Reasonable Gun Restrictions by ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

Well, according to the tally I've been keeping so far-

You think police should have guns under special circumstances, other less lethal weapons under normal circumstances.

You do not think citizens should be able to qualify to match police armaments.

And you believe all weapons should be treated equally...

The sum of which would leave me with no ability under your preferred scheme to carry any weapon for my defense.

--Anthony

Hmm, I think you have added 1 = 1 and gotten to 7. or maybe I am not making myself clear.Or maybe I am being inconsistent. All of these are possible.

I really don't want people to be able to have 'easy' access to lethal weapons without restrictions or permits. I'd like there to be some fairly heavy restrictions on military style weapons and armaments in general. I see the need for police to sometimes use weapons and sometimes use some fairly heavy duty ones, but I'd prefer them not to be armed with guns on their regular beat.

I can't argue or debate exactly what sort of weapons should be legal, should be available by permit, and should be illegal because here is where my life kind of veers away from that path. I own no weapons that have been purpose built for killing and maiming. That is, I own knives and hammers and other equipment that could be used as weapons, but I have bought none for the purpose of self defence, or for that matter to prevent tyranny. I can't ever imagine a time when I will do so. So I will never own a 'purpose built' weapon as far as I can see. Unless my husband becomes an active member of Medievel Reenactments, and starts building trebuchets in the back garden;)

I hope you understand how this does not correlate with me calling for an absolute ban on anything, but that I am limited in my interest in the nitty gritty of what should or should not happen. And I guess that is really for you in the US to work out.

Hello,

It may be that your statements were not internally consistent. Now that I know you weren't trying to envision a specific weapons control system, I also know there was no reason for such consistency.

The nitty gritty has been very much on my mind, and I have been trying to envision a comprehensive weapons control system that might address the widely different concerns of people on all sides of the issue. Some system of compromise that might grant the the maximum number of people the maximum amount of satisfaction.

It's why I was willing to consider full firearms disarmament as an option. I asked myself, "Under what conditions might I feel comfortable giving up firearms altogether?" No small leap of imagination to someone who has enjoyed the use of firearms since adulthood.

But it may be folly, because asking someone who has never thought of owning a weapon what a reasonable system of weapons restrictions might be is perhaps like asking a blind man the color of a rainbow. (I don't presume who is the 'blind man' here because I've never lived in a world that felt so secure that the idea of owning a weapon was alien.)

Our worldviews may be so far apart that we can't even understand each other.

But god damnit if I haven't been trying.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2012 7:23 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Well I don't see you as making any compromises on your position

Hello,

I must not even be speaking English.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2012 8:13 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"It's why I was willing to consider full firearms disarmament as an option. I asked myself, "Under what conditions might I feel comfortable giving up firearms altogether?" No small leap of imagination to someone who has enjoyed the use of firearms since adulthood."

And while noble, it's not something anyone asked for or accepted, not even theoretically on a discussion board. I almost get the sense that you're compromising with what you THINK other people are asking, and not grasping what they're actually posting.

I'm curious if you could repeat to me what you think my major point was through this whole discussion.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2012 8:15 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
I'm curious if you could repeat to me what you think my major point was through this whole discussion.

Hello,

Your major point, as communicated to me, is that none of the stated purposes of firearms grant a boon to society that outweighs their terrible cost in human lives and suffering.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2012 8:34 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

And the related point is that if you can find a way to mitigate the destructiveness, then the guns aren't a problem. In other words, fix the real problem.

In the bird's eye view of things, what do you feel should have the most weight - the destructiveness of guns AS CURRENTLY STRUCTURED in terms of laws and attitudes, or the theoretical possibility they might possibly be used in rebellion.

ETA: this isn't a trap. This is me wanting to know what is most important TO YOU in this trade-off. You have made many arguments, so the one I'm going with is the one you keep returning to - that you personally would be powerless in the face of a government you felt had overstepped some essential barrier, unless you had a gun.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2012 8:59 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
And the related point is that if you can find a way to mitigate the destructiveness, then the guns aren't a problem. In other words, fix the real problem.

In the bird's eye view of things, what do you feel should have the most weight - the destructiveness of guns AS CURRENTLY STRUCTURED in terms of laws and attitudes, or the theoretical possibility they might possibly be used in rebellion.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

Hello,

I feel both arguments have weight, and should both be considered when finding a solution. Also, I feel the guns have value in making overt tyrannical expressions less likely- something I tried to convey in my Liberator comments.

I am perfectly willing to apply weight to your concerns, and to seek compromise on potential solutions.

I have not perceived the desire to acknowledge my concerns, much less allow for them in any potential compromise.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2012 9:19 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Well, I added an explanation above, FWIW.

Our families have gone through similar traumas - lives were forever disrupted by unwelcome historical changes. I think this had an effect on your upbringing - it was put to you to consider seriously that if you were in that situation, what would you personally be willing to do to stand up for what you believed in. As a matter of personal honor and integrity, what do you choose. But the terms given to you were I think very unrealistic, a dramatic/ heroic crossing a line - or not. They aren't terms I accept or agree with. Perhaps it's the lesson of being old - I find that there are things I truly deeply felt I would never do - or never allow - or would always do - that I look back on and realize were coming from a very limited perspective of very limited choices and limited thinking. There were more and better options than the ones I was deciding on.

So while I think I understand your position, and where it comes from, I don't agree that it's a vital choice in this society at this time. As SignyM pointed out, this large, varied amorphous society is not about to be taken over at the point of a gun. Taken over in other monetary and propagandist ways, yes, but not that way. I haven't ignored your question, and I've addressed the basis I see for its existence. But the question you pose is moot to me.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2012 9:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

It may be that your statements were not internally consistent. Now that I know you weren't trying to envision a specific weapons control system, I also know there was no reason for such consistency.

It feels consistent to me. But there is no need for me to become deeply involved in specifics other than a philosophy. There is no gun debate of any note where I live and I am not unhappy about the gun laws here. As it is a different culture and environment, it probably isn't even fitting for me to discuss what should happen in the US, but just to make observations about the type of society I would prefer.

Quote:
But it may be folly, because asking someone who has never thought of owning a weapon what a reasonable system of weapons restrictions might be is perhaps like asking a blind man the color of a rainbow. (I don't presume who is the 'blind man' here because I've never lived in a world that felt so secure that the idea of owning a weapon was alien.)

Our worldviews may be so far apart that we can't even understand each other.

But god damnit if I haven't been trying.

Well I think our weapons restrictions work for us here, but there would be no way in my lifetime that they would ever be considered in the US. So not much point referencing them as an option.

Our world views may be far apart, but there is merit in trying to understand each others POV. Without that understanding people have a tendancy to dehumanise the other.

i have read on these and other boards a lot about the reasoning of pro gun people, and have gained a sense of the history of the US and how that has contributed to that philosophy. I also understand that your family escaped from a country that you found tyrannical.

My world view has also been shaped by where i live. This country has had no significant armed conflict. That's not to say that some pretty dastardly things weren't done to the Indigenous people, or that our system of government was not involved in persecution or overseas military conflicts. But the freedoms that have been gained have always been through the democratic/legal processes accompanied by relatively little violence. If there have been injustices, they have generally been remedied by the justice system.

I don't know if where I live is safer than anywhere else. There is plenty of crime, killings, robbery, organised crime, thugs etc etc. Just not a lot of gun crime. I have to admit to not feeling particularly vulnerable, but I just don't put myself in risky situations any more. I have been burgarled several times (another house) but feel safe with my loudly barking, soft as shite dog. The only violence that I have personally experienced was at the hands of a former partner. The only reason I would imagine that places like the UK and US would be more violent than here is that they are larger, more complex societies.

I am at heart a pacifist, although I do see that sometimes defence is required. I would not feel comforted in having a well/highly armed population, any more that I felt comforted by the arms race (which was also just for defence if I remember rightly). Globally a build up in armaments preceded any major armed conflict, so weapons make me feel less safe than threatened.

I don't feel the same sense of reassurance that tyrannies can be overthrown by an armed population. When I think of revolutions, I generally think of bloodbaths, countless dead, and often a replacement systems of government that are often as bad if not worse than the tyranny that preceeded it. And at best, I see the wounds that pass on from generation to generation by violent conflict, even when it is over.

I am if you like a true believer in 'the pen is mightier than the sword' philosophy. I think what has built that which is great or good about the systems of governance that exist in the world are ideas, not weapons.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 2:07 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting that people will still commit suicide even without guns in every room? I'm sure you're correct, since suicide existed before guns did.

Are you suggesting guns should be available because they're such a nifty and effective suicide tool? Let's see...

I'm saying that guns shouldn't be outlawed simply because they can be a tool of suicide.

Quote:
Nope. That's not it. You say yourself that hanging would have been more effective for your uncle.

It sure would have... there's very little that can go wrong when you honestly want to hang yourself (although plenty can go wrong if you're not really committed and it's really just a cry for help). I think the fact that he ate a bullet spoke to his commitment. I just wish the execution had been a bit more successful, more so for the family members who were there to console him while he somehow managed to look around the hospital room with open eyes in his last few hours.

Quote:
And yet, more people hanged themselves in America than in Cuba (1056 for Cuba; 6642 for Team USA). And vastly more people blew their heads off with guns in America. Overall suicide rates per capita in both countries are within 1.3% of each other overall, though, with Cubans committing 1.3 suicides more per 100,000 people.

As hellish as we're told Cuba is, that number should be higher, shouldn't it?

Not necessarily Kwick. That's kind of an unfair generalization to Americans, but even more so to Cubans. Personally, I'm surprised that the Cuban per-capita rate is on par with Americans'. There is something to be said of a life of strife and hard work, when you look around and see that you're in good company. There's no middle class there. There are only the haves and the have-nots. That brings a boatload of solidarity to the table that you'd be hard pressed to find in America, even today. The Cubans have grown up fighting, and often times had very little to lose except for family. Sure, they never really have the opportunity to live the "good life" like a lot of people in America have, but I'm quite certain that your average Cuban's definition of the "good life" is quite a bit below the American Ideal that increasingly less Americans will ever realize going forward.

Honestly, I say look ahead to a future where American suicides rise well above Cuban suicides, and it won't matter if guns are outlawed or not.

Quote:
So in your uncle's case, was it national or spiritual pride to inflict a gunshot wound and lingering death on himself, or was it just using whatever was handy?

I know it had nothing to do with National pride, although I know he was a spiritual man even though he was a Catholic who didn't believe in organized religion, and never went to church. Yet, he did it anyway..... I really think he thought that God would forgive him that mortal sin because of the physical and emotional pain he was going through for years.

It definitely wasn't just "using whatever was handy" though. It was full out pre-meditated.

He had plastic tarps up all over the garage when my Grandma and Aunt came back from another weekend at their trailer park get away in the summer. He even waited for them to get home and helped them bring in the left over groceries and all of their other unpacking from the trip. Only then did he go out to the garage and unsuccessfully blow his brains out. My Aunt just happened to go out side and thought she had heard an animal in pain inside the garage and was mortified to see my Uncle in that condition.

Quote:
As noted, about 1.3 people per capita more than in the U.S.

How great has your life been up to this point, Jack?

Would a bullet to the brain be a more noble death than on overdose or jumping off a building?

Honestly, I've had my ups and downs. Between my parents divorce when I was 5 and my brother's brain hemorrhage when I was 10, and being one of 3 pawns in the middle of that garbage and having to deal with several abusive red-neck step-dad wanna be's growing up, I learned a lot about taking care of myself and my brothers.

My parents are two of the most neurotic people I know, and I know that unfortunate trait has rubbed off on me quite well, but I've also managed to acquire some of their best traits as well.

I'm more functional an adult than most people my age and many years my senior, even with my substance abuse issues. I have no police record whatsoever, although I have been a victim of a nasty stabbing, and, well... no need to rehash any of the other things you have already heard me say too often here.

I'm definitely not "happy" though. Content would be more the word. I want for nearly nothing, simply because I am a minimalist and have put myself in a position where my 875 bucks a month nets me a 150 dollar profit a month. It sure would be nice to be able to party once in a while and maybe even find the right girl, but I'm getting by for now.

Suicide ain't in my playbook though. I won't go as far as to say that there is NO way of committing suicide that isn't noble, but I'd be lying to you and myself if I tried to convince anyone that killing myself had a single thread of nobility attached.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." ~Shepherd Book

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 3:03 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Geezer

The study showing higher gun ownership rates with higher deaths and violence was done by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Unless you're claiming that Harvard is significantly biased, I don't think you have a point to make.

Aside from the point that direct observation of data on gun ownership and murder rates by state doesn't seem to support their conclusion. I'd like to see the actual report instead of an abstract with almost no data, but the only source I can find charges around $40 for a copy.

Quote:
Also, the study controlled for "resource deprivation, urbanization, aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, and alcohol consumption" all known to affect murder rate separately from gun ownership.

Which sounds impressive, but may just be double-speak for "they massaged the data to conform with their conclusions."

You might also "Follow the money".

David Hemenway, one of the authors of the study, has been granted a Senior Soros Justice Fellowship. http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=17530 Do I need to tell you George Soros' position on gun control?

But you can google for "study finds guns crime" and find that guns both increase and decrease crime, depending on who did the study.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 4:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
TROLL

"gun ownership"

The constitution says 'arms'.

That's because in the 18th century private ownership of cannon was perfectly legal. No restrictions and you can own anything you could pay for. Cannon was about the top step of arms at the time.

So, to take the discussion in a different direction, where do I buy my cannon?

It wasn't that long ago, 1968 in fact, that you could own a cannon up to 20mm in bore in the same way you could buy a .22 rifle. GCA 1968 changed that, making the new restriction .50 caliber. In order to own a 20mm, it requires a 200 dollar "destructive device" tax stamp. Plus a $200 tax stamp for any projectile with more than a quarter ounce of explosive in it. Solid rounds, such as ball or armor piercing, require no stamp.

Which is how the guy with the tank destroyer still has a functional 90mm cannon.

By they way, if you want one of those 18th or 19th century cannon, go ahead. They are black powder weapons and according to the BATFE, not "arms".

ETA: Along with that tax stamp, you also get the legal equivalent of a proctologic exam by BATFE. Then the state you live in repeats the process. And you have to get the chief law enforcement officer for the municipality or county you live in to sign off on the process. Some states prohibit, like Delaware, any NFA or DD (National Firearms Act or Destructive Device) ownership by citizens. But oddly, not corporations.

Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 4:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Ushomicidesbyweapon
.svg

Well, OK - I'll kick it off. This is the big negative about handguns. To my mind, anything or set of things which purports to be a reason to have handguns with the current level of restriction had better overcome this big negative.

I know the usual arguments - supposedly, handguns deter far more (unspecified) crimes than the number of murders they are used for. The figure I have read from the NRA is something like 10:1. But that supposes a baseline level of violence that would make this country about 10x more criminal than anywhere else on the planet. It also supposes that the prevention of a property crime is a justification for allowing the condition for murder. And in places with 'stand your ground' laws crime rates haven't gone down. If guns were such a good deterrent, you would see some effect.

I sum, I don't buy the argument on the numbers of potential crimes prevented, I don't buy the argument that incipient property crimes rationalize keeping a condition for murder, and I don't buy the claim that handguns reduce crime at all.

If you include suicides and accidental killings, and the number of people who are permanently maimed from handguns, the cost of medical care and policing, the negatives get significantly worse.

Some of the other positives are sport, collecting, and rebellion.

Sport in my framework is basically play. Collecting is a hobby. Rebellion is political.

I don't think we should consider play and hobbies to be valuable enough to outweigh the large numbers of murders. The potential for rebellion is up for discussion, but I can't think of any that were won with handguns.

Concluding, since the negatives outweigh the positives, following from that, we should reduce the number of handguns or improve the quality of guns owners, or both.

Kiki, the obvious flaw in your data is that if a gun deters a crime without use, i.e. merely brandishing the weapon causes the criminal to flee, does the attempted crime get reported? This is the same flaw that goes into calculating rape. Many rapes, perhaps the majority, go unreported.

A handgun is a weapon of convenience. Due to restricted case size and barrel length, the projectile cannot develop the same energy as a rifle or shotgun. This is why police carry handguns on duty. But when the shit has hit the fan, they go for a longarm. That same convenience also makes the handgun easy to conceal.

Why I carry a handgun;
A cop won't fit on my belt.
Criminals refuse to make appointments.
Carrying a rifle seems to make the neighbors restless.

From the conclusion you draw I take it you believe in mass punishment. You are asking all citizens (and resident aliens) to voluntarily give up a right because of the actions of a relative few. This is like asking everyone to give up their parental rights because another parent abused their child. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

I take it everyone agrees that criminals don't care what the law says. Making an action more illegal will absolutely not deter them from breaking that new law. If you can find a way to compel people to obey the laws then maybe your ideas will get some traction with me. Of course, if you find a way to compel people to obey laws you won't need new laws. Because every harm you can do with a gun is already illegal.

Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 4:36 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

I was blown away by the fact that in one month's time here I can conceal and carry....

This is not a right to show off your shit like in the movies.

This is simply walking around more confident around morons and knowing that you can put a quick end to an "argument" without cops being involved.

My only advice.....

Don't EVER show a gun that you don't intend to use.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." ~Shepherd Book

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 4:38 AM

Weird double tap.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 4:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Anthony

I find it more useful to focus on the very large numbers of deaths, disabilities, injuries and violence visited on citizens BY citizens first.

"In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19308; Homicide 11015; Accident 600."

"In 2008, the number of fatal and non-fatal gunshot wounds hit 110,215, the highest total during the nine-year period surveyed."

"Information collected regarding type of weapon showed that firearms were used in 67.1 percent of the Nation’s murders, 42.6 percent of robberies, and 20.9 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapons data are not collected for forcible rape.)"

This doesn't include intimidation or harassment.

This is massive non-governmental violence by anybody's measure.

31,513 fatalities works out to 0.0000954% of the population. Tragic, but hardly a motivating percentage. Compared to the 37,261 auto fatalities in 2008. Almost 6,000 more lives taken by those bloodthirsty killing machines. That's a whole 0.0001129% of the population. Truly a massive, non-governmental violent action.

Additionally, the figures for suicide can be removed from these statistics. Otherwise we'll need to outlaw rope, tall buildings, bridges, and drain cleaner. Homicides likewise occur from other causes, so it will be a never ending hunt until we all live in nice, safe, padded isolation rooms with no other human contact.

Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 6:18 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Additionally, the figures for suicide can be removed from these statistics.

Hello,

I agree that including suicides is ludicrous.

I also think figures like "gunshot wounds" are curious. Just ways to inflate figures.

But statistics on both sides are massaged and presented in a way to prove a point. It's hard to find a study on either side of the debate that hasn't been interpreted in such a way to highlight a political agenda.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 7:36 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

You seem to have disappeared Anthony. I'm not sure if you're at work or something else, or have given up in frustration. I could certainly understand the latter. First, I apologize for letting my frustration get the better of me. I think, just as with Kiki's post a while back, you took offense for good reason; frustration begets anger, and I was angry. Let's see if I can keep from getting so again, if you still want to communicate.

You said you're the only person willing to "adjust their initial position in any iota in order to find common ground with the other side". I believe I BEGAN from a point of compromise, accepting that guns will always be around, rather than even considering otherwise.

My frustration stems from the fact that I'm not debating the same things as you seem to be. I'm not debating GUN OWNERSHIP or the value of guns intrinsically, I'm debating where we might go from here to minimize the situation in America. Eliminating gun ownership is irrelevant, in my view, because it's all hypothetical. It's not going to happen, period. So I'm focusing on what steps could be taken in the real world, and it is from there that my frustration stems. You didn't respond to a number of my points, nor to my response to your replies. It FEELS like you keep going back to the question of whether guns should be owned, period--as Kiki said,

Quote:
I almost get the sense that you're compromising with what you THINK other people are asking, and not grasping what they're actually posting.

It is largely that which frustrates me; the discussion of what we COULD do got left behind a while ago.

Let's see if I can take it step by step.

My #1 should have been registration of all firearms, so let's just add that. I don't think you addressed that--at least not in the last couple of pages, so aside from fear of the government, is there any reason this is unacceptable to you? I see it as a deterrent in that, if done federally, it would enable the police to find out who is misusing their second amendment rights, as well as who has a record that should preclude them from owning a firearm, and to prosecute those who break gun laws.

Quote:
1. Demanding enforcement and prosecution of the existing laws. Make all prosecutions federal, so they have stiffer penalties and be on some kind of national database, so people can't get away with things state by state.

I believe you agreed to this somewhere, except I think you caveated this idea of a national database. I would like to hear again your argument against this...I seem to remember it again as being fear of the government.

Quote:
2. As above, background checks for private sales of ANY kind. Wouldn't stop criminals, but it would be one step which might slow things down. Any buyer AND seller found to have a gun that was purchased without same and/or without registration should be held accountable in some way. Might increase the difficulty of volume straw-man sales and illegal private sales.

You never addressed this, as far as I can tell.

Quote:
3. Limiting sales of any and all guns to one TYPE per person and only one gun AT A TIME. Would make it harder to buy guns in quantity...yes, there are ways around it; buy one kind of gun one time, another time, but would sure slow quantity purchases.

I clarified my point since it caused some confusion. My point was that there seems to me to be no need for people to have many guns of many different types. You find no problem with people "stockpiling" guns of all kinds. I see no reason for this. Again, leaving out the government, why do you believe this is acceptable?

Quote:
4. Any dealer found breaking the laws would get one strike, or two, or whatever, and then lose their license. Yes, they can open up under another name, but it would take effort to do it repeatedly and again, make getting around the laws more difficult.

You never addressed this.

Quote:
5. No ammunition sold over the internet, of any kind. I would add, proof of registration of a gun before ammo for that gun can be sold, but that's just me.

Your argument was that buying over the internet's "only effect is to make ammunition less expensive". I disagree. I believe it's major effect is to allow people to purchase high volumes of ammunition anonymously--it is only AFTER some kind of mass slaughter that investigations discover said purchase. Again, a way to limit the availability of such things, and I don't see the convenience of gun owners who regularly use a lot of ammunition as a viable point.

Quote:
6. Sales of those high-volume clips should be illegal; they do so much more harm when people go berserk, we could at least minimize the damage.

You responded

Quote:
Interesting here that the magazine is considered more dangerous than the gun, since you do advocate the legal acquisition of guns but want to outlaw the magazines entirely. What would constitute a 'high volume' magazine, and would you also restrict the constabulary similarly?

That mischaracterized my point, as nowhere did I say I considered the magazine more dangerous than the gun. I clearly stated my point. I think it is a viable argument; there is no reason I can think of why individuals need such things, especially when contrasted with the horrible things they have made possible.

Again you go back to limiting the police the same as limiting the population. I explained why I think the police should have an advantage over the populace; things which are outlawed are still obtainable, and regulations are regularly gotten around; to put the police up against potential criminals with a lot more firepower is illogical to me; in such a world the police would be severely handicapped--I believe that happened in L.A. once? The police have a job; to minimize damage to the populace. I believe they SHOULD have the advantage in the real world.

You stated

Quote:
I wonder what is inherently dangerous about people 'stockpiling' guns (presumably owning more than one or two?) and why we feel the need to target this.

I don't understand why you don't see the danger in this. There has already been mention of the fact that those who own guns are more apt to use them, for one thing. But the larger point, to me, is that people who stockpile weapons do so for no other reason than to kill other people, often as a precursor to creating civil unrest (i.e., starting what they believe is a "revolution"). Then we get down to the point which was debated as to whether people like this have the right to revolt againsta government of which they disapprove, if the general populace does not WANT a revolution. There are numerous instances of stockpiles of weapons being discovered in groups which might well have turned violent at one time or another. What reason do you see why stockpiling of weapons should be permitted? Again, the only argument I can think of goes back to fear of the government. I'd like to know if you have any other reason to believe as you do.

I should clarify that by "stockpiling" I mean many guns, not just one or two. My husband has about five; most he acquired from his son when he got out of his "rage" phase, one is his father's old rifle and I think he has a couple of handguns. I don't consider that "stockpiling".

As I explained in my response, I have no desire to limit people beyond what I believe is reasonable, I'd just like to minimize the ability of large straw purchases and buying magazines with high volumes of ammunition (particularly over the internet); that's mostly all I think we can do--aside from enforcing the existing laws (if only!) and registering guns. Accepting that people have the right to own any kind of gun or multiple guns for private use (which I have stated I do not), I would just like to minimize the ability of people being able to do that that guy did in the theater, or the number of guns going to Mexico. All I can think of is to make it more difficult; I see no other way to deal with the problem.

In other words, I gave ground in the very first place, and in many places by attempting to weight the rights of "sport" or "hobby" or whatever gun owners against the things that allow mass slaughter. ALL my suggestions "gave ground" in that respect in that they accepted the basic right, and beyond. I didn't find your arguments persuasive, but we never continued that aspect of the discussion.

Now, the most frustrating part to me personally is that your major (it seems) reason for believing everyone should be allowed to own any kind and number of guns is that of armed insurrection. We can't seem to get past that and to me it is not a valid point in America, nor will it ever be.

You seem to feel that the authorities have no more right to guns than individuals. I made the argument that the police, by virtue of their occupation, are held more to account than individuals; they are USUALLY seriously investigated when they use their firearms at all, to ascertain whether it was an acceptable use or not. They have few if any "rights" where that is concerned. The public, on the other hand, has to be identified, captured and tried before they can be held to account, which means most of them (in my opinion) are not. Even when tried in a court, many "get off" by legal trickery, legal restrictions on what can be used at trial, and other things. Because of that, and the fact that the police in America come up against guns on a regular basis, I believe they should have the right to carry guns while the average American should have restrictions that in some ways MIGHT limit their ability to slaughter others.

Those are the two points upon which I feel you have attempted no compromise; that people should prepare themselves for the coming revolution (which I don't believe will come and, even if it does, do not believe private ownership of guns will do any good, or that a revolution is in the best interest of the American people as a whole and more than likely would go against THEIR "rights").

Quote:
I've never lived in a world that felt so secure that the idea of owning a weapon was alien.

That's where most of my frustration lies. I haven't seen you give any quarter to even the idea that anticipating insurrection in America might not be logical. It frustrates me that you can't get beyond that and compromise on that. I understand your feelings come from your background, but it seems you are unable to make the leap from a country where that happened to a country where it will never happen.

The second being that you seem to insist that the police have no edge when it comes to weapons, which I see as a fallacy, for the reasons stated above.

You stated my characterization of you treats you like garbage. That was certainly not my intent and again, I apologize that I let my frustration out on you. I found some of your arguments specious, such as the ability to obtain high-volume magazines. I also feel that your responses have shown some of your own frustration, and it felt to me like you were being snide with remarks such as my supposedly finding the magazine more dangerous than the gun.

But do you disagree that "you dismiss any infringement on the rights of anyone to have as many guns as they want"? That is the impression I have gotten throughout, and that is what I meant by not being willing to consider any middle ground. You misinterpreted a number of my points, and argue against concepts of curtailment, as I see it.

I've been attempting to debate the issue on the concept of coming up with ways to mitigate the possibility of both mass slaughter, straw-man sales and guns going to Mexico. The original question was gun restrictions, and you stated "you're suggesting some kind of reasonable restrictions. What are they? I'll be glad to discuss them with you in the 'Reasonable Gun Restrictions' thread". That's the point I have been debating, not the ownership of guns.

My question is the same as Kiki's, and for the same reason:

Quote:
what do you feel should have the most weight - the destructiveness of guns AS CURRENTLY STRUCTURED in terms of laws and attitudes, or the theoretical possibility they might possibly be used in rebellion...... You have made many arguments, so the one I'm going with is the one you keep returning to - that you personally would be powerless in the face of a government you felt had overstepped some essential barrier, unless you had a gun.

Quote:
But the terms given to you were I think very unrealistic, a dramatic/ heroic crossing a line - or not. They aren't terms I accept or agree with.... So while I think I understand your position, and where it comes from, I don't agree that it's a vital choice in this society at this time.

And Magons'

Quote:
I don't feel the same sense of reassurance that tyrannies can be overthrown by an armed population. When I think of revolutions, I generally think of bloodbaths, countless dead, and often a replacement systems of government that are often as bad if not worse than the tyranny that preceeded it. And at best, I see the wounds that pass on from generation to generation by violent conflict, even when it is over.

So perhaps that is one of the frustrations, or maybe the major one, upon which people feel you haven't compromised. It certainly is for me; at the very base of your argument seems to be the concept that people should have the right to own any and as many types of weapons as they like; and again and again that has come back to two things: The rights of gun owners to enjoy their guns, and insurrection.

I also disagree with

Quote:
I also think figures like "gunshot wounds" are curious. Just ways to inflate figures.

There we go beyond the idea of killing. Gunshot wounds are traumatic; to dismiss them as one aspect of the problems with gun ownership is I believe a fallacy. People who have merely been intimidated at the barrel of a gun, or suffered merely "wounds" (in some cases wounds which have changed their lives forever, as some have in the recent massacre), have had their rights abused and usually carry away fear of further intimidation or harm. That, to me, counts against the guns and are among the aspects not dealt with here when weighing what you described:

Quote:
I have been trying to envision a comprehensive weapons control system that might address the widely different concerns of people on all sides of the issue. Some system of compromise that might grant the the maximum number of people the maximum amount of satisfaction.

In my mind, "satisfaction" doesn't come into it so much as "rights". The rights of people to own a deadly weapon which might cause harm, emotionally, physically or deadly, versus the rights of people who want to pursue a "hobby", which in essence, unless used for criminal purposes, is what gun ownership IS. I don't believe ownership and use of a deadly weapon trumps the myriad ways that hobby infringes on others. Leaving out insurrection, which to me is irrelevant, that for me is the crux of the argument.

I do not find "self-protection" a valid argument, either. MOST people who own guns for self-protection, in reality, only get a false sense of security from same. MOST people, I believe, don't know how to use a firearm well enough that it would actually provide protection, and the fact is that there are far more deaths and injuries (and psychological harm) from household guns, as Kiki said, than have provided actual self-protection. An armed criminal is far more adept at the use of a gun, and in America I believe the majority of crime involves criminals who carry guns, so I don't believe having a gun "levels" the playing field in the majority of cases. That aside, it in no way addresses stockpiling guns, owning many guns, having easy access to high-volume magazines, or any of the other points made. So going from the basic premise that people will own guns, for whatever reason, what are the arguments in favor of those things?

That's my effort to get back on track and to more clearly elucidate my side of the debate; if you would care to try communicating further, I will do my best to keep my frustration in check. I hope you do, as I find the debate to be an important one. Sorry this is so long; debates I feel are important, I try to address point by point and as clearly as I can.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 7:57 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll:

31,513 fatalities works out to 0.0000954% of the population. Tragic, but hardly a motivating percentage. Compared to the 37,261 auto fatalities in 2008. Almost 6,000 more lives taken by those bloodthirsty killing machines. That's a whole 0.0001129% of the population. Truly a massive, non-governmental violent action.

Yet automobiles are quite highly regulated in this country, are they not? Licenses, registration, titles, insurance requirements...

Was the point you were trying to make the one where guns kill almost as many people in this country as automobiles do, so maybe they should be just as strictly regulated?

Quote:

Additionally, the figures for suicide can be removed from these statistics. Otherwise we'll need to outlaw rope, tall buildings, bridges, and drain cleaner. Homicides likewise occur from other causes, so it will be a never ending hunt until we all live in nice, safe, padded isolation rooms with no other human contact.

Okay, I'll stipulate that we can remove suicides from these statistics, if you'll further stipulate that we can remove self-defense from the reasons to carry a gun. After all, you can easily defend yourself WITHOUT a gun, and many, many, many people have done so in human history.

Deal?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 9:13 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I'd like to offer something I just now read which I think is pertinent. I think David Frum puts it quite well, even if you dislike him as a source.

Quote:
Do guns make us safer?

It's an article of faith among many gun owners that yes they do.

Last week, I presented in this space some evidence of the dangers of gun ownership: the elevated risks of accident and suicide in households that own guns. I pointed to a paradox: More Americans support gun rights, even as fewer Americans own guns. I explained this paradox with data that suggested many Americans hold false ideas about the prevalence of crime -- and wrongly look to gun ownership for self-defense.

Over the following seven days, I heard from many angry gun-rights supporters.

They argued that gun ownership is necessary for self-protection. They narrated stories of how their guns had saved them or their loved ones in armed confrontations.

And of course that must sometimes be true. The question is: How often is it true? And how do the benefits of widespread gun ownership compare with the measurable harms in higher rates of accident, suicide and crime?

Government figures from the National Survey of Criminal Victimization suggest 100,000 uses a year of guns in self-defense against crime, the vast majority of these uses being the display of weapons to deter or dissuade. {By the way, I will grant you the efficacy of guns displayed as a deterrent, against someone with no gun; I forgot that last time}

There are some problems with these government numbers, beginning with the fact that they are based on data from the early 1990s, when crime rates were much higher than they are today. The number of criminal attempts has declined 30% to 40% since then, and one would expect the number of occasions for self-defense to decline correspondingly.

For gun advocates, however, the main problem with the government estimate is that it is not nearly high enough to support their case that private gun ownership is the best way to stop crime. Many of them prefer another statistic, this from a study published in 1995 arguing that Americans use guns in self-defense some 2.5 million times a year, or once every 13 seconds. A Google search finds more than 1 million citations of this study posted online.

You can read the study at http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html.

The trouble is that this claim of 2.5 million defensive gun uses is manifestly flawed and misleading.

Let's review the ways:

1) Even if you think the 2.5 million statistic was correct at the time it was computed, it must be obsolete today, for the same reason that the victimization survey data is obsolete. The 1995 study that generated the figure of 2.5 million defensive gun uses was based upon data collected when crime rates were vastly higher than they are today. Some of the data was collected in 1981, near the very peak of the post-Vietnam War crime wave. It's just incredible on its face that defensive gun use would remain fixed at one level even as criminal attempts tumbled by one-third to one-half.

2) When we hear the phrase "defensive gun use," we're inclined to imagine a gun owner producing a weapon to defend himself or herself against bodily threat. Not so fast. The authors of the 1995 study aggregated 13 prior polls of gun users, most of which did not define what was meant by "use." As the authors of the 1995 aggregation study themselves ruefully acknowledged: "The lack of such detail raises the possibility that the guns were not actually 'used' in any meaningful way. Instead, (respondents) might be remembering occasions on which they merely carried a gun for protection 'just in case' or investigated a suspicious noise in their backyard, only to find nothing." In other words, even if the figure of 2.5 million defensive gun uses had been correct at some point back in the early 1990s or early 1980s, the vast majority of those "uses" may be householders picking up a shotgun before checking out the noises in the garage made by raccoons rooting through the trash.

3) The figure of 2.5 million defensive gun uses is supposed to represent the number of such uses per year. Yet none of the studies aggregated in the 1995 paper measured annual use. Most asked some version of the question, "Have you ever?" Two asked instead, "Have you within the past five years?" The authors of the 1995 study took those latter two surveys, multiplied the rate in the survey by the number of U.S. households, then divided by five to produce an annual figure.

But people's memories of fixed periods of time are highly unreliable. It's not very likely that many respondents thought, "Today it's August 1990. I do remember scaring off a prowler in June 1984. But that was more than five years ago, so the answer to the question is 'No.' Not within the past five years."

More likely they thought, "I'll never forget the night I warned off a prowler with my shotgun. That was scary. Man, I'm glad I had my gun ready. When was that anyway? Three years ago? Four? I don't remember exactly, but the answer to the question is 'Yes.' "

4) Meanwhile, over in the world of hard numbers, the FBI counted an average of 213 justified firearm homicides per year over the period 2005-2010. If the figure of 2.5 million defensive gun uses were any way close to accurate, it would imply that brandishing a gun in self-defense led to a fatality only 0.00852% of the time. That seems almost miraculously low.

5) Underneath all these statistical problems is a larger conceptual problem. When we hear "defensive gun use," we're invited to think of a law-abiding citizen confronting a criminal aggressor. Yet crime does not always present itself so neatly. The vast majority of homicides take place between intimates, not strangers. Assaults, too, are often an acquaintance crime. When guns are produced by two parties to a confrontation, one party may deter the other. Yet it may be seriously misleading to designate one of these persons as a "criminal" and the other as a "law-abiding citizen." Perhaps when we hear "defensive gun use," we should not imagine a householder confronting a prowler. Perhaps we should think of two acquaintances, both with some criminal history, getting into a drunken fight, both producing guns, one ending up dead or wounded, the other ending up as a "DGU" statistic -- but both of them entangled in a scenario that would have produced only injuries if neither had carried a gun.

To be clear: I'm not disputing that guns sometimes save lives. They must. I'm certainly not disputing that the Constitution secures the right of individual gun ownership. It does. I'm questioning the claim that widespread gun ownership makes America a safer place. The research supporting that claim is pretty weak -- and is contradicted above all by the plain fact that most other advanced countries have many fewer guns and also many fewer crimes and criminals.

Should you own a gun? In some few cases, the answer to that question of wisdom is probably yes.

But most of the time, gun owners are frightening themselves irrationally. They have conjured in their own imaginations a much more terrifying environment than genuinely exists -- and they are living a fantasy about the security their guns will bestow. And to the extent that they are right -- to the extent that the American environment is indeed more dangerous than the Australian or Canadian or German or French environment -- the dangers gun owners face are traceable to the prevalence of the very guns from which they so tragically mistakenly expect to gain safety. http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/frum-guns-safer/index.html?hpt=h
p_t1

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 9:24 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
First, I apologize for letting my frustration get the better of me.

Hello,

Apology accepted.

Quote:
I'm not debating GUN OWNERSHIP or the value of guns intrinsically

If you scroll way upthread, you'll see that someone did take the value of guns, point by point, and debate that value.

Quote:
I believe I BEGAN from a point of compromise, accepting that guns will always be around, rather than even considering otherwise.

Your beginning opinion was ALWAYS that people should be allowed to have guns, since you claim not to be an abolitionist. You have said for months and maybe even years that "Nobody is saying you can't have guns" (not true, but I presume it was true of you.) So starting from the position you held before the debate started is not a compromise nor does it represent movement. It's an accurate representation of your initial position. I began from a position of tanks and cannons and was prepared to imagine scenarios ranging all the way to no firearms whatsoever. I have never belittled a concern from the opposition or refused to consider it when trying for compromise.

Quote:
Let's see if I can take it step by step.

That sounds good. I like tackling bulletpoints because I can focus tightly on one subject at a time.

*******************

Quote:
My #1 should have been registration of all firearms

Quote:
I think you caveated this idea of a national database. I would like to hear again your argument against this...I seem to remember it again as being fear of the government.

All right. On the subject of Registration of all firearms. I have a concern that the government would break faith with lawful citizens if they had such a list. This is not hypothetical. I want you to acknowledge that the government DID use lists of firearm owners to seize weapons from the homes of lawful citizens in the 21st century in America. They did this under a gun-happy Republican administration. So you will hopefully be able to stretch your imagination to the point of considering my concern a valid one.

I would concede to registration of all firearms if two seperate and additional laws were passed.

1) A law stating that the list of all registered firearm owners could only be accessed with a court order specifying either the firarm or person to be researched, and solely for the purpose of investigating a crime involving a firearm.

2) A law stating that if the first law is overturned or overruled, the list shall be destroyed and any use of the list thereafter shall be considered a violation of civil liberties.

This matter was connected to:

Quote:
Demanding enforcement and prosecution of the existing laws.

Which seems like a darn good idea to me.

*********************

Quote:
As above, background checks for private sales of ANY kind.

Quote:
You never addressed this, as far as I can tell.

Not only did I agree that it was a good idea, I expressed my wish that I could access such a system right now. My only concern was the government having access to all gun ownership records, which I already dealt with above.

**********************

Quote:
I clarified my point since it caused some confusion. My point was that there seems to me to be no need for people to have many guns of many different types. You find no problem with people "stockpiling" guns of all kinds. I see no reason for this. Again, leaving out the government, why do you believe this is acceptable?

I enjoy lawful use of a variety of firearms for sporting purposes and recreation. There is absolutely no reason to limit the amount or type of firearms I own, most especially if you can track them to me in the event of a crime (as discussed above.) This feels very much like a 'just because' rule. I do not elect to submit to laws that are 'just because.' I often hear, "I don't see the need for it" but thankfully we do not create laws to restrict things just because "We don't see the need for it." A lawful citizen, especially in a world with universal registration, should be allowed to own however many guns pleases him.

************************

Quote:
Any dealer found breaking the laws would get one strike, or two, or whatever, and then lose their license.

Not only is this common sense, but I believed it to already be the case.

*************************

Quote:
Your argument was that buying over the internet's "only effect is to make ammunition less expensive". I disagree. I believe it's major effect is to allow people to purchase high volumes of ammunition anonymously--it is only AFTER some kind of mass slaughter that investigations discover said purchase.

This statement of concern is not internally consistent. You claim (incorrectly, to my mind) that bulk ammo can be purchased online anonymously. (I have NEVER been able to do this, by the way.) Then you say that such purchases are discovered after a mass slaughter. (Which would be impossible to discover if the purchase was anonymous.) If you want ammunition purchases to not be anonymous, then say so. But don't screw people out of a convenience and a bargain for no reason. The last time I bought bulk ammo online, they required a copy of my Driver's License, a credit card, and a shipping address that could not be a P.O. Box. It didn't feel very anonymous to me.

***************************

Quote:
I should clarify that by "stockpiling" I mean many guns, not just one or two.

I see you returned to the stockpiling argument later on in your post. Well, what *do* you mean by stockpiling? You seem to think owning five guns is okay. So a survivalist camp of 20 people with 100 guns in it would be okay. I'm not sure what you're aiming for.

I am also disturbed that we are talking about militia groups and survivalists as though they are a primary threat. Of all the gun violence we are so deeply concerned about, how much has been attributed to such groups? On the few instances when it happens, it gets a lot of press. But it happens exceedingly infrequently. These are not the droids you're looking for.

*****************************

Quote:
Sales of those high-volume clips should be illegal; they do so much more harm when people go berserk, we could at least minimize the damage.

Before I get into this, let me ask... what is a high-volume clip? What is the threshold upon which a clip is high volume?

******************************

Quote:
Again you go back to limiting the police the same as limiting the population. I explained why I think the police should have an advantage over the populace; things which are outlawed are still obtainable, and regulations are regularly gotten around; to put the police up against potential criminals with a lot more firepower is illogical to me; in such a world the police would be severely handicapped--I believe that happened in L.A. once? The police have a job; to minimize damage to the populace. I believe they SHOULD have the advantage in the real world.

You may do well to consider the L.A. robbery and how it turned out. Surprisingly well for the police, considering they were trying to take down well armed and armored targets. The FBI did much LESS well in Florida.

In fact, if there had been weapons parity between the constabulary and the citizenry, the police would have fared BETTER. The police were going into gun shops and trying to get rifles that could penetrate the armor of the subjects. (A good hunting rifle will do it for most armor.) The police were armed LESS WELL than they should have been. They were BELOW PARITY. And they still succeeded in stopping the crooks.

It's not superior firepower that makes police effective. It's superior training and coordination. There are countless cases where the Police's reliance on superior firepower and inferior training or precautions have resulted in unnecessary loss of life and harm to noncombatants.

But I'll make it simple. Any threat a policeman can be expected to face is one that I can be expected to face FIRST. That's how it works. The criminal is harming me, I call the police, and they respond. Usually, I (the citizen) am the first contact with the criminal, not the police. So why shouldn't the police and I be allowed to have the same weapons?

Most especially if I am willing to complete equivelant training and background checks, why shouldn't I have the same weapons?

Quote:
I made the argument that the police, by virtue of their occupation, are held more to account than individuals; they are USUALLY seriously investigated when they use their firearms at all, to ascertain whether it was an acceptable use or not.

Individuals are usually just as strenuously investigated when they use their firearms. They are asked all the same questions. But police are not usually convicted of crimes when they misuse their weapons. More often, they simply lose their jobs.

****************************

Quote:
and again that has come back to two things: The rights of gun owners to enjoy their guns, and insurrection.

Perhaps more appropriately, "The rights of gun owners to enjoy their guns, and defense."

Defense against an individual criminal and defense against a tyrannical government are different only in scale. In both cases you are protecting your rights from someone who would strip them away. Both individual criminals and criminal governments can attempt to disarm me, but the government has proven that they have the capability of doing so efficiently and on a large scale.

******************************

Quote:
There we go beyond the idea of killing. Gunshot wounds are traumatic; to dismiss them as one aspect of the problems with gun ownership is I believe a fallacy. People who have merely been intimidated at the barrel of a gun, or suffered merely "wounds" (in some cases wounds which have changed their lives forever, as some have in the recent massacre), have had their rights abused and usually carry away fear of further intimidation or harm.

Perhaps you misunderstand me. I do not diminish the traumatic nature of wounds. I question the validity of wounds as a valuable metric. What do they mean when they tally up the number of 'wounds' sustained? Is this different than the number of wounded persons? Can 1000 people be wounded 10,000 times? If I stab you seventeen times, then does the wound tally for knives come to 17? And if so, then when I present a wound tally of 17, am I giving the reader the false impression that 17 people were wounded by knives, when there was really just one attack? Also, if you cut your own throat out of despair for your life, is that a 'wound' statistic? If you slit both wrists, is that two wounds? When I said I found the wound statistic curious, I meant I had doubts about its pertinence because it seemed it could be misleading.

********************************

Quote:
versus the rights of people who want to pursue a "hobby", which in essence, unless used for criminal purposes, is what gun ownership IS.

You seem to neglect defense. Whether against the tyrant you believe to be a myth, or against the criminal who would do you harm.

********************************

Quote:
An armed criminal is far more adept at the use of a gun

I have not observed this to be the case. What an aggressor has is initiative. But skill is another matter.

*********************************

Quote:
So going from the basic premise that people will own guns, for whatever reason, what are the arguments in favor of those things?

I have outlined this rather exhaustively already. I won't bore you with repetition. Besides, to quote yourself:

Quote:
I'm not debating GUN OWNERSHIP or the value of guns intrinsically

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And now to address something of Mike's...

Quote:
Okay, I'll stipulate that we can remove suicides from these statistics, if you'll further stipulate that we can remove self-defense from the reasons to carry a gun.

A dubious equivelancy. I would prefer that people do not commit suicide, but I do believe that people belong to themselves. I would no more 'blame' guns for suicides than I would blame medical tools for abortions. These equivelancies ARE very valid, as the justification for legal abortion is the same for suicide. To whit: A person owns their own body, and can do with it as they please. Gun violence and suicide are unrelated. To include suicide in gun violence statistics is to approach the topic from an invalid perspective.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 11:12 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I shouldn't be doing this, I've been on WAY too long, it's after 1:00 and I haven't even had breakfast yet. But not only is the issue important to me, YOU are important to me, so I will make this my last post for now and try to keep it brief:

Quote:
I want you to acknowledge that the government DID use lists of firearm owners to seize weapons from the homes of lawful citizens in the 21st century in America.

Please give me details, as I never knew of this happening to people I would consider lawful citizens.

Quote:
1) A law stating that the list of all registered firearm owners could only be accessed with a court order specifying either the firarm or person to be researched, and solely for the purpose of investigating a crime involving a firearm.

2) A law stating that if the first law is overturned or overruled, the list shall be destroyed and any use of the list thereafter shall be considered a violation of civil liberties.

Sounds fine to me.

Quote:
" As above, background checks for private sales of ANY kind." Not only did I agree that it was a good idea, I expressed my wish that I could access such a system right now. My only concern was the government having access to all gun ownership records, which I already dealt with above.

I didn't see where you agreed with this; it wasn't in your reply to me so I might have missed it.

Quote:
I enjoy lawful use of a variety of firearms for sporting purposes and recreation. There is absolutely no reason to limit the amount or type of firearms I own.

I disagree. Unless there is some way the database mentioned connects how many guns someone owns, there is no way to be aware of the stockpiling of guns or to flag straw buyers--my reason for disagreeing with have been enumerated.

Quote:
You claim (incorrectly, to my mind) that bulk ammo can be purchased online anonymously.

Much can be gotten around on the internet, easier than presenting a driver's license with a photo ID to a dealer. And no, investigations can discover that ammo was bought anonymously over the internet JUST as happened--they found the receipt.

Quote:
If you want ammunition purchases to not be anonymous, then say so.

I did, essentially by saying if sold over the internet it would be anonymous. I'm sure you know that things done over the internet are much easier to fake than in person; we can go into that if you insist, but I'd rather not take the time.

Quote:
I see you returned to the stockpiling argument later on in your post. Well, what *do* you mean by stockpiling? You seem to think owning five guns is okay. So a survivalist camp of 20 people with 100 guns in it would be okay. I'm not sure what you're aiming for.

I am also disturbed that we are talking about militia groups and survivalists as though they are a primary threat. Of all the gun violence we are so deeply concerned about, how much has been attributed to such groups? On the few instances when it happens, it gets a lot of press. But it happens exceedingly infrequently. These are not the droids you're looking for.

What I mean by stockpiling is exactly what you described. Tho' I don't like it, in reality it's not that bad that ONE PERSON hss numerous guns, but a group of people collectively amassing the equivalent of five guns each, that's stockpiling in my opinion. Why do you mischaracterize me as saying militia groups, etc., are a "primary threat"? They are ONE threat--the infrequency doesn't matter to me; those they use the weapons against have had their rights taken away from them, period. Again, I'm suggesting MINIMIZING the problems which exist. They exist.

The snark at the end was unnecessary. I've agreed to try and post with respect; can I ask the same in response, please?

Quote:
what is a high-volume clip? What is the threshold upon which a clip is high volume?

You asked this before, and I replied that I don't know enough about guns to make a specific determination. But I'll take the time to look it up.

I found this, which is interesting, if true:

Quote:
Why are high-capacity ammo magazines readily available on the open market in America, despite having been banned in 1994?

.....ammunition magazines with which a shooter can rattle off more than 30 bullets in rapid succession. http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-01-11/news/27087057_1_ammo-bullet
s-in-rapid-succession-federal-assault-weapons-ban

If the first is true, I didn't know that; as for the second, that would be sufficient for me to answer your question.

Quote:
Any threat a policeman can be expected to face is one that I can be expected to face FIRST. That's how it works. The criminal is harming me, I call the police, and they respond. Usually, I (the citizen) am the first contact with the criminal, not the police. So why shouldn't the police and I be allowed to have the same weapons?

I can't debate that statement because it doesn't make any sense to me. I will agree to disagree that, as far as I'm concerned, parity between police and citizenry is a bad thing; for you, it is a good thing.

Quote:
Individuals are usually just as strenuously investigated when they use their firearms. They are asked all the same questions. But police are not usually convicted of crimes when they misuse their weapons. More often, they simply lose their jobs.

Twice I stated that individuals, when they commit crimes, first have to be found, then arrested, then convicted in a court of law before they can be held to account, while the police are investigated every time they discharge a weapon.

Although I recognize your use of the word "usually", police don't always "just" lose their jobs for abuse of their weapons, that's not always true. The Katrina Five for just one example. And that fear hangs over policemen every time they discharge their guns.

The fact that the L.A. robbery turned out right is irrelevant, in my opinion. If the criminals had not been so armed, it would have been much simpler and less destructive, and cops wouldn't have HAD to go into gun shops, etc. Now "In fact, if there had been weapons parity between the constabulary and the citizenry, the police would have fared BETTER" is disingenuous, as your argument is that the police should have had weapons "as good as" the criminals, which is the opposite of my point that the police should have better weapons. Parity means prolonged battle with much damage and possibly death, superiority (and yes, training, etc., is obviously vital) makes for a shorter battle and less damage. That's my point.

As to defense, the article I posted makes the argument for me, in part. I've made my own argument against "self-defense" being a valid point when it comes to guns in my other posts.

As to wounds, again your argument is, to me, specious. Obviously I'm talking about one person's wounds being counted as one, or at least it should be obvious as I'm trying to be fair and reasonable. I'm beginning to get the feeling you are not. I'm not arguing about counts of deaths, wounds, emotional damage, etc., I'm saying they exist and, in my opinion, outweigh the right to own as many guns as someone might want.

Quote:
You seem to neglect defense. Whether against the tyrant you believe to be a myth, or against the criminal who would do you harm.

Given I have rejected both, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't fully reject defense, but I don't believe it is as strong an argument as pro-gun people do. Again I refer you to the above article.

Quote:
I have not observed this to be the case.

That's what you have OBSERVED. The idea that someone has a gun for self-defense, wakes up in the middle of the night at a sound, grabs their gun and is effective against an armed intruder leaves an awful lot open to the imagination. The idea that a woman carries a pistol in her purse, is grabbed from behind by a rapist, and the gun precluded the crime is the same. The idea that someone gets into their car, an armed criminal sticks a gun in their face, and they are able to get the gun out of their glove compartment and stop them, again. The picture of a shop owner being ANYWHERE in their store except behind the counter, is confronted with an armed criminal and able to stop the crime, again. And on and on. I never denied that a gun could be useful for self-defense, merely that I don't believe it's AS useful as pro-gun people maintain. I also believe that an awful lot of people who buy a gun for protection don't get trained and would be at a serious disadvantage against a gang member or criminal who is familiar with and comfortable with their weapon. And lastly, I again refer you to the article above.

Oh, good, I got to the end. You've debated many points, but most are about gun ownership, which I never contested. We both believe in some restrictions, and that the major problem with restrictions is that they're not instituted properly currently. At least we came to some agreement about a national database. Let's let it go at that and agree to disagree on some points regarding the right to have guns versus the harm they cause the public (which is merely a debate about a hypothetical, since the right to own guns will never change), the efficacy of the self-defense argument, whether the police should have superiority and, as always, the concept of revolution, which I notice you never addressed as it pertains to yourself. I assume that wall still stands intact and your mind will never be changed, which brings us full circle to my major frustration, which you never debated and which IS my main point. Does this mean that you will never consider the possibility that the government won't do--whatever it is you think they'll do for which you believe you need guns from which to defend yourself? I assume it does.

I'm also saddened by your tone, which feels angry to me. I've been proud to count you as a friend and have long respected you, with the caveat of the times I've run up against your various walls. I'd hate to think I've lost that friendship...over guns of all things...but if so, so be it. We both feel strongly about this issue, and my whole thrust has been to try and come up with things which would minimize the harm guns do to our society, which at present I believe FAR outweighs the rights of people to own as many, and as many types of, guns as they please.

Okay, I gotta go eat. I'll check back tomorrow.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 11:27 AM

Quote:
Your beginning opinion was ALWAYS that people should be allowed to have guns, since you claim not to be an abolitionist.

I find it fascinating that you keep saying this, Anthony. It really demonstrates that you believe that false statements are intentionally being made. You've said it to me a number of times and now to niki.

Its a shame that you never felt the need to respond to my post. I honestly believe that trying to understand people's underlying philosophies rather than a blow by blow tally of what should be legal/not legal would be more useful. I wonder if you have had the time to read it, or whether you just don't bother to try and understand.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 11:48 AM

The article you posted really says what I believe, Niki. These discussions, especially with Anthony have made me wonder just how dangerous a place America really is, especially when he expresses astonishment that not arming yourself for defence purposes could actually be an option.

I'd be interested in hearing actually how dangerous people find their environment.

For the record, I've led a pretty adventurous life. I've travelled solo, hitchhiked, been through Asian and European countries (only been to the US once briefly - on my to do list folks), lived alone.....

These are the incidents in my lives that have felt vaguely threatening -

We had what could technically be involved a home invasion when I was a kid, that is a couple of people entered my home (door was unlocked at the time). They took some cash and left. My brother, incidently an Aikido blackbelt and possessor of anumber of wooden swords heard them but we were all so befuddled that it took us about 15 minutes to work out what the hell was going on, by that time they had gone.

I did feel occasionally nervous hitching solo, but I did notice that people could be mischevious in winding you up. You'd often get men saying 'aren't you nervous taking this risk, I could be a murderer/rapist/lunatic' to which I would reply 'don't you get nervous taking this risk, I could have a knife in my bag'.

I was burgarled about 3 times in one home I lived in. Everytime the insurance came in, they'd clean me out again. They did it when I wasn't home, but it made me feel terribly unsafe. I moved, it was a rental anyway. There was a bit of history to the house, which I won't go into, but I could have invested in a decent security system and that is it.

Travelling around Europe in my 20's, I did keep hairspray in my bag if I went out at night (to use like mace). Never had to use it.

Former partner used to take out his frustrations on me when he got angry. That relationship is no more. If there had been a gun on premises I'd probably be dead or serving a prison sentence, rather than just moving on. I wish the guy no harm, just hope he sorts out his issues.

Currently live in a house with very little security, except for a dog. More worried about the impact of extreme weather than someone doing me or mine harm.

Would probably choose to not travel public trasport at night these days.

What about you all?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 11:52 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Your beginning opinion was ALWAYS that people should be allowed to have guns, since you claim not to be an abolitionist.

I find it fascinating that you keep saying this, Anthony. It really demonstrates that you believe that false statements are intentionally being made. You've said it to me a number of times and now to niki.

Hello Magons,

I want to address this first, because it is brief and simple to do.

Niki said that she BEGAN with the COMPROMISE of the idea that guns would be available.

And I pointed out that such a position could not be considered a COMPROMISE unless her original position was 'no guns.'

i.e. No movement or compromise actually exists in this starting position if she is not an abolitionist.

I am pointing out an inconsistency of two statements. One of these two statements MUST be untrue (though perhaps unintentionally.) Either conceding the idea of owning guns is a compromise, and the initial position was abolition, or the idea of owning guns is NOT a compromise, and was he initial position anyway.

I am not trying to be insulting nor to call anyone a liar, but the two statements are not compatible. Only one can be true.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 11:55 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Its a shame that you never felt the need to respond to my post. I honestly believe that trying to understand people's underlying philosophies rather than a blow by blow tally of what should be legal/not legal would be more useful. I wonder if you have had the time to read it, or whether you just don't bother to try and understand.

Hello,

I hope to respond to these broader philisophical questions soon. I have to budget time, and the issue of finding mutually agreeable compromises to actual gun control policy has been my primary goal here.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 12:16 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

http://intellectual-thoughts.com/Hurrican%20Katrina%20Gun%20Confiscati
o.htm

Hello Niki,

On the subject of the government breaking faith with law-abiding gun owners in the 21st century, this essay is instructive.

I suspect once you begin reading it, it will begin to sound familiar.

More responses to follow.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 12:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

Hello Magons,

I want to address this first, because it is brief and simple to do.

Niki said that she BEGAN with the COMPROMISE of the idea that guns would be available.

And I pointed out that such a position could not be considered a COMPROMISE unless her original position was 'no guns.'

i.e. No movement or compromise actually exists in this starting position if she is not an abolitionist.

I am pointing out an inconsistency of two statements. One of these two statements MUST be untrue (though perhaps unintentionally.) Either conceding the idea of owning guns is a compromise, and the initial position was abolition, or the idea of owning guns is NOT a compromise, and was he initial position anyway.

I am not trying to be insulting nor to call anyone a liar, but the two statements are not compatible. Only one can be true.

--Anthony

Sounds like you are playing semantics here, because as far as I can see she has never advocated no guns, nor have I, not has anyone that I can see. And yet you have made that statement or similar a number of times.

I seem to remember that Niki has guns on her property.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 12:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Quote:
Its a shame that you never felt the need to respond to my post. I honestly believe that trying to understand people's underlying philosophies rather than a blow by blow tally of what should be legal/not legal would be more useful. I wonder if you have had the time to read it, or whether you just don't bother to try and understand.

Hello,

I hope to respond to these broader philisophical questions soon. I have to budget time, and the issue of finding mutually agreeable compromises to actual gun control policy has been my primary goal here.

--Anthony

ok. please excuse me if I don't enter the discussion for awhile. I have work committments for a couple of days that will prevent me from responding.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 12:36 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Niki,

Quote:
I disagree. Unless there is some way the database mentioned connects how many guns someone owns, there is no way to be aware of the stockpiling of guns or to flag straw buyers--my reason for disagreeing with have been enumerated.

Straw buyers could be easily identified when several of their weapons, not reported as stolen, wind up at crime scenes and in the hands of criminals. The existence of a gun-related crime would allow the database to be researched on court order. It would be found that the 'owner' of the gun was supposed to be in possession of dozens or hundreds of firearms. The owner would be unable to produce the firearms or explain what had happened to them and how they happened to wind up in the possession of criminals. They could not claim face-to-face unrecorded sales because of the universal gun registration and background check requirement. The straw buyer would be easily convicted and go to jail. If straw buying is a felony, they would never again be able to purchase a weapon legally.

I still don't share your concern about stockpiling, and I haven't been able to precisely nail down what you would consider stockpiling.

Quote:
in reality it's not that bad that ONE PERSON hss numerous guns, but a group of people collectively amassing the equivalent of five guns each, that's stockpiling in my opinion.

So are you saying you wish to limit the number of firearms able to be stored at a physical address, and not merely the amount owned by an individual? Would you allow an exception for gun collectors? Would they be allowed a special license to own more than... I still don't know the proposed number. Five? Guns?

More responses to follow.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 12:37 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Quote:
Its a shame that you never felt the need to respond to my post. I honestly believe that trying to understand people's underlying philosophies rather than a blow by blow tally of what should be legal/not legal would be more useful. I wonder if you have had the time to read it, or whether you just don't bother to try and understand.

Hello,

I hope to respond to these broader philisophical questions soon. I have to budget time, and the issue of finding mutually agreeable compromises to actual gun control policy has been my primary goal here.

--Anthony

ok. please excuse me if I don't enter the discussion for awhile. I have work committments for a couple of days that will prevent me from responding.

Hello,

I hope your time away is pleasant and fruitful.

Till we talk again,

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 12:40 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

Hello Magons,

I want to address this first, because it is brief and simple to do.

Niki said that she BEGAN with the COMPROMISE of the idea that guns would be available.

And I pointed out that such a position could not be considered a COMPROMISE unless her original position was 'no guns.'

i.e. No movement or compromise actually exists in this starting position if she is not an abolitionist.

I am pointing out an inconsistency of two statements. One of these two statements MUST be untrue (though perhaps unintentionally.) Either conceding the idea of owning guns is a compromise, and the initial position was abolition, or the idea of owning guns is NOT a compromise, and was he initial position anyway.

I am not trying to be insulting nor to call anyone a liar, but the two statements are not compatible. Only one can be true.

--Anthony

Sounds like you are playing semantics here, because as far as I can see she has never advocated no guns, nor have I, not has anyone that I can see. And yet you have made that statement or similar a number of times.

I seem to remember that Niki has guns on her property.

Hello,

I'm not trying to argue semeantics. I'm trying to argue that Niki's claim of an opening compromise was incorrect. Her opening position was her native position. She was trying to show that her opening position was a compromise, and that's simply not the case. Not according to her earlier statements. (And I know her mate has or had a firearm, further suggesting that allowing for gun ownership is not a compromised position.)

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 12:45 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Niki,

Quote:
Much can be gotten around on the internet, easier than presenting a driver's license with a photo ID to a dealer. And no, investigations can discover that ammo was bought anonymously over the internet JUST as happened--they found the receipt.

They found a receipt for goods bought anonymously over the internet?

I am curious as to how he made this purchase without identifying himself. Do you know?

I can't even buy a book from Amazon without identifying myself.

More responses to follow.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 12:52 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Obviously I'm talking about one person's wounds being counted as one, or at least it should be obvious as I'm trying to be fair and reasonable.

Hello Niki,

Perhaps I was not clear. If a report says that there were 110,000 gunshot wounds in a particular year, I do not find that metric useful by itself. This is not about your personal veracity, it is about the usefulness of a metric. (Please try to keep in mind that metrics have been creatively massaged for a variety of purposes both by the anti and pro gun lobbies.)

There was a metric upthread about gunshot wounds used earlier, and I found the metric suspicious because it talked about gunshot wounds and not gunshot victims. If the metric was described accurately (wounds, not victims of gunshot wounds) then it becomes highly subject to manipulation to create a false impression.

More responses to follow.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 1:01 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Why are high-capacity ammo magazines readily available on the open market in America, despite having been banned in 1994?

Hello,

The assault weapons ban from the Clinton era, which expired during Bush Jr's. administration, limited magazines to 10 rounds. It was one of the few objective and logically derived parts of the law, on the premise that a mass-murderer would have to change magazines more often when gunning down a crowd of people. Large magazines already manufactured were grandfathered in rather than confiscated. This caused the remaining supply of high capacity magazines to become quite valuable on resale.

I would find such a limit agreeable if the constabulary was similarly limited. It might be more suitable for the constables if the limit was set at 15 or 16 rounds instead of 10, as many of their service weapons are designed for 15 round magazines. The logic for limiting the constables could follow the logic for limiting the public if we assume there is no good reason for a law abiding individual to be spraying 90 rounds of ammunition during a self defense situation.

More responses to follow.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 1:37 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
I also believe that an awful lot of people who buy a gun for protection don't get trained and would be at a serious disadvantage against a gang member or criminal who is familiar with and comfortable with their weapon. And lastly, I again refer you to the article above.

Hello Niki,

There are a lot of criminals who buy a gun for crime and don't get trained. I do believe that if someone buys a gun, they should familiarize themselves with it and be able to use it proficiently. I was raised to do so, and the shooters I associate with have a similar philosophy.

Quote:
Does this mean that you will never consider the possibility that the government won't do--whatever it is you think they'll do for which you believe you need guns from which to defend yourself?

I need to emphasize something.

In the panic of an emergency, I expect my proficiency levels to drop. I expect to be fumble-fingered to some degree. I expect to be slow to move. I expect that if I ever have to shoot at a person, I will do so with reduced accuracy and timing. I will probably hesitate to some degree and second-guess myself. In short, I expect to be a mess.

I expect this despite a lifetime of practice with my firearms because I am a realist. A shooting-range target does not represent a contest for survival. There is no rush of adrenaline, no dump of fear, no hurry to respond and no doubt about your target. Some people seem to be born killers. I doubt very much I am one such person. I know that people like Wulfenstar have fantasies about heroically gunning down intruders or rising up against liberal overseers.

That's not me. If I ever have to fire a gun at a human being, I expect it will be the very worst, most terrible thing that could ever happen to me.

More importantly, I don't expect it to ever happen to me.

I don't expect to have to shoot a criminal. Ever. I don't expect to rise up in rebellion against a tyrannical government. Even if I needed to do either of these things, there's a very good chance I'd fail, no matter what impressive arsenal was at my disposal. There's even a chance I'd decide that things weren't bad enough for that kind of response, even if they seemed very bad. I'm no hero. These possibilities scare me half to death.

There's an old 'hammer/nail' argument that says if I have a gun, it will begin to seem like the solution to all of my problems. For me, using a gun isn't forefront in my mind as a solution to any problem. For me, a gun is like the flotation device under my seat on a commercial aeroplane. I could probably fly for a hundred years and not get into a crash. If I got into a crash, I'd probably be dead. If I survived the crash, I'd probably be injured and maimed to such a degree that I'd be unconscious. If I was conscious, I'd probably be so burdened with stark raving terror that I'd forget about the flotation device entirely. A crash is a thin possibility. Me being able to use a flotation device is a tiny sliver of a possibility cut out of that already thin possibility.

I still want the chance. I want that one chance in a thousand to save my skin or the skins of my neighbors. I don't go around assuming that I'm going to be accosted or fight a rebellion. If I believed either was likely, I'd be a nervous wreck. I also don't go around thinking that if these things happen, I will definitely rise to the occasion. Chances are, I won't. But I do believe in giving myself that thin chance to respond to a threat if I can manage it.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 2:00 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Magons,

Thank you for sharing your experiences.

You already know about my family's experiences with Cuba, and doubtless these experiences color my

As a child, I had some small encounters with pedophiles that I won't delve into right now.

As a youth, in middle school, I was bullied a great deal. Got my face smashed in a lot. The only relevance of this is that I could not rely on the authorities to intervene. They never intervened. I presume schools are held more accountable for preventing violence and bullying nowadays.

Once I grew tall and broad, bullying ceased to be a problem. This reveals much about bullies.

Throughout the rest of my life, there was only one time I actually felt that having a gun prevented a violent incident. It was after my neighbor threatened to kill my wife and shot at her. He was arrested and then released on bail. I never knew what evidence allowed the authorities to prosecute him. I can only imagine that some witness in the neighborhood corroborated the story, because there were no authorities present at the time, and it was very much a he-said/she-said situation. Perhaps he was still drunk when the authorities questioned him, and he managed to implicate himself.

In any event, it was many weeks before his conviction was complete and he was no longer a threat. This was the only time in my entire life that I carried a gun on my person in open carry. I carried it 100% of the time and it was even within reach when I showered. On the few occasions after the initial incident when my neighbor talked at me over the fence, I always spoke to him in a respectful fashion despite the fact that I was very upset at his threat to murder my wife. I did not want a confrontation. I never want a confrontation. No further confrontation ever happened.

You can class this as one of those claimed 'uses of a gun in defense' that really ISN'T a use of a gun in defense because the man didn't try to shoot me. You could also rightfully point out that HE was a lunatic with a gun, and that's part of the problem gun control is meant to address. Both would be valid points. My own opinion is that the man was a bully who went into rages when he got to drinking, and the only reason my wife and I are here today is because bullies don't enjoy the prospect of a fair fight.

Before my wife and I got married, she had to cope with a former lover who was violent with her.

I have never had to actively employ any weapon in my defense. I find it ironic that my singular encounter with violence was not a career criminal but some lousy drunk next door. I hope to live the rest of my life without ever shooting anything but paper and aluminum cans.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 4:05 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

This'll be short; I just came back from icing foot and putting it up, gotta get back to that asap. Wanna make notes for a few minutes, then I'll post this later.

Anthony, no, they're not incompatible, you just don't get my initial position. I DON'T want people to have guns, I think it's extremely deleterious to our nation. But I'm a realist; I accept that's not possible, so before we even start I make the concession that we can't even consider that. And I go from there. When I say I don't want to take away people's guns, or that nobody wants complete prohibition, I'm speaking from that place. If things were different in America and it were possible, I'd love to see guns go away. I don't live in a fantasy world.

Does that clarify it for you? Simply put: I'd like no guns around; I recognize that ain't ever gonna happen; so starting right off I compromise and deal with what we CAN do. Ergo the statement that nobody wants to take away your guns (actually, it never occurred to me that anyone was stupid enough to want to!).

Hooo kay, I'm starting to get frustrated. Your post which starts out responding to the quote "I disagree". I have no problem with the first half; it seems to me thought out and a good place to start (by start I DON'T mean go from there to taking away firearms, I mean start as in one of the good ideas to deal with the situation as it is these days). Just to be clear.

Yes, Magons, as I mentioned, my husband has about five guns...three from his son, from the days Jeff was, well, never mind...his dad's old rifle and a handgun or two. In today's America, I have no particular problem with that, tho' I want nothing to do with them.

The second half, however...can we just agree to disagree on stockpiling? This feels like debating a lawyer (something I've been accused of myself); I don't want to dive into how many guns, how many people, how many guns per person, etc., etc. You know what I mean; hell, it's even got its own definition under "stockpile":

Quote:
3. a quantity, as of munitions or weapons, accumulated for possible future use.

I really don't want to go back and forth whether that means five, or ten, or fifty, etc. I think you know to what I am referring.

Quote:
They found a receipt for goods bought anonymously over the internet?

I didn't say that. I don't know how one would purchase ammo anonymously over the internet, that's not my area of expertise. But I have no doubt it can be done, and no, I'm not going to detail HOW, if someone else wants to, fine, but I said they found the receipt, not that he tried to or was successful buying anonymously. Why should he? It's legal, he could buy as much as he wanted. Under other circumstances, there would be a reason to make the effort to be anonymous; it is that to which I referred.

As to wounds, I believe you asked me a question regarding that, didn't you? Ah, yes, I found it:

Quote:
If I stab you seventeen times, then does the wound tally for knives come to 17? And if so, then when I present a wound tally of 17, am I giving the reader the false impression that 17 people were wounded by knives, when there was really just one attack? Also, if you cut your own throat out of despair for your life, is that a 'wound' statistic? If you slit both wrists, is that two wounds?

I answered the questions put to me.

Quote:
The logic for limiting the constables could follow the logic for limiting the public if we assume there is no good reason for a law abiding individual to be spraying 90 rounds of ammunition during a self defense situation.

I can easily imagine a scenario where one policeman might be going up against more than one criminal and being able to spray munitions haphazardly in hopes of hitting as many of his attackers as possible was a good thing. But I'm not going to get into nitpicking any more than I already have; I ALREADY agreed to disagree that police should in my opinion have the advantage over the public.

Quote:
There are a lot of criminals who buy a gun for crime and don't get trained.

There are probably more criminals who are comfortable with guns--particularly among gangs--and are pretty adept at using them, as well as being awake, less frightened than the victim, have expectation of the possibility of dealing with someone with a gun...ach, why bother. I agree to disagree that, in my opinion, a homeowner with a gun could quite possibly not find a gun viable for self-defense, DEPENDING ON THE SITUATION.

I'm really sorry you went through that incident, it must have been horrific for your wife, having him around after that! And yes, that is one instance where I would agree having a weapon was effective defense. Apparently you weren't there? Because you said maybe he was drunk when the authorities questioned him, so you didn't know? At any rate, as far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't have leapt to "the only reason my wife and I are here today is because bullies don't enjoy the prospect of a fair fight". Bullies are bullies and he sounds like a real asshole. We've got one next door; luckily his first wife left him within six months of both of us buying our homes, he's always taken out his ugliness on his second wife (a real doll Jo and I tried unsuccessfully to get to protect herself and leave him). Drugs when he was younger, alcohol to this day, only violence to her. Even that's stopped now, and no more cop cars at night with him calling them on her, her calling them on him. She made some threat, I forget what it was, and he hasn't touched her since. The point of this is that he's a bully too, but I don't immediately leap where you do. I can't know the circumstances, maybe you're right, but I think if that were any kind of common case, neighbors would be murdering neighbors at a MUCH higher rate!

Enuff...back to the recliner.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 5:03 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Apparently you weren't there? Because you said maybe he was drunk when the authorities questioned him, so you didn't know?

Hello,

You probably don't know this, because you've never been in the situation. When one person complains that a second person threatened to kill them, the police make a point of interviewing the parties separately and making sure they do not interact with one another. This reduces tension and distraction during the question and answer session, and makes the chance of incident smaller.

I never saw the man while he was being questioned by the police, but I've always tried to imagine what on earth he did to incriminate himself, or who might have witnessed against him. One of my guesses is that he was still drunk and said the wrong thing to the authorities. Perhaps some bravado threat or justification for his actions. He certainly had enough to shout about it to me after it happened, so I can only imagine his demeanor with them.

I should also say that when this happened, my wife did not call the authorities right away. I came home to find her cowering in the bedroom with the dogs. I'm the one who called the authorities after the incident had already occurred. There were no witnesses I could identify to the action. I didn't see it happen myself. In retrospect, that may have been for the best.

It was a bad time all around and a difficult time for her.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 5:06 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Here ya go Geezer - knock yourself out.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=guns+united+states+ownership+crime
+&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C5

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 5:18 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
This'll be short; I just came back from icing foot and putting it up, gotta get back to that asap. Wanna make notes for a few minutes, then I'll post this later.

Anthony, no, they're not incompatible, you just don't get my initial position. I DON'T want people to have guns, I think it's extremely deleterious to our nation. But I'm a realist; I accept that's not possible, so before we even start I make the concession that we can't even consider that. And I go from there. When I say I don't want to take away people's guns, or that nobody wants complete prohibition, I'm speaking from that place. If things were different in America and it were possible, I'd love to see guns go away. I don't live in a fantasy world.

Does that clarify it for you? Simply put: I'd like no guns around; I recognize that ain't ever gonna happen; so starting right off I compromise and deal with what we CAN do. Ergo the statement that nobody wants to take away your guns (actually, it never occurred to me that anyone was stupid enough to want to!).

Hello Niki,

I trust you see the nature of my confusion. You explain here that you do want all the guns to go away. You are of the position that abolition is an unreachable ideal. You just don't think you can make it happen in a practical world.

Until now it was never clear that your initial position was 'no guns' but you were willing to 'compromise' because of the limitations of 'reality.'

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 5:23 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Just dissociate and pretend its a Batman movie or Joss Whedon TV show:

Lalalalalalalala!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I look forward to the pending congrssional bill and UN treaty to ban all semiautos and mail order ammo. The Libtard Commies will be the first to die by the Jew World Odor Police State, since that's what always happens when the commies take over, and the "conservatives" like Rsuh Limbo and SCOTUS Scalia who support these bans will be be the first to go when the ZioNazis take over (2 heads o nthe same monster). Enjoy your cops dressed as Dark Knight shooters sticking their hands in your childrens' and wives' pants.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 5:28 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

TROLL

"Kiki, the obvious flaw in your data is that if a gun deters a crime without use, i.e. merely brandishing the weapon causes the criminal to flee, does the attempted crime get reported?"

But if there were no guns then the crime rate would be 10x what it is now according to the NRA. That crime rate figure is literally not believable. So the claimed rate of crime prevention is not believable is not believable either.

"You are asking all citizens (and resident aliens) to voluntarily give up a right because of the actions of a relative few. "

Sigh. Find for me where I advocated getting rid of all guns. Take your time.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 5:28 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
There are probably more criminals who are comfortable with guns--particularly among gangs--and are pretty adept at using them, as well as being awake, less frightened than the victim, have expectation of the possibility of dealing with someone with a gun...ach, why bother. I agree to disagree that, in my opinion, a homeowner with a gun could quite possibly not find a gun viable for self-defense, DEPENDING ON THE SITUATION.

Hello,

Well, isn't everything dependent on the situation? Isn't a type B fire extinguisher only useful in certain circumstances, whereas in other circumstances it is an inadequate or inappropriate response?

But again we are proceeding from very different assumptions. At least we *almost* came up with a system for registration, except that you wanted to use the list to limit the number of weapons to an unidentified number per person or per address. While I only wanted to use it to investigate gun related crime.

Some of this felt to me like the porn debate. "I can't tell you what a stockpile is, but I'll know it when I see it." I guess we'll assume that if we ever sat down to write legislation, we'd eventually identify some criteria that was mutually satisfactory. I like to think that would be possible.

We did agree on background checks for person to person sales, with caveats on record usage by the authority.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 5:34 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Pirate,

I see that appealing to you as a reasonable human being is ineffective. You have rendered yet another page of this thread not safe for work.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 5:35 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Ahem - TROLL, your math is wrong. It's not 0.0000954% it's 100x higher than that. Try again.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 5:42 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Ahem - TROLL, your math is wrong. It's not 0.0000954% it's 100x higher than that. Try again.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

Hello,

For reference purposes, I'll post the actual figure so nobody has to figure it out.

0.0000954% x 100 =

.00954%

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 5:43 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

AnthonyT

"I agree that including suicides is ludicrous."

Why? It turns out that when guns are available, suicide rates go up. The availability encourages the suicide.

"I also think figures like "gunshot wounds" are curious. Just ways to inflate figures.

But statistics on both sides are massaged and presented in a way to prove a point. It's hard to find a study on either side of the debate that hasn't been interpreted in such a way to highlight a political agenda."

They're not that hard to find. The CDC keeps figures, and there have been all sorts of respectable independent studies done on the topic. Here’s the google scholar link I posted for Geezer, there should be more than enough solid data to satisfy you.

But if you start complaining about the lack of data, or start posting figures without references, I WILL point it out.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=guns+united+states+ownership+crime
+&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C5

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 6:01 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:

Why? It turns out that when guns are available, suicide rates go up. The availability encourages the suicide.

Hello,

You write as though there are people who weren't suicidal, but they saw a gun and said, "Hey, I have an idea..."

In reality, there are probably people who are suicidal but may lack a reliable and low-pain method for self-termination. A gun is relatively reliable in this regard if you manage to point it correctly, and a good choice except for the mess it leaves behind.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2012 6:16 PM