Two ways on the Wednesday OPEN thread
Shot by Dan
“As individuals, people are inherently good. I have a somewhat more pessimistic view of people in groups. And I remain extremely concerned when I see what’s happening in our country, which is in many ways the luckiest place in the world. We don’t seem to be excited about making our country a better place for our kids.”
Steve Jobs
December 12, 2012 - 10:00 AM
“A broad swath of the nation’s leading chief executives dropped its opposition to tax increases on the wealthiest Americans on Tuesday, while the White House quietly pressed Wall Street titans for their support as well.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/business/top-executives-end-opposition-to-higher-taxes.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0
While at the same time sheltering their income overseas.
Today is the anniversary of Our Lady of Gaudaloupe. Mary, the mother of God, appeared in 1531 to a 57-year-old convert in rural Mexico, not far from Mexico City. This is an important feast day for practicing Catholics in the hispanic world.
Mary chooses to appear to very poor people, often children. in rural areas. Interestingly among only a dozen apparitions approved as authentic by the Vatican, one took place in Wisconsin. It’s slowly becoming a mecca since the weighty decision came from Rome in 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/24/us/24mary.html?_r=0
“Mary chooses to appear to very poor people, often children. in rural areas. Interestingly among only a dozen apparitions approved as authentic by the Vatican, one took place in Wisconsin.”
So those pieces of toast I bought on eBay aren’t authentic? Dammit.
We need more people like Bill Hopkins in both parties. He was a wonderful guy.
http://fromtheeditr.blogspot.com/2012/12/bill-hopkins-his-death-reminds-of-his.html
Congratulations to Ann and Nancy Wilson of Heart on their induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame! Saw them in concert in 1978, and they were awesome. Loved them during my youth and still listen today. I love the imagery evoked by “Dog and Butterfly.”
“As individuals, people are inherently good.”
That’s why most of our inmates and criminals had no one at home to raise them properly….because we are all born good.
NEW SITING OF THE VIRGIN MARY!! This siting is sure to get the attention of the Vatican! It was found at a Roanoke area Golden Corral… Suzie?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rchemel/virgin-mary-condom-4c
“Our Lady of Gaudaloupe…”
Paging the ever-vigilant-despairer-of-illiteracy, BM.
Merry Christmas to the NAR, the VCDL, and to asll those who think we should make it easy for anubody who wants one to own an AR-15 with multi ple clips.
http://news.yahoo.com/police-ore-mall-shooter-used-stolen-rifle-181931596.html
“That’s why most of our inmates and criminals had no one at home to raise them properly….because we are all born good.”
This makes no sense.
OOPs! That was the NRA not the NAR!
So Bohner’s newest “offer” involves a permanent tax cut for the wealthy. Hahahahahaha. I guess they’re still running on the platform that got them kicked in November.
Over the cliff, Mr. President.
dave, dancing in people’s blood to slander gun rights organizations:
“Merry Christmas to the NAR, the VCDL, and to asll those who think we should make it easy for anubody who wants one to own an AR-15 with multi ple clips.”
I didn’t know the National Association of Realtors felt like that, but I’m glad I just sent them a thousand bucks.
I the shooting is clearly a hoax. A fact check has revealed that the mall banned guns.
Oh, and AR-15 rifles don’t use clips.
pistol pete:
“That’s why most of our inmates and criminals had no one at home to raise them properly….because we are all born good.”
There is no religion keeping me from going out and randomly choking out fundies, yet it doesn’t happen….????? Why? Religion IS NOT what creates good in people. That is a lie that people have killed others to preserve.
The crookedest people I’ve ever met in my life were all religious.
dave, dancing in people’s blood to slander gun rights organizations:
“Merry Christmas to the NAR, the VCDL, and to asll those who think we should make it easy for anubody who wants one to own an AR-15 with multi ple clips.”
I didn’t know the National Association of Realtors felt like that, but I’m glad I just sent them a thousand bucks.
Comment by John Wilburn — December 12, 2012 @ 2:56 pm
It’s mthe NRA (which I had already corrected in a later post which you ignored) and the VCDL that are dancing in people’s blood by their advocacy which creates the flood of unneccessary weapons that are too easily available for the sicko nuts like this guy to use on innocent bystanders.
“This makes no sense.”
pp’s specialty.
@Dave,
Please tell me what differentiates a necessary weapon from an unnecessary one. If unnecessary means that in hindsight you didn’t ever need to use it, then I would say that most police officers’ guns are also unnecessary. Many officers go through entire careers without ever having to use their sidearm. I would then, based on your logic (if you would call it that), argue that because the vast majority of police officers carry unnecessary guns, then they should also be taken away from the rest.
Also, just because an officer needed his weapon in the past does not mean that he is any more likely to need it in the future.
If, by unnecessary, you mean that the person will never need the gun in the future, that is a different story, and I agree. We’re definitely on to something now. If I will never need to use my gun, I would concede that it is unnecessary. However, I’m anxiously awaiting your ideas on how I can determine that today.
I’ve also got a smoke alarm that is starting to chirp in my house. If I won’t ever have a house fire, I can save myself a few bucks on a replacement battery and maybe you can help me figure that out, too.
“I’ve also got a smoke alarm that is starting to chirp in my house.”
Send me some info on all those cases of people using smoke alarms to kill other people. I’d love to hear about it.
I could tell you a few million stories a day about guns that aren’t used to kill anyone. Of course you don’t care about that.
Dave, er, the gun was STOLEN. How are you going to prevent THAT from happening. Guns can be and are stolen all the time – and that includes from police and the military
So Jack, what is the best use of an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle and several fully loaded magazines? What was it designed for? Why is it necessary?
Jack
When you can justify the necessity of private citizens owning ar15′s let me know.
America did not rise to prominence because we were “lucky”. It was because we believed in individualism and shared a “dream” that if we worked above, thought above, we could achieve and keep the fruits of our labors.
I do not imagine Jobs felt his accomplishments were equal to “winning the lottery”.
dave:
“It’s mthe NRA (which I had already corrected in a later post which you ignored)”
WRONG. I didn’t ignore it; it hadn’t been approved/displayed yet. Also, the VCDL is to thank for the proliferation of CHP holders who have been able to defend themselves for the last 17 years. I guess those lives don’t count. Acceptable collateral damage to dave in his imaginary gun free zone utopia.
Second Amendment doesn’t require justification.
Does someone need to justify a reason why this blog is necessary? And don’t give me the “this blog doesn’t kill people” argument. That argument is irrelevant. Second Amendment doesn’t require any more justification than the First.
I could justify it by saying “because I can,” and that is good enough.
My AR15 is apparently defective anyway. It hasn’t killed anyone.
Nosaj,
It was designed to fire a projectile at a target the shooter chooses.
It is good for that, I might add.
It does not need to be necessary, so I won’t go into that right now. Typing on my mobile between wrestling matches.
AR 15s are simply common semi-automatic rifles. Just because they are black and scary looking doesn’t make them more lethal than the Ruger 10-22 that guys hunt groundhogs with. They fire no faster than my Glock and hold no more ammunition either. They are harder to conceal at that. There is nothing that makes them a special instrument of destruction. On the other hand, they are good for hunting with their light weight, durable finish, and 20″ barrels. They are great for home defense because of their relatively compact size and versatility in different close-quarter situations. They accept the widest variety of accessories of any gun I know, mostly for improved low-light performance.
At the end of the day, it’s not for me to make a case of need. It’s for you to make a case against that particular rifle. Sorry, but scary-looking doesn’t mean squat to any rational person.
Philip Van Cleave, how dare you ask dave such a sensible question?!
.
Once again JW (or perhaps Dave Hicks or Jason, but most likely JW) follows his instructions to notify PVC immediately when he senses a public challenge to the VCDL dogma. How do we know? Because that’s the only time PVC is seen on this board, soon after such a post.
Some would say: how dare the VCDL lobby to give gun violence an easier path while people are still grieving. But wait, you say, the VCDL’s 2013 lobbying won’t reach Capitol Square until the General Assembly convenes? Okay, then we’ll wait to see if there are no gun tragedies at that time, and then if there are, we’ll see how consistently the VCDL feels about discussing gun laws in the aftermath of a tragedy. Got that PVC?
http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/317859
Wonder why it’s always the “gun free” banks that get robbed?
Jack
When you can justify the necessity of private citizens owning ar15′s let me know.
Comment by dave — December 12, 2012 @ 5:45 pm
Not to jump in (like I always do) and also whip a dead horse, but I don’t believe necessity is a prerequisite for anything we own in our society today. We don’t need anything more than food, water, shelter and clothing, but we darned sure enjoy the freedom to have those cell phones, TVs, cars, retail mega-stores, overpriced coffees, etc.
There is only one firearm in my home and it isn’t even mine. By choice, my firearms are in a vault in another location. The day when I can no longer possess that which I purchased legally and with which I have never threatened, terrorized or otherwise menaced society (just like my car) is the day I no longer live in a free United States.
It has never been about need; it’s about a right and the freedom it grants. Personally, I’d be happy to sacrifice all material things unnecessary if everyone were to do the same. Overnight, we could increase the carrying capacity of this planet to something a little more sustainable. As a bonus, we could re-learn what it is to be human and remember the things that made us great in the first place.
“America did not rise to prominence because we were “lucky”. It was because we believed in individualism and shared a “dream” that if we worked above, thought above, we could achieve and keep the fruits of our labors.”
–Comment by mikeO
I truly believe this is a great country. Still, statements like this never cease to amaze me in what they leave out.
Like what the white settlers did to Native Americans, and the “individualism” this nation denied to the hardest physically laboring residents of this land, for most of the 19th century — the slaves.
I’m not sure what mikeO means by his repetitive use of the term “above,” but if it’s a reference to a higher power, I don’t understand how that higher power could have countenanced the cheating, slaughter and penning we subjected the natives to, and the subjugation of the slaves. They were his creatures, too.
Warren,
Dave started the conversation.
From the “money talks, BS walks” file, John McAfee was released from Guatemalan custody and has arrived in Miami a free man. In other news, the president’s approval rating has risen to 53.1%.
From efoodalert.net. Wrong on so many levels.
“Ninety out of 220 people who attended a meeting of the Women’s Healthcare Associates at the Oregon Zoo developed symptoms consistent with norovirus. The event, which was held on December 5th, was catered by Zoo staff, according to The Oregonian.”
John Wilburn,
What is funny is that pistol pete’s excuse for saying that we are all born perfect and equal, is from a religion that for 4,000+ years has been teaching and continues to teach the exact opposite. It makes me wonder how he feels about folks born differently than he? Raised differently? Live a different life? I guess if you don’t say your rosary and tell all of your thoughts to a child molester, you aren’t living your life right in the eyes of your community’s presuppositions.
Oh well… Heaven for the atmosphere and Hell for the conversation.
“Second Amendment doesn’t require any more justification than the First.”
comment by jack
True, and just as true, it requires no less. Actions taken under the protection of the Second amendment do need to pass muster in their legal justification, because just like the First, the Second amendment has defined limits, both limits created in the Bill Of Rights and those evolved through two centuries of case law.
You can’t falsely yell fire in a crowded theater, or any number of other behaviors outside constitutional protection, and there are many common sense gun statutes whose reason for being parallels the exceptions to other rights. Not that you’d know it from the disingenous rhetoric of gun absolutists like the VCDL’s leadership, though.
Warren:
“Once again JW (or perhaps Dave Hicks or Jason, but most likely JW) follows his instructions to notify PVC immediately when he senses a public challenge to the VCDL dogma. How do we know? Because that’s the only time PVC is seen on this board, soon after such a post.”
I follow no such instructions. I, Jack, Dave Hicks, and others have shared occasional slanderous posts and thread with other VCDL members including PVC. PVC is a VERY busy man who has more to do than anonymously troll a select handful of bloggers and compose trite little hit pieces for the sole purpose of maligning them and their businesses. I don’t know why Dan tolerates the ugly and personal nature of the stuff you post. You contribute nothing original to this blog and there is nothing else I can contribute to this post about my opinion of you that would be approved by our moderator.
Good article on PoliceOne.com
http://tinyurl.com/btgoq5e
**
Doug Wyllie, PoliceOne Editor in Chief
Do legally-armed citizens prevent crime?
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has declared the Illinois ban against legally-armed citizens to be unconstitutional and I say ‘good on that’
SNIP (good coverage of the most telling case)
Some cops don’t like armed citizens. I understand that fact and I respect their right to that opinion.
But the fact is, Illinois’ total ban against any/all legally-armed citizens is unconstitutional. If I were to add to that fact my opinion, I’d say it’s also irrational and illogical.
I’m entitled to my opinion, too.
Do legally-armed citizens prevent crime? I think so.
What do you think? Add your thoughts in the comments area below.
**
Legally armed citizens also create the crime.
A necessary weapon is one used for defense, hunting, collecting or target shooting. An unnecessary weapon is one used for offense, harm, terrorizing or killing.
No, the issue of gun rights is not about “need”, but how dare you speak of “Acceptable collateral damage” when fighting and dismissing every effort at gun control, making fun of “gun free zones”, people who do not know every facet of guns, and doing nothing to stem the gun culture is the very definition of accepting the collateral damage that is these shootings.
“Do legally-armed citizens prevent crime?” More than they commit it? Possibly. Is that the trade off?
Sandi Saunders:
“A necessary weapon is one used for defense, hunting, collecting or target shooting. An unnecessary weapon is one used for offense, harm, terrorizing or killing.”
I agree, just don’t try to tell me that your opinion matters more than mine on which are which.
“but how dare you speak of “Acceptable collateral damage” when fighting and dismissing every effort at gun control, making fun of “gun free zones”
How dare a universiity make a worhtless paper ban on guns that specifically singles out only the lawful in the wake of people being murdered, people who needed the very guns they banned. You and I both know their regulation would have had no effect whatsoever on Cho’s actions, yet they did it anyway. That action and the other like it, desrve no respect fom me.
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 9:40 pm
Sandi,
If you truly believe that a necessary weapon is one used for self-defense, please explain the form of gun control that you would propose that promotes meeting the availability of a self-defense firearm to meet the needs of self-defense.
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 9:47 pm
I’m not sure what you envision as trade off.
However, given the millions of legally own and carried firearms in this country, and the recent 7th Circuit opinion, the use of such firearms might well support the idea significantly less governmental intrusion into the area of self-defense is warranted, IMHO.
In any case I hope so.
“I could tell you a few million stories a day about guns that aren’t used to kill anyone. Of course you don’t care about that.”
Just as I thought, Jack. No stories about people using fire alarms to kill each other. Next time, try making a more reasonable comparison.
For about half the price of an AR-15, I can build a .177 cal (think BB guns) magnetic rail gun that will send 400+ BBs per minute downrange at more than twice the speed of sound. In a close quarters situation, that is enough lethality to level a crowd of hundreds in seconds. This is a backpack unit that weighs around ninety pounds.
For the same price of a three-course spaghetti dinner, I can buy the chemicals in a grocery store, mix them in the proper proportions (plus a few completely-legal other steps I’m unwilling to disclose) and create an explosive or a gas that could kill hundreds.
For the sake of argument, once the guns are out of the way, how do we deal with chlorine, diesel, acetone, magnesium, phosphorous, agricultural fertilizer and various other many-syllable chemicals? Mark my words, if guns are taken away from the American citizens, you will learn to fear those items just as you may already fear firearms.
How many people are killed by guns in prisons? Virtually none, but yet the killing continues. I know I’m repeating myself here, but guns aren’t the problem; killing is.
Say there’s a rash of murders by hammers, you don’t ban hammers. If you do, pretty soon you’ll have a rash of killings by forks. Say you then ban forks. Next come the killings by piano wire. Logic leaves only one constant here and thus reveals the source of the problem: the killer(s).
We are the tool-users. We are the tool-builders. If you take a tool away, we will always build another to take it’s place. My biggest fear is that if the anti-gun crowd is successful, the result will subsequently create something far worse to replace it. Are we prepared for that eventuality?
Precisely, Dave Hicks. Millions and millions more guns are being sold and presumably carried, maybe even “used” and yet the killings keep coming, the malls don’t feel safe, schools don’t feel safe, restaurants, work, simple arguments, more and more we feel less and less safe. At what point is this mass gun ownership going to have an upside?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/17/us/violent-crime/index.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/17/victims-report-violent-crime/1638895/
How do we achieve “less governmental intrusion into the area of self-defense” and still make efforts to protect us from people who should not have guns, guns freely accessible, guns stolen, guns sold in parking lots and on the internet? Why are you ONLY a voice for more guns less “intrusion” even as people die just for being at the damned mall?
Oh hell, I am overwhelmed once again regarding firearms and their necessity. Permit me one last attempt to present a reasoned, opposing view. In the Oregon mall shooting, the shooter was armed with an AR-15, lightweight and very accurate, so while it makes a very effective hunting rifle, it also makes a very deadly weapon of mass killing. Remember, opposing view. In addition, the shooter wore a ballistic vest. Why? Don’t know for sure, but could it be that he expected that he might take fire once he started killing people. So he anticipated that others would be armed and prepared for that eventuality. Escalation.
I am curious. How many of you carry a revolver?
“I am curious. How many of you carry a revolver?”
The last time I met with JW at a bar/restaurant he was carrying 2 handguns. One was a semi-auto. Not sure whether the other was a revolver or not. (But he wasn’t drinking). Neither was Jack, who was carrying a single semi-auto.
Sandi Saunders to Dave Hicks:
“Why are you ONLY a voice for more guns less “intrusion” even as people die just for being at the damned mall?”
Why do you still support the concept of the gun free zone for the lawful when they are a proven failure and people are dying at the mall who are denied their right to self-defense for shopping there.?
nosaj: When I carry, which is extremely rare, I carry twin Kimber .45 semi-autos and sometimes an additional paddle-holster with either a .32 S&W revolver or a CZ52 semi.
Re:
“…feel safe….”
and
“Why are you ONLY a voice for more guns less ‘intrusion’….”
—————–
Sandi,
Where the situation to arise, I would far rather have that firearm that you proclaimed was a “… necessary weapon [when] used for defense…” than to simply “feel safe” at a mall up to the moment that the situation arose. Or in a theater, or in a classroom, etc.
and
I don’t believe I am ONLY a voice for any one single issue. I do believe that I have spoken out on the same side as you on a number of other issues.
nosaj:
“In addition, the shooter wore a ballistic vest.”
No, it was just a tactical vest with pockets. The media said the same thing about Aurora and were wrong there too.
“I am curious. How many of you carry a revolver?”
I keep one in the truck and carry one as a backup. Short-circuiting the possible all-one-needs argument, I prefer the 16 rounds in my Glock and the 5 or 6 in the revolvers as a back-up position.
Sandi talks a lot about FEELING safe. I prefer to talk about BEING safe.
Re: nosaj @ 10:44 pm
“… wore a ballistic vest….”
—————-
http://tinyurl.com/cm89nlu
**
SNIP
The gunman was wearing a load-bearing vest — a military-style garment designed to carry heavy equipment, which some witnesses confused with a bulletproof vest — and was carrying a semi-automatic rifle.
SNIP
**
Dan:
“The last time I met with JW at a bar/restaurant he was carrying 2 handguns. One was a semi-auto. Not sure whether the other was a revolver or not. (But he wasn’t drinking). Neither was Jack, who was carrying a single semi-auto.”
I was carrying a Glock 20 10mm in a canted SOB holster and also a stainless NAA .22 mini revolver in my pocket. Jack carries a .40 whose make escapes me at the moment. Though Jack would have been legal to drink becuase he was open carrying, he chose not to.
By the way, cops, commonwealth attorneys and their assistants can drink while carrying concealed. Explain the logic of that priviledge to me, if you can, nosaj.
“nosaj: When I carry, which is extremely rare, I carry twin Kimber .45 semi-autos and sometimes an additional paddle-holster with either a .32 S&W revolver or a CZ52 semi.”
I reckon that one day, we’re going to hear that line in a Quentin Tarantino movie!
@Sandi… “A necessary weapon is one used for defense, hunting, collecting or target shooting. An unnecessary weapon is one used for offense, harm, terrorizing or killing.”
Well, by Sandi’s definition, my AR15 is necessary. Thanks.
SO Dan,
I carry two everyday and J.M. White carries 3, when he carries, and you have already suggested that I might carry 4 when I learn to shoot with my toes. I think I’ll actually try that one day and if I can hit the target, I will wear a couple of extra holsters to make four the next time I see you.
.
Obviously “the concept of the gun free zone” is blown to hell when someone carries a gun into it. Malls are not going to start welcoming guns as a way to stop shootings.
Yes Dave Hicks, Jack, John Wilburn and you are ONLY a voice for more guns less “intrusion”. Name one time you were not. Name one time you agreed with any gun control suggestion offered? Name one time you did not speak in favor of gun rights regardless of the collateral damage being discussed. Name one time you were not in favor of more guns and less “intrusion”?
I bet Sandi loves the TSA. They make naive people *feel* safe, too.
Sandi Saunders:
“Obviously “the concept of the gun free zone” is blown to hell when someone carries a gun into it. Malls are not going to start welcoming guns as a way to stop shootings.”
Obviously they should.
“Name one time you were not [in favor of more freedom].”
Why? I have no intent of trying to buy goodwill with you by giving up positions important to me and that I feel are right.
@ Sandi – “Malls are not going to start welcoming guns as a way to stop shootings.”
Correct. They will continue to ban guns as a way of welcoming shootings. It is a tried and true plan that has worked well in such places as Virginia Tech, Cinemark Theaters and now that mall in Oregon.
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 11:34 pm
Thanks. I misunderstood your earlier point / use of the word “only.”
So, when have you agreed with any relaxation of a gun control law suggestion offered? Name one time you did not speak in favor of more gun restrictions regardless of the arguments being presented or the “intrusion” into a fundamental Constitutional right.
I reckon that one day, we’re going to hear that line in a Quentin Tarantino movie!
Comment by Dan Casey — December 12, 2012 @ 11:21 pm
Rumor has it that QT is quite fond of Kimbers, though I imagine for film use, it’ll be more in the vein of Colt Pythons or maybe DEagles. He’s a classical guy, so I’m sure it’s difficult to pull him away from the revolvers.
CZ52s are impressive on film, though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkBXIkViQR0 and can be loaded beyond .357 mag velocities. The slides have roller bearings and the casings are bottle-necked, like a rifle’s. Hornady makes a semi-wadcutter bullet in 7.62 that’s like throwing supersonic sledgehammers downrange. No reason for that tangent, really – I just like plugging an Eastern Bloc dinosaur of a pistol.
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 11:30 pm
Obviously “the concept of the gun free zone” is blown to hell when someone carries a gun into it.
—————
Yup.
Such misguided policies and ineffective signs are simple feel-safe illusions and serve only to create “Un-armed Victims Rich Zones” or ” Safety Zones for Criminal” or a “Free-fire Zones for Deranged Killers” because criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law much less signs.
Hence, as I said earlier, (with a typo corrected and a bit of different punctuation) were the situation to arise, I would far rather have that firearm (which you proclaimed was a “… necessary weapon [when] used for defense…”) than to simply “feel safe” at a mall up to the moment that the situation arose.
gdad-
“Send me some info on all those cases of people using smoke alarms to kill other people. I’d love to hear about it.”
Send me notification of when you figure out the point to his analogy. It was pretty obvious to me.
nosaj-
“So Jack, what is the best use of an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle and several fully loaded magazines? What was it designed for? Why is it necessary?”
The AR platform is simply a semi-automatic rifle. In their typical configuration, they are mid-powered; a standard deer rifle is much more powerful. They are used in organized shooting sports and are fast becoming popular for hunting (the gun’s modular nature makes switching to hunting calibers easy), general recreation, and self defense (the .223/5.56 round does not over-penetrate as badly as some handgun and shotgun rounds). So called assault weapons such as the AR-15, are used in less than 5% of all gun homicides.
Finally, as has been asked already, what the hell does necessity have to do with anything? And who determines whether or not something is necessary?
Warren-
“Once again JW (or perhaps Dave Hicks or Jason, but most likely JW) follows his instructions to notify PVC immediately when he senses a public challenge to the VCDL dogma. How do we know? Because that’s the only time PVC is seen on this board, soon after such a post.”
I don’t know PVC, have never corresponded with him, and am not affiliated in any way with his organization. From what I can tell, he’s a grown up who can speak for himself, and it’s not hard to guess when the subject of guns will come up. Just look for the open thread the day of or the day after a “major” gun incident.
Sandi Saunders-
“A necessary weapon is one used for defense, hunting, collecting or target shooting. An unnecessary weapon is one used for offense, harm, terrorizing or killing.”
Oh good, then you approve of the AR-15, which is used in all four of the Sandi Saunders Firearm Approval categories.
“No, the issue of gun rights is not about “need”, but how dare you speak of “Acceptable collateral damage” when fighting and dismissing every effort at gun control, making fun of “gun free zones”,”
Gun laws keep loosening, gun crime keeps going down, blah blah blah, let’s watch Sandi ignore that fact for the ten billionth time.
“people who do not know every facet of guns,”
Yes, how dare we make fun of or show anger toward people who wish to restrict or ban a tool that they know little or nothing about.
“Precisely, Dave Hicks. Millions and millions more guns are being sold and presumably carried, maybe even “used” and yet the killings keep coming,”
At lower rates year after year.
“the malls don’t feel safe, schools don’t feel safe, restaurants, work, simple arguments, more and more we feel less and less safe.”
YOU don’t feel safe. I feel perfectly safe whether I’m carrying or not.
“At what point is this mass gun ownership going to have an upside?”
Ask that of people who have used guns to save their or someone else’s lives. How about the 57 year old woman who was raped and whose attacker returned a week later, necessitating her killing him with a gun? No upside for her Sandi, right? How about the father whose five year old was sitting in the passenger seat of his car when two men demanded “everything he had” and then said they were going to kill him? He drew his own gun and killed one of them; the other ran away. I’m not sure, but I think the upside in that situation was that that five year old boy didn’t have his father’s brains blown all over him. I can provide the links to those two stories and many many more if you think I’m making them up.
Your ignorance and near-sightedness are staggering, and in this case, hateful.
@Jason “And who determines whether or not something is necessary?”
Sandi does, silly goose.
Jason, what about the father whose gun shot his young son dead in the gun store parking lot? Or the father who sprayed his son with buckshot while hunting when he dropped his gun?
This battle of anecdotes is stupid and proves nothing.
J.M. White:
“How many people are killed by guns in prisons? Virtually none, but yet the killing continues. I know I’m repeating myself here, but guns aren’t the problem; killing is.”
And they kill one another under maximum security with guards and cameras everywhere too.
I was in absolute hysterics the other day when I turned on some FM station (WFIR on FM?, 107.something) to see if the end of the U.Va. basketball game was on and instead it was two guys going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about this concealed carry holster and that one and this gun and that one and would one or the other allow you to look ALMOST natural without wearing a cover garment (I thought you WANTED people to know you were carrying so they’d leave you alone), and man this one is just really comfortable and with that one you need to wear it on your middle, and yeah, with that one you really need to get in regular practice drawing your gun so you can blow away the bad guy before he blows you away. Oh, and don’t forget to unload the gun before you practice so you don’t shoot off your….
You’d have thought these guys were trying to come to a solution for the fiscal cliff. I mean this was some serious doodoo. I can’t imagine what you guys who carry a whole arsenal must go through.
“Send me notification of when you figure out the point to his analogy. It was pretty obvious to me.”
Lay it on us, Jason, we’re waiting.
“Correct. They will continue to ban guns as a way of welcoming shootings.”
Please provide any info you have proving that any of these people chose these places specifically because of their no-guns policy, Jack.
JM White: “How many people are killed by guns in prisons? Virtually none, but yet the killing continues. I know I’m repeating myself here, but guns aren’t the problem; killing is.”
John Wilburn: “And they kill one another under maximum security with guards and cameras everywhere too.”
Hang on folks! We may be getting close to seeing someone voice an argument for prisoner guns rights!
“This battle of anecdotes is stupid and proves nothing.”
Or the man who killed his daughter who sneaking back in late. Or the teen who killed his brother while cleaning his gun. Or….
gdad, that’s Gun Talk. It’s on every Sunday.
“gdad, that’s Gun Talk. It’s on every Sunday.”
Thanks, Dan, I didn’t know what it was. I listened for a few minutes but I finally gave up after a long monologue how to adjust your equipment.
@ Kristen “Jason, what about the father whose gun shot his young son dead in the gun store parking lot?”
What about him? Are you suggesting he should have been prevented from exercising his Constitutionally protected right and not able to purchase or possess that gun for some reason?
I see huge savings for the taxpayer. No need for guards, just lock up the place and give the prisoners guns to police themselves. Somebody, Call Boehner! Fiscal cliff is avoided!
@Dan Casey: “Hang on folks! We may be getting close to seeing someone voice an argument for prisoner guns rights!”
Or we could be getting close to someone realizing that killing still occurs without guns.
@gdad: “Or the man who killed his daughter who sneaking back in late. Or the teen who killed his brother while cleaning his gun.”
You and Kristen are referring to accidents. Are you now suggesting that tools that are used in accidents should be outlawed? Let’s get back to talking about cars now… generally, the argument is that cars aren’t designed for killing and aren’t used as much to intentionally kill people.
However, today’s argument is starting to hinge on accidents. I think it’s the perfect time to get back to the car discussion. More people die in car-related accidents than gun-related accidents. And, those accidents are now your argument for gun control. Would you support the outlawing of cars to prevent car accidents now?
“Are you now suggesting that tools that are used in accidents should be outlawed?”
No. I’m saying that for every heroic tale of derring-do from some gun owner saving a fair maiden from dishonor, there’s a kid out there who picks up Daddy’s loaded weapon and blow away a friend or sibling. I’m saying that these stories put the “Carrying a gun makes you safer and protects your family!” in perspective.
And I’m saying…if you think it’s cool to wander around armed all the time, don’t make a mistake. Ever. Otherwise look into something else to defend yourself.
Kristen,
Millions of people will carry guns today. Millions of people will not hurt anyone with those guns, accidentally or otherwise.
Kristen-
“Jason, what about the father whose gun shot his young son dead in the gun store parking lot? Or the father who sprayed his son with buckshot while hunting when he dropped his gun?
This battle of anecdotes is stupid and proves nothing.”
It proves the point I was making which you missed. The issue was Sandi demanding an “upside” to all the guns. I gave her examples of upside. That was the only purpose of citing them.
“No. I’m saying that for every heroic tale of derring-do from some gun owner saving a fair maiden from dishonor, there’s a kid out there who picks up Daddy’s loaded weapon and blow away a friend or sibling. I’m saying that these stories put the “Carrying a gun makes you safer and protects your family!” in perspective.”
Aside from missing the point of my answer to Sandi again, you’re wrong. Even if we take the most conservative estimate of defensive gun uses, an estimate that anti-gun researchers and activists cite, they still outnumber accidental deaths by a gigantic margin.
gdad-
“You’d have thought these guys were trying to come to a solution for the fiscal cliff. I mean this was some serious doodoo. I can’t imagine what you guys who carry a whole arsenal must go through.”
I don’t understand your point. Concealed carry is an interest that involves various pieces of equipment. What is odd about people discussing that? And I don’t have to “go through” anything to carry my “arsenal” such that it is. It takes five seconds to put it on and that’s it. Digging my cell phone out of my pocket is a bigger hassle.
By the way, between the time your comment was posted at 1:33 and mine at 1:59, approximately two people died in car accidents in the United States.
I “defined” necessary because Jack asked.
Your childish anger and baiting posts change nothing. The mall’s “ban guns as a way of welcoming shootings” and you all fight regulation, registration, all background checks, mandatory reporting of sold, stolen and “stolen” guns, and all gun control measures as “prior restraint” as a way of welcoming shootings too.
Sandi,
I do not think you should be *required* to report a stolen gun. I’m not required to report a stolen Playstation, and I don’t think I’m required to report a stolen car (I could be wrong), so other property shouldn’t have to be reported stolen, either.
I am not entitled under the Constitution to a thorough investigation of a crime committed against me, and therefore I should not be required by law to report said crime to anyone.
If the law is going to require me to report it, then there should be a requirement to investigate it. There is not.
I will never support gun registration. It helps nothing. Again, look to places like Washington, D.C., Chicago and New York city. How about the New Orleans area after Katrina? They confiscated registered guns during the state of emergency. Unregistered guns were allowed, but guns registered by law-abiding citizens were not.
I do support background checks. I’m not sure why you would think otherwise. I do support them so long as they are at no cost to me and they are completed within, say… an hour. I’d say an hour is reasonable. I’m not going to pay money for the check, though. I don’t think I should have to pay it for the CHP, either, but that’s another fight for another day. I think you should be the one paying it, not me. You’re the one who really wants it.
Reporting of sold guns is the same as registration. Again, I will not support that. In fact, I would actively fight against it.
Again, between the time you posted your comment, 2:20 and the time I’m submitting mine, about 3:00, about two more people died in car accidents in the United States.
You’ll need to find me about five accidental gun fatalities per hour before I’ll take it more seriously than car accidents.
Jack, and I’m sure many more died of hunger and disease. So what?
Jason, disagreeing with a “point” is different from missing it.
@Kristen: “Jack, and I’m sure many more died of hunger and disease. So what?”
So don’t pretend to be interested in preventing accidental fatalities. It is about guns and only guns, even though compared to cars, hunger and disease, gun accidents claim very few lives.
Jack, in the time since you last posted, how many people were deliberately killed with an automobile? And how many of those were killed using an automobile whose design was based on inflicting violence?
I just read about a second fatal car accident here in the Roanoke area today. Something has got to be done about the car culture in America. How many lives must be lost to these rolling machines of death before America wakes up and says enough is enough?
No Kristen, you missed it, that’s a fact. I was not attempting to balance each “bad” gun death with a self defense incident. Again, Sandi asked a simple and direct question, where was the upside to mass ownership of guns. My answer was simple and direct, that is, I gave examples that most people would consider positive use of guns, or upside. That’s all.
Furthermore, your nonsense about tragic accidents outweighing defensive gun uses is flat wrong, and that’s if we use numbers provided by the gun control crowd. You of course didn’t reply to that.
To further elaborate, the total number of accidental gun deaths in the U.S. is around 600 per year. The total number of accidental non-fatal injuries is 14000-19000. So let’s throw in the 600 deaths and round up in your favor. We are left with defensive gun uses occurring *at least* five times as often as all accidental injuries.
That is not my opinion. That is cold hard fact. You’re wrong.
C’mon, Warren, accidental deaths are the name of the game today. Haven’t you been following along?
By the way, my car was designed to kill in the same way my AR15 was. I, as the driver, choose who it runs over, just as I choose who or what my AR15 shoots.
It is about how you use it.
“You (Warren) contribute nothing original to this blog”
one of many comments posted yesterday by the very busy John Wilburn
JW, my very first post on this blog was some whimsical doggerel called “Casey At The Dance”. It’s originality may be open to question, but if I’ve been less original than yourself, it might be explained by the notion that so few match the originality you show. As adamant as you are about your unique talent for independent thought, your originality can be taken for granted, while less nobly objective minds are stuck with building from a framework of existing ideas. The only remaining question is whether your frequently displayed originality encompasses any areas that don’t cause a recoil.
*Disclaimer: The thoughts above, while they cannot be mine since I contribute nothing original, are not directly attributable to any specifically named person. Not even John Wilburn’s dad.
@3:57 p.m. Sorry, Jack, you ain’t swaying nobody with that tired old worn-out BS. Now strap on your hardware and go invade Tanglewood Mall.
Oops, I meant invade Valley View Mall.
Don’t forget to mention the guy who jumped off the overpass, Jack. You seem to be relishing these stories. If I didn’t know better, I’d say someone should be scolding you for taking advantage of these deaths so soon, but I guess that’s only distasteful for victims of gun violence. Or accidents, if they differ in any significant way.
Re: Kristen @ 7:54 am
This battle of anecdotes is stupid and proves nothing.
—————-
If so, why not call on Dan, et al to stop starting the exchanges / threads with anecdotes of alleged criminal use / misuse?
Kristen,
I will be criticizing America’s bridge-jumping culture tomorrow. Thanks for staying on top of things, though.
So, Kristen, tell me.. are you really interested in preventing accidental deaths, or is it more about just not liking guns?
Dan, if you want to write an article about how my carrying a gun today didn’t result in injuries or deaths, I went to Sheetz, my wife’s doctor’s appointment, Kroger and Northside Middle School this afternoon/evening while carrying.
DaveHicks, it’s Dan’s blog. I’d quit before calling on him to do anything.
I am glad you can have fun with the topic of mass shootings. That must take some talent.
Gaudaloupe…
The ‘ou’ is a variant. The ‘au’ is a typo. Girl doesn’t make spelling mistakes.
Suzie:
“Girl doesn’t make spelling mistakes.”
Nickle
“Girl doesn’t make spelling mistakes.”
Nickle
That was Kristen’s mistake, dear.
Guadalupe.
Neither “ou” nor “au”. It’s ua. Do some research before making a fool of yourself. And in the future, I recommend stfu about anyone else’s typos.
“Girl doesn’t make spelling mistakes.”
Snicker, snicker. Guffaw, guffaw. Chortle, chortle.
“why not call on Dan, et al to stop starting the exchanges / threads with anecdotes of alleged criminal use / misuse?
Comment by Dave Hicks
Consider this Dave Hicks: We’ve already tried to ask the only person on this blog who makes a big show of posting logic tutorials to pass judgement on the validity of using random anecdotes measured in the dozens to offset the message of gun violence statistics measured in the tens of thousands. If that logic lecturer is unwilling to apply it to those who use anecdotes to excuse data, then we shouldn’t expect it from Dan either.
No Suzie, “nickle” was all yours before Kristen did it and then YOU had the temerity to call her on a mistake you had made. Which is what made the whole conversation. Your hypocrisy is legend. We have been through all this before and your continued bouts with revision are not going to work. Ever.
“107.Gaudaloupe.
The ‘ou’ is a variant. The ‘au’ is a typo. Girl doesn’t make spelling mistakes.
Comment by Suzie — December 13, 2012 @ 10:16 pm ”
“Showing results for guadeloupe
Search instead for gaudaloupe”
Doh!
Maybe it could be Our Lady of Cantaloupe.
“We have been through all this before and your continued bouts with revision are not going to work. Ever.”
We’re watching suzie slowly deteriorate back into her old trolling ways. Didn’t take long. Wonder how long before Dan has to start deleting her posts again?
Precisely, Dave Hicks. Millions and millions more guns are being sold and presumably carried, maybe even “used” and yet the killings keep coming, the malls don’t feel safe, schools don’t feel safe, restaurants, work, simple arguments, more and more we feel less and less safe. At what point is this mass gun ownership going to have an upside?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — December 12, 2012 @ 10:32 pm
FYI Sandi; numerous(many) studies statistically conclude that the more armed citizens there are in a locality results in a reduction in crime rate. Therefore, the answer to your query is mass gun ownership is already having a positive effect. Besides, as usual, you’re not thinking
things through and as a result, address the wrong problem. In the last month four people have died in vehicle accidents on Rt 24. . .when will they close this road? Last year a number of people drowned in SML yet. . .they have not drained the lake! Your feigned compassion and concern must seemingly be based either on ignorance or hypocrisy. Please tell, which?
Dan, if you want to write an article about how my carrying a gun today didn’t result in injuries or deaths, I went to Sheetz, my wife’s doctor’s appointment, Kroger and Northside Middle School this afternoon/evening while carrying.
Comment by Jack — December 13, 2012 @ 7:43 pm
Jack,
Too bad you didn’t come to visit my campus. We would have asked you politely to leave your gun in your vehicle. Had you refused to do so, we would have called the county sheriff and had you arrested. We are allowed to do that in Indiana.
@116: There is an element to randomness in what you describe: traffic accidents, drownings. Today in a matter of seconds — SECONDS — 18 children were murdered by a man with a gun. They had no choice. What’s the threshold? 20 children? 30? 50? 1 of yours? Just tell me where we can start the discussion. And it will include restrictions on gun purchase and use, because it isn’t enough that 99% of the people who have guns legally are law-abiding.
Warren-
“Consider this Dave Hicks: We’ve already tried to ask the only person on this blog who makes a big show of posting logic tutorials to pass judgement on the validity of using random anecdotes measured in the dozens to offset the message of gun violence statistics measured in the tens of thousands. If that logic lecturer is unwilling to apply it to those who use anecdotes to excuse data, then we shouldn’t expect it from Dan either.”
If you aren’t referring to me, then ignore what follows. To repeat, I did not post those stories to balance some metaphorical scale. Here’s the sequence:
*Sandi asks where the upside is for so many people owning guns.
*I gave examples of upside, namely people defending themselves.
That’s all. Sandi wanted upside, I gave her some upside.
Prediction – Suzie disappears from this thread.
That’s ok, Cantaloupe. We can cut and paste. You’ll see this again.
Re: Warren @ 12:18 pm
Who is “we”?
You prefer that logic be set aside?
Make that “I”, then Dave Hicks. What’s the logical validity of invoking anecdotes to try to disprove a larger data set? You’ve been transparent about not applying your proud logic skills to that tactic whenever it’s done to minimize violent episodes. Can one understand logic and still be intellectually dishonest in the selective application of it?
Re: Warren — December 15, 2012 @ 1:40 pm
Your disingenuous question was answered on http://tinyurl.com/d8qgq37 posted on December 15, 2012 @ 7:08 pm
So tell me, how often have you attacked the weak or poorly put arguments from bloggers on the same side of a debate as you, yourself, are supporting? If you have no good examples of you having initiated attacks on folk on your side of a debate, when they use arguments that you would not use, is that intellectually dishonesty?