[AngryMetalsmith]

America doesnt have a gun problem, it has a violence problem. If the focus was on that we would we further along.

Well duh. But we also have an obesity problem as well. The fatties are far too lazy to use their fists, so what do you expect them to do
? If ya can't get at'um up close and personal, time to reach for the freedom extender.

 

[Pesqueeb]

OROSI, Calif.

Oh man, there's a town I haven't thought of in a long time. Never been a particularly good part of the Valley to be white after dark in. They had a pretty good soccer team when I played in high school.

 

[kidwoo]

Also the current statistics in aus says nothing to the ban increasing crime. Which it did.

You should let them know immediately!

Be sure to tell them you're a data guy!


Again.......exactly like the UK study. Look at their definition of 'violent crime'. It was changed to include property crime. Someone keying your car is not equivalent to them shooting you. And if you insist on the correlation that you think exists, pick a side. Neurotic people lashing out: would you rather have them smash your window with a rock or shoot at it?

You're cherry picking the hell out of it because of the BS news sources that brought it to your attention misinterpreting the data for a conclusion they want to be reached. You're far from the first person to cite these studies.

A great fact you keep wanting to ignore is that yes, gun deaths and homicides have significantly gone down since that 1997 ban. That's homicides by any means, not just firearms related ones.

 

[Jm_]

No amount of legislation will prevent f'tards like this from assuming the Napolean Stance.
This country can wish for the impossible (eradicate guns outright; never will or should happen imo) or we can address the real issues which are a horrifying lack of respect for life, personal entitlement and the sweeping of mental health issues under the rug through a combination of denial and stigmas related to seeking treatment/public discourse.

IDK, making bullets around $100 each would slow these guys way down. When has anyone ever needed more than 5 or 6 rounds in personal defense situation? If you don't kill someone in the first two shots, you probably aren't going to hit them with what you have left anyways. Then amassing 500 rounds would cost $50,000 and put the brakes on big time, plus if you were a paranoid stockpiler, you wouldn't want to burn through your stock with something as paltry as shooting a few non-feds. Oh don't worry, I'd make an exception that at a range ammo could be normal prices as long as it's all used on that day. Then you still have as much FREEDUM as before, but it would be a hell of a lot harder to have mass shootings.

I agree that the mental heath problem is bigger, but there are too many cards stacked against that right now. We'd have to get to the bottom of those issues, do the research and hard science, figure out why people do what they do, find out how to cure/reverse this, and eventually restore all rights in society, including gun ownership. This would also apply to anyone who commits any crime. It's a huge problem to tackle and I'm not sure if people really want to dedicate the resources and money to do just this, given how freaked out they are spending money on "things they don't use" already...

 

[AngryMetalsmith]

Joe the Plumber weighs in:

"I am sorry you lost your child. I myself have a son and daughter and the one thing I never want to go through, is what you are going through now. But: As harsh as this sounds -- your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights,"

Either we are collectively devolving as a culture, or the mouth breathers are getting louder.

 

[Jm_]

It's amazing how many law abiding citizens I see when I commute home, mostly rolling through the stopsigns and red lights, stopping well past the indicated lines, texting (even grandmas) never looking in the direction they are going/turning, cell-phone glued to their ear. So much freedom and responsibility. I can't wait for everyone to have a gun. I know they'd be responsible like the texting drivers.

 

[AngryMetalsmith]

The other day while on the highway a chick speed up to pass me only to get blocked by another car. She had her phone in one hand and an e-cigarette in the other. The NRA needs to target her demographic as well.

 

[Pesqueeb]

Either we are collectively devolving as a culture, or the mouth breathers are getting louder.

Why not both?

 

[atrokz]

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent crime/assault.html No it isnt defined like that in Aus. Dont make stuff up.

You should let them know immediately!

Be sure to tell them you're a data guy!


Again.......exactly like the UK study. Look at their definition of 'violent crime'. It was changed to include property crime. Someone keying your car is not equivalent to them shooting you. And if you insist on the correlation that you think exists, pick a side. Neurotic people lashing out: would you rather have them smash your window with a rock or shoot at it?

You're cherry picking the hell out of it because of the BS news sources that brought it to your attention misinterpreting the data for a conclusion they want to be reached. You're far from the first person to cite these studies.

A great fact you keep wanting to ignore is that yes, gun deaths and homicides have significantly gone down since that 1997 ban. That's homicides by any means, not just firearms related ones.

 

[jonKranked]

Joe the Plumber weighs in:




Either we are collectively devolving as a culture, or the mouth breathers are getting louder.

they rightfully picked him as a poster child for the GOP.

 

[jonKranked]

It's amazing how many law abiding citizens I see when I commute home, mostly rolling through the stopsigns and red lights, stopping well past the indicated lines, texting (even grandmas) never looking in the direction they are going/turning, cell-phone glued to their ear. So much freedom and responsibility. I can't wait for everyone to have a gun. I know they'd be responsible like the texting drivers.

i'm going to build a cell phone gun.

 

[jonKranked]

The other day while on the highway a chick speed up to pass me only to get blocked by another car. She had her phone in one hand and an e-cigarette in the other. The NRA needs to target her demographic as well.

she needs a third arm first.

 

[JohnE]

Okay, I know I said I was out...but I recently messaged with the Open Carry folks, specifically their president, regarding some questions I had about how they saw things. See below for the transcript of the email, I have redacted some stuff, but only in the interest of brevity, not to make anyone look bad. The normal script is my original email and questions, the italics his answers, which I suspect were heavily screened prior to his hitting send.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi John-

Read with great interest the recent (And very civil, kudos to both of you!) discussion between you and Francis Wilkinson (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-04-22/open-carry-concealed-carry-and-crazy-carry?cmpid=yhoo) and was wondering about Open Carrys stance on a few things...I was unable to find answers on your site, so please forgive me if they are there and my search skills are less than adequate.

I am a USAF Security Policeman, an MP if you will, with over 20 years of experience in both civilian and military law enforcement. I am not a "gun guy" but I am an owner and user, mainly as such use applies and contributes to my tactical skills for the workplace. As I am sure you know, the military stresses training and proficiency, and as a Cop we are drilled in the Use of Force (UoF) protocols.

What worries me about civilians and open or concealed carry is the amount of training these people have or are required to have, both in weapons proficiency and use of UoF. I have always been taught and embrace the concept
of seeking out training of any sort.

I guess my questions are-

- As part of the right to open carry, does Open Carry support mandatory
training for both proficiency and UoF?

Personally, I am fearful of Mr LaPierres viewpoint regarding good guys with
guns...who are the good guys and how do we (As the public or as LEOs)
differentiate good from bad? As a Cop, arriving on a scene with multiple
subjects displaying weapons and hostile intent, be it towards others or each
other, I am sure you can agree it would be very confusing and even more
dangerous. UoF training and awareness could help make it less so...simply
acting to defend ones self and escape the threat area is probably a better
option.

- No! We do not believe that anyone should be forced to undergo mandatory training in order to exercise a fundamental individual right. From a constitutional perspective that would be analogous to requiring mandatory journalism classes before someone is allowed freedom of speech.

Having said that, we are strong believers in the benefits of training. In fact, I am an NRA Certified Instructor and take great pride in training gun owners

- Does Open Carry support or advocate for liability insurance for those who
carry?

A round escaping a muzzle is indiscriminant...it may land in the intended
impact area, it may not. Who bears the liability for same?

- No! Again, we do not believe that anyone should be forced to buy insurance in order to exercise a fundamental individual right. Our tort system in the country is more than capable of dealing with negligent acts of any kind without burdening responsible gun owners even further.


V/r

JL
----------------------------------------------------------

And again...I am out. For now anyway...

 

[jonKranked]

i plugged "open carry" into google translate and it returned "full retard"

 

[JohnE]

I was tempted to carry on the discourse with him...but my common sense got the better of me. I liked his answer about the tort system, I wanted to answer back with some sort of small gubmint rant lead in, but again that common sense thing got ahold of me.

 

[jonKranked]

I was tempted to carry on the discourse with him...but my common sense got the better of me. I liked his answer about the tort system, I wanted to answer back with some sort of small gubmint rant lead in, but again that common sense thing got ahold of me.

common sense is a weapon that cannot be successfully wielded against the willfully ignorant.

 

[kidwoo]

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent crime/assault.html No it isnt defined like that in Aus. Dont make stuff up.

I don't have to.

That's assault. With the same real number (not per capita) y axis that you do not understand. What a weird coincidence that it's one of the few numbers not reported per population mass, yet it's the one you keep bringing up.

This is violent crime

Violent crime includes homicide, assault, sexual assault, robbery and kidnapping
(sometimes referred to as abduction). Although robbery may include an element
of property crime, it is included as a violent crime, as the use or threat of violence
is considered a more serious offence than the theft

You can't even follow the meaning of sentences.

But this is what happens when the people writing your newsletters cherry pick.

The homicide rate was 1.9 per 100,000 in 1996 (which includes the 35 victims of the Port Arthur massacre) and was at its highest in 1999, at 2.0 per 100,000. In 2007, the rate was 1.3 per 100,000, the lowest recorded (since 1996).

That homicide rate just keeps on dropping while things like getting slapped or having a drink thrown in your face continue to not even be in the same league.

Australia is not the shining example of your desired outcome that you think it is. Really.

 

[$tinkle]

#skeetskeetskeet

 

[Pesqueeb]

Topical.

 

[$tinkle]

^^^ FB'd that schyte

#flameOn

 

[jonKranked]

the obvious answer was brothels.

 

[maxyedor]

Yeah they rolled over pretty easily with crazy logic that banning guns in bars was a bad idea. They rolled over pretty easily with the legislation they just helped draft in Georgia.


But here's an idea that no one has seriously proposed because it wouldn't go anywhere thanks to the rolling over, good for nothing NRA. You can have your guns but they're kept at firing ranges. I'm talking high capacity stuff, not your average hunting regalia. You get to fire off your 50 cal pistol and get youtube videos of your 98lb girlfriend hitting herself in the face with the recoil all you want, but it's in a controlled environment. You want home defense? Buy one of Biden's shotguns.....something that's really only effective at human death at fairly close ranges but can still give some sting across the backyard.

Why the hell do hollowpoint/eagle claw/splits in 100 different directions slugs need to be available to the public at all? Seriously, WTF are really using those for other than feeling like a tough guy for what you 'could' do to somebody? Yeah it's just to stop an intruder but I also want no hope of removing the pieces from my daughter's face when her brother accidently shoots her.

Look at when the NRA "fights" and when they're mysteriously silent. It's got nothing to do with actual gun rights and everything to do with collecting membership dues, and selling sh1t. Sure they help draft a carry law today, but tomorrow mum's the word. I bring up 1986 because that was a major turning point for the NRA, they rolled over because they didn't want to be seen fighting Reagan on one of the dumbest pieces of gun legislation yet passed. After that, they because what they are today, dedicated to saber rattling and T-shirt sales.


I disagree with your plan, but respect that you actually have a plan, that in a perfect world, may work. However, your fundamental lack of firearms knowledge is pretty apparent given your solution. .50BMG rifles have been used in less than 10 criminal acts in the country, ever, shotguns are used in criminal acts daily. Further, shotguns are lethal to humans well past 100 yards, most murders happen well within 10 yards. You'd feel far more than sting across the backyard, bird-shot is surviveable, but a goose-load across my back-yard would drop an average man in his tracks, dead. Your plan also only addresses gun violence, I think at this point it's pretty obvious that we have an all-around violence problem.

Sure taking the gun away from Elliot Rodgers would have saved three lives along with his own, but it would have still left 3 dead and a a few run-over, is that acceptable? As long as the internet and Home Depot exist, mass murder is still only a Google search away.


Ammunition is another subject you may want to read up on. You've been duped by the left into believing their hype about effective ammo. Yes hollow-points fragment, but they don't become 100 tiny pieces shredding flesh and killing kittens. Soft point/expanding rounds are also the only humane way to kill an animal. If your son gets your gun and shoots your daughter in the face, she's likely going to die no matter what caliber or style of bullet, and you as the parent should be prosecuted for murder due to your irresponsible storage of a firearm, period.

Did the recent shooter of the young girls (forget his name, perma-virgin) legally obtain the firearm he used? I just wonder what difference CA laws will make when it shares its border with Arizona, a state with one of the most lax approaches to firearms in the US. If you're 21 or over, you can pass an instant background check and concealed carry a firearm in Arizona. It's not hard to bring one across to CA, and in general, it's just not hard to get your hands on a gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Arizona

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/10/132801364/arizona-gun-laws-among-most-lenient-in-u-s

It's a lot harder to buy a gun in Az. as a Ca. resident that you've been lead to believe. Most Az shops hesitate to even sell magazines or ammo to Ca. residents for fear of it being a sting. You'd need to either find an Az. resident to straw purchase the gun, or do it the way criminals here in Ca do it, and buy a stolen one off the street.

Elliot Rodger's guns were all legally purchased here in Ca., registered, and he did the mandatory 10 day wait.


The most recent shooting, like all mass murder, was a well planned, deliberate attack. He didn't want to shoot people, he wanted to kill people, the guns, knife, hammer, and car were just tools, take any one away and he'll just figure out a different tool to use.

 

[atrokz]

This is violent crime



.

this is what they consider it:
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent crime/victims.html

I guess you've never been robbed or consider it a violent crime, but the pros do, because in many instances it escalates to physical violence. hence why the professionals (not you, obviously) include it.

Notice the interesting trend? All increasing After? Funny how you can't digest that, but cherry pick and lie. Really...... You ignore the rest of the data to nitpick robberies, and add one year to think it's some empirical shutdown. No. You're grasping and it shows. Homicide went UP after the ban. Admit it, because it clearly did, for several years...... And take a long look at the immediate spike in sharp objects being the method, immediately taking up the slack for lack of guns.... (in other words, it didn't drop due to the ban like you say it did.)

Oh look what came out recently: http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/rpp/116/rpp116.pdf

A problem with them, AFTER the ban? You don't say! I thought criminals turned them all in and would never smuggle them from other countries!

Keep it coming kid. And pull up those stats on Mexico and their ban, and Russian crime and their ban. go at it.

And while you're at it, answer Max on why this latest crime in CA happened in a state that has tight regulations. We're waiting!

 

[atrokz]

Look at when the NRA "fights" and when they're mysteriously silent. It's got nothing to do with actual gun rights and everything to do with collecting membership dues, and selling sh1t. Sure they help draft a carry law today, but tomorrow mum's the word. I bring up 1986 because that was a major turning point for the NRA, they rolled over because they didn't want to be seen fighting Reagan on one of the dumbest pieces of gun legislation yet passed. After that, they because what they are today, dedicated to saber rattling and T-shirt sales.


I disagree with your plan, but respect that you actually have a plan, that in a perfect world, may work. However, your fundamental lack of firearms knowledge is pretty apparent given your solution. .50BMG rifles have been used in less than 10 criminal acts in the country, ever, shotguns are used in criminal acts daily. Further, shotguns are lethal to humans well past 100 yards, most murders happen well within 10 yards. You'd feel far more than sting across the backyard, bird-shot is surviveable, but a goose-load across my back-yard would drop an average man in his tracks, dead. Your plan also only addresses gun violence, I think at this point it's pretty obvious that we have an all-around violence problem.

Sure taking the gun away from Elliot Rodgers would have saved three lives along with his own, but it would have still left 3 dead and a a few run-over, is that acceptable? As long as the internet and Home Depot exist, mass murder is still only a Google search away.


Ammunition is another subject you may want to read up on. You've been duped by the left into believing their hype about effective ammo. Yes hollow-points fragment, but they don't become 100 tiny pieces shredding flesh and killing kittens. Soft point/expanding rounds are also the only humane way to kill an animal. If your son gets your gun and shoots your daughter in the face, she's likely going to die no matter what caliber or style of bullet, and you as the parent should be prosecuted for murder due to your irresponsible storage of a firearm, period.




It's a lot harder to buy a gun in Az. as a Ca. resident that you've been lead to believe. Most Az shops hesitate to even sell magazines or ammo to Ca. residents for fear of it being a sting. You'd need to either find an Az. resident to straw purchase the gun, or do it the way criminals here in Ca do it, and buy a stolen one off the street.

Elliot Rodger's guns were all legally purchased here in Ca., registered, and he did the mandatory 10 day wait.


The most recent shooting, like all mass murder, was a well planned, deliberate attack. He didn't want to shoot people, he wanted to kill people, the guns, knife, hammer, and car were just tools, take any one away and he'll just figure out a different tool to use.

That's putting it lightly. He's clueless and ranting as a hoplophobe on a topic he's completely clueless about. Both with regards to the firearm itself, and with regards to a solution. The last thing a solution entails is being driven by someone not well versed on the topic. Funny how the loudest voice here is the least educated on the topic. But I guess that's how it goes on forums where a modicum of knowledge isn't nessesary to spew drivel about theoretical solutions.

 

[jonKranked]

australia is a red herring. most americans don't drink themselves into a stupor every night the way australia does.

 

[atrokz]

australia is a red herring. most americans don't drink themselves into a stupor every night the way australia does.

I never thought about it that way. All the brow beating, slander, and arguing, and here you are bringing the truth in. Damnnnnn.


(the sad part is it's probably partly true - Lived in Melbourne for 2 years so have some friends and they are 'special' ....)

 

[mattmatt86]

Mountain bikes for Gunz buy back program?

 

[jimmydean]

Mountain bikes for Gunz buy back program?

I was just reading that.

 

[Beef Supreme]

australia is a red herring. most americans don't drink themselves into a stupor every night the way australia does.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Beef Supreme]

I disagree with your plan, but respect that you actually have a plan, that in a perfect world, may work. However, your fundamental lack of firearms knowledge is pretty apparent given your solution. .50BMG rifles have been used in less than 10 criminal acts in the country, ever, shotguns are used in criminal acts daily.

The fundamental problem with the gun humpers is one of willful ignorance. The problem with a 50 cal rifle isn't that they will ever be used in a significant percentage of crimes. It is that they force police forces to over militarize for the small chance that they will be used against them. This should be pretty easy to figure out if you weren't trying so hard not to see the obvious.

Edit:

The most recent shooting, like all mass murder, was a well planned, deliberate attack. He didn't want to shoot people, he wanted to kill people, the guns, knife, hammer, and car were just tools, take any one away and he'll just figure out a different tool to use.

If you know anything about this guys plan, you know that the gun component of the killings fell way, way below expectations. Would it change your argument if he had successfully killed 50 people with his guns instead of 3? Again, willful ignorance.

 

[atrokz]

So you think the police are militarized (at a cost of billions) because a incredibly small amount of people spent $10,000+ on a rifle that is pretty much useless for anything but the highly trained, and has been used in the commission of crime at a percentage so small it has several zeros after the decimal....

What was that about ignorance?

The police are militarized because of other reasons, not 50BMGs. try harder to see the obvious.

 

[rockofullr]

I just got my gunz they better not come trying to take them

I'm heading to Dick's after work for ammo

 

[jonKranked]

Speak for yourself.

the average gun owner drinks bud or miller. nothing strong enough to get straight to a blackout stupor. they stall out in "drunken gun rampage freedom hootenanny" mode.

 

[jonKranked]

I just got my gunz they better not come trying to take them

I'm heading to Dick's after work for ammo

so, you buy the fuel for your wang extender at a store named Dick's? it's all becoming very clear.

 

[atrokz]

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-americas-police-are-becoming-so-militarized-2014-3

 

[jonKranked]

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-americas-police-are-becoming-so-militarized-2014-3

nope. once we conquer mexico, our hat is next. we are preparing for an influx of moose and elk.

 

[atrokz]

nope. once we conquer mexico, our hat is next. we are preparing for an influx of moose and elk.

Believe it or not, I fully condone you guys taking over Mexico. They can't keep their crime in check, it spills across the boarder. Their death rates are highest in the developed world, and they just get into the US anyway. If there was a logical next step for Mexico, it would be to allow America to just take over.

We're fine up here. Our RCMP even bought APVs!!! I guess that's the new sign of prosperity.....

 

[atrokz]

 

[jonKranked]

Believe it or not, I fully condone you guys taking over Mexico. They can't keep their crime in check, it spills across the boarder. Their death rates are highest in the developed world, and they just get into the US anyway. If there was a logical next step for Mexico, it would be to allow America to just take over.

We're fine up here. Our RCMP even bought APVs!!! I guess that's the new sign of prosperity.....

with pot being legalized, prices for it have crashed in mexico.


so now they've turned to growing poppies for heroin.


all the gun owners in the south could form their own vigilante groups and fight the cartels. hey, we may be onto something... two birds one stone.

 

[atrokz]

with pot being legalized, prices for it have crashed in mexico.


so now they've turned to growing poppies for heroin.


all the gun owners in the south could form their own vigilante groups and fight the cartels. hey, we may be onto something... two birds one stone.

I like where this is going. Two birds indeed. Wannabe soldiers get to test their skills, and the cartel gets dwindled down.

To add to that, the cartels have violently taken over farms as well, namely lime farms. The price on a single lime from mexico went up from .15c to .50c overnight here. wtf.