OT: Gun Control in Virginia

[Jasen Betts]

On 2020-01-14, mpm <mpmillard@aol.com> 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.
Reality is an AR-15 produces a sound decibel level of roughly 160 dB (unsuppressed), and 135 dB (suppressed). Hardly "silent".

a silenced high power rifle. that's nuts.

> I try not to take my queues from Hollywood.

hollywood
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHO6nBc4YFU

real life
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYXkTJwi95w

--
Jasen.

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 3:44:16 AM UTC-5, 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.

Great news from the NRA!

https://pluralist.com/nra-free-ammo-virginia/

 

[mpm]

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 10:05:04 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

What is NOT a valid argument is "Fuck off, I don't want YOU to have an AR-15".
And you've provided zero evidence that it's even a problem, outside of a few highly-publicized mass-shootings.

You've provided no counter to the evidence that gun owners are even more law-abiding than the police.

You've provided no reason not to ban HANDGUNS, when it is a FACT that they are a MUCH BIGGER PROBLEM BY COMPARISON (though I would, and have, argued, that 40% of that is basically the legitimate offensive use of force, or is tightly coupled to the criminal element.

You've provided no alternatives other than "You can't have that AR-15", even after recognizing that it's the crazy person behind the gun that's the problem, and not the weapon itself.

You, and others here, have suggested a STRONG link between owning a weapon, and being killed by it, or others being injured or killed. There are over 400 Million firearms in public hands in the US. Roughly 40% of households report having at least one firearm in the house. If the link you suggest were even remotely true, we would have rivers of blood in the streets. But of course, the opposite is reality.

Basically, it boils down to the purely emotional, "You just can't have that gun".

Well, the US Constitution and Florida State Law say that I can.
I'm do appreciate that you don't like that fact, but honestly, there's really nothing I can do about it -- even if I wanted to -- which I don't.

And speaking of things I dislike...
Your last several replies have been rather antagonistic, which is a sure sign of being on the losing side of an argument. It seems to have started right after I suggested that PERHAPS you were a prohibited person when it came to gun ownership. Maybe I inadvertenly struck a nerve? Relax. You'll get over it.

Bye bye.

 

[mpm]

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 12:00:26 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

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?

Nothing. I just felt like saying it.
There are many misconceptions about guns, and gun ownership, and this is one of them. For the record, I don't own any silencers, nor do I see the appeal of them. I own electronic ear protection for handguns, and then double-up on foam earplug inserts when shooting the rifles out at the range. Much cheaper, and much less hassle, than jumping through all the National Firearms Act hoops to purchase a silencer (which isn't even as effective as muffs and earplugs!)

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 agree.
However, there are "AR Pistols" which someone probably could carry concealed.
They shoot the same calibers as an AR-15, only with a much shorter barrel.
Here's a link if you're unfamiliar with them:
http://www.tacticallife.net/Limited-Edition-Tactical-Life-Micro-Tungsten-6-Takedown-AR-Pistol-556-wMLOK-Handguard_p_481.html

Personally, I have zero interest in AR pistol platforms as they don't seem very practical (as compared to an ordinary handgun). If an attacker is far enough away as to require a weapon like this to hit them, then maybe they're not really a threat! That would be an uphill argument for self-defense.

I try not to take my queues from Hollywood.

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

"Cues". Duly noted. My mistake. (Thank you.)
I should at least get half-credit for being able to spell "queues", however..

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.

Exhibit One, your Honor: President Donald Trump.

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.

I think you've embellished that concept beyond the breaking point.
Must be the Hollywood influence from earlier in the post.

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.

Hollywood on steroids.

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.

(Substituting "a person" for the word "you" above),
Unfortunately, "Yes", that does rarely happen.

But I would also just note, about a month or two ago, there was a police shootout involving a hijacked UPS truck. Two innocent people killed (including the UPS driver) by police bullets. And this occurred in heavy traffic when the UPS truck stopped at an intersection.

Link: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ups-hijacking-gun-battle-florida-killed-two-nearly-200-shots-n1104961

So at best, I would respond that the human collateral damage you have ascribed to private gun ownership, is also one shared by police (and probably at a much higher rate).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Robertson]

On 2020/01/14 3:36 p.m., Michael Terrell wrote:

On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 3:44:16 AM UTC-5, 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.


Great news from the NRA!

https://pluralist.com/nra-free-ammo-virginia/

Read that link and spotted this notice at the bottom:

(Correction: A previous version of this article said the NRA announced
it would give away ammunition at a Jan. 13 event in Richmond, Virginia.
The organization actually said it would hand out gun magazines at the
event.)

Yeah, free ammo might have sent the wrong message. Shoot the duly
elected representatives, who ran on gun control, and then had the nerve
to try and follow through...

Not happy with the outcome of an election, eh? Does this sound at all
familiar?

John :-#(#

 

mpm <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote in
news:b39973c6-8633-4823-b4e2-34b2516763fd@googlegroups.com:

I agree.
However, there are "AR Pistols" which someone probably could carry
concealed. They shoot the same calibers as an AR-15, only with a
much shorter barrel. Here's a link if you're unfamiliar with them:

The AK pistol looks a lot better. I'd rather carry a pair of Walther
PPKs


But I saw a full auto gen 3 glock 17 burn through over 1200 rds
before it failed. The IR video was awesome!

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub4OswUhLwo>

 

mpm <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote in
news:b39973c6-8633-4823-b4e2-34b2516763fd@googlegroups.com:

Personally, I have zero interest in AR pistol platforms as they
don't seem very practical (as compared to an ordinary handgun).

The way the AR action works, you really need to look at the mfgr real
closely. Some are bad designs others quite robust.

I saw one lose to an AK in a meltdon test, and one that beat it
pretty badly.

 

mpm <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote in
news:b39973c6-8633-4823-b4e2-34b2516763fd@googlegroups.com:

I try not to take my queues from Hollywood.

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

"Cues". Duly noted. My mistake. (Thank you.)
I should at least get half-credit for being able to spell
"queues", however.

Unless they were lining him up for a chorus! (cue rimshot)

(or a movie release)

 

mpm <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote in
news:b39973c6-8633-4823-b4e2-34b2516763fd@googlegroups.com:

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

Exhibit One, your Honor: President Donald Trump.

'utcome' I like it!

New movie...

"Utcome Trumping"

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 10:55:06 AM UTC+11, mpm wrote:

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 10:05:04 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

What is NOT a valid argument is "Fuck off, I don't want YOU to have an AR-15".
And you've provided zero evidence that it's even a problem, outside of a few highly-publicized mass-shootings.

What more evidence would be necessary? AR-15 owners are also just as likely to besuccessful at killing themselves as other gun owners when they happen to suffer a suicidal urge, but you don't seem to recognise this as a problem

> You've provided no counter to the evidence that gun owners are even more law-abiding than the police.

What's that go to do with anything? Murder and suicide are low frequency crimes and lumping them together with all the other ways the people break laws isn't helpful.

You've provided no reason not to ban HANDGUNS, when it is a FACT that they are a MUCH BIGGER PROBLEM BY COMPARISON (though I would, and have, argued, that 40% of that is basically the legitimate offensive use of force, or is tightly coupled to the criminal element.

You've provided no alternatives other than "You can't have that AR-15", even after recognizing that it's the crazy person behind the gun that's the problem, and not the weapon itself.

You, and others here, have suggested a STRONG link between owning a weapon, and being killed by it, or others being injured or killed. There are over 400 Million firearms in public hands in the US. Roughly 40% of households report having at least one firearm in the house. If the link you suggest were even remotely true, we would have rivers of blood in the streets. But of course, the opposite is reality.

Compared with other advanced industrial countries, you are roughly ten times as likely to be killed by a gun in the US. In Canada it's only five times as likely, but you do have a long common border.

This might not be a "river of blood" but it's a lot of avoidable deaths - about 30,000 per year.

> Basically, it boils down to the purely emotional, "You just can't have that gun".

In fact if boils down to the perfectly rational "you probably shouldn't have that gun".

> Well, the US Constitution and Florida State Law say that I can.

They do need to be corrected.

> I'm do appreciate that you don't like that fact, but honestly, there's really nothing I can do about it -- even if I wanted to -- which I don't.

Our efforts to educate you aren't working. You have your emotional conviction, and you will stick with it even though it puts your life (and the lives of the rest of your family) at risk. It isn't a particularly high risk, but it would be avoidable if rational thought could trump emotional conviction.

And speaking of things I dislike...
Your last several replies have been rather antagonistic, which is a sure sign of being on the losing side of an argument.

That's an antagonistic response. And since you are not engaging in rational argument, you've already lost.

> It seems to have started right after I suggested that PERHAPS you were a prohibited person when it came to gun ownership.

Why should I care if I were? I've got absolutely no reason to own a gun, which makes the whole point moot. In reality there's nothing in my record which would prevent me from applying for a gun license, but since I've got absolutely no need to own a gun I'd probably not get a license if I were to apply for one.

> Maybe I inadvertently struck a nerve? Relax. You'll get over it.

Ill-informed speculation is rife around here. I'm used to it. I don't think highly of the people who waste bandwidth posting that kind of nonsense, but you are already in the category of people who post nonsense, so there was no nerve to strike.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 11:19:59 AM UTC+11, mpm wrote:

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 12:00:26 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
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:

<snip>

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.

I think you've embellished that concept beyond the breaking point.

I've repeated the point often enough for you to notice it.

> Must be the Hollywood influence from earlier in the post.

Hooly wood is into entertaining people, and giving them ideas that they enjoy latching onto.

I'm more into business of getting people to think about ideas that don't make them feel warm and fuzzy inside, but are more likely to let them live longer.

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.

Hollywood on steroids.

No fantasy involved. You seem to entertain the fantasy that it doesn't apply to you.

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.

(Substituting "a person" for the word "you" above),
Unfortunately, "Yes", that does rarely happen.

It happens occasionally. It would be better if it didn't happen at all.

UK tourists have ended up dead in the US because they knocked on a door in the middle of the night when looking for help and got shot by anxious home-owners.

I can't recall any such events in the US or Australia. Tourists do get murdered by various other kinds of lunatics, but it doesn't get the same kind of publicity.

> But I would also just note, about a month or two ago, there was a police shootout involving a hijacked UPS truck. Two innocent people killed (including the UPS driver) by police bullets. And this occurred in heavy traffic when the UPS truck stopped at an intersection.

Americans cops are a little too willing to shoot people, which is a side effect of that fact that there are a lot of guns around in the US.

Link: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ups-hijacking-gun-battle-florida-killed-two-nearly-200-shots-n1104961

So at best, I would respond that the human collateral damage you have ascribed to private gun ownership, is also one shared by police (and probably at a much higher rate).

UK cops don't carry guns. Australian cops do, but don't like using them. I can recall at least one case when they managed to kill an innocent bystander - they ended up doing a frontal attack after one hostage had been shot, and killed another as well as the shooter. This is rare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Sydney_hostage_crisis

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

"Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) is set to declare an emergency that at least temporarily bans individuals from carrying firearms on the grounds of the state Capitol ahead of a gun rights rally planned next week, according to reports."

So it looks like the Governor has concerns about safety if thousands of legal gun owners congregate to protest gun control legislation.

Many gun rights activists compare restricting guns to restricting other weapons or even non-weapons: the emergency measure may do that as well.

"Northam's announcement will also include a ban on other items that could be used as weapons, including helmets and shields."

Are they justified in their concerns?

"An official from Northam's office, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told The Hill that it has credible threats of violence and extremism. An official also told the AP that the governor had become troubled by some of the posts he saw on social media pertaining to the protest."

I expect they are looking to avoid another Charlottesville like incident. Given so many people carrying guns in one place it doesn't seem to be a reasonable measure.

Of course the "weapon" used in Charlottesville was an auto, not a gun. So I expect they won't allow autos on the grounds either.

I don't think James Alex Fields Jr. will be attending.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[mpm]

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 10:18:43 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 10:55:06 AM UTC+11, mpm wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 10:05:04 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

What is NOT a valid argument is "Fuck off, I don't want YOU to have an AR-15".
And you've provided zero evidence that it's even a problem, outside of a few highly-publicized mass-shootings.

What more evidence would be necessary? AR-15 owners are also just as likely to be successful at killing themselves as other gun owners when they happen to suffer a suicidal urge, but you don't seem to recognise this as a problem

Well that's interesting.

I don't see suicide as a "gun problem", but rather a mental health problem.

My immediate thought is whether many gun owners (perhaps most?) in the US who own an AR-15 type rifle ALSO own one or more handguns? So the question is more appropriately: Of the total number of suicides by owners of both weapons, how many chose the AR-15 to do the deed? (Note: A handgun would be much easier to position into place and operate.)

But to repeat: I draw a pretty bright line between suicide and (non-justified) gun homicides because I believe the underlying factors are completely different. I see suicide as a personal choice (not a crime); and one that should include ready-access to affordable (even if free) physician assistance and intervention/counseling options. I view non-justified homicide as a crime (murder, or manslaughter) as the case may be - the former having some element of intent or reckless disregard, and the latter not.

You've provided no counter to the evidence that gun owners are even more law-abiding than the police.

What's that go to do with anything? Murder and suicide are low frequency crimes and lumping them together with all the other ways the people break laws isn't helpful.

It was a rebuttal to Rick's assertion that gun owners were irresponsible and could not be trusted with firearms.

You've provided no reason not to ban HANDGUNS, when it is a FACT that they are a MUCH BIGGER PROBLEM BY COMPARISON (though I would, and have, argued, that 40% of that is basically the legitimate offensive use of force, or is tightly coupled to the criminal element.

You've provided no alternatives other than "You can't have that AR-15", even after recognizing that it's the crazy person behind the gun that's the problem, and not the weapon itself.

You, and others here, have suggested a STRONG link between owning a weapon, and being killed by it, or others being injured or killed. There are over 400 Million firearms in public hands in the US. Roughly 40% of households report having at least one firearm in the house. If the link you suggest were even remotely true, we would have rivers of blood in the streets. But of course, the opposite is reality.

Compared with other advanced industrial countries, you are roughly ten times as likely to be killed by a gun in the US. In Canada it's only five times as likely, but you do have a long common border.

Correct. The risk is not zero, but it's close enough for my comfort.
For others? Maybe not. And I agree with the studies that the near-zero risk is greatly affected by where one lives, and whether they are part of the criminal element.

This might not be a "river of blood" but it's a lot of avoidable deaths - about 30,000 per year.

Not sure where that number comes from, but excluding suicides, it's about half that. Either way, it's not a large enough number to grab my attention.

Basically, it boils down to the purely emotional, "You just can't have that gun".

In fact if boils down to the perfectly rational "you probably shouldn't have that gun".

Well, the US Constitution and Florida State Law say that I can.

They do need to be corrected.

Then the electorate would do so, and yet the opposite seems to be the case.
In fact, that exact sentiment is what prompted this entire thread.
Virginia is a "blue" state, under full democratic control.

I predict TRUMP will win Virginia handily in the upcoming 2020 election. In fact, I'll go out on a bit of a limb here and say that Hillary lost the 2016 election due, in part, to her anti-2A positions. Had she moderated her rhetoric just a little, she might have won (via pro-2A voters NOT feeling the need to come out and vote AGAINST her).

I'm do appreciate that you don't like that fact, but honestly, there's really nothing I can do about it -- even if I wanted to -- which I don't.

Our efforts to educate you aren't working. You have your emotional conviction, and you will stick with it even though it puts your life (and the lives of the rest of your family) at risk. It isn't a particularly high risk, but it would be avoidable if rational thought could trump emotional conviction.

I don't recall asking for an education, but OK.
I honestly just don't see gun homicides (i.e., not including suicides) as a problem. At least, not compared with teen texting and driving, preventable medical malpractice, the possibility of rapid-onset global warming effects, etc..

And speaking of things I dislike...
Your last several replies have been rather antagonistic, which is a sure sign of being on the losing side of an argument.

That's an antagonistic response. And since you are not engaging in rational argument, you've already lost.

I try to be respectful, but will respond in kind when the other side starts their ad-hominem attacks, or uses words like "silly" or suggests that I have a comprehension problem (simply because I disagree, supported by evidence, which doesn't favor the opponent's desired outcome).

It seems to have started right after I suggested that PERHAPS you were a prohibited person when it came to gun ownership.

This comment was not directed to Bill.

Why should I care if I were? I've got absolutely no reason to own a gun, which makes the whole point moot. In reality there's nothing in my record which would prevent me from applying for a gun license, but since I've got absolutely no need to own a gun I'd probably not get a license if I were to apply for one.

Correct. Anyone can APPLY to purchase a firearm, but if that person doesn't pass the NICS background check, the purchase will be denied. And in order to get that far, one would have to lie on the BATF Form 7743, which is a felony.

Maybe I inadvertently struck a nerve? Relax. You'll get over it.

Ill-informed speculation is rife around here. I'm used to it. I don't think highly of the people who waste bandwidth posting that kind of nonsense, but you are already in the category of people who post nonsense, so there was no nerve to strike.

Who am I responding to here?
My Google Groups reader has all the in-line pointers mixed-up now.
My comments regarding "background check disqualification issues" was in response to something Rick C said, not Bill.

And of course, wanting to purchase a firearm, and being legally qualified to purchase a firearm are two different things.

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 6:46:45 PM UTC-5, John Robertson wrote:

On 2020/01/14 3:36 p.m., Michael Terrell wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 3:44:16 AM UTC-5, 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.


Great news from the NRA!

https://pluralist.com/nra-free-ammo-virginia/


Read that link and spotted this notice at the bottom:

(Correction: A previous version of this article said the NRA announced
it would give away ammunition at a Jan. 13 event in Richmond, Virginia.
The organization actually said it would hand out gun magazines at the
event.)

Yeah, free ammo might have sent the wrong message. Shoot the duly
elected representatives, who ran on gun control, and then had the nerve
to try and follow through...

Not happy with the outcome of an election, eh? Does this sound at all
familiar?

John :-#(#

UPDATE:

<https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/01/15/virginia-gun-ban-resisted-in-the-streets-nra-sends-1000-30-round-magazines-to-protesters-at-state-capitol-876135>

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 2:37:55 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 10:18:43 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 10:55:06 AM UTC+11, mpm wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 10:05:04 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

What is NOT a valid argument is "Fuck off, I don't want YOU to have an AR-15".
And you've provided zero evidence that it's even a problem, outside of a few highly-publicized mass-shootings.

What more evidence would be necessary? AR-15 owners are also just as likely to be successful at killing themselves as other gun owners when they happen to suffer a suicidal urge, but you don't seem to recognise this as a problem

Well that's interesting.

I don't see suicide as a "gun problem", but rather a mental health problem.

My immediate thought is whether many gun owners (perhaps most?) in the US who own an AR-15 type rifle ALSO own one or more handguns? So the question is more appropriately: Of the total number of suicides by owners of both weapons, how many chose the AR-15 to do the deed? (Note: A handgun would be much easier to position into place and operate.)

But to repeat: I draw a pretty bright line between suicide and (non-justified) gun homicides because I believe the underlying factors are completely different. I see suicide as a personal choice (not a crime); and one that should include ready-access to affordable (even if free) physician assistance and intervention/counseling options. I view non-justified homicide as a crime (murder, or manslaughter) as the case may be - the former having some element of intent or reckless disregard, and the latter not.


You've provided no counter to the evidence that gun owners are even more law-abiding than the police.

What's that go to do with anything? Murder and suicide are low frequency crimes and lumping them together with all the other ways the people break laws isn't helpful.

It was a rebuttal to Rick's assertion that gun owners were irresponsible and could not be trusted with firearms.


You've provided no reason not to ban HANDGUNS, when it is a FACT that they are a MUCH BIGGER PROBLEM BY COMPARISON (though I would, and have, argued, that 40% of that is basically the legitimate offensive use of force, or is tightly coupled to the criminal element.

You've provided no alternatives other than "You can't have that AR-15", even after recognizing that it's the crazy person behind the gun that's the problem, and not the weapon itself.

You, and others here, have suggested a STRONG link between owning a weapon, and being killed by it, or others being injured or killed. There are over 400 Million firearms in public hands in the US. Roughly 40% of households report having at least one firearm in the house. If the link you suggest were even remotely true, we would have rivers of blood in the streets.. But of course, the opposite is reality.

Compared with other advanced industrial countries, you are roughly ten times as likely to be killed by a gun in the US. In Canada it's only five times as likely, but you do have a long common border.

Correct. The risk is not zero, but it's close enough for my comfort.
For others? Maybe not. And I agree with the studies that the near-zero risk is greatly affected by where one lives, and whether they are part of the criminal element.


This might not be a "river of blood" but it's a lot of avoidable deaths - about 30,000 per year.

Not sure where that number comes from, but excluding suicides, it's about half that. Either way, it's not a large enough number to grab my attention.


Basically, it boils down to the purely emotional, "You just can't have that gun".

In fact if boils down to the perfectly rational "you probably shouldn't have that gun".

Well, the US Constitution and Florida State Law say that I can.

They do need to be corrected.

Then the electorate would do so, and yet the opposite seems to be the case.
In fact, that exact sentiment is what prompted this entire thread.
Virginia is a "blue" state, under full democratic control.

I predict TRUMP will win Virginia handily in the upcoming 2020 election. In fact, I'll go out on a bit of a limb here and say that Hillary lost the 2016 election due, in part, to her anti-2A positions. Had she moderated her rhetoric just a little, she might have won (via pro-2A voters NOT feeling the need to come out and vote AGAINST her).


I'm do appreciate that you don't like that fact, but honestly, there's really nothing I can do about it -- even if I wanted to -- which I don't.

Our efforts to educate you aren't working. You have your emotional conviction, and you will stick with it even though it puts your life (and the lives of the rest of your family) at risk. It isn't a particularly high risk, but it would be avoidable if rational thought could trump emotional conviction.

I don't recall asking for an education, but OK.
I honestly just don't see gun homicides (i.e., not including suicides) as a problem. At least, not compared with teen texting and driving, preventable medical malpractice, the possibility of rapid-onset global warming effects, etc..


And speaking of things I dislike...
Your last several replies have been rather antagonistic, which is a sure sign of being on the losing side of an argument.

That's an antagonistic response. And since you are not engaging in rational argument, you've already lost.

I try to be respectful, but will respond in kind when the other side starts their ad-hominem attacks, or uses words like "silly" or suggests that I have a comprehension problem (simply because I disagree, supported by evidence, which doesn't favor the opponent's desired outcome).


It seems to have started right after I suggested that PERHAPS you were a prohibited person when it came to gun ownership.

This comment was not directed to Bill.


Why should I care if I were? I've got absolutely no reason to own a gun, which makes the whole point moot. In reality there's nothing in my record which would prevent me from applying for a gun license, but since I've got absolutely no need to own a gun I'd probably not get a license if I were to apply for one.


Correct. Anyone can APPLY to purchase a firearm, but if that person doesn't pass the NICS background check, the purchase will be denied. And in order to get that far, one would have to lie on the BATF Form 7743, which is a felony.


Maybe I inadvertently struck a nerve? Relax. You'll get over it.

Ill-informed speculation is rife around here. I'm used to it. I don't think highly of the people who waste bandwidth posting that kind of nonsense, but you are already in the category of people who post nonsense, so there was no nerve to strike.

Who am I responding to here?
My Google Groups reader has all the in-line pointers mixed-up now.
My comments regarding "background check disqualification issues" was in response to something Rick C said, not Bill.

And of course, wanting to purchase a firearm, and being legally qualified to purchase a firearm are two different things.

Bill, (one of England's Penal Colony residents) Sloman is a truely rare individual. He could shoot himself multiple times in the back of his head and hit no vital organs.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 8:21:52 AM UTC+11, Michael Terrell wrote:

On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 2:37:55 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:
On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 10:18:43 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 10:55:06 AM UTC+11, mpm wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 10:05:04 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

<snip>

Why should I care if I were? I've got absolutely no reason to own a gun, which makes the whole point moot. In reality there's nothing in my record which would prevent me from applying for a gun license, but since I've got absolutely no need to own a gun I'd probably not get a license if I were to apply for one.


Correct. Anyone can APPLY to purchase a firearm, but if that person doesn't pass the NICS background check, the purchase will be denied. And in order to get that far, one would have to lie on the BATF Form 7743, which is a felony.

I'd be applying in Australia, which is going to have different rules.

Maybe I inadvertently struck a nerve? Relax. You'll get over it.

Ill-informed speculation is rife around here. I'm used to it. I don't think highly of the people who waste bandwidth posting that kind of nonsense, but you are already in the category of people who post nonsense, so there was no nerve to strike.

Who am I responding to here?
My Google Groups reader has all the in-line pointers mixed-up now.
My comments regarding "background check disqualification issues" was in response to something Rick C said, not Bill.

And of course, wanting to purchase a firearm, and being legally qualified to purchase a firearm are two different things.

Bill, (one of England's Penal Colony residents) Sloman is a truly rare individual. He could shoot himself multiple times in the back of his head and hit no vital organs.

Michael Terrell doesn't use his own brain, so doesn't see it as a vital organ.

Australia got colonised as a penal colony after the UK had lost the American colonies and could no longer transport convicted criminals there.

None of my ancestors got transported - they all paid their own fares out to Australia. The only one of my grand-parents who wasn't born in
Australia was too young at the time to do it on his own, but his father did for him. It's all far enough back to be totally irrelevant, as Michael Terrell could have worked out if he'd exercised the brain he doesn't regard as a vital organ.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jose Curvo]

On 01/15/2020 06:49 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

It's all far enough back to be totally
irrelevant, as Michael Terrell could have worked out if he'd
exercised the brain he doesn't regard as a vital organ.

Terrell's time is spent exercising his little head.

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 2:34:29 AM UTC-5, Jose Curvo wrote:

On 01/15/2020 06:49 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

It's all far enough back to be totally
irrelevant, as Michael Terrell could have worked out if he'd
exercised the brain he doesn't regard as a vital organ.

No, BS. I regard the remnants of your brain as useless. It is stuck in a patetic rut of lame attempts at putting people and companies down. I can't recall you posting anything useful in over a decade, and you rarely even try. I don't care. Waste the rest of your life being a pissant.


> Terrell's time is spent exercising his little head.

Look. I've told you that I'm not letting a queer like you wrap your diseased mouth around it. Go back to your street corner and look for your johns..

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 12:30:58 AM UTC+11, Michael Terrell wrote:

On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 2:34:29 AM UTC-5, Jose Curvo wrote:
On 01/15/2020 06:49 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

It's all far enough back to be totally
irrelevant, as Michael Terrell could have worked out if he'd
exercised the brain he doesn't regard as a vital organ.

No, BS. I regard the remnants of your brain as useless.

Of course you do. It can't be relied on to agree with the delusions that infest whatever brain you've got left.

> It is stuck in a pathetic rut of lame attempts at putting people and companies down.

At least it can spell pathetic, even if yours can't.

> I can't recall you posting anything useful in over a decade,

How would you have recognised it as useful, even if you could have recalled it?

> and you rarely even try.

Granting your rather narrow interests, this might even be true, but the more likely explanation is that you don't understand enough of what get posted here to form a useful opinion.

> I don't care.

So why are you wasting bandwidth telling people about your bizarre opinions?

> Waste the rest of your life being a pissant.

Or something that Michael Terrell wants to write off as a pissant. Since Michael thought that sun shone out of Jim Thompson's backside, his judgement of character seems to be less than exemplary.

Terrell's time is spent exercising his little head.

Look. I've told you that I'm not letting a queer like you wrap your diseased mouth around it.

Text-only groups don't really do much for those kinds of interests (or so I've been told).

> Go back to your street corner and look for your johns..

I don't really think that an unkind suggestion about how you use your free time constitutes any kind of offer to take part in those activities.

In English slang he'd be calling you a wanker (which was uncalled for), rather than gay.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 16/01/20 13:30, Michael Terrell wrote:

Look. I've told you that I'm not letting a queer like you wrap your diseased
mouth around it. Go back to your street corner and look for your johns..

Revealing.

OTOH I don't how I'd react if I couldn't get enough analgesia.