Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Kapture1]

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.

http://time.com/3929185/charleston-s...g-church-guns/


Pastors caring guns... I thought they only hired professionals haha.

bottom line, if a madman comes in spraying, People should have a fighting chance. If your argument is that it would create a wild west scenario, a shooting gallery, I would point out that the place is already a shooting gallery, a slaughter.

I'm not a member of the NRA, but since you seem hellbent on bashing them, you should first acknowledge that there is not other organization on the planet that has trained more people on the safety and proper use of firearms than the NRA. You would also aruge that they buy politicians, well if that were acutally true, the numbers would be much higher



turns out unions buy a fuck ton more political influence. The reason more gun control doesn't get passed is because the people don't want gun bans.

[iam416]

kapture may be batshit crazy, a loon trumpkin and a ruiner of a perfectly good mashed potatoes discussion with 2016 election crap, but he's right about the NRA and guns. You try to ban guns in a significant way and you'll get crushed.

A Buchanan-type proposal would poll at about 25-30%. Good luck with that.

[THE_WIZARD_]

lucid

[Wild Hoss]

Where do Buchanan posts poll at? Higher, lower?

[Kapture1]

kapture may be batshit crazy, a loon trumpkin and a ruiner of a perfectly good mashed potatoes discussion with 2016 election crap, but he's right about the NRA and guns. You try to ban guns in a significant way and you'll get crushed.

A Buchanan-type proposal would poll at about 25-30%. Good luck with that.

The 1 year anniversary of the Trump victory was a bad day to discuss mashed potatoes around me. Just sayin.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Bannon sure can spot good political talent. Greatest political mind in generations.

Through his efforts he's given Dems an actual chance at winning a Senate seat in Alabama.

[Jeff Buchanan]

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

Heh .... really glad you quoted some of John Lott's "research." Most of the conclusions he comes to in support of his common meme, "everyone should have a gun" have been debunked for one reason or the other by scholars who actually know something about this issue. Lott is a well known gun zealot who writes anti-gun control books and regularly appears on conservative talk TV and radio to stir up the anti-gun control crowd. If that's all you got your in way over your head.

Look, gun control and all of its various aspects and implications is a difficult issue, IMO. The one thing I'll cede in it is that, for the most part, it's hard to draw reasonable conclusions about causality either way. The right tends to oversimplify the issue and reduce into simple slogans that while they resonate with the audience they are intended for they don't stand up to rigorous scrutiny. The left is in the same boat but on an opposite tack.

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.

That's nice. What does this have to do with the current discussion. To wit: Gun Free Zones are a liberals wet dream .... and ..... by extension ..... if someone had been armed and engaged the active shooter in any of the recent shooting (Texas and LV) lives would have been saved.

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.

What point? I think - no, I know - you were attempting to argue that arming more citizens will decrease mass shootings in so called gun free zones?

No, you haven't made that point when you cite debunked articles by John Lott supporting this argument or other articles (e.g., citizens with guns are more law abiding) that basically have no bearing on the point you were trying to make here in your original post.

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

I've already answered that question. It's not relevant to the current debate at hand that forced me to reluctantly comment on a debate that I know has no endpoint. I just thought your post was outrageous enough to respond.

[Kapture1]

I wonder if the Post's piece a month before the election is like the fake Trump accusers or if there is teeth to these accusations.



“These allegations are completely false and are a desperate political attack by the National Democrat Party and the Washington Post on this campaign,” Moore, now 70, said.

The campaign said in a subsequent statement that if the allegations were true they would have surfaced during his previous campaigns, adding “this garbage is the very definition of fake news.”




I mean a healthy bit of skepticism, the dems are known for paying for fake made up bullshit to smear their rivals.

[Kapture1]

Heh .... really glad you quoted some of John Lott's "research." Most of the conclusions he comes to in support of his common meme, "everyone should have a gun" have been debunked for one reason or the other by scholars who actually know something about this issue. Lott is a well known gun zealot who writes anti-gun control books and regularly appears on conservative talk TV and radio to stir up the anti-gun control crowd. If that's all you got your in way over your head.

Look, gun control and all of its various aspects and implications is a difficult issue, IMO. The one thing I'll cede in it is that, for the most part, it's hard to draw reasonable conclusions about causality either way. The right tends to oversimplify the issue and reduce into simple slogans that while they resonate with the audience they are intended for they don't stand up to rigorous scrutiny. The left is in the same boat but on an opposite tack.



That's nice. What does this have to do with the current discussion. To wit: Gun Free Zones are a liberals wet dream .... and ..... by extension ..... if someone had been armed and engaged the active shooter in any of the recent shooting (Texas and LV) lives would have been saved.



What point? I think - no, I know - you were attempting to argue that arming more citizens will decrease mass shootings in so called gun free zones?

No, you haven't made that point when you cite debunked articles by John Lott supporting this argument or other articles (e.g., citizens with guns are more law abiding) that basically have no bearing on the point you were trying to make here in your original post.



I've already answered that question. It's not relevant to the current debate at hand that forced me to reluctantly comment on a debate that I know has no endpoint. I just thought your post was outrageous enough to respond.

I mean the numbers that he uses are public record. Did you bother researching to see if he is correct before attaching the researcher?

Kelley had other loaded guns in his truck. It is unknown if he was going back to his truck to get another gun or to drive up the road to the church he passed when others were chasing him. What we know is clear is someone did engage him with a gun, and it stopped his rampage.

You have done shit to disprove or discredit or debunk the research that I posted. Because you can't. Because the numbers are public record, you yourself can look them up.


next time do better

[Jeff Buchanan]

...... A Buchanan-type proposal would poll at about 25-30%. Good luck with that.

Well, you did concede that what I proposed that started this discussion was reasonable...... but that you were prepared to defend the 2nd Amendment's provision of the right to bear arms, making my proposal a political non-starter, right?

I won't debate either the 2nd Amendment or the poll results of a proposal such as mine. I'd get hammered.

That does not mean that my idea is unreasonable or that, in the current context, that kapture's argument, arm more citizens to prevent mass shootings, is a good one. It definitely isn't.

But thanks for participating.

STFU and Fuck osu.

[Ghengis Jon]

I bash the NRA because they are drooling idiots just like the Rosie O'Donnell types. So long as you have one, the other is needed for balance. Doesn't change the fact they're both drooling idiots. Their mindless rhetoric needs to be zero sum. Or better yet, non-existent.

I do agree, NRA training and safety programs are very good - good enough to stand on their own without the froth mouthed rhetoric. But reason does not bring in members or contributions.

[THE_WIZARD_]

STFU

[Kapture1]

nor could they stand on their own without millions of member dues.

It's a civil rights organization. One of the oldest in the country. they don't take a dime of public money.

[The Oracle]

They take $$$ from corporations, just not to use in their PAC.

[SeattleLionsFan]

Jeff and Jon,
I appreciate your efforts but you cannot have an exchange of ideas with someone approaching the conversation in bad faith.