Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1087048 Posts in 71973 Topics- by 19232 Members - Latest Member: Bach to the future
Jump to:  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [All]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: GUNS CHAPTER TWO //2nd AMENDMENT  (Read 6218 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
dj kennedy

*
Offline Offline

Location: chester illinois usa
Joined: Dec 17, 2000
Posts: 12194

View Profile
« on: Jan 06, 2016, 10:40PM »

gee  just about the time i was  gonna  post  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--------------
 much is  /has been going on
militia  in BLM issues  --of course the native americans  scoff --we want our land back
------
 concealed  carry  movement  --with  one  oranization  --providing legal /ethical and training  instructions
----------
 california  --seizure  w/o  what seems to be due  process 
-------------
nra  --stating   many  many laws  statutes if enforced  might  possibly  do  ??????????????
--------------
  open  carry   which  even  many  gun owners think  is un necessarily feeding anti gun sentiment
----------------
  the   great  proliferation    of  ''black  rifles'' and  piistols of all sizes
 ammo  hoarding   and  shortages of certain sizes --[tapering off somewhat]
-----------------------
   the root  causes  of  support  for  and against  and the  basic  philosophy    of  guns and  gun ownership  has evolved
-------------------------
  much   is  fear  driven  --personal safety --family  -home safety
 equating  gun ownership   with   fundamental  freedoms  laid  down  by the founding fathers  in  the constitution
-------------------------
  wars   and freedom
     it is easier to  understand the  loathing for guns  by  the  people of england --who suffered   and endured    two terrible   wars  which
along with  much of europe [with exception of switzerland]  --brought large populations into ariel bombing 
----------------------
  japan  was disarmed  --even the swords  given up  --
------------
  russia  grew stronger    and the atom bomb     mushroomed
------------------
  target shooting  --darts --  pool -- golf --even   some  sports  in many  ways  resemble  ritualized   combat
   target shooting  is  akin  to  tinkering with  axial valves   and  mpc venturis
-------------
  what is surprizing [or not ]  is  the  lack of familiarity   or  knowledge   of firearms    by  many    if not  most people
rural  folks  are largely   more   comfortable  with  camo outfits  generations   of family members in service   hunting     casual  firearm  outdoor activity 
   while  the  larger  more metropolitan  enthausiasts are confined to  ranges --indoor  /outdoor
    or  motorcycle   and ethnic  gang membership
---------------
  so far  there has not been  legislation banning  the  number of  mouthpieces  on can have
    or the  proliferation of the f attachment  trombone    once thought to be  totally un necessary 
      the  pursuit of happiness  is  rampant in the trombone community
  and the  medium  of   music   brings    and  binds us  together 
   lettuce  therefore  rejoice   in our circumstances  '
    and  with respect  compassion  and  kindness 
      here have fellowship
=======================================
 
 
 
Logged

XXXXooOOOOOXXXXXXXXX
LUCKY  LUCKY LUCKY  !!!!!!!!!!
dj kennedy

*
Offline Offline

Location: chester illinois usa
Joined: Dec 17, 2000
Posts: 12194

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: Jan 07, 2016, 03:31PM »

a recent poll taken   at several  corrections  facilities  taken from residents 
 92 %   in favor of  universal  firearms  buyback   program   similar to australis
   4%  against
   2 %  abstaining
----------------------------
Logged

XXXXooOOOOOXXXXXXXXX
LUCKY  LUCKY LUCKY  !!!!!!!!!!
Ellrod

*
Offline Offline

Location: North
Joined: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 6362

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: Jan 07, 2016, 03:46PM »

I kind of think the horse is long out of the barn.
Logged
badger

*
Offline Offline

Location: Permian Basin
Joined: Sep 27, 2010
Posts: 1288

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: Jan 07, 2016, 03:58PM »



a recent poll taken   at several  corrections  facilities  taken from residents 
 92 %   in favor of  universal  firearms  buyback   program   similar to australis
   4%  against
   2 %  abstaining
----------------------------

Target Group in the poll...Duhhh!  Evil

You are the clever one DJ.  :)
Logged
dj kennedy

*
Offline Offline

Location: chester illinois usa
Joined: Dec 17, 2000
Posts: 12194

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: Jan 07, 2016, 06:05PM »

its ez ---  i  live in a    ''prison town''
 a maximum  [big house] a minimum 
and  facility  for  unfit for trial  and/or criminally insane  [bug house]
-----------------
    the  sidearm in state on illinois  corrections  remains  a s&w  revolver  in 38 special
     considered obsolete in  many doj  circles  -however  a replacement  would  be cost ineffective
      there is  a  firing  range  and often with the  wind  the reports  can be  heard  all over town
-------------------
 military bases   might  present  similar  conditions 
and  several  large cities still  maintain stables   
for  mounted  officers  -in response  to horse  out of  barn comment
 please follow the strict subject  response  guidelines   [painted yellow on  floor surfaces ]
  or possible  loss of  privileges  may incur
---------
 and confine  posts  to  admin approved  comments  --in light  of recent  executive orders
------------
  before  firearms  -spears  knives-swords axes   hatchets   pikenards  sabers   kiri   hashnamato rocks  stones snares
pritfalls    pitfalls  whips  atl-atl   bolo  coup sticks and  countless other  inventions  and innovations
 have  brought  meat   skulls bones  blood  skin  feather  scalps   for food  war or peace 
-------------
 the nature  of  homo sapiens  has little changed 
-------------
   hand held firearms   are being marketed  in    large  numbers 
assault  robbery   break ins  sexual assault   car jacking  mugging   mob violence   revolution
  capitulation to infidels  slaughter of the  innocent   and unspeakable  things  happen --------
------------
 firearms  enable  the  intent   
---------------
  who let the  horses  out  ????????????????




Target Group in the poll...Duhhh!  Evil

You are the clever one DJ.  :)

Logged

XXXXooOOOOOXXXXXXXXX
LUCKY  LUCKY LUCKY  !!!!!!!!!!
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: Jan 07, 2016, 06:56PM »

a recent poll taken   at several  corrections  facilities  taken from residents 
 92 %   in favor of  universal  firearms  buyback   program   similar to australis
   4%  against
   2 %  abstaining
----------------------------

It's a guaranteed means of fencing large(ish) numbers of stolen guns, so the criminal types loves them some buyback programs. That even makes the junk guns they've acquired and can't fence worth something.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
dj kennedy

*
Offline Offline

Location: chester illinois usa
Joined: Dec 17, 2000
Posts: 12194

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: Jan 07, 2016, 10:09PM »

dunno if there  much of this happenning  --very exciting  events  where they did it 
  esp w  the buyer /collectors hovering  around like  vults   screening  the goods  as the  decicated  and loyal  citenzery  brought in those 
 artillery  stocked  p 08s    uzi     commercial  thompsons   ---junk  colt single actions  and  1911s bars  mod 70s
   31  rimfire    old unertl  scoped  03s   --dangerous stuff for  sure  lemon squeezers  hi powers  and  just gobs of vietnan  bringback  ak47  and  m16s

 




It's a guaranteed means of fencing large(ish) numbers of stolen guns, so the criminal types loves them some buyback programs. That even makes the junk guns they've acquired and can't fence worth something.
Logged

XXXXooOOOOOXXXXXXXXX
LUCKY  LUCKY LUCKY  !!!!!!!!!!
badger

*
Offline Offline

Location: Permian Basin
Joined: Sep 27, 2010
Posts: 1288

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: Feb 15, 2016, 02:45PM »

There are Brits that have perfection and temperament for the occasion:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/war-isis-sas-sniper-takes-daesh-commanders-head-off-while-giving-beheading-lessons-1543797

Excerpt:

The sniper took a jihadi's head off as he taught new recruits how to behead peopleReuters file photo

A British SAS sniper took an Islamic State (Isis) commander's head clean off as he taught jihadi recruits how to behead captives, according to reports. The marksman fired from over a kilometre away (1,000 metres) to land the shot.

The IS (Daesh) fighter was reported to be in the middle of a drill teaching new soldiers how to execute captives, according to the Daily Express. Some 20 new terror recruits were watching as the fatal bullet struck.

The soldier was operating in the northern Syria a fortnight ago and was using a .338 rifle with tumbling ammo that can cause a huge hole in the body on impact. The sniper had assistance from 12 fellow SAS soldiers, who managed to sneak into a jihadi compound before the shot was fired.

One military insider said: "One minute he was standing there and the next his head had exploded. The commander remained standing upright for a couple of seconds before collapsing and that's when panic set in. We later heard most of the recruits deserted. We got rid of 21 terrorists with one bullet."
End Excerpt.

SAS!  Good!
Logged
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12299

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: Feb 18, 2016, 08:13AM »

its ez ---  i  live in a    ''prison town''
 a maximum  [big house] a minimum 
and  facility  for  unfit for trial  and/or criminally insane  [bug house]
-----------------
    the  sidearm in state on illinois  corrections  remains  a s&w  revolver  in 38 special
     considered obsolete in  many doj  circles  -however  a replacement  would  be cost ineffective
     

Not just any .38 special, when I was a corrections officer.
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_775508_-1_757767_757751_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

It was the Model 15, or K38, a really well made target quality revolver.  We also bought the .22 version for familiarization for new folks, but probably really just so the armorer had cool stuff to play with.  You could get either .22 or .38 in the K frame. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: Feb 18, 2016, 02:37PM »

Not just any .38 special, when I was a corrections officer.

Those are on the scarce side these days ... no?
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
badger

*
Offline Offline

Location: Permian Basin
Joined: Sep 27, 2010
Posts: 1288

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: Feb 18, 2016, 02:53PM »

I’ve heard rumors Colt may start production of the Python again. They are quite pricey on the open market now… $2000+ easy.  Pant

Any scuttlebutt out there?
Logged
badger

*
Offline Offline

Location: Permian Basin
Joined: Sep 27, 2010
Posts: 1288

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: Mar 03, 2016, 03:30PM »

Smith & Wesson Surge:

http://www.investors.com/news/smith-wesson-breaks-out-crushes-q3-guides-higher/?ven=YahooCP&src=AURLLED&ven=yahoo

Excerpt:

Smith & Wesson (SWHC) soundly beat third-quarter expectations and raised its guidance again Thurs-day, and the gun maker plans to boost production of “key products” this quarter as fears of future gun regulations lift demand.

Adjusted earnings per share nearly tripled to 59 cents a share, 20 cents higher than consensus views. Sales surged 61.5% to $210.8 million, breezing past forecasts for $174.93 million.

A1Guns030416Smith & Wesson now expects full-year EPS of $1.68-$1.70, well above analysts’ out-look of $1.42, and above its upwardly revised guidance of $1.36-$1.41 given in January.

Shares surged 7% after-hours in the stock market today, breaking out of a cup base that had begun to form a handle and which had a 26.64 buy point. Shares of smaller rival Sturm Ruger (RGR) climbed 1.8% after hours.

“The combined strength of our firearms and accessories businesses delivered an exceptional perfor-mance, driven by healthy consumer demand across our growing portfolio of firearm and outdoor life-style offerings,” Smith & Wesson CEO James Debney said in a statement.

“Despite the fact that we entered our fourth quarter with lower inventories,” he added, “we are focused on increasing the production rates of our key products during the fourth quarter and we are therefore increasing our guidance for the full fiscal year.”

The results follow a series of mass shootings in the U.S., most notably in San Bernardino, Calif., during the quarter, that have kept the debate on gun control in the headlines.

The latest calls for tighter gun restrictions have spurred more gun sales, as buyers worry that pressure for new gun laws will restrict what can be legally purchased.

Similar surges were seen after the Sandy Hook school shooting in December 2012 and the Aurora, Co-lo., movie theater shooting in July 2012.

Background checks — which hit a record on Black Friday and are often used as a rough indicator of gun demand — have been on an uptrend for the past seven years, according to FBI data.

Meanwhile, Smith & Wesson has grown through new products, done more to draw women customers, and expanded into markets for hunting and, potentially, the military.

The Pentagon has been seeking a replacement for the Beretta M9 9-millimeter pistol, used by the Army for 30-plus years, and Smith & Wesson is seen as a top contender.
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51134
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: May 29, 2016, 06:04PM »

OK.  What in heck is going on in Houston?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gunman-among-least-2-dead-houston-shooting-174151242.html?ref=gs

You just drive into a car repair shop and get killed?  There were 27 bullet damages on a police car?  Shots fired at a police helicopter? Amazed Amazed
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: May 29, 2016, 06:49PM »

OK.  What in heck is going on in Houston?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gunman-among-least-2-dead-houston-shooting-174151242.html?ref=gs

You just drive into a car repair shop and get killed?  There were 27 bullet damages on a police car?  Shots fired at a police helicopter? Amazed Amazed

Clearly.
 
You, me, your friends and family ... everyone's doing it!
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
harrison.t.reed
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colorado
Joined: Apr 5, 2007
Posts: 2698
"Spartan Brass Band!"


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: May 29, 2016, 07:35PM »

I didn't see much crime in Alaska. The TV shows about cops in Alaska are not a good representation of what Alaska is really like. You would have to be very foolish to pull a gun and start shooting in that state.

This is the state where you can bring your license into a gun shop, get your DOB checked, buy a 10mm Glock, buy ammo, load it it, stick it in your pants, and THEN walk out of the store. All the while the guy behind the counter is smiling at you with one finger on the grip of his pistol.

It's like Mutually Assured Destructon, except it's not really mutual. And it's not as destructive.

What's the issue with weapons? States where not everybody has them? I can see that. Personally, I think the government should really start pushing the civilian marksmanship program again, where you can get an old 1901 or M1 for $150 and learn how to shoot properly.
Logged

"My technique is as good as Initial D"
T-396A - Griego 1C
88HTCL - Griego 1C
36H - DE XT105, C+, D Alto Shank
3B/F Silversonic - Griego 1A ss
pBone (with Yellow bell for bright tone)
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51134
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: May 29, 2016, 07:52PM »

BvB:  Did you catch the fact that one of the hospitalized people was a guy who was trying to get his gun out to stop the nut case?
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: May 29, 2016, 08:33PM »

BvB:  Did you catch the fact that one of the hospitalized people was a guy who was trying to get his gun out to stop the nut case?

If only he'd gotten out his phone and dialed 911 ...
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
SteveP
*
Offline Offline

Location: Arizona Desert
Joined: Sep 25, 2014
Posts: 35

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: May 29, 2016, 10:34PM »

This would be far less likely to happen in Arizona where almost anyone could have been armed, prepared and able to respond with deadly force.  Arizonans, unlike Californians and others are not expected to allow themselves to become victims.
Logged

Steve
Lake Havasu Regional Orchestra
Lake Havasu Symphonic Winds
Ellrod

*
Offline Offline

Location: North
Joined: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 6362

View Profile
« Reply #18 on: May 29, 2016, 10:44PM »

"What's the issue with weapons? States where not everybody has them? I can see that. Personally, I think the government should really start pushing the civilian marksmanship program again, where you can get an old 1901 or M1 for $150 and learn how to shoot properly."

Maybe you can get Don on side with this.
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #19 on: May 30, 2016, 05:54AM »

This would be far less likely to happen in Arizona where almost anyone could have been armed, prepared and able to respond with deadly force.  Arizonans, unlike Californians and others are not expected to allow themselves to become victims.

Uh, that was Texas... not California. You know, the state where gun nut jobs protest anti-gun people by parking in the parking lot with a crap ton of fairly useless but scary looking armaments. I think they have enough guns.  ;-)

Too bad that "allow themselves to become a victim shtick" is just bs propaganda from the gun manufactures to get you to buy more guns.
Logged
SteveP
*
Offline Offline

Location: Arizona Desert
Joined: Sep 25, 2014
Posts: 35

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: May 30, 2016, 10:41AM »

Uh, that was Texas... not California. You know, the state where gun nut jobs protest anti-gun people by parking in the parking lot with a crap ton of fairly useless but scary looking armaments. I think they have enough guns.  ;-)

Too bad that "allow themselves to become a victim shtick" is just bs propaganda from the gun manufactures to get you to buy more guns.
Texas carry requires a license, or "permission", to exercise your constitutional right.  Arizona, and many other states as well, require no license for open or concealed carry.  It is far more likely that a person in one of these "constitutional carry" states would be armed and, therefore, able to "not become a victim."  I know that phrase drives you nuts.  That's why I repeated it.
Logged

Steve
Lake Havasu Regional Orchestra
Lake Havasu Symphonic Winds
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51134
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: May 30, 2016, 12:24PM »

Texas carry requires a license, or "permission", to exercise your constitutional right.  Arizona, and many other states as well, require no license for open or concealed carry.  It is far more likely that a person in one of these "constitutional carry" states would be armed and, therefore, able to "not become a victim."  I know that phrase drives you nuts.  That's why I repeated it.

One of the guys who was shot was trying to "not become a victim".  Didn't help him.  Remember, you are trying to draw, and he's already shooting.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: May 30, 2016, 01:47PM »

One of the guys who was shot was trying to "not become a victim".  Didn't help him.  Remember, you are trying to draw, and he's already shooting.
 
How do you know it didn't help him? Are you presuming that being helped equates to a condition such that you somehow can't be shot, or that if you're shot therefore whatever you did wasn't helpful? That sounds like you think guns are supposed to be magical talismans and aren't useful at all if they don't completely shield their wielders from any harm.
 
You're using a perfectionist fallacy, and you know better ... well, you usually know better, anyway (besides the old problem of arguing tactics when--remember, you've made it crystal clear you have no training and don't understand them).
 
Do you think this way in terms of medicine or medical therapies ... or in any other context? If your condition doesn't go away completely or isn't fully prevented, the therapy is therefore a failure--useless. Or is it just guns? Exercise and good diet don't prevent death--they don't even guarantee you won't suffer the diseases it's supposed to help prevent, therefore there's no good reason to exercise or eat right. Or is it just guns ... eh? A fire extinguisher won't prevent a fire or even guarantee you can stop it from spreading. It won't even guarantee you can prevent yourself or your loves ones (or just fellow residents) from being harmed, so why keep one around? Or is that just guns?
 
 --
 
Note that I'm not arguing concealed carry made this situation better or even couldn't have made it worse, nor that I'm somehow immune to or a master of what I am arguing. Those kinds of "counter-arguments" are red herrings--avoiding the actual issue I am arguing (and also pretty common, unfortunately), and should send up red self-regulation flags. If they don't go up "naturally", and if they can't be raised by external criticism, then the first step in correcting what I am arguing against hasn't been completed.
 
I'm arguing, mostly at least, against casual presumption and poorly managed biases--that if we were by and large more inclined to take honesty more seriously we'd have a lot less self-imposed nonsense to navigate when we try to deal with problems and generally get along with each other.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51134
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: May 30, 2016, 06:55PM »

No.  The fallacy being held by a lot of arms carriers is that if everybody was armed then a shooting would be prevented at every step.

This is not true.  Sure, it's possible that an arms carrying bystander could have ended the situation, but remember this:  if you are going to try to stop a gunfight and he's already shooting and you still need to unholster, you are at a severe disadvantage.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
SteveP
*
Offline Offline

Location: Arizona Desert
Joined: Sep 25, 2014
Posts: 35

View Profile
« Reply #24 on: May 30, 2016, 07:57PM »

The fallacy being held by a lot of arms carriers is that if everybody was armed then a shooting would be prevented at every step.
Not correct.  If everybody was armed it might be possible for one or more of them to prevent a shooting.  If no one is armed that possibility drops to close to zero.  Do you favor a possibility of preventing that shooting or do you prefer zero chance of preventing that shooting?  To me the answer is clear.
Logged

Steve
Lake Havasu Regional Orchestra
Lake Havasu Symphonic Winds
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: May 30, 2016, 08:35PM »

No.  The fallacy being held by a lot of arms carriers is that if everybody was armed then a shooting would be prevented at every step.
So you're using fallacies to argue against fallacies. You don't have to do that. When you do, as you have been and generally do when you try to argue tactics, you just demonstrate you don't really understand the issue. It also raises the question of why you do this regarding guns when you don't normally make such regularly fallacious arguments for other issues (well, it's not really a question, it really just punctuates what's already rather obvious).
 
In any case why are you directing these posts toward me as if I've made that argument? If you want to make that point then make it, but you seem to think you're arguing against me for some reason. Do you just presume this is the position of all who make arguments against some gun control positions?
 
This is not true.  Sure, it's possible that an arms carrying bystander could have ended the situation, but remember this: if you are going to try to stop a gunfight and he's already shooting and you still need to unholster, you are at a severe disadvantage.
Remember this? You seem to be presuming to instruct me on tactics. We've been over that one before. Stop. You don't know what you're talking about. You make points like this that are about as helpful as telling a baseball player (not a complete beginner or a child) that if you swing away trying to hit a pitch and you don't feel anything but air and you don't hear anything but something that sounds like a ball smacking a catcher's glove a split second later, it means you missed. And by imparting this information you seem to think you're coaching (or like instructing a high school trombonist that if the outer slide comes off of the inners while you're playing, you've moved the slide too far out). Yeah ... thanks dude.
 
It reminds me of a guy working at McDonald's back in the day who was talking about hysterectomies for whatever reason (my wife and I were dropping by to see a friend who was the manager). My friend, his boss, pointed out to him that my wife's a doctor (a brand new one at the time, granted) and he still presumed to continue explaining them to her (his ego was too fragile to let him drop it like a reasonable person would, I gather), and he was laughably wrong (at least in this case you're not really wrong--at least not technically/yet--we'll see how that goes if you do like that guy and decide to go into further details).
 
At any rate your argument isn't against carrying, it's maybe an argument against letting someone get the drop on you if you can avoid it, if I'm to give you the rather generous benefit of the doubt (which I gladly will if you take it). It's also not an argument against a carrier drawing his/her weapon when fired upon. There's no such thing as calling Time Out! in combat. Well ... I guess that's technically not true. You can try it of course, but it's not recommended. The best tactic is to bug out post haste if you can (even if you risk the shooter getting another shot or two off at you), but if you can't bug out post haste or make an effective hand-to-hand attack that will prevent the shooter from continuing to fire, then if you can arm yourself you'd damn well best do so ASAP.
 
So your point is really just a blatantly obvious comment that you're in a bad situation if someone starts shooting at you in close quarters. And you seem to think sharing that information is instructing me and other readers in here. Awesome.
 
This also reminds me of a friend with a food addiction who once asked me; You know how to avoid burning your mouth on hot food? We'd just gotten burgers or hot dogs or something at a barbecue. He was asking this as if he were about to impart some kind of fresh wisdom upon me. I basically said "Go on." with an expression. He triumphantly replied, "Wait!" Yeah ... thanks dude. If he wasn't joking, and he didn't seem to be (and of course he had a food addiction issue), he was obviously projecting his own mentality regarding food and seemed to think this was something that hadn't occurred to me before, or maybe just that he'd cast new light on for me, just as you seem to think you're somehow doing by "explaining" that it's a bad situation to discover someone shooting at you, and that it's still a bad situation even if you're carrying a gun. Yeah ... thanks dude. Don't know what I'd do without that bit of wisdom there.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
harrison.t.reed
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colorado
Joined: Apr 5, 2007
Posts: 2698
"Spartan Brass Band!"


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: May 30, 2016, 10:01PM »

I love how people argue over this as if the Constitution did not actually give the right in plain english. There's nothing to argue over. Just write your congressmen and tell them that you either want the Constitution ammended (thereby REDUCING the freedoms that the Constitution protects -- an odd move), or write your congressmen and tell them to uphold the Constitution and stop arguing in the media over gun control. All this banter about limiting rights set to paper in our Constitution is silly. Ammend it to give marriage rights to all people who are of age regardless of sexual orientation? Sounds like freedom to me! Ammend it to eliminate gender as a statistic and legal status that we care about (making facilities unisex), in an effort to end this absurd gender inequality and victim culture perpetuated by professional victims in the neo-feminism movement? Sounds like freedom to me! Eliminate the freedom to carry weapons? Wait ... no! That's not right .... that's taking away freedoms.

In my mind, it's akin to trying to fight the Constitution and ban books and free speech because you perceive some books as a threat. Many people do this too. They are called socialists. Pick any of the rights the Constitution provides and try arguing against it. Or try arguing that the language is not clear so we should limit what that right is. It's nuts! Trust in the founding fathers. They were much more intelligent than politicians today in matters of liberty and getting rid of tyranny.
Logged

"My technique is as good as Initial D"
T-396A - Griego 1C
88HTCL - Griego 1C
36H - DE XT105, C+, D Alto Shank
3B/F Silversonic - Griego 1A ss
pBone (with Yellow bell for bright tone)
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12299

View Profile
« Reply #27 on: May 31, 2016, 04:50AM »

.

In my mind, it's akin to trying to fight the Constitution and ban books and free speech because you perceive some books as a threat.

In arguing the issue too narrowly, you are forced to minimize the fact that in the US guns ARE a threat. 

That is not universally true.  There are other countries with as many or more guns per capita than the US where guns are not a threat.

In seeing the issue so narrowly, people come to only two conclusions:  we reduce the threat by eliminating guns, or we reduce the threat by getting lots more guns.  Both sides argue their position vociferously.

However, neither course of action is likely to have any significant impact.  We need to address the culture of violence we have built. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: May 31, 2016, 05:08AM »

I love how people argue over this as if the Constitution did not actually give the right in plain english.

Are you suggesting "the right to keep and bear arms" is unambiguous (for starters)? that the congress and SCOTUS don't have any significant say in defining what it means?
 
The right to keep and bear could be limited to one gun per household, even a specific type or model, and it would still fall squarely within the constitutional mandate (including "shall not be infringed") had that been the way the SCOTUS interpreted it, or if it chooses to in the future.
 
Arguments from either side based upon the Constitution are purely legal and not at all sound in any other context--in fact I'd argue they're quite feeble--particularly as validation of the principle being argued. The law has never made something right or wrong, and laws have not all that infrequently gotten it backwards.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: May 31, 2016, 05:18AM »

However, neither course of action is likely to have any significant impact.  We need to address the culture of violence we have built.

There it is!
 
Yeah, gun control laws (or the lack thereof) have little effect on actual violence. What's so dramatically decreased violence over recent human history is the fact that we're a social species adapting to population density. Violent cultures are unstable. That unfortunately works when there aren't too few or too many people (too few probably because everyone knows everyone and violence dramatically strains social ties, too many probably because resources are stretched thinner and we have to become more cooperative), but we've moved through the range for which it can be tolerated and we're adapting accordingly. What was perfectly acceptable violence 100 years ago is not only unacceptable today, but in most cases will get you a quick ride to jail with a friendly police officer.
 
People confuse violence for guns. Gun violence isn't a technology issue though, it's a social issue as Tim points out.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
harrison.t.reed
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colorado
Joined: Apr 5, 2007
Posts: 2698
"Spartan Brass Band!"


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: May 31, 2016, 05:23AM »


Are you suggesting "the right to keep and bear arms" is unambiguous (for starters)? that the congress and SCOTUS don't have any significant say in defining what it means?
 
The right to keep and bear could be limited to one gun per household and it would still fall squarely within the constitutional mandate (including "shall not be infringed") had that been the way the SCOTUS interpreted it, or if it chooses to in the future.
 
Arguments from either side based upon the Constitution are purely legal and not at all sound in any other context, particularly validation of the principle being argued (the law has never made something right or wrong, and laws have not all that infrequently gotten it backwards).

It was written during a time when people had just won a war initially using their own rifles kept at home. This is not something we can say we are ignorant of.

It's ambiguity inclusiveness is meant to prevent people from limiting it, not to provide grounds to create provisos within it. "One gun per household" does infringe individuals' rights to bear arms. A household is not an individual. You have the right bear arms, period. I'll agree that based on what "Arms" were then, this might be better changed to "small arms" today, to keep in the spirit of the founders' intentions. I doubt "arms" meant 24lb cannons and heavy military hardware back then any more than "small arms" means a 5 megaton nuclear weapon today.

I personally think that pistols are questionable outside of backpacking trips (a 10mm Glock is advisable to have in Alaska's back country), and I do not own any, but I would never actually vote to restrict them -- the Constitution is clear. Rifles are extremely useful tools and marksmanship is a rewarding pursuit. Owning a rifle was probably what the founding fathers were after, but they intentionally left it as an inclusive satement.

I also agree with Tim. America needs a culture change. The civilian marksmanship program, if fully funded and promoted, would do wonders for this. Any good hobby would. Our culture has moved away from being outdoorsy and neighborly.  We can get back to real American values though, with a little national pride.
Logged

"My technique is as good as Initial D"
T-396A - Griego 1C
88HTCL - Griego 1C
36H - DE XT105, C+, D Alto Shank
3B/F Silversonic - Griego 1A ss
pBone (with Yellow bell for bright tone)
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12299

View Profile
« Reply #31 on: May 31, 2016, 05:30AM »



I also agree with Tim. America needs a culture change. The civilian marksmanship program, if fully funded and promoted, would do wonders for this. Any good hobby would. Our culture has moved away from being outdoorsy and neighborly.  We can get back to real American values though, with a little national pride.

I am not sure how to do that culture change. 
A civilian marksmanship program might reduce the tendency to see guns only as weapons (for offense or defense.)  But it doesn't address violence per se. 

The current emphasis on concealed carry and gun use for defense is clearly counterproductive in the cultural sense. 

We could start by eliminating the death penalty.  It has little effect on crime, but legitimizes killing as acceptable. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: May 31, 2016, 05:33AM »

It was written during a time when people had just won a war initially using their own rifles kept at home. This is not something we can say we are ignorant of.
 
It's ambiguity is meant to prevent people from limiting it, not to provide grounds to create provisos within it. You have the right bear arms, period. I'll agree that based on what "Arms" were then, this might be better changed to "small arms" today, to keep in the spirit of the founders' intentions. I doubt "arms" meant 24lb cannons back then any more than "small arms" means a 5 megaton nuclear weapon today.
That's opinion--one the SCOTUS isn't bound by in any way shape or form. What I posted is how it actually works. It's simply a fact that if the SCOTUS had interpreted "keep and bear arms" to mean one gun per household that would be the protected right, and if the SCOTUS interprets it that way in the future it will then be the protected right. That's the way it works. That's a feeble basis to validate/justify keeping and bearing in general (as I posted, law is an inherently feeble basis in that regard anyway), much less on any larger scale.
 
I also agree with Tim. America needs a culture change. The civilian marksmanship program, if fully funded and promoted, would do wonders for this. Any good hobby would. Our culture has moved away from being outdoorsy and neighborly.  We can get back to real American values though, with a little national pride.
My own experience doesn't match that description. I don't think we've changed a whole lot over the lifespan of the US thus far. We're less violent, but not by a whole helluva lot in that short a time span (significantly, yes, but I wouldn't say dramatically). I also agree with Tim that the issue is violence, not guns--a social matter rather than one of technology--and that eliminating capital punishment might be a significant step in further diminishing violence (and it's absolutely necessary in order to claim that we're a civilized society in any sound or even modern sense, in my opinion).
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #33 on: May 31, 2016, 05:47AM »

I know that phrase drives you nuts.  That's why I repeated it.
Not at all. It just shows your level of delusion in believing you have much of a choice in the matter.

Texas carry requires a license, or "permission", to exercise your constitutional right.  Arizona, and many other states as well, require no license for open or concealed carry.  It is far more likely that a person in one of these "constitutional carry" states would be armed and, therefore, able to "not become a victim." 
And per that delusion, the thought that we are safer when more people carry for protection - especially when those people have no regulation, no training, no nothing. Sorry, unless you're in an active war zone, keeping a gun around for self defensive is more likely to hurt yourself or others unintentionally or accidentally than help in a deadly situation.
Logged
harrison.t.reed
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colorado
Joined: Apr 5, 2007
Posts: 2698
"Spartan Brass Band!"


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: May 31, 2016, 06:31AM »

This forum is so blue and we got Baron Von Bone pushing his post count over 17000 by playing both sides of the fence. I gotta just learn to keep my trap shut.

Constitution: "you may keep and bear arms"

Boy Blue: "no, but what had happened was..."

Last post for me here. Out.
Logged

"My technique is as good as Initial D"
T-396A - Griego 1C
88HTCL - Griego 1C
36H - DE XT105, C+, D Alto Shank
3B/F Silversonic - Griego 1A ss
pBone (with Yellow bell for bright tone)
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: May 31, 2016, 06:52AM »

Sorry, unless you're in an active war zone, keeping a gun around for self defensive is more likely to hurt yourself or others unintentionally or accidentally than help in a deadly situation.

Only if you're kind of incompetent. Guns aren't terribly complicated machines to use--especially revolvers, which are probably what most defensive handgun buyers should be getting.
 
No need to overstate your argument, and it just undermines it/your credibility when you do.
 
Statistics are for populations, not individuals. Statistical arguments are therefore valid for populations but not so much for individuals. IOW you can't reasonably extrapolate from population stats to individual behaviors because the stats are an aggregate and individuals are ... well, individual.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: May 31, 2016, 06:54AM »

This forum is so blue. I gotta just learn to keep my trap shut.
 
Constitution: "you may keep and bear arms"
 
Boy Blue: "no, but what had happened was..."
 
Last post for me here. Out.

Best not to whine when others disagree with you--worse to whine and throw a tantrum of presumptions. Makes your position appear quite fragile. It indicates you haven't done your basic homework--haven't genuinely vetted your own position (at least asking obvious questions if not taking the basic responsibility of genuinely challenging your own position) and haven't much tolerance for doing so (that's intellectual cowardice), which in turn indicates that your position is likely based upon in-group agreement and slogans and such rather than any real research or responsible or even just genuine consideration.
 
Speaking of credibility ...
 
But yeah, based upon that behavior you're basically out whether you continue to "participate" or not. You've pretty seriously damaged your credibility there by demonstrating a very clear inability to handle disagreement.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12299

View Profile
« Reply #37 on: May 31, 2016, 08:10AM »

. Sorry, unless you're in an active war zone, keeping a gun around for self defensive is more likely to hurt yourself or others unintentionally or accidentally than help in a deadly situation.

Of course that's true.  How could it be not?  However much we perceive we are in danger, we live in the safest times (so far) in history.  So where the chances of being in a deadly situation are so low, obviously the chances of getting hurt otherwise will be higher.  BUT that doesn't mean they are high enough to be significant, given reasonable care.  And having a gun available, in that unlikely deadly situation, will improvement the chances of survival.  You can't deny that either, though it isn't foolproof.

As I see it, the real problem is different.  The real problem is that in advocating self defensive use, you may become part of reinforcing a culture of violence.  I don't know what the factors are that maintain that culture.  Perhaps some of it is just the short history of the US compared to other countries, some of it our glorification of action movies, some of it our insistence on the death penalty, some of it the quickness with which we use military force.  It is not impossible that a large component is the fact that most children are spanked - or perhaps more relevant, that most people believe in spanking. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #38 on: May 31, 2016, 09:25AM »

Statistics are for populations, not individuals. Statistical arguments are therefore valid for populations but not so much for individuals. IOW you can't reasonably extrapolate from population stats to individual behaviors because the stats are an aggregate and individuals are ... well, individual.

Nope.

#1 Individuals have poor self assessment. Most people say they are above average intelligence.

#2 Once you get into a defensive situation with at least one other person, it is not longer a question of individual ability. Not only is it then a comparison of you vs another person, there could be other unknown people involved as well. And as Bruce's story provides a wonderful example of with: "Several people were shot and injured, including a man authorities initially described as another suspect because he was present and armed", once you pull a gun in a firefight it can be difficult for others to tell which side you are on.

Nice try though.




And having a gun available, in that unlikely deadly situation, will improvement the chances of survival.  You can't deny that either, though it isn't foolproof.
You seem to see the issue with your own point. It isn't foolproof. And pulling a gun in that unlikely deadly situation also suddenly makes you much more of a target. There's a lot of "what if's" of course, but the reality is many more gun owners are shot and killed accidentally by their own family and weapons than shoot and kill others in a defensive situation.


The real problem is that in advocating self defensive use, you may become part of reinforcing a culture of violence.
 
In some regard I can see your point, and in some regard it is valid. There was a woman in the parking lot of home depot a while back who saw shoplifters running from the store, loading up their vehicle, and driving off. She pulled out her firearm and shot out the tires, and was promptly charged with reckless discharge of a gun. 

In most cases where people want to pull a gun, the situation is unpleasant but not deadly. For example, someone stealing something. A mugging. A shoplifting. A burglary. Most are not life threatening, even in armed robbery situations. But pulling out a gun can quickly make it so.

And in most unpleasant situations, even attempting to use a gun as punishment is far in excess of what society has deemed an appropriate consequence. A few years in jail is quite a different process than capital punishment. So like the woman in the parking lot, suddenly there are potentially life ending measures employed for simply witnessing someone stealing a few thousand dollars worth of merchandise from a store that can readily afford it.

It doesn't just reinforce the culture of violence, it grows it. It says that not only is violence the best answer to violence, but that we should deploy violence for ourselves and even on behalf of total strangers. Present in an armed robbery situation in a convenience store? Then you should pull your gun! When the far safer course is to just hide and hand over the money and file a report after.

A war vet was present is one of the mass shootings not long ago. Armed as well. His training told him to hide which he did, and afterwards the  media found out, and the public response was incredibly critical towards him saying he should have engaged regardless of the danger or risk.
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: May 31, 2016, 09:26AM »

Of course that's true.  How could it be not?  However much we perceive we are in danger, we live in the safest times (so far) in history.  So where the chances of being in a deadly situation are so low, obviously the chances of getting hurt otherwise will be higher.  BUT that doesn't mean they are high enough to be significant, given reasonable care.  And having a gun available, in that unlikely deadly situation, will improvement the chances of survival.  You can't deny that either, though it isn't foolproof.
I'd take that a step further and call it a poor reading/over-extrapolation of the stats, but I don't disagree with you either.
 
As I see it, the real problem is different.  The real problem is that in advocating self defensive use, you may become part of reinforcing a culture of violence.  I don't know what the factors are that maintain that culture.  Perhaps some of it is just the short history of the US compared to other countries, some of it our glorification of action movies, some of it our insistence on the death penalty, some of it the quickness with which we use military force.  It is not impossible that a large component is the fact that most children are spanked - or perhaps more relevant, that most people believe in spanking.
It always strikes me (i.e. it's noteworthy) that our rating system tolerates all sorts of nasty violence, but not something so offensive or awkward as a female breast (or more than one or for some amount of time or whatever buelshite standard the MPAA uses that rates nudity and sexuality as more of an issue than even pretty intense violence).
 
The most notable recent human development as far as change within us as individuals may well be how much less violent we've become in relatively recent history. What was perfectly acceptable violent behavior even a century ago in some cases is not only no longer acceptable, but criminal (I may have just written about this yesterday on this forum, but it may have been on another, so my apologies if it's redundant). It's interesting if idle to speculate as to how that progression will go over time--if there'll be a time when machine/drone type violence will seem okay or at least fly under the radar while real, personal violence is completely abhorrent ... etc.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: May 31, 2016, 09:29AM »

Nice try though ...

Discussion is obviously over when someone's digging in and doubling down (and more than likely keeping score in a sense, with self-proclaimed victories--i.e. treating it like a competition--as strange and obviously counterproductive as that mentality will probably seem to anyone participating in a genuinely conversational manner) ... not interested in going there--it just wastes time and annoys the pig, or something like that.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #41 on: May 31, 2016, 09:40AM »

Discussion is obviously over when someone's digging in and doubling down (and more than likely keeping score in a sense, with self-proclaimed victories--i.e. treating it like a competition--as strange and obviously counterproductive as that mentality will probably seem to anyone participating in a genuinely conversational manner) ... not interested in going there--it just wastes time and annoys the pig, or something like that.

Yes, such as when someone with no data attempts to counter actual data by saying essentially, "I'm better than that", and then distracting and deflecting from their empty posturing.

I agree.

Though for most reasonable people, when they are done with the discussion, they actually stop with the discussion. You might want to save your empty hemming and hawings and follow suit.
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: May 31, 2016, 10:02AM »

Yes, such as when someone with no data attempts to counter actual data by saying essentially, "I'm better than that", and then distracting and deflecting from their empty posturing.
 
I agree.
Statistics are for populations, not individuals. Statistical arguments are therefore valid for populations but not so much for individuals. IOW you can't reasonably extrapolate from population stats to individual behaviors because the stats are an aggregate and individuals are ... well, individual.
I wouldn't consider that as a good fit with your description (doesn't say anything about anyone being better than anything), and I have some tactical firearm training (not a whole lot, but all things being equal, any significant training suggests above average, though whether or not all things are equal is a Big If kinda thing), but since this isn't about me that's irrelevant, because as I was pointing out statistics aren't about individuals (that would mean some are worse than average, most are average, some are better than average, for all sorts of reasons, only one of which may be training, and there's no guarantee that training will be adequately countered if there are negative factors, so training doesn't = above average).
 
That post seems to be a pretty good example of the competitive mentality I was talking about. My response is more about illuminating that than anything. Seems all the more clear that discussion isn't gonna happen here.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #43 on: May 31, 2016, 10:06AM »

Seems all the more clear that discussion isn't gonna happen here.
Then once again, why continue with your point except for maybe falling into your own pit of "competitive mentality"?


And actually, yes, you can get a good sense of individual behaviors based on population statistics, as far as how often they occur and general effectiveness of given and monitored behaviors. That is why we have them, and who they are made up of. Again, individuals tend to like to think they are different and better, but behaviorally most often fall to norms and averages - hence the names.
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: Jul 10, 2016, 11:42AM »

Here's a training video that demonstrates the split second intricacies and subtleties of handgun combat, specifically addressing an issue that's often raised in this topic. It confirms the correct premise that it can be very dangerous to try and draw a concealed weapon on a weapon that's already out (drawing on a drawn gun), and it demonstrates that the fact if a gun is already drawn that doesn't mean a gun is defensively useless from that point.
 
! Warning !
It's graphic ... though we've been seeing a lot of this kind of video on the news in recent years.
 
I hope it sufficiently demonstrates that in the sense of reaction and strategy/tactics it is very much like a sport--obviously with the highest of stakes, but never-the-less the actions and reactions of individual tactics are very sport-like, so if you can understand how athletes make split second decisions then you should also understand how people do the same thing in combat. IOW it's nowhere near as impossible to use a gun for self-defense than many seem to really want to believe. They're at least right that it needs to be taken deadly serious, which means taking great pains to subordinate our perceptions and passions and fear and angst and such to sound epistemology--evidence and sound, detached reasoning. That's a tall order for all of us, granted, but if we're going to deal with this issue (and any other in which we're invested) we have to get better at that (ex. the straight up Guns]/i] topic--the more appropriate option--was locked for those very reasons, but rather than creating another one I though it probably best to post it here).
 
Anyway, here it is ... again ! Warning ! It's graphic.
 
Why you don't draw on a drawn gun and the subtleties of what "drawn gun" actually means (pay close attention to the language the instructor uses).
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51134
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: Jul 10, 2016, 11:54AM »

I can understand the video.  It's part of the reason the Cops in Dallas sent in that robot with the explosive to stop the sniper.

Also shows that you need to understand the situation if you plan to use your own firearm to protect yourself or others.  Good shooting by the second gun owner managing to shoot the bad guy and miss the hostage with not much room for error.  He must spend a fair amount of time practicing on the range.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: Jul 10, 2016, 11:57AM »

I can understand the video.  It's part of the reason the Cops in Dallas sent in that robot with the explosive to stop the sniper.
 
Also shows that you need to understand the situation if you plan to use your own firearm to protect yourself or others.  Good shooting by the second gun owner managing to shoot the bad guy and miss the hostage with not much room for error.  He must spend a fair amount of time practicing on the range.

He was an off duty cop.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51134
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: Jul 10, 2016, 12:41PM »


He was an off duty cop.

Doesn't change the fact that he was very adept at handling his firearm. 
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
badger

*
Offline Offline

Location: Permian Basin
Joined: Sep 27, 2010
Posts: 1288

View Profile
« Reply #48 on: Jul 10, 2016, 03:17PM »

Training is essential:

http://www.tigervalley.com/
Logged
badger

*
Offline Offline

Location: Permian Basin
Joined: Sep 27, 2010
Posts: 1288

View Profile
« Reply #49 on: Jul 10, 2016, 03:24PM »

The outcome of training;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCBNOFmr4nw

Howdy from Texas!
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51134
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: Jul 10, 2016, 03:48PM »

Yup. With proper training you can sit in a parking lot in Dallas and shoot 12 white police officers, killing 5 of them. Evil
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
badger

*
Offline Offline

Location: Permian Basin
Joined: Sep 27, 2010
Posts: 1288

View Profile
« Reply #51 on: Jul 10, 2016, 04:14PM »

That's not funny Bruce!
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51134
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: Jul 10, 2016, 04:18PM »

I didn't intend it to be funny.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
badger

*
Offline Offline

Location: Permian Basin
Joined: Sep 27, 2010
Posts: 1288

View Profile
« Reply #53 on: Jul 10, 2016, 04:24PM »

Things have been under Mr. Obama's watch for years.
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: Jul 10, 2016, 05:22PM »

Doesn't change the fact that he was very adept at handling his firearm.

That's a bizarre response. It explains why he's adept--that was the point. He's a cop--they get this training.
 
Why would you think my comment was somehow challenging the fact that he's good with a gun?
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51134
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: Jul 10, 2016, 05:31PM »

I'm not sure all cops get enough range training to do what that off-duty cop did.  I'm sure some do, though.

I'm pretty sure no "private" gun owners get that level of training.  I'd expect a Rambo Wannabe to put a nice bullet in the hostage.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: Jul 10, 2016, 05:52PM »

I'm not sure all cops get enough range training to do what that off-duty cop did.  I'm sure some do, though.
The video makes both of those statements pretty clear ... no?
 
But it's not just who gets the training and who doesn't, it's who continues to train and who doesn't, and of course as you point out levels of training are also important.
 
I'm pretty sure no "private" gun owners get that level of training.
More than you clearly think, but certainly not a high percentage.
 
Those were unusual tactical conditions too though--particularly for a civilian who has the option of bugging out and calling the guys in the video to have them deal with it.
 
I'd expect a Rambo Wannabe to put a nice bullet in the hostage.
Of course you would.
 
 --
 
Here's the text below the video by the guy who posted it:
Quote
To paraphrase the late, great Col. Jeff Cooper, owning a gun doesn’t make you a gunfighter anymore than owning a guitar makes you a musician. You must know how to use it and here, most importantly, WHEN to use it. Do you have the skills to get to your gun in a gunfight?

There are several lessons for firearms carriers here:

1. You must have the empty-handed skills to use the Five Ds in a close-in gunfight BEFORE you try to draw your firearm. Your firearm is a powerful force multiplier but against a drawn gun and with the attention on you, it is not a useful tool. Drawing on a drawn gun with attention on you is a dying man’s game, so make sure to pick the time to draw your gun when you have opportunity to get ahead in initiative and use your firearm effectively.

2. Marksmanship absolutely matters! The second officer had a very small center of mass of the mugger to shoot at, as the rest was covered by an innocent. Taking a headshot on a moving target under duress with rounds coming back at you is not easy by any means, so OWNING the marksmanship portion of the equation without question is an important skill. You don’t want to question whether you can hit a small target!

3. I have said it before and will say it again…spiritual fitness is important. The officer in the first clip didn’t know that it was going to be his last day on earth, and the officer in the second clip was right there as well but thankfully came out on top. Knowing what you fight for is important, but making peace with God before you meet Him is important as well. Don’t put that off.

4. The second officer waited for his opportunity, and that was awesome. He used a submissive posture of hands up, palms out, fingers spread to show submission to the attacker, right up until the attacker wasn’t paying attention anymore. Then, the fight was ON! That is what we call a counter-ambush, and it can be a very effective tactic.

5. Your draw needs to be practiced, smooth, fast, and without a hitch. The first officer took at least 2 if not 3 tries to get the gun out of the holster, likely because he wasn’t absolutely proficient at releasing his retention mechanism. (I can’t tell which retention holster he has on, so I will refrain from speculating) Practice your draw until you can’t get it wrong, ASPers.

Attitude. Skills. Plan.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 509

View Profile
« Reply #57 on: Jul 10, 2016, 06:04PM »

In the USA, about 64% of the population is white. About 12% of the population is black.

The latest set of DoJ figures shows that 42.9% of violent crime is committed by white people. 22.4% of violent crime is committed by blacks. The statistics don't show whether the violent crime includes use of a gun but it seems a fair assumption that gun crime isn't greatly skewed towards one racial group or another. So it would follow that blacks are many times more likely to commit a gun related crime that whites.

So why don't gun control advocates argue in favour of prohibiting gun possession by blacks? This would be in line with US government policy, which is to restrict firearm possession by people considered to present a high risk of gun misuse.
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51134
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: Jul 10, 2016, 06:08PM »

We have other laws that state regulations must be race-blind, religion-blind, gender-blind, and in some other ways equal.  So creating a rule that Blacks may not own guns simply because of the color of their skin is not allowed.  Just like you can't prevent Muslims or young Males.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
elmsandr

*
Offline Offline

Location: Howell, MI
Joined: Apr 12, 2004
Posts: 3323

View Profile
« Reply #59 on: Jul 10, 2016, 06:15PM »

In the USA, about 64% of the population is white. About 12% of the population is black.

The latest set of DoJ figures shows that 42.9% of violent crime is committed by white people. 22.4% of violent crime is committed by blacks. The statistics don't show whether the violent crime includes use of a gun but it seems a fair assumption that gun crime isn't greatly skewed towards one racial group or another. So it would follow that blacks are many times more likely to commit a gun related crime that whites.

So why don't gun control advocates argue in favour of prohibiting gun possession by blacks? This would be in line with US government policy, which is to restrict firearm possession by people considered to present a high risk of gun misuse.
Not sure, but it seems that you intend a bit of trolling with this.  Please don't.

Vaguely in response, gun control in this country does have a fair amount of racist roots.  Still seems to be happening, or are we just gonna ignore that a guy was shot even though he was legally allowed to carry?  Or that a 12 year old was shot because he had a gun that looked real, even though he was in an open carry state?

Cheers,
Andy
Logged

Andrew Elms
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 509

View Profile
« Reply #60 on: Jul 10, 2016, 06:36PM »

We have other laws that state regulations must be race-blind, religion-blind, gender-blind, and in some other ways equal. 

Why are these thought to take precedence over preventing gun crime?

My post was deadly serious. Gun control advocates don't seem to suggest policies that would have the greatest effect on what they say they want to achieve. There might be some obvious demographic restrictions based on the DoJ figures. Or how about requiring people to be a competent weapons handler as a condition of possession? There could be a mandatory training course, annual test etc. Tinkering with regulations about the style of stock or pistol grip is nonsense. Background checks and waiting periods for gun shop customers are largely an irrelevance: most gun related crime is carried out with illegally held guns, right?
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51134
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: Jul 10, 2016, 06:42PM »

I'm not answering you because you clearly don't understand US laws and only want to stir the pot.  Are you a troll?
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 509

View Profile
« Reply #62 on: Jul 10, 2016, 06:46PM »

I'm not answering you because you clearly don't understand US laws and only want to stir the pot.

Wouldn't they be two very good reasons to answer my questions?

Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: Jul 11, 2016, 04:21AM »

Wouldn't they be two very good reasons to answer my questions?

It's the second that's an interest and credibility killer.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #64 on: Jul 11, 2016, 04:53AM »

Training is essential:

http://www.tigervalley.com/


Too bad it is completely optional when buying and using these things too...
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #65 on: Jul 11, 2016, 11:54AM »

https://www.yahoo.com/news/friend-foe-open-carry-law-poses-challenge-police-054103363.html

Should also be of note, those with open guns at the scene of a shooting are considered suspects until ruled out. In this case, at least the cops knew who were cops. In the standard "good guy with a gun" fantasy... that is not the case.
Logged
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 509

View Profile
« Reply #66 on: Jul 11, 2016, 12:04PM »


It's the second that's an interest and credibility killer.

Stir the pot...

Challenge the general left-of-centre orthodoxy in the thread? Explore the logic behind other posters' opinions?

Perhaps I should state my own view so it's clear where I'm coming from. I think the 2nd Amendment entitles all citizens to have firearms (plural). Yes, including people with criminal records and people with mental health problems and people who are 3 months old. The only caveat I support is proof of competence, through training and regular testing. I derive that from the word "bear" in the Amendment. I take bearing arms to be correct and responsible use of the tool. It's not just owning, collecting or posing with or waving a weapon around. So, toddlers can't demonstrate competence. Ex convicts can, people with mental health problems can. Or can't: it depends on the individual.

Those Americans who favour taking the plunge and changing the 2nd Amendment, usually give reduction of gun crime as the rationale. In that case, it would make sense to adopt restrictions that have the most impact on gun crime. Since people in that camp have already demonstrated that saving lives is more important than upholding an abstract principle, sparing the feelings of groups based on age, race, religious or political ideas should also be subordinate to the goal of reduced gun crime, right? I see a few incongruities in the position, or perhaps the gun controllers are not being entirely straightforward about their aims. Would any of you who know so much more about it than me care to explain?
Logged
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12299

View Profile
« Reply #67 on: Jul 11, 2016, 12:24PM »

Or how about requiring people to be a competent weapons handler as a condition of possession? There could be a mandatory training course, annual test etc.

If the problem we are trying to solve is the incidence of gun accidents, that would be a good idea. 

But I don't hear anybody saying that.

If the problem we are trying to solve is gun crime, then that would seem counterproductive.  Or, completely irrelevant if criminals are not buying their guns legally and possessing them legally. 

If the problem we are trying to solve is the rare rampage shooting, that would seem irrelevant.  Most rampage shooters have been unfortunately good shots, or at least good enough. 

If the problem we are trying to solve is gun suicide, that would seem irrelevant. 

We require people to demonstrate driving skill before getting a license to drive a car.  That makes sense because their level of skill directly affects the safety of everybody else.  That really does not apply to firearms in anywhere near the same way.  Gun violence is not the result of lack of skill like car accidents are; it is the choice to shoot somebody.

Many areas require people to demonstrate some shooting skill before hunting.  That is mostly to protect animals from suffering.  Again that makes little sense for solving any gun problems. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 509

View Profile
« Reply #68 on: Jul 11, 2016, 01:41PM »

You're taking the idea of training to mean operating the working parts and marksmanship skills. I think it should include more than that.

A firearm isn't a toy or an accessory to show how American you are or what a big tough gangster you are on the block. It's a tool for killing. The entitlement to bear arms comes with grave responsibility. Legal, political, social, historical. This is especially important in America, as I'm sure posters here know.

I would like part of the training to include discussion of why you guys have the 2nd Amendment and what responsibilities it imposes along with the entitlement. It's a way to make a gradual culture change in gun ownership, rather than gun ownership. The weapons don't jump up and shoot people by themselves. As Timothy said, people choose to shoot or not. I don't think there is any official guidance about that decision given to gun buyers - correct me if I'm wrong.

Then again, if you can buy a gun with the serial number filed off from a guy in a bar, you can skip all that boring stuff and go out robbing straight away. That's a big job for the police to tackle and I agree that the militaristic and confrontational approach that some forces take is not helpful. However, I would hope that the training and culture shift might trickle through to the illegal gun owning community.
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: Jul 11, 2016, 02:14PM »

Stir the pot...

Challenge the general left-of-centre orthodoxy in the thread? Explore the logic behind other posters' opinions?
I'm pretty sure Bruce wouldn't agree with that characterization of what he was getting after you about.
 
I'm not sure he still disagrees with you as much as I suspect he thought when he posted that though.
 
Perhaps I should state my own view so it's clear where I'm coming from. I think the 2nd Amendment entitles all citizens to have firearms (plural). Yes, including people with criminal records and people with mental health problems and people who are 3 months old. The only caveat I support is proof of competence, through training and regular testing. I derive that from the word "bear" in the Amendment. I take bearing arms to be correct and responsible use of the tool. It's not just owning, collecting or posing with or waving a weapon around. So, toddlers can't demonstrate competence. Ex convicts can, people with mental health problems can. Or can't: it depends on the individual.
I don't agree that mental health would be covered by a standard competence test that would work for those who don't have mental health problems, but I'd have to have more details.
 
Those Americans who favour taking the plunge and changing the 2nd Amendment, usually give reduction of gun crime as the rationale. In that case, it would make sense to adopt restrictions that have the most impact on gun crime. Since people in that camp have already demonstrated that saving lives is more important than upholding an abstract principle, sparing the feelings of groups based on age, race, religious or political ideas should also be subordinate to the goal of reduced gun crime, right? I see a few incongruities in the position, or perhaps the gun controllers are not being entirely straightforward about their aims. Would any of you who know so much more about it than me care to explain?
I think you're presuming a lot about others' lines of reasoning there, and I don't think you can make a valid case for racially based firearms law. A stronger case could easily be made for an ageist and sexist case (i.e. males between about 18 and 25--or 15 to 25 if we're including minors--shouldn't be allowed to keep or bear, or one or the other), and that's still a pretty specious stretch.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
badger

*
Offline Offline

Location: Permian Basin
Joined: Sep 27, 2010
Posts: 1288

View Profile
« Reply #70 on: Jul 11, 2016, 02:22PM »

https://www.yahoo.com/news/friend-foe-open-carry-law-poses-challenge-police-054103363.html

Should also be of note, those with open guns at the scene of a shooting are considered suspects until ruled out. In this case, at least the cops knew who were cops. In the standard "good guy with a gun" fantasy... that is not the case.

Bob,

Texas has Open Carry and from last week’s tragedy it was a hindrance. I live in west Texas and have yet to see anyone doing such, excepting Law Enforcement.

I am friends with some in the Law Enforcement community and they are not particularly happy, but such is the law. It appears Newbies like to enjoy their new found annoyance. I, like you, have been around firearms from a very young age and I open carry when I am out in the country on private land hunting or target practicing ONLY.

I am friends with our local Sheriff and he doesn’t Open Carry.

I also avoid  large crowds and nowadays that seems prudent.

Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51134
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #71 on: Jul 11, 2016, 02:25PM »

My main disagreement with sonicsilver is his idea of abrogating the 14th Amendment with a restriction on a certain race owning firearms.  We just can't do that.  We need to find a different way to solve the problem.

I would LOVE to see the kind of training he suggests for owning a firearm.  Most of the NRA'ers seem to think it's a right without limitations.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: Jul 11, 2016, 02:32PM »

You're taking the idea of training to mean operating the working parts and marksmanship skills. I think it should include more than that ...

I don't have any definite problems with any of that--just depends upon the details. I like the idea in general, but competence needs to be adjusted for handicaps and age and such where appropriate. Those things couldn't trump an appropriate minimal level of competence though. I'm not sure all of that should be required for just ownership rather than carrying (I gather that carrying is just part of the package for you--personally I'd go by legal precedent), but I don't feel strongly about that/wouldn't have a problem with it.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 509

View Profile
« Reply #73 on: Jul 11, 2016, 03:29PM »

My main disagreement with sonicsilver is his idea of abrogating the 14th Amendment with a restriction on a certain race owning firearms.  We just can't do that.

Woah Woah Woah!  That's not MY idea, nor am I in favour of it. I merely wondered why gun control advocates don't suggest it as a policy since the statistics suggest that it would have a great effect on gun crime.

It seems to me that the gun controllers make a utilitarian argument for a greater good. If the results are positive overall, then a bit of *ahem* flexibility with the 2nd (or 14th) is an acceptable price to pay. On the NRA side, there's often a stubborn adherence to principles and damn the consequences. Well, it's OK to tinker with your principles a bit if they're not doing what they're supposed to.

Which brings me to the last point. Yes you can make racial restrictions to the 2nd Amendment. You "just" have to change the constitution. But it's been done a few times before. There's all these amendments...
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #74 on: Jul 11, 2016, 03:42PM »

Bob,

Texas has Open Carry and from last week’s tragedy it was a hindrance.
Yup.

Woah Woah Woah!  That's not MY idea, nor am I in favour of it. I merely wondered why gun control advocates don't suggest it as a policy since the statistics suggest that it would have a great effect on gun crime.
Maybe because it runs in direct contrast to the 14th amendment?

Despite what you hear from the NRA, the 2nd amendment is actually quite flexible. It says people should be able to BEAR arms... not possess them. A government armory training and supplying citizens can and has sufficed to meet that qualification in the past.

The whole any gun any place any time shtick is pandering from the gun makers lobby to scare people into buying more guns. Nothing more. We certainly aren't safer for the blatant misuse of guns that encourages.
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51134
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: Oct 02, 2017, 07:06PM »

I'm reviving this old thread because of the shooting last night in Las Vegas.

I'm still one of those who feel that licensing arms does not abrogate the 2nd Amendment.  I also feel that there should be a limit to the number of arms an individual can own unless they can prove that there is a good reason (e.g. collector).  I also feel that anything that creates an emulation of automatic fire should be illegal.

Maybe even put some kind of thermal sensor on the gun barrel that won't let you fire a second shot unless it cools to a certain level.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9683

View Profile
« Reply #76 on: Oct 03, 2017, 05:53AM »

I think it makes more sense to find out more about this shooter. He's the one that did this. You can't lay off any of the blame on his weapons of choice. We need to find out what was going on with this guy, especially scarry, because he doesn't seem, at this point, to have anything in his profile, that would suggest his actions. That's scarry.
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
elmsandr

*
Offline Offline

Location: Howell, MI
Joined: Apr 12, 2004
Posts: 3323

View Profile
« Reply #77 on: Oct 03, 2017, 07:36AM »

I think it makes more sense to find out more about this shooter. He's the one that did this. You can't lay off any of the blame on his weapons of choice. We need to find out what was going on with this guy, especially scarry, because he doesn't seem, at this point, to have anything in his profile, that would suggest his actions. That's scarry.
That sorta tells me that it is too easy to get the weapons, right?

Cheers,
Andy
Logged

Andrew Elms
slide advantage
*
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 18, 2016
Posts: 807

View Profile WWW
« Reply #78 on: Oct 03, 2017, 07:49AM »

Arizonans, unlike Californians and others are not expected to allow themselves to become victims.

What an absurd statement
 Yeah, RIGHT.
Logged
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12299

View Profile
« Reply #79 on: Oct 03, 2017, 07:56AM »

That sorta tells me that it is too easy to get the weapons, right?

Cheers,
Andy

That is one interpretation.

Another one that should be part of the mix is that we simply can't prevent every possible tragedy.  

This is a guy who apparently (it's early days yet, but so far) had none of the typical warning signs.  He wasn't mentally ill, hadn't lost a job or a wife, wasn't super religious, functioned well in society, owned guns but didn't appear to be obsessed, was law abiding, had enough money to acquire whatever he wanted, etc.  

That's not the kind of person who typically does this kind of crime.  There's probably no way to guard against that.  Fortunately it's rare.  

If a person with many warning signs found it easy to obtain weapons, you'd have part of an argument.

There's another factor I've brought up before, the US culture of killing people.  In Germany people don't litter.  They just don't.  In the US they do.  You could not solve that problem by putting trash cans everywhere, nor by banning wrappers on fast food.  It's a shared ethic thing.  There are other countries with lots of guns where even the mentally ill don't shoot each other.  They just don't.  I believe it's possible to move in that direction.  

How much effort do we want to put into solving the extremely rare event, vs more common threats?  Even the countries with strict gun control and an ethic against shooting each other have the occasional very rare mass killing.  (Despite this and wars, the planet is the safest from violence it's been in the past 10,000 years.)
Logged

Tim Richardson
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12299

View Profile
« Reply #80 on: Oct 03, 2017, 07:57AM »

What an absurd statement
 Yeah, RIGHT.

I would have to agree.

Seriously?  You're going to pull a handgun and hit a target in a window 500 yards away? 
Logged

Tim Richardson
Ellrod

*
Offline Offline

Location: North
Joined: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 6362

View Profile
« Reply #81 on: Oct 03, 2017, 08:13AM »

I think the gun control horse left the barn a long time ago. Tim's right. Some tragedies can't be prevented.
Logged
elmsandr

*
Offline Offline

Location: Howell, MI
Joined: Apr 12, 2004
Posts: 3323

View Profile
« Reply #82 on: Oct 03, 2017, 09:16AM »

...
That's not the kind of person who typically does this kind of crime.  There's probably no way to guard against that.  Fortunately it's rare.  

If a person with many warning signs found it easy to obtain weapons, you'd have part of an argument.

Well, if the weapons aren't there, he's throwing socks out of the window.  That's the point.  They should not be readily available.  This will, of course, take a generation to change, but all it takes is the will.  Like smoking, it may take 40 years to get them out of the public, but the needle can be moved.

Quote
There's another factor I've brought up before, the US culture of killing people.  In Germany people don't litter.  They just don't.  In the US they do.  You could not solve that problem by putting trash cans everywhere, nor by banning wrappers on fast food.  It's a shared ethic thing.  There are other countries with lots of guns where even the mentally ill don't shoot each other.  They just don't.  I believe it's possible to move in that direction.  

How much effort do we want to put into solving the extremely rare event, vs more common threats?  Even the countries with strict gun control and an ethic against shooting each other have the occasional very rare mass killing.  (Despite this and wars, the planet is the safest from violence it's been in the past 10,000 years.)
Continuing to have the imagery and great easy access to the weapons helps promote this.  THIS is why a mostly toothless assault weapons ban actually kinda matters.  Looks matter to establish the culture.

Cheers,
Andy
Logged

Andrew Elms
Ellrod

*
Offline Offline

Location: North
Joined: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 6362

View Profile
« Reply #83 on: Oct 03, 2017, 09:19AM »

2nd amendment, right to pursue happiness - hard to change the fundamentals of American culture.
Logged
Stan

*
Offline Offline

Location: Louisville, KY
Joined: Mar 2, 2003
Posts: 559

View Profile
« Reply #84 on: Oct 03, 2017, 09:25AM »

There is a direct, causal link between number of firearms owned and number of gun crimes.  The states with the most per capita guns have the most per-capita gun crimes.  Same for nation states.  America has about 5% of the world's population and over 50% of the civilian-owned guns.  Peer-reviewed research has concluded that states with tighter gun control laws in the US have less gun violence than states with lax laws and controls (it's now illegal to conduct this type of research in the United States).  The states with the most guns, and the least restrictive laws, report the most gun crime and suicide by gun.  We've had more mass shootings (4+ people shot) in 2017 than days in 2017.  

It's time to talk about this, and stop deflecting, and stop praying, and stop letting special interest groups have their free run of the issue.  

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  

Show me ONE mass shooting that the people who wrote that sentence were familiar with that remotely approaches what just happened in Las Vegas.  The Boston Massacre, which was a pivotal moment towards the Revolution, led to 5 dead and 6 injured.  The second amendment could never have been intended to allow this nonsense, this horror, to happen.  The second amendment that lets people do these things is a lie hoisted by the gun industry.  
Logged
sowilson
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Mar 8, 2012
Posts: 158

View Profile
« Reply #85 on: Oct 03, 2017, 09:29AM »

I'm reviving this old thread because of the shooting last night in Las Vegas.

I'm still one of those who feel that licensing arms does not abrogate the 2nd Amendment.  I also feel that there should be a limit to the number of arms an individual can own unless they can prove that there is a good reason (e.g. collector).  I also feel that anything that creates an emulation of automatic fire should be illegal.

Maybe even put some kind of thermal sensor on the gun barrel that won't let you fire a second shot unless it cools to a certain level.

Naw, that would be sensible and we can't have that because 2nd Amendment - 'Merica !!!  What we really need are more weapons, AR10's and AR15's for everyone.  And, and, and body armor, we need body armor, lot's and lot's of body armor.  AND AND AND AND silencers, we need to suppress all of our weapons, can't hurt our hearing.  So, since the fascist media says the shooter is a closet muslim, I'm going to by some more AR15 lowers at the gun show this weekend so I can spend the winter building more, and more, and more weapons.  Got to go, I hear the black helicopters overhead and that Muslim Nigerian Fascist Communist is going to take my guns.  Buy weapons 'Merica !!!
Logged
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12299

View Profile
« Reply #86 on: Oct 03, 2017, 10:10AM »

Well, if the weapons aren't there, he's throwing socks out of the window. 

I would have to agree, but that will take total confiscation.

Some cultures have gone that direction. 

We possibly could at some point too, but up to this point the rhetoric has been "we are NOT going to grab your guns, just put in some common sense restrictions, and don't worry we won't be back for more if they don't work, no slippery slope here." 

I maintain a slippery slope is inevitable IF your goal is to eliminate the rare events that catch our attention.  Only total prohibition of firearms ownership has a chance (and that won't be effective against a guy wealthy and resourceful like this one, but it might work on most of the more typical mass shooters.)

If on the other hand your goal were a little more practical, maybe some more reasonable measures might have an impact, if directed at the more common events. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
Ellrod

*
Offline Offline

Location: North
Joined: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 6362

View Profile
« Reply #87 on: Oct 03, 2017, 10:19AM »

Kind of puts the honest law-abiding person in a tough place. If everyone, including all the criminals, are armed, doesn't it make sense to own at least one firearm for self-protection? If you make gun ownership illegal (or severely restricted), with very harsh punishments, doesn't it just turn a lot of law abiding citizens concerned for their own safety into criminals themselves. Does America need more criminals? Are jail cells going empty?

I'm pretty hardline with respect to no handguns (reminder: I'm in Canada) and long rifles in only a few circumstances (maybe subsistence hunting, farmers, people out in the bush). But, America is awash with guns. As I said before, the horse is out of the barn. Elvis has left the building. The best you can do is try to keep firearms out of the hands of the known crazy people, restrictions an ammunition, automatic weapons, and maybe licensing based on mandatory training.
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #88 on: Oct 03, 2017, 10:30AM »

2nd amendment, right to pursue happiness - hard to change the fundamentals of American culture.

Abortion is also a constitutionally protected right. A woman's right to make medical decisions regarding her own body is even more basic than what you can and can't own.

Yet many have no problem imposing waiting periods, invasive and unneeded checks, go through "trainings", and to force someone to drive sometimes hundreds of miles and sometimes multiple times to simply get one.
Logged
slide advantage
*
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 18, 2016
Posts: 807

View Profile WWW
« Reply #89 on: Oct 03, 2017, 10:34AM »

This has been stated before.

In order to be licensed to drive a motor vehicle, you have to have training, pass rigorous tests and be registered (licensed). And in order to own a vehicle that will be driven on public roads, you have to register said vehicle.

Yet any bozo can walk into a gun show, fork over the case and walk out the door with a semi-automatic weapon and large capacity magazines.

There is something very wrong with that.
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #90 on: Oct 03, 2017, 10:38AM »

If everyone, including all the criminals, are armed, doesn't it make sense to own at least one firearm for self-protection?
Depends. Is there really any good argument that a handgun is needed or works well for self-protection? More people are hit by lightening than killed by defensive gun use each year.

The other side, it's common to walk away from an exchange and think of a really good comeback AFTER the situation is over. Oh, I should have said _____ ! And that's in a normal, day to day, no stress situation.

If the best option in a regular scenario is often an afterthought, than how well can you really expect an average person to choose the best path in a stressful, tense, dangerous situation, where they have little idea or training in what to do?
 

If you make gun ownership illegal (or severely restricted), with very harsh punishments, doesn't it just turn a lot of law abiding citizens concerned for their own safety into criminals themselves. Does America need more criminals? Are jail cells going empty?
That would depend very widely on how restrictions are implemented.

But, America is awash with guns. As I said before, the horse is out of the barn. Elvis has left the building. The best you can do is try to keep firearms out of the hands of the known crazy people, restrictions an ammunition, automatic weapons, and maybe licensing based on mandatory training.
May take decades, but the place to start then is to stop the flow of new ones, and gradually clean up the old ones. At the moment, we take guns confiscated by law enforcement and sell them back out into the society, while dumping in even more new ones all the time. http://www.kentuckystatepolice.org/conf_weapons/index.html
Logged
Ellrod

*
Offline Offline

Location: North
Joined: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 6362

View Profile
« Reply #91 on: Oct 03, 2017, 10:38AM »

This has been stated before.

In order to be licensed to drive a motor vehicle, you have to have training, pass rigorous tests and be registered (licensed). And in order to own a vehicle that will be driven on public roads, you have to register said vehicle.

Yet any bozo can walk into a gun show, fork over the case and walk out the door with a semi-automatic weapon and large capacity magazines.

There is something very wrong with that.

Owning and operating a motor vehicle is not a constitutionally protected right.
Logged
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12299

View Profile
« Reply #92 on: Oct 03, 2017, 10:42AM »



Yet any bozo can walk into a gun show, fork over the case and walk out the door with a semi-automatic weapon and large capacity magazines.



You might do that deal in the parking lot, theoretically;  I've been to gun shows and every one I've seen does background checks before a sale.  (and I suspect somebody is watching the parking lot for an easy arrest)  So not quite any bozo, just the same bozo who could buy one at a gun store.  At least in Virginia that's how it works.  That seems like a reasonable restriction to me. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3260

View Profile
« Reply #93 on: Oct 03, 2017, 10:55AM »

I think it makes more sense to find out more about this shooter. He's the one that did this. You can't lay off any of the blame on his weapons of choice. We need to find out what was going on with this guy, especially scarry, because he doesn't seem, at this point, to have anything in his profile, that would suggest his actions. That's scarry.


I wonder how well he would have done with a stick?  OR a grenade launcher?

The weapons matter to the outcome.  Saying they don't is ... so ridiculous ... there is not actually a word for it.
« Last Edit: Oct 03, 2017, 04:53PM by BillO » Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #94 on: Oct 03, 2017, 10:56AM »

You might do that deal in the parking lot, theoretically;  I've been to gun shows and every one I've seen does background checks before a sale.  (and I suspect somebody is watching the parking lot for an easy arrest)  So not quite any bozo, just the same bozo who could buy one at a gun store.  At least in Virginia that's how it works.  That seems like a reasonable restriction to me. 
Meh, or just pay a friend or family member for theirs.
Logged
Piano man
*
Online Online

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9956

View Profile
« Reply #95 on: Oct 03, 2017, 11:12AM »

You might do that deal in the parking lot, theoretically;  I've been to gun shows and every one I've seen does background checks before a sale.  (and I suspect somebody is watching the parking lot for an easy arrest)  So not quite any bozo, just the same bozo who could buy one at a gun store.  At least in Virginia that's how it works.  That seems like a reasonable restriction to me. 

That is a Virginia law. The federal law requires a background check only when a gun is sold by a licensed gun seller. Private sales and gun shows don't have the same restriction in every state.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9683

View Profile
« Reply #96 on: Oct 03, 2017, 01:21PM »

This has been stated before.

In order to be licensed to drive a motor vehicle, you have to have training, pass rigorous tests and be registered (licensed). And in order to own a vehicle that will be driven on public roads, you have to register said vehicle.

Yet any bozo can walk into a gun show, fork over the case and walk out the door with a semi-automatic weapon and large capacity magazines.

There is something very wrong with that.

I don't think you have to be a registered driver to own a car. Many gun owners own guns, but don't shoot them. You do have to have a carry license. isn't about the same thing?
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #97 on: Oct 03, 2017, 01:34PM »

It is confirmed.... the weapons used were not fully automatic, the shooter used a bump stock. And apparently not only are those legal, some cost as little as $100.
Logged
bhcordova
Wielder of the Cat Litter Scoop

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Nacogdoches, TX, USA
Joined: May 18, 2000
Posts: 7136
"Carpe Felix"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #98 on: Oct 03, 2017, 01:41PM »

Abortion is also a constitutionally protected right. A woman's right to make medical decisions regarding her own body is even more basic than what you can and can't own.


Wrong on this one B0B.  Abortion is a derived right.  It's not specifically mentioned in the constitution nor in any of the amendments to the constitution.  If I remember correctly, it was derived from the right to privacy, which is also a derived right from the 4th amendment right against unwarranted search and seizure.  So, constitutionally, the right to bear arms is a more fundamental right than the right to an abortion.
Logged

Billy Cordova, MBA
Forum Administrator
bcordova@tromboneforum.org

Beware the Jabberwock, my son! - Lewis Carroll

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup - Anon.

St. Cecilia, pray for us.
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #99 on: Oct 03, 2017, 01:49PM »

Wrong on this one B0B.  Abortion is a derived right.  It's not specifically mentioned in the constitution nor in any of the amendments to the constitution.  If I remember correctly, it was derived from the right to privacy, which is also a derived right from the 4th amendment right against unwarranted search and seizure.  So, constitutionally, the right to bear arms is a more fundamental right than the right to an abortion.

From a practical standard... not at all. The right for a person to have control over their body and personal health decisions is far more fundamental than what objects they can lawfully have access to.

Interpretation wise, maybe... but then historically the second amendment has been satisfied with simply having a government armory that locals could access as part of signing up for and training with the militia. The modern extension of self defense or personal use or personal collection that we know today is no more rooted than the right to abortion.
Logged
Ellrod

*
Offline Offline

Location: North
Joined: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 6362

View Profile
« Reply #100 on: Oct 03, 2017, 01:57PM »

Men's rights vs men's right to tell women what to do. Simple.
Logged
133154
*
Offline Offline

Location: houston texas
Joined: Jun 23, 2006
Posts: 15

View Profile
« Reply #101 on: Oct 03, 2017, 04:00PM »

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #102 on: Oct 03, 2017, 04:05PM »

If throwing random links out there...

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-death-rates-the-us-is-in-a-different-world.html

https://money.usnews.com/investing/stock-market-news/articles/2017-10-02/moral-problem-gun-stocks-rallying-after-mass-shootings
Logged
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3260

View Profile
« Reply #103 on: Oct 03, 2017, 04:53PM »

I think it makes more sense to find out more about this shooter. He's the one that did this. You can't lay off any of the blame on his weapons of choice. We need to find out what was going on with this guy, especially scarry, because he doesn't seem, at this point, to have anything in his profile, that would suggest his actions. That's scarry.

Quote from: Billo
I wonder how well he would have done with a stick?  OR a grenade launcher?

The weapons matter to the outcome.  Saying they don't is ... so ridiculous ... there is not actually a word for it.

Dusty, any desire to rebut this?

Lets look at it.

Lives lost using a stick:  Hmm, how many should we go for here before some big cowboy steps in and put him out of his misery?  Maybe 2?

Lives lost using a car load of modded semi-automatic rifles: 59 or maybe a few more...

Lives lost using a grenade launcher:  It was a crowded place, so what do you guess?  Maybe some of the ex-military could chime in, but I'd estimate in such crowded conditions you could count on 25-50 lives per grenade.  if he had 100 grenades - shall wee say about 2500 people?

Dusty, can you see why it is ridiculous beyond reason to say something like "You can't lay off any of the blame on his weapons of choice."?

What if he used spent plutonium grenades?  All attendees plus some 10s of thousands of people that were in the vicinity?

What if he was a real man and used his dukes?  None?

If he had no access to weapons, as unreasonable as some of you will surely state, he would likely have killed no one.


Dusty, stop being a chicken.  Stand up for your rhetoric and respond!
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3260

View Profile
« Reply #104 on: Oct 03, 2017, 04:56PM »


What kind of people do you have down there?
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #105 on: Oct 03, 2017, 05:44PM »

What kind of people do you have down there?

The call themselves capitalists....
Logged
badger

*
Offline Offline

Location: Permian Basin
Joined: Sep 27, 2010
Posts: 1288

View Profile
« Reply #106 on: Oct 03, 2017, 05:45PM »

Did this Lunatic have a pilot's license?
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51134
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #107 on: Oct 03, 2017, 08:06PM »

Did this Lunatic have a pilot's license?

How is that relevant?

Note that he had permits for the arms he used.

Incidentally, I don't think you can shoot a grenade from a grenade launcher and hit the crowd from that distance; if I recall correctly it's not a mortar; it's a short range weapon.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
Piano man
*
Online Online

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9956

View Profile
« Reply #108 on: Oct 03, 2017, 09:28PM »

Gun companies have been going downhill since Trump was elected, because the dumberati no longer fear Obama's going to come for their guns.

Tragedies like this are a huge boon to the industry, because some gun owners fear the backlash, even though it never comes.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9683

View Profile
« Reply #109 on: Oct 03, 2017, 09:47PM »


If he had no access to weapons, as unreasonable as some of you will surely state, he would likely have killed no one.


Get back with me when you figure it out.
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #110 on: Oct 04, 2017, 04:12AM »

Gun companies have been going downhill since Trump was elected, because the dumberati no longer fear Obama's going to come for their guns.
 
Tragedies like this are a huge boon to the industry, because some gun owners fear the backlash, even though it never comes.

That's the gun culture of fear, not so much the fear of being attacked. It's the NRA religion.
 
For many the fear (or "fear") of losing the right is enough to motivate them or give them an excuse to build a substantial collection (an excuse like that upon which we buy all sorts of things).
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3260

View Profile
« Reply #111 on: Oct 04, 2017, 05:42AM »

Get back with me when you figure it out.
I did figure it out Dusty.

What I figured out is that I see a lot of people who hear something they think is significant and feel it supports their beliefs.  They never analyze it or try to figure out if it makes any sense because it came from some authority or authoritative figure in their lives.  Then in complete ignorance they go around repeating it thinking it makes them look smart.   These people are feeble minded.  They utter someone else's rubbish and then can't stand behind it, relegating them selves to the status of being intellectual cowards as well.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
Alex
*
Offline Offline

Location: UK
Joined: Oct 20, 2004
Posts: 1277

View Profile
« Reply #112 on: Oct 06, 2017, 03:00PM »

Just amend the 2nd amendment.
Its not hard.
The constitution was amended before, so just amend it again.


Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51134
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #113 on: Oct 06, 2017, 03:13PM »

Just amend the 2nd amendment.
Its not hard.
The constitution was amended before, so just amend it again.


I guess you don't understand what you are suggesting.

An Amendment needs to pass the House of Representatives and the Senate.  In the Senate, the "losing" party can call a Filibuster which means you have to get a 60% majority instead of a simple majority.  At this time the Senate is 52 to 48.  After the amendment passes you need 3/4 of the States to ratify it.  That's 38 state legislatures, most of which are strongly pro Gun Rights.

The possibility of a Constitutional Amendment is next to zero.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
Alex
*
Offline Offline

Location: UK
Joined: Oct 20, 2004
Posts: 1277

View Profile
« Reply #114 on: Oct 06, 2017, 04:55PM »

I guess you don't understand what you are suggesting.

An Amendment needs to pass the House of Representatives and the Senate.  In the Senate, the "losing" party can call a Filibuster which means you have to get a 60% majority instead of a simple majority.  At this time the Senate is 52 to 48.  After the amendment passes you need 3/4 of the States to ratify it.  That's 38 state legislatures, most of which are strongly pro Gun Rights.

The possibility of a Constitutional Amendment is next to zero.


Then do what we did in the UK with Europe.
Let the people decide, and then see if the politians wish to defy the will of the people.
Or just keep killing people
Its not just the mass killings, they only draw the attention of the worlds press. All I am hearing on my side of the pond is there might be some movement on silencers and the gadgets that made the weapons in to rapid fire devices.
Seriously ? The best they can come up with is "ok...we can put up with the noise" ?

Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51134
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #115 on: Oct 06, 2017, 05:35PM »

If it was up to me (and to a large number of Americans) true Military weapons would be illegal to own since they have no purpose other than killing other people.  Proper hunting and target rifles and guns would be OK. as well as historic personal arms (muskets, pistols, swords, etc.).  We have a certain cadre of people here who get their kicks from owning things that are unsociable (to use a kind word) and enjoy watching people squirm when they brandish such things.  They also get their jollies when they can imitate Rambo (movie character who wins wars single-handedly).  They have a powerful congressional lobby called the National Rifle Association, which has gone from an association that promoted firearm safety to one promoting acquisition and ownership of firearms of all types.  I'm waiting for them to start with grenade launchers and small nuclear weapons.

I would like to see firearms licensed with the licensees required to undergo safety and use training periodically, and to store their arms safely when not in use.  I would also like to see limits on the ability to carry firearms in crowded places like cities where their indescriminate use can cause harm to innocent bystanders.

I know this puts me at odds with many of our more Conservative members who think that the phrase:

Quote
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

should be interpreted as meaning you can't stop anybody from owning a firearm, or even put any kind of restriction on them.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
Alex
*
Offline Offline

Location: UK
Joined: Oct 20, 2004
Posts: 1277

View Profile
« Reply #116 on: Oct 06, 2017, 05:57PM »

Any person who takes that wording, without applying the context and time in which it was written, is quite frankly, stupid.
There must be plenty of laws on American books which no longer apply or have been repealed because they no longer fit the purpose for which they were intended.

Since the 2nd amendment was added to the constitution, how many times has a malitia needed to be raised ? How many privately owned guns have been used to defend the nation on American soil ? If the answer is a low number then there is probably very little use for 2nd ammendment.

The people have the abilty to bring about change. I just wonder whos son or daughter needs to be shot before the people have had enough.

As sick as it may seem, whilst no one here is laughing at the tragedy, there has been plenty of satire (at least in the uk) laughing at America for allowing this to continue. Maybe Americans need the guns to defend themselves from satire ?
The nation is under attack from comedians, grab an AK-47 and defend the nation.
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #117 on: Oct 06, 2017, 06:19PM »

Just amend the 2nd amendment.
Its not hard.
The constitution was amended before, so just amend it again.



The short answer is that one of the main failings of our constitution is that the bar to amend was set a bit too high. Later adaptations often learned and made it a bit easier. And in truth, our later growth probably contributes to a great deal of that difficulty and they couldn't have seen that coming.

But it is what it is... and that is almost impossible to amend it, and anything with the level of agreement needed to amend it... well, those items aren't often issue to begin with. So we are stuck with a powerful lobbying group using an obselete amendment to turn fear into profit.
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #118 on: Oct 06, 2017, 08:43PM »

Any person who takes that wording, without applying the context and time in which it was written, is quite frankly, stupid.
There must be plenty of laws on American books which no longer apply or have been repealed because they no longer fit the purpose for which they were intended.
 
Since the 2nd amendment was added to the constitution, how many times has a malitia needed to be raised ? How many privately owned guns have been used to defend the nation on American soil ? If the answer is a low number then there is probably very little use for 2nd ammendment.
 
The people have the abilty to bring about change. I just wonder whos son or daughter needs to be shot before the people have had enough.
 
As sick as it may seem, whilst no one here is laughing at the tragedy, there has been plenty of satire (at least in the uk) laughing at America for allowing this to continue. Maybe Americans need the guns to defend themselves from satire ?
The nation is under attack from comedians, grab an AK-47 and defend the nation.

Why don't you come over here and fix everything for us ... that'd be great.
 
You obviously have all the answers, and it's all so simple for you too.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
SaigonSlide
Stuck in a mid-slide crisis
*
Offline Offline

Location: Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam
Joined: May 30, 2017
Posts: 4

View Profile
« Reply #119 on: Oct 06, 2017, 11:23PM »

I'll echo that sentiment as an American living abroad for the last 5 years in Asia.  I see people from all over the world as part of my work.  I can tell you that it's not only the UK that gets quizzical looks on their faces and shakes their head in disbelief regarding the gun quagmire in the US.  These people are from Europe, Australia/NZ, Latin America, Asia, and of course mostly other Americans!

At it's core this IS a simple problem.  There are too many guns, and there are too few rules. There is a large powerful gun lobby. The solution to the problem I agree is difficult.  Other countries have done it (Australia comes to mind), so it's not impossible.  We won't be moving back to the US anytime soon, and this phenomenon is part of the reason.
Logged

"For the night is dark and full of trombones."
Alex
*
Offline Offline

Location: UK
Joined: Oct 20, 2004
Posts: 1277

View Profile
« Reply #120 on: Oct 07, 2017, 03:36AM »

On my way Baron.

The problem would be a lot easier to solve if America were actually group of United States. Wouldn't that be great ? A United States of America. U.S.A. has a good ring to it don't ya think ?
Instead, America is more like 50 different countries who all happen to drive on the same side of the road. and use the same currency. I guess that makes things simpler.

This issue will probably need something akin to the Civil Rights Movement, in order for some common sense to be applied. The issue is a simple one and if the people want it to be changed then they have the power to do it.



Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51134
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #121 on: Oct 07, 2017, 06:38AM »

Alex, you may remember that last summer we had an incident where a sniper shot at Republican congressmen at a baseball game practice.  He wounded a couple, one rather seriously.

The guy who was wounded seriously returned to his seat in Congress last week and said he doesn't support a law to limit guns.  With that kind of mentality, you have your work cut out for you.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #122 on: Oct 07, 2017, 07:29AM »

On my way Baron.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1pWHK5g90U
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
badger

*
Offline Offline

Location: Permian Basin
Joined: Sep 27, 2010
Posts: 1288

View Profile
« Reply #123 on: Oct 07, 2017, 10:01AM »

I'm kind of partial to this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q

Of course we will have to be selective on which site.
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #124 on: Oct 07, 2017, 12:34PM »

Great choice/great clip ... just has zero to do with the point I was making is all.
 
But other than that little detail ...
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12299

View Profile
« Reply #125 on: Oct 07, 2017, 01:46PM »



I would like to see firearms licensed with the licensees required to undergo safety and use training periodically, and to store their arms safely when not in use.  I would also like to see limits on the ability to carry firearms in crowded places like cities where their indescriminate use can cause harm to innocent bystanders.


We do have some common sense measures in place. 

You can't buy mail order, you have to have a background check run, you can't buy if you're a convicted felon or mentally ill, there are a number of prohibited items, not just automatic firing but those with features like short barrels, the dreaded bayonet lug; in some states there are long waiting periods, limits on guns per month, limits on magazine size, etc.  If your spouse has a restraining order they will confiscate your guns until it expires.  If you do a firearm crime there is usually a mandatory long prison sentence. 

It's not like there haven't been some attempts.  But a) this is not easy given the inventory already out there, and the unique American propensity for solving problems by shooting people, and b) most of these will have their impact, if there is any, on the more common deaths.  It's hard to see what kind of "common sense" control measure will work for the sophisticated lone sniper scenario. 

That's our approach though.  Ignore gang drivebys, convenience store holdups, resisting arrest, suicide, but react emotionally to the rare but highly publicized mass shooting.  Then enact something, anything, don't care if it works but it makes us feel better.

Logged

Tim Richardson
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 509

View Profile
« Reply #126 on: Oct 07, 2017, 03:05PM »

I posted in this thread first time round.

I still think that fiddling about with piecemeal prohibitions on this attachment or that barrel length is insignificant compared to addressing attitudes of firearms users. Guns are a tool, and like any tool, can be used or misused.

Surely US policeman and soldiers have an annual weapons handling and marksmanship test? Fail it and you can't carry a firearm on duty, or at least I would certainly hope so. I remember hearing somewhere that a high proportion of US gun injuries and deaths are people shooting themselves or a family member by accident. It's the competence and attitude of the bearer that is important, not the precise design of the firearm.

Extending the Police/Armed forces test to all gun owners seems a logical and reasonable step (derived from the "well regulated" bit of the 2nd Amendment). I think some kind of education about why the Amendment exists, what it's for, Rousseau Social Contract etc etc would also gradually make a cultural change. The guns cease to become an accessory for an American, and become a serious element of democratic responsibility, just like enfranchisement.

But what about the illegally held guns? Surely the great majority of gun crime is committed with illegally possessed guns. Robberies, gang fights etc as timothy42b says, rather than the relatively rare lone wolf going crazy. But is this even true? Can anyone tell me what proportion of gun crime in the USA is committed with legally possessed firearms?

Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51134
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #127 on: Oct 07, 2017, 04:21PM »

There is little we can do about illegal guns.

The shooter at Columbine took his father's gun.  The shooter at Sandy Hook killed his mother and took her gun.  This kind of thing can't be fixed with legislation; although people talk about biological locks like fingerprint detectors to prevent a weapon from being fired except by the registered owner. 

I like the idea of safety testing and training.  I've always considered the "well regulated militia" part of the phrase to refer to National Guard and Reserves groups, not a bunch of rag-tag gun nuts with Rambo fantasies.  I understand that firearms have their uses and if you want to hunt or target shoot that's a valid reason.  But I don't see the use of a modified Military style weapon for these activities.  Collectors generally don't want to actually use their specimens and a modification to prevent their being used would be appropriate.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
Ellrod

*
Offline Offline

Location: North
Joined: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 6362

View Profile
« Reply #128 on: Oct 09, 2017, 02:37PM »

The European perspective:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/9/16448302/guns-nra-sunday-lubach
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #129 on: Oct 10, 2017, 10:47AM »

There is little we can do about illegal guns.
There's an awful lot we can do about illegal guns! First off, maybe have some way to actually check if they are indeed illegal?

For example, in some states, you can buy a handgun privately - no background check - and then carry it concealed with no training or permit. It's actually a current push by the NRA to expand this option.

So you have a gun with no record of purchase, no records run for the user, and carried in a concealed way without any paperwork. Is that legal? Maybe the gun was stolen. Maybe the user is a felon? In some states, that only applies to residents, they could be from out of state. And how would you know if it's illegal?

How can you do something about illegal guns if it's damn hard to tell if they are even illegal to start with?


We do have some common sense measures in place. 
Far less than most any other areas... such as cars. A quick check can tell if the driver is licensed, what their record is, what cars they own and are insured under, and if they have medical issues that may temporarily prevent them from effectively operating a car... such as seizures in the past year. 

you have to have a background check run
Wrong. I have four guns and have never had a background check. And even if a check is run, it's weaker than most checks for employment.

Shoot, I was at a rodeo in Idaho a few days ago where I could have gotten an AR-15 via fairly cheap lottery.

Which is a funny thing about the private sales. We have plenty of things where private seller need to register the sale with the government. Title for a car, for example. We just don't.

you can't buy if you're a convicted felon or mentally ill
On the later, congress reverse that this past year. Per the felon, depends on who you're buying from.

there are a number of prohibited items, not just automatic firing but those with features like short barrels, the dreaded bayonet lug;
Quite few in number. Especially when compared to say the restrictions or safety standards placed on other less hazardous materials or objects.

in some states there are long waiting periods, limits on guns per month, limits on magazine size, etc.  If your spouse has a restraining order they will confiscate your guns until it expires.  If you do a firearm crime there is usually a mandatory long prison sentence.
To be clear, these are state specific. People drive across the state line for cheaper gas and commodities and taxes on a regular basis. A state by state issue with certain aspects are hardly meaningful when you can readily circumvent them. Especially when there is no documentation or records to go along with it.

Can you imagine if new car safety standards were mandated state by state? And not a big state like CA, but different between OK and AR and MO and the like? They'd be useless and confusing as hell!
 

It's not like there haven't been some attempts.  But a) this is not easy given the inventory already out there, and the unique American propensity for solving problems by shooting people, and b) most of these will have their impact, if there is any, on the more common deaths.  It's hard to see what kind of "common sense" control measure will work for the sophisticated lone sniper scenario.

That's our approach though.  Ignore gang drivebys, convenience store holdups, resisting arrest, suicide, but react emotionally to the rare but highly publicized mass shooting.  Then enact something, anything, don't care if it works but it makes us feel better.
 
The last part is actually important. Not for what it is, but what it is not. It is not specific or intelligent. It is lumping all gun crimes together as one. And in that case, no answer will impact the broad crimes, just one specific area. As such, these different areas need to be looked at an addressed specifically.

A drive by gang shooting is remarkably different than the type of mass shooting that just occurred.

Mass shootings are an issue unto themselves. And they have some very strong commonalities across them. Take a subset of that... "rampage" shootings. Basically shootings of four or more where the actual targets don't matter... such as Las Vegas. He was shooting to kill people, didn't matter who.

In that case, the shooters are almost entirely white, Christian, and male. And their targets are almost entirely "safe places". Churches, schools, large peaceful public gatherings like concerts or movie theaters... Very different demographic doing the shooting, with very different motivations, and different targets.

Tim mentions "the dreaded bayonet lug" sarcastically, but that actually quite important to the mass shooter crowd. There, it's the image of the gun more than the functionality. A bayonet lug is useless. But it gives that illusion of a more military weapon, more waging war, more rage/travesty.

And remember who this group is again... The AR-15 crowd? A gun that's looks and little civilian purpose other than "target shooting"? NRA members. GOP members. Heavily white men, and not exactly youthful. The same group that has quite a high suicide rate because they feel like they should be powerful socially but instead feels impotent. Image is everything. And unfortunately, the image that is sold with an AR-15 is far from responsible.
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #130 on: Oct 10, 2017, 11:29AM »

For example, in some states, you can buy a handgun privately - no background check - and then carry it concealed with no training or permit. It's actually a current push by the NRA to expand this option.

Which states allow concealed carry (or open) w/o a permit or certification of some sort?
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #131 on: Oct 10, 2017, 11:35AM »


Which states allow concealed carry (or open) w/o a permit or certification of some sort?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Permitting_policies

has a quick breakdown. See "unrestricted"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Unrestricted
Logged
Alex
*
Offline Offline

Location: UK
Joined: Oct 20, 2004
Posts: 1277

View Profile
« Reply #132 on: Oct 10, 2017, 12:05PM »


I have always been partial to Jim Jefferies take on it...

https://youtu.be/0rR9IaXH1M0
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [All]   Go Up
Print
Jump to: