

Not exactly, but when I make up my mind it is usually based on a substantial and meaningful deliberation of the "facts and figures". That means it's going to be more difficult to push me off a position unless the counter-evidence is solid AND compelling. If you take any stock in that Myers-Briggs stuff, I'm a solid ISTJ personality - in my experience, typical of engineering types.

I've provided plenty of evidence.

What I haven't heard so far in this little debate is exactly what public benefit there is to outlawing AR-15's. And keep in mind, it needs to be a HUGE PUBLIC BENEFIT because we're talking about outweighing a Constitutional Right (like it or not).

If we agree that crazy people shouldn't have weapons (and I do), I haven't heard much here about exactly what to do about that situation either. I doubt there are any easy answers, but not everybody can, or even should, be a productive member of society. Let's face it: Fairness goes out the window when the individual involved simply can't comply.

And, I haven't much rebuttal about the undisputed fact that HANDGUNS kill far more people than so-called "assault rifles". So why the focus on AR-15's?

You're bright enough to know making something so cumbersome as to be impossible to comply with is just an end-around the 2A.

Not exactly. Allowing people to carry a concealed gun is a really bad idea, and one that is even worse in a lot of situations. The second amendment doesn't make any difference to that.

I once read that concealed carry (especially in the Southern US) was considered "sneaky" and "under-handed". Timeframe: About 100 years ago-ish..
I appreciate that viewpoint, but where I live, it's the anti-gunner crowd who forced the prohibition against "open-carry". So in that sense, they got what they wanted - now live with it. I would still probably carry concealed even if open-carry were permissible, because nobody really needs to know I'm armed. But it's really a false choice because there is no other way to legally carry where I live (Florida).

Sort of like wanting to outlaw abortion clinics, but can't.
So you set up a cumbersome (ie., impossible) myriad system of zoning regulations and hospital admittance privileges that no doctor or company could possible meet. Mission accomplished!!

Until somebody notices.

Yep!! And by then, look at all the (unwanted), (un-loved) lives we've saved!
Many or most of whom will likely grow up in father-less households (or foster care) and enter the criminal element later in life.

Ah, the cycle is complete!

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[mpm]

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 1:30:17 AM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 11:27:26 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 10:55:53 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

I do agree with you on one point. There is no point in the two of us discussing it. You may notice there is one big difference between us. I don't directly insult you or call you names.

I think we are done with this topic.

That fine.

But I think you might have me mixed up with another poster. (?)
I did not call you names.

I "may" have pointed out the Monkey w/glasses avatar, which I actually think is pretty cool, BTW.

And no worries, I'm not that concerned about "winning you over" to the dark side of gun ownership.

Statistics show that if (Yikes!!) you ever find yourself in a situation where you really need to defend yourself against an attack, you'll probably at least very seriously consider gun ownership yourself. But maybe not. It's not for everyone, and whatever our disagreements here, I do acknowledge and accept that.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 11:07:08 AM UTC+11, mpm wrote:

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 1:21:22 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 3:27:26 PM UTC+11, mpm wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 10:55:53 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

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!

What's amazing is 15,000 people killed every year believing someone else is going to protect them.

The US had 14,542 gun homicides in 2017

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Why you should imagine that any of them believed that someone else was going to protect them is difficult to understand. The implication that if they had a had gun they wouldn't have been killed is even sillier.

So?
A huge chunk of that number is comprised of:
~12% Law enforcement action
~17% The result of criminal activity, including "gang-on-gang"
~10% Drug trafficking
~3% Accidental discharge, including from the police

You may quibble with the percentages but appear directionally correct to me.
And, I would argue, that 40% +/- just described probably deserves to eat a bullet. You don't run from the police. (That's just STUPID, ..and disrespectful!)

What's left is mostly Domestic Violence (usually "man vs. woman"), and again, I say that taking MY weapon isn't going to help some unknown couple with their domestic squabbles.

Until you find yourself in a domestic squabble, and the fact that your gun is handy leads to the death of your or other members of your family.

The family you'd help there would be your own.

Road rage is in there too. Same argument.
Nut jobs. Same argument.

The problem is that you won't know that you are that kind of nut job until after it has happened.

After all that, what's the number look like now?

Because AT BEST, that would be the total preventable census that (presumably) restricting my gun rights is going to affect. And as I've said, that impact is so miniscule as to be un-measureable.

The US has about 12 gun deaths per 100,000 people per year. Similar advance industrial countries cluster about 1 per 100,000.

That not miniscule, and gets measured every year.

> (Like outlawing spoons to combat obesity: Attack the thing, not the person?) Huh??

Spoons aren't markedly better at shovelling food into your mouth than your fingers. Guns are much better at killing people than most of the other tools used to do the job.

Somebody who is trying to kill you with a gun is going to try and do it before you can do anything about it.

Yes (well MAYBE), and "quite a few" people have taken out the perp too.
I can send you a YouTube playlist if you like.

Sure you can. The NRA pounces on every occasion when it has happened and documents them endlessly.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/251894/number-of-justifiable-homicides-in-the-us/

shows that there were 763 justified gun homicides in the US in 2018, about equally split between police and private citizens, out of about 15,000. That's 5%.

The risk you run to get that advantage is a much higher risk of gun suicide, of which there were about 24,000. As precautions go it's not remotely cost effective.

As a Hollywood-fed fantasy, it may look like an ego-boosting trade-off, but in reality it's spectacularly stupid.

Quite a few people who have been killed by gun-fire were not the intended target so carrying a gun wouldn't have helped them

But you discount that maybe someone else with a gun might have taken out the shooter before that stray shot was fired. Sure would have been helpful in the MSJ school shooting!! (We can do this all day. What is the point?)

Anecdotal evidence is misleading without statistics that indicate how likely the anecdote is likely to show up in real life.

Your anecdotes about good outcomes of carrying a gun all relate to improbable events, and you ignore the much more frequent downside - one of your family (most likely you) using the gun to kill themselves.

The point is to rub your nose in the evidence that you are deceiving yourself about costs and benefits involved.

And as far as "me" making my own life difficult abiding these ridiculous and ineffective gun laws -- I'm not falling for it.

Of course you aren't. You've made up your mind and mere evidence isn't change to change it.

Not exactly, but when I make up my mind it is usually based on a substantial and meaningful deliberation of the "facts and figures". That means it's going to be more difficult to push me off a position unless the counter-evidence is solid AND compelling. If you take any stock in that Myers-Briggs stuff, I'm a solid ISTJ personality - in my experience, typical of engineering types.

I've provided plenty of evidence.

What I haven't heard so far in this little debate is exactly what public benefit there is to outlawing AR-15's. And keep in mind, it needs to be a HUGE PUBLIC BENEFIT because we're talking about outweighing a Constitutional Right (like it or not).

If we agree that crazy people shouldn't have weapons (and I do), I haven't heard much here about exactly what to do about that situation either. I doubt there are any easy answers, but not everybody can, or even should, be a productive member of society. Let's face it: Fairness goes out the window when the individual involved simply can't comply.

And, I haven't much rebuttal about the undisputed fact that HANDGUNS kill far more people than so-called "assault rifles". So why the focus on AR-15's?


You're bright enough to know making something so cumbersome as to be impossible to comply with is just an end-around the 2A.

Not exactly. Allowing people to carry a concealed gun is a really bad idea, and one that is even worse in a lot of situations. The second amendment doesn't make any difference to that.

I once read that concealed carry (especially in the Southern US) was considered "sneaky" and "under-handed". Timeframe: About 100 years ago-ish..
I appreciate that viewpoint, but where I live, it's the anti-gunner crowd who forced the prohibition against "open-carry". So in that sense, they got what they wanted - now live with it. I would still probably carry concealed even if open-carry were permissible, because nobody really needs to know I'm armed. But it's really a false choice because there is no other way to legally carry where I live (Florida).


Sort of like wanting to outlaw abortion clinics, but can't.
So you set up a cumbersome (ie., impossible) myriad system of zoning regulations and hospital admittance privileges that no doctor or company could possible meet. Mission accomplished!!

Until somebody notices.

Yep!! And by then, look at all the (unwanted), (un-loved) lives we've saved!

Anti-abortion creeps don't prevent abortions. They merely prevent safe, legal abortions.

> Many or most of whom will likely grow up in father-less households (or foster care) and enter the criminal element later in life.

The children of single-parent families in Scandinavia do just as well the children of families with two parents.

The problem isn't the single parent, but rather the society that doesn't support the single parent family as well as it should. It doesn't cost a lot of money to provide that support, and the kids supported by that expenditure grow up to be fully productive citizens, which makes it a profitable investment.

> Ah, the cycle is complete!

Right-wing nitwits are endlessly inventive when it comes to justifying the short term economies that they can understand against the long term advantages which require rather more mental effort to comprehend.

You can understand the benefit of threatening a burglar with a gun. The effort required to allow for the rather more probable outcome of you killing yourself with the same gun is quite beyond you.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[mpm]

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 8:41:58 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 11:07:08 AM UTC+11, mpm wrote:
Spoons aren't markedly better at shovelling food into your mouth than your fingers. Guns are much better at killing people than most of the other tools used to do the job.

Yes. Because that's what guns are for.
However, diabetes is the 7th leading cause of death in the US (in 2015, 79,535 directly, and another 252,806 as contributing or underlying), so don't be so quick to write off spoons. Maybe we should ban them.

Somebody who is trying to kill you with a gun is going to try and do it before you can do anything about it.

Yes (well MAYBE), and "quite a few" people have taken out the perp too.
I can send you a YouTube playlist if you like.

Sure you can. The NRA pounces on every occasion when it has happened and documents them endlessly.

BTW, I am not currently an NRA Member.
I allowed my membership to expire without renewal because I am protesting the NRA's leadership scandals and money problems.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/251894/number-of-justifiable-homicides-in-the-us/

shows that there were 763 justified gun homicides in the US in 2018, about equally split between police and private citizens, out of about 15,000. That's 5%.

The risk you run to get that advantage is a much higher risk of gun suicide, of which there were about 24,000. As precautions go it's not remotely cost effective.

As a Hollywood-fed fantasy, it may look like an ego-boosting trade-off, but in reality it's spectacularly stupid.

Quite a few people who have been killed by gun-fire were not the intended target so carrying a gun wouldn't have helped them

But you discount that maybe someone else with a gun might have taken out the shooter before that stray shot was fired. Sure would have been helpful in the MSJ school shooting!! (We can do this all day. What is the point?)

Anecdotal evidence is misleading without statistics that indicate how likely the anecdote is likely to show up in real life.

Your anecdotes about good outcomes of carrying a gun all relate to improbable events, and you ignore the much more frequent downside - one of your family (most likely you) using the gun to kill themselves.

Be aware however that justified defensive use of a firearm in America is woefully under-reported. The risk is just too great that reporting such use would expose the individual to prosecution. I would not report defensive use unless I absolutely had no other option. (Do not immediately discount or underestimate the effect this has on statistics - I believe it to be significant.) And then add to that, defensive use doesn't fit the media's narrative, so you're not going to see it on the nightly news unless the event is so well known, they have to cover it.

And I hate to support the above with yet another anecdote, but just last month, a guy was cited for shooting a black bear foraging for food practically mauled him on the 2nd floor of a hotel. The message is pretty clear: Pull a gun; face legal problems (and $$). Why tell at all? Just go about your business.

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/11/black-bear-attack-stopped-with-45-on-second-floor-of-motel/#axzz6AxzNgKDR

The point is to rub your nose in the evidence that you are deceiving yourself about costs and benefits involved.

And as far as "me" making my own life difficult abiding these ridiculous and ineffective gun laws -- I'm not falling for it.

Of course you aren't. You've made up your mind and mere evidence isn't change to change it.

Not exactly, but when I make up my mind it is usually based on a substantial and meaningful deliberation of the "facts and figures". That means it's going to be more difficult to push me off a position unless the counter-evidence is solid AND compelling. If you take any stock in that Myers-Briggs stuff, I'm a solid ISTJ personality - in my experience, typical of engineering types.

I've provided plenty of evidence.

What I haven't heard so far in this little debate is exactly what public benefit there is to outlawing AR-15's. And keep in mind, it needs to be a HUGE PUBLIC BENEFIT because we're talking about outweighing a Constitutional Right (like it or not).

If we agree that crazy people shouldn't have weapons (and I do), I haven't heard much here about exactly what to do about that situation either. I doubt there are any easy answers, but not everybody can, or even should, be a productive member of society. Let's face it: Fairness goes out the window when the individual involved simply can't comply.

And, I haven't much rebuttal about the undisputed fact that HANDGUNS kill far more people than so-called "assault rifles". So why the focus on AR-15's?


You're bright enough to know making something so cumbersome as to be impossible to comply with is just an end-around the 2A.

Not exactly. Allowing people to carry a concealed gun is a really bad idea, and one that is even worse in a lot of situations. The second amendment doesn't make any difference to that.

I once read that concealed carry (especially in the Southern US) was considered "sneaky" and "under-handed". Timeframe: About 100 years ago-ish..
I appreciate that viewpoint, but where I live, it's the anti-gunner crowd who forced the prohibition against "open-carry". So in that sense, they got what they wanted - now live with it. I would still probably carry concealed even if open-carry were permissible, because nobody really needs to know I'm armed. But it's really a false choice because there is no other way to legally carry where I live (Florida).


Sort of like wanting to outlaw abortion clinics, but can't.
So you set up a cumbersome (ie., impossible) myriad system of zoning regulations and hospital admittance privileges that no doctor or company could possible meet. Mission accomplished!!

Until somebody notices.

Yep!! And by then, look at all the (unwanted), (un-loved) lives we've saved!

Anti-abortion creeps don't prevent abortions. They merely prevent safe, legal abortions.

Can't argue with that!

Many or most of whom will likely grow up in father-less households (or foster care) and enter the criminal element later in life.

The children of single-parent families in Scandinavia do just as well the children of families with two parents.

The problem isn't the single parent, but rather the society that doesn't support the single parent family as well as it should. It doesn't cost a lot of money to provide that support, and the kids supported by that expenditure grow up to be fully productive citizens, which makes it a profitable investment.

There's no political will here to do that.

Ah, the cycle is complete!

Right-wing nitwits are endlessly inventive when it comes to justifying the short term economies that they can understand against the long term advantages which require rather more mental effort to comprehend.

Why are you attacking my comprehension. Are you as asshole?

You can understand the benefit of threatening a burglar with a gun. The effort required to allow for the rather more probable outcome of you killing yourself with the same gun is quite beyond you.

If I want to kill myself, (with a gun, or say, with a Philips head screwdriver) what business is that of yours? But, for the record, the Vodka + Orange Juice variety would be preferred.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 11:12:55 AM UTC+11, mpm wrote:

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 1:30:17 AM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 11:27:26 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 10:55:53 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

I do agree with you on one point. There is no point in the two of us discussing it. You may notice there is one big difference between us. I don't directly insult you or call you names.

I think we are done with this topic.

That fine.

But I think you might have me mixed up with another poster. (?)
I did not call you names.

I "may" have pointed out the Monkey w/glasses avatar, which I actually think is pretty cool, BTW.

And no worries, I'm not that concerned about "winning you over" to the dark side of gun ownership.

Statistics show that if (Yikes!!) you ever find yourself in a situation where you really need to defend yourself against an attack, you'll probably at least very seriously consider gun ownership yourself. But maybe not. It's not for everyone, and whatever our disagreements here, I do acknowledge and accept that.

Hollywood, with it's "Death Wish" movies, primed a lot of people to think that way. Anybody who can do cost-benefits analysis won't, but that doesn't seem to be a skill that everybody has.

--
bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[mpm]

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 8:48:55 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
> Hollywood, with it's "Death Wish" movies, primed a lot of people to think that way. Anybody who can do cost-benefits analysis won't, but that doesn't seem to be a skill that everybody has.

Hollywood also thinks a silencer clocks in at a whisper.
Reality is an AR-15 produces a sound decibel level of roughly 160 dB (unsuppressed), and 135 dB (suppressed). Hardly "silent".

I try not to take my queues from Hollywood.

Anyway, the statistics are very clear that gun sales go up (sometimes WAY UP) in the aftermath of every highly-publicized mass shooting. All I was saying is that it seems reasonable to me that a (former) "anti-gunner" might eventually find themselves in that population.

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 7:12:55 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 1:30:17 AM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 11:27:26 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 10:55:53 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

I do agree with you on one point. There is no point in the two of us discussing it. You may notice there is one big difference between us. I don't directly insult you or call you names.

I think we are done with this topic.

That fine.

But I think you might have me mixed up with another poster. (?)
I did not call you names.

I "may" have pointed out the Monkey w/glasses avatar, which I actually think is pretty cool, BTW.

So you do admit you called names? You didn't make any reference to the avatar and you did feel the need at the time to say "sorry", so obviously you intended it as an insult.

That you are in denial of this is much like your other logic.

I often enter into discussions with people here so that I can learn what the other side can teach me in a discussion as well as learning about the defects in my reasoning. You have not provided a single valid argument that I wasn't already aware of "Fuck off, I like guns!", which *is* a valid argument, just not a compelling one and not one that is immune to being overridden by the need to restrict guns further.


> And no worries, I'm not that concerned about "winning you over" to the dark side of gun ownership.

I guess I'm floored!!! Hardly.


> Statistics show that if (Yikes!!) you ever find yourself in a situation where you really need to defend yourself against an attack, you'll probably at least very seriously consider gun ownership yourself. But maybe not. It's not for everyone, and whatever our disagreements here, I do acknowledge and accept that.

That may be true. But the chances of that are far less likely than a gun I buy being used to injure an innocent person. You provided the data for that argument, but like so many other facts, you won't be able to accept that..

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 1:26:49 PM UTC+11, mpm wrote:

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 8:48:55 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
Hollywood, with it's "Death Wish" movies, primed a lot of people to think that way. Anybody who can do cost-benefits analysis won't, but that doesn't seem to be a skill that everybody has.

Hollywood also thinks a silencer clocks in at a whisper.

What's that go to do with anything?

Hollywood produces fantasies that make people feel good, and primes them to imagine certain improbable scenarios while making no mention of more probable cases.

> Reality is an AR-15 produces a sound decibel level of roughly 160 dB (unsuppressed), and 135 dB (suppressed). Hardly "silent".

AR-15's aren't exactly "concealed carry" guns.

> I try not to take my queues from Hollywood.

The word is cues, and your efforts do seem to have been remarkably unsuccessful.

> Anyway, the statistics are very clear that gun sales go up (sometimes WAY UP) in the aftermath of every highly-publicized mass shooting. All I was saying is that it seems reasonable to me that a (former) "anti-gunner" might eventually find themselves in that population.

It might seem likely, but it certainly wouldn't be reasonable.

You are talking about emotion trumping reason, which isn't a reasonable outcome.

The exercise of imagining yourself in the middle of a mass shooting - which the mass media encourages - doesn't motivate you to think about the other (rather more probable) consequences of owning a a gun and carrying it about with you.

When about 400 private individuals successfully kill a criminal in a justified homicide in a year in the US, and some 24,000 use their gun to kill themselves, you ought to be able to work out that it's a bad idea to keep a gun handy - it's sixty times more likely to kill you than to kill somebody who was real threat.

And of course quite likely to let you kill somebody who wasn't actually any kind of threat at all, though they might have looked like one at the time.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney