Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[hack]

That chart ends in February though. The dip below $500bn came in spring.

[Kapture1]

that's not the point of the chart

[Ghengis Jon]

I get that you would rather have the gun free slaughter zones where anyone can walk in and face absolutely no return fire, but history has shown over and over and over and over and over that is highly ineffective to reducing mass causalities.

That's a very trollish statement, absurdly attributing opinions without any basis of fact. But hey, trolls be trolls.

I've packed heat for well over 20 years because I share the same name as my father who was a federal judge. Loons bear grudges and make threats and that is a sad fact of my life. Saying "Not me, you want my dad" is not an option.

Only those with paranoid delusions or politicians with their faces slurping loudly in the lap of the NRA would vote for such a bill. It allows concealed weapons to be carried into churches, bars, sports arenas, and schools but the said place can opt out. How fucking stupid. If one really, really feels the need to change the existing law, amend the law so it states said organizations can opt IN and allow weapons on their premises. I'll wager not a one would allow it. This bill is pandering to clearly paranoid voters who probably shouldn't own firearms in the first place.

Besides, I would never, ever take a firearm into a House of God. That is incredibly disrespectful and contrary to the teachings of any church/temple/mosque/synagogue. When God calls you home, a firearm won't make any difference.

Ever been in a firefight? If so, you know that this bill simply panders to those with some misguided hero fantasy. There is nothing more terrifying than having to draw a weapon in a LoD situation. Your knees get weak, your hands shake, your gut turns into a painful knot, you piss your pants and you don't think straight. Why don't the hero fantasists point this out? Oh, its because they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Let me pose a hypothetical. I want your honest opinion. A 'good guy' at a football stadium sees a 'bad guy' whip out a gun and tell the concession girl to hand over the money and that he's going to kill her after she complies. "Good guy' whips out his .357 and offs the 'bad guy'. But the round goes through 'bad guy' and kills an 8 year old girl standing in line. Should the good guy be sanctioned? Was it a fair exchange in killing the 8 year old to save the concessionaire? Suppose a cop only sees 'good guy' draw and fire and in turn kills 'good guy'. What should be said to the mother of the 8 year old and the daughter of good guy? Its okay that multiple innocent people die to save one innocent person?

[Kapture1]

That's a very trollish statement, absurdly attributing opinions without any basis of fact. But hey, trolls be trolls.

I've packed heat for well over 20 years because I share the same name as my father who was a federal judge. Loons bear grudges and make threats and that is a sad fact of my life. Saying "Not me, you want my dad" is not an option.

Only those with paranoid delusions or politicians with their faces slurping loudly in the lap of the NRA would vote for such a bill. It allows concealed weapons to be carried into churches, bars, sports arenas, and schools but the said place can opt out. How fucking stupid. If one really, really feels the need to change the existing law, amend the law so it states said organizations can opt IN and allow weapons on their premises. I'll wager not a one would allow it. This bill is pandering to clearly paranoid voters who probably shouldn't own firearms in the first place.

Besides, I would never, ever take a firearm into a House of God. That is incredibly disrespectful and contrary to the teachings of any church/temple/mosque/synagogue. When God calls you home, a firearm won't make any difference.

Ever been in a firefight? If so, you know that this bill simply panders to those with some misguided hero fantasy. There is nothing more terrifying than having to draw a weapon in a LoD situation. Your knees get weak, your hands shake, your gut turns into a painful knot, you piss your pants and you don't think straight. Why don't the hero fantasists point this out? Oh, its because they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Let me pose a hypothetical. I want your honest opinion. A 'good guy' at a football stadium sees a 'bad guy' whip out a gun and tell the concession girl to hand over the money and that he's going to kill her after she complies. "Good guy' whips out his .357 and offs the 'bad guy'. But the round goes through 'bad guy' and kills an 8 year old girl standing in line. Should the good guy be sanctioned? Was it a fair exchange in killing the 8 year old to save the concessionaire? Suppose a cop only sees 'good guy' draw and fire and in turn kills 'good guy'. What should be said to the mother of the 8 year old and the daughter of good guy? Its okay that multiple innocent people die to save one innocent person?

I'd wager 100's of churches would opt in.

it's not absurdly trollish. You do understand that the idea of gun free zones, the progressive wet dream, are a disaster, where some psycho can go into a soft target and rack up massive causalities without the fear of an armed citizen present.

then you go on about your personal antidote, Sorry, I don't care about your personal story. I have also carried firearms since I was 21, it doesn't make me an expert on firearms. what has is studying the subject, stats, and facts of the matter as well as practice, training and more practice.

Second, the ridiculous hypothetical that you mention is ridiculous for several reasons, but mostly CLP holders that will be subject to the rule change have already been trained, and will receive additional training if they want to carry a gun in current gun free zones. Meaning they have an idea of ballistics, and the knowledge that bullets can pass through people. Not to mention that I was taught in my class about pass through and to know what is behind your target, and I haven't sat through the additional class, which I assume would address that in greater detail.

and lastly, most major synagogues that I know of have armed security. Ask yourself why they would do that... Why? if it's disrespectful to God (lol) as you say and prayer is supposed to stop all crime and violence and protects the believers to live forever.... or if they are attacked they are not allowed to fight back (also, ridiculous) why would they have armed security? it is long past the time we have arms guarding our places of worship, and I'm done with the suggestion from party of atheists telling Christians what is disrespectful to the God they don't believe exists.

[The Oracle]

Its amusing you knuckledraggers always think Democrats are atheists.

[Kapture1]

Its amusing you knuckledraggers always think Democrats are atheists.

It's equally amusing you progressives think conservatives are racist bigots.

[Ghengis Jon]

Maybe intentionally maybe not, you ignore the points. There are those who carry for good reason and there are those who carry because of fantasy. Putting firearms everywhere is a recipe for disaster. Pick an example. Dodge City or Tombstone AZ 1870-1885. EVERYONE carried a sidearm. Safest cities in America because of that, right?

Your comment about training and practice is hysterical. All that does is allow you to obtain an CPL. "Oh wait Mr bad guy, don't shoot yet. Let me properly analyze the background behind you before I respond." LoD situations are typically near instantaneous. Training and practice improves your accuracy, it does nothing for frame of mind, physiological reactions, response time or situational environments. Clearly you have no knowledge of situational realities, only what the NRA spoon feeds you. It is my sincere wish that you never encounter a bad situation.

Yes, some houses of God employ armed guards. They employ professionals so members of the congregation do not feel the need to dishonor or desecrate the holy place. I have yet to see by any holy water font, "Parishoners, please bring your firearms inside. We encourage potential violence in lieu of peaceful community prayer."

I didn't ask you to care about my story, I provided perspective. I have good reason to carry, not because I'm some dipshit who has hero fantasies or some NRA goo-goobler. There are a lot of CPL holders that fall into that latter category.

I would still like your opinion on the hypothetical. You declaring it ridiculous does not make it so. It is the reason why firearms are not allowed in stadiums. Show me the error of my ways and I will be eternally thankful for being put on the straight and narrow.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Libtard logic...ya gotta love it...

[entropy]

Its amusing you knuckledraggers always think Democrats are atheists.

agree... Satanic cults are religions too.

[The Oracle]

efz

[Jeff Buchanan]

........You do understand that the idea of gun free zones, the progressive wet dream, are a disaster, where some psycho can go into a soft target and rack up massive causalities without the fear of an armed citizen present........

There are no serious studies that demonstrate gun free zones increase the occurrence of mass shootings. One can find "studies" that purport to demonstrate that but, upon careful review, methodologies in these "studies" fail to stand up to rigorous standards allowing such conclusions. IOW, causality has been vague in the past and remains so.

There are reliable studies that show RTC laws either increase gun violence or there is insufficient data to draw conclusions either way. Here's one study that demonstrates RTC laws increase gun violence:

Our major finding is that ..... RTC laws are associated with higher
aggregate violent crime rates, and the size of the deleterious effects that are associated with the passage of RTC laws climbs over time.

https://mikethegunguy.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/right-to-carry-laws-v-violent-crime-2017-nber.pdf

** NB Below

Studies purporting to prove that RTC laws have reduced gun violence use the approach that rests upon an assumption about the behavior of criminals. These assumptions have no basis in truth or fact.

The assumption is that criminals who are thinking of committing a face-to-face crime (murder, assault) will decide instead to commit an anonymous crime if they believe that the victim whom they are thinking of attacking might be carrying a gun or put another way, criminals in states with high civilian gun ownership were the most worried about encountering armed victims. This is decidedly not the case in reality.

The idea that the unplanned, spontaneous and impulsive behavior resulting in homicide will be influenced or changed by some sort of rational, objective and planned decision simply flies in the face of reality and what we know to be the circumstances in which homicide and other violent crimes occur. With its peculiar lethality, a gun converts a spat into a slaying, a quarrel into a killing and a perceived wrong into a mass shooting.

Particularly for kapture: I've known Jon for at least 15y. He's certainly not a liberal with "wet dreams about gun free zones." He is a serious student and owner of firearms and the proper use of them. He has a personal story of engaging a criminal with a firearm (I'll leave it to him to talk about it if he chooses to do so). When he talks about individuals with a firearm engaging a criminal in the act of using it he relate in his post: There is nothing more terrifying than having to draw a weapon in a LoD situation. Your knees get weak, your hands shake, your gut turns into a painful knot, you piss your pants and you don't think straight. Why don't the hero fantasists point this out? Oh, its because they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

I'll leave that explanation to stand on it's own. But ask a law enforcement official, the ones that have been engaged in a real time, live fire-fight or hostage situations, how they feel about untrained and/or inexperienced bystanders with weapons trying to engage an active or potentially active shooter. That just makes a very bad situation worse. In reality, it does not save lives nor does it prevent mentally deranged individuals from seeking revenge and killing large numbers of people with automatic weapons and reloading with multiple magazines in the process. The reality is that when real rounds start flying and real people go down with horrific wounds, the average gun toting, would-be hero is going to crap his pants or worse start firing randomly further confusing the on-going situation for law enforcement. Who's the bad guy????

Georgia, where I live, is a RTC law. I own a hand-gun and have a carry permit. I'm well trained to use it but never want to have to do that and dislike the proliferation of weapons placed in the hands of criminals and untrained do-gooders which increases the probability that I will have to use it.

I only recently became an advocate for rational changes in gun laws. This after the Texas shooting. Like I posted above: ..... "make possession of anything but a bolt action, single round rifle, or single/double barrel, manually loaded shot gun or a hand gun whose magazine is limited to 6 rounds illegal. Any attempt to convert any of these weapons to allow automatic discharge is illegal." ..... at this point seems rational not withstanding the arguments potentially against such action offered here about the 2nd Amendment. There's a process to deal with this. We need to get going on it.


** (NB) The link to the entire paper whose conclusion is cited above is a reprinted copy of an otherwise pay-for-use paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). You'll note in the citing that it was provided to interested parties free of charge by "Mike The Gun Guy." I found his web site quite interesting and much different from what you might think it is from the web site's name. Pretty sure, Jon and Mike The Gun Guy would get along well.

https://mikethegunguy.com/

[THE_WIZARD_]

...no worries...Rosie has it all figured out...

[Jeff Buchanan]

STFU .....

I said "rational" gun control measures.

[THE_WIZARD_]

No....YOU STFU

[Kapture1]

There are no serious studies that demonstrate gun free zones increase the occurrence of mass shootings. One can find "studies" that purport to demonstrate that but, upon careful review, methodologies in these "studies" fail to stand up to rigorous standards allowing such conclusions. IOW, causality has been vague in the past and remains so.

There are reliable studies that show RTC laws either increase gun violence or there is insufficient data to draw conclusions either way. Here's one study that demonstrates RTC laws increase gun violence:

Our major finding is that ..... RTC laws are associated with higher
aggregate violent crime rates, and the size of the deleterious effects that are associated with the passage of RTC laws climbs over time.

https://mikethegunguy.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/right-to-carry-laws-v-violent-crime-2017-nber.pdf

** NB Below

Studies purporting to prove that RTC laws have reduced gun violence use the approach that rests upon an assumption about the behavior of criminals. These assumptions have no basis in truth or fact.

The assumption is that criminals who are thinking of committing a face-to-face crime (murder, assault) will decide instead to commit an anonymous crime if they believe that the victim whom they are thinking of attacking might be carrying a gun or put another way, criminals in states with high civilian gun ownership were the most worried about encountering armed victims. This is decidedly not the case in reality.

The idea that the unplanned, spontaneous and impulsive behavior resulting in homicide will be influenced or changed by some sort of rational, objective and planned decision simply flies in the face of reality and what we know to be the circumstances in which homicide and other violent crimes occur. With its peculiar lethality, a gun converts a spat into a slaying, a quarrel into a killing and a perceived wrong into a mass shooting.

Particularly for kapture: I've known Jon for at least 15y. He's certainly not a liberal with "wet dreams about gun free zones." He is a serious student and owner of firearms and the proper use of them. He has a personal story of engaging a criminal with a firearm (I'll leave it to him to talk about it if he chooses to do so). When he talks about individuals with a firearm engaging a criminal in the act of using it he relate in his post: There is nothing more terrifying than having to draw a weapon in a LoD situation. Your knees get weak, your hands shake, your gut turns into a painful knot, you piss your pants and you don't think straight. Why don't the hero fantasists point this out? Oh, its because they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

I'll leave that explanation to stand on it's own. But ask a law enforcement official, the ones that have been engaged in a real time, live fire-fight or hostage situations, how they feel about untrained and/or inexperienced bystanders with weapons trying to engage an active or potentially active shooter. That just makes a very bad situation worse. In reality, it does not save lives nor does it prevent mentally deranged individuals from seeking revenge and killing large numbers of people with automatic weapons and reloading with multiple magazines in the process. The reality is that when real rounds start flying and real people go down with horrific wounds, the average gun toting, would-be hero is going to crap his pants or worse start firing randomly further confusing the on-going situation for law enforcement. Who's the bad guy????

Georgia, where I live, is a RTC law. I own a hand-gun and have a carry permit. I'm well trained to use it but never want to have to do that and dislike the proliferation of weapons placed in the hands of criminals and untrained do-gooders which increases the probability that I will have to use it.

I only recently became an advocate for rational changes in gun laws. This after the Texas shooting. Like I posted above: ..... "make possession of anything but a bolt action, single round rifle, or single/double barrel, manually loaded shot gun or a hand gun whose magazine is limited to 6 rounds illegal. Any attempt to convert any of these weapons to allow automatic discharge is illegal." ..... at this point seems rational not withstanding the arguments potentially against such action offered here about the 2nd Amendment. There's a process to deal with this. We need to get going on it.


** (NB) The link to the entire paper whose conclusion is cited above is a reprinted copy of an otherwise pay-for-use paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). You'll note in the citing that it was provided to interested parties free of charge by "Mike The Gun Guy." I found his web site quite interesting and much different from what you might think it is from the web site's name. Pretty sure, Jon and Mike The Gun Guy would get along well.

https://mikethegunguy.com/

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=2814691

It has been fact for as long as there have been concealed carry laws, that concealed carry permit holders are the most law abiding people in the country.

In this report, if finds that police committed 103 crimes per 100,000, while the general population committed 3813 per 100k. Permit holders... "Combining the data for Florida and Texas data, we find that permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth the rate for police officers," Lott writes. "Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000.10 That is just 1/7th of the rate for police officers. But there's no need to focus on Texas and Florida ? the data are similar in other states."

from 2007-2015 violent crime decreased 18%, murder rate dropped by 16%, the number of permit carry holders increased 190%.




I personally know what adrenaline does when a weapon is drawn, I don't mention or bring it up because I can make my point perfectly fine without it.


my question is what is considered rational? The banning of semi automatic rifles? the banning of 30 rnd magazines?

Again, I will point out with the hypercritical and the comments from the officer, this bill isn't about letting just anyone carry everywhere. This bill isn't about the average gun owner, or the general population. It's not about random people with no training, and no background checks. It's about those that are among the most law abiding in the country, trained in firearm use and safety, and receiving additional training.