First: That war is already over, the lobbyist won it for the gun manufacturers.  Can we just move on now?

Second:  You will find hundreds of papers on almost every subject at any school; you have to write them to graduate.  All of these papers will contain references and will have differing opinions.

Third:  I love a study which has opinions on the reference material right there in the footnotes, I know it's somewhat common but it's still cheesy.

Fourth:  Every good CPA know that if you torture the numbers long enough they'll tell you anything you want to hear.

Fifth:  The right-wing conservatives have loudly denounced Harvard as a law school since Barack Obama graduated from that institution.

Last edited by Emmeran (2013-08-28 18:38:41)

Are they getting paid by the margin size?

Those who beat their swords into plows will plow for those who don't.

Em wrote:

why does my neighbor need an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine?

Apparently to protect you and his other neighbors according to the conclusions in this study.

Emmeran wrote:

and like most gun owners he doesn't maintain it properly and it will probably malfunction immediately.  I'll take my dogs and my shotgun thank you very much, if I need to reach out and touch someone the bolt action 30.06 will do just fine - why spray bullets when you can just shoot accurately?  Yes, I do use iron sights.

Oh and my shotgun load out?  Beanbag, beanbag, birdshot, buckshot, buckshot, slug.  Don't come poking around my house unannounced.

Em.  I believe you would be classified as armed for purposes of this study.

XregnaR wrote:

Have y'all read the BS executive orders they are touting today?  1st "disallows felons from using corporations or trusts to bypass background checks".  Well, the only guns being bought via corporations & trusts are class 3 objects, the vast majority of which are not actually guns, but suppressors.  And guess what?  Even if you want to file the ATF paperwork as a trust, you still have complete a background check to take actual possession of the object.  So felons CAN't use this "loophole" to buy jack shit.  The ONLY benefit of doing the transaction via trust/corp is to bypass the Chief LEO signature required for an individual purchase.  Some CLEOs flat out refuse, or require "campaign contributions" before they will cooperate.

What really pisses me off is that they imply that felons actually do this, rather than hitting up Paco Pistolero for an AK-47 and a nickel bag for a 10th the price a "legal" class 3 would cost.

The second bans re-import of weapons exported by the US to foreign entities.  Guns that civilians already can't legally own.

Same old shit, too many fucking laws creating too many loopholes creating more fucking laws.

And yes Phreddy, I am heavily armed; however I am also highly trained and fully licensed.  Hell even the NRA considers me a member now because they run the local training.  However the training only focused on side-arms and not long guns of any sort.  So I had to sit through an hour of what to buy to clean a fucking pistol which I will never own but didn't hear word one about shotguns.

Currently I'm debating between a muzzle-loader or a bow for the upcoming deer season, my only fear is that the cost and effort required to get this house straightened out for winter will preclude any hunting trips.

I've got three boys & two lady's that need training and safety refreshers are always good for every single shooter including myself; complacency is the greatest killer of all.  The good news is we have a local outdoor pistol and rifle range so we can actually put rounds down range in a safe environment.  They also have a stocked trout pond for fly fishing, sadly it's catch and release only.

I have a feeling there will be some boys getting rifles or shotguns this year for Christmas (although I know they are hoping for new Xboxes).

It's funny with this stuff, see when I lived in base housing or the barracks I had to store all of my weapons at the base armory; I was also required to clean them weekly.  After being in that environment for so long to hear these complaints makes me laugh.

While you all can get all high and mighty and full of legal and moral justification for either side of the argument, I just think it all comes down to actuarial tables. When some percentage of the population is armed, it's more expensive to be a criminal.

If you wrote life insurance contracts for muggers, which country would you want to write more contracts in, one in which every single person is unarmed or one in which even 1% was? Or to look at it from the muggers point of view, if every time you went to work there was a 1% chance of getting shot, wouldn't you reconsider that fast food job offer?

I'm going with TP here, from my experience muggers and robbers don't usually think things through very thoroughly which is why they end up in jail.  However as most murders are committed by persons of close/familial association the threat to a stable society lie more with "self defense" weapons than weapons of aggression.

Besides the average person experiences armed aggression in 0.00% of their lifetime, robbers and muggers are simply more fear mongering by mass media and corporate interests.  The shit just doesn't happen to the vast majority, you have a better chance of hitting the lottery or being struck by lightening than experiencing armed aggression.  Frankly if it has happened to you then you should probably consider relocating or changing your lifestyle.

More weapons craziness:

Shit.
I not sure if I trust Jarheads with weapons.

Woo-Hoo! Arm them all.

Emmeran wrote:

GooberMcNutly wrote:

But keep blaming the victim if it makes you feel better. Do you also tell rape victims that it's their fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time or having the wrong lifestyle too?

Oh and Goob - playing the victim card is pretty much like playing the Nazi card, it's an admission that your argument just doesn't hold water.  The numbers speak for themselves, the vast majority of gun deaths in America are self-inflicted or committed by a close relation (either family or friend).

Again - the second amendment, read it in it's entirety and don't try to apply only a section of it.  Either you support it or you don't, you don't get to parse it.

I still stand by my statement that you are blaming the victim. I'm sure all of the people who have been carjacked, mugged or shot wished they could just "... consider relocating or changing your lifestyle.". That should make them all feel much better. And if violent crime was so rare, then it isn't a problem, is it?

And I'm perfectly capable of standing by the whole text of the 2nd amendment, as long as I'm reading it in the context of the common vernacular of the time period in which it was written and I use further clarifications of the very people that wrote it. But I'm not dragging all that shit out again, it's easy enough to find.

Even if there were no 2nd amendment it would come down to a simple question: Do you agree that a person has a civil right to self defense?

Em wrote:

Mr. Martin had the absolute civil right to defend himself against an unknown assailant who was stalking him on a dark and stormy night while he was walking in a space which he had every right to be in - which part of that is unclear?

"Mr. Martin" was wandering around at night in a neighborhood where he did not live.  He was spotted by the neighborhood watch and watched.  He attacked the neighborhood watchman and beat the crap out of him.  Where in this scenario, which is the only one we know is factual and not based on speculation, does he find himself on the defensive?  Had Zimmerman not killed him, he would have been arrested on assault charges.

MSG Tripps wrote:

I don't recall ever turning my own neighborhood security over to any unofficial watch.  So what the fuck.

Probably because every criminal within ten miles knows a crazy vet lives on that street and he could go off and pop you before you could even hit one of his trip wires.

Paul, why don't you and Em start a collection to put up a bronze statue of Trayvon Martin.  He was such an inspiration to our youth.  But, I am done arguing with the two of you about something 12 intelligent people who knew the facts have already decided.

MSG Tripps wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Probably because every criminal within ten miles knows a crazy vet lives on that street and he could go off and pop you before you could even hit one of his trip wires.

I'm a bit over 60 years old.  I still have no need for non tax dollar supported protection.  Why would anyone?

Look Dahl, there is a one in three hundred trillion chance you will be attacked by an angry mob of 175 transgender clowns at any moment, they will probably all arrive in the same small sedan.  You should have personal protection, this shit happens all of the time.  It's kind of insulting to the armament industry that you aren't afraid yet.  Also, don't forget about the zombie apocalypse - haven't you seen Shaun of the Dead?

From the perspective of a person being beaten, how would you know that the person kicking your ass isn't going to deliberately or accidentally kill or maim you? 

There is no moral or legal requirement for a person being attacked to only respond in kind.  If you are being attacked, you fight back with everything you have.  If you have superior force, you use it.  If all you have is your fucking teeth, you bite and bite hard enough to take chunks!  If all you have is your fists, you use them, and fight dirty if you have to!  If you have a bottle, you use it!  If you have a stick, you use it!  If you have a knife, you use it!  If you have a gun, you use it!  You're life is on the line! 

A single punch to the head can kill.  Google "killed by a punch" and you can find dozens of recorded instances of it happening. 

Zimmerman inappropriately following Martin did not give Martin a free pass at assaulting him.  As soon as Martin attacked Zimmerman he exposed himself to whatever force his victim could bring to bear.

The only way you could make the argument that Zimmerman murdered Martin is if he started the fight by throwing the first punch.  Then Martin's kicking his ass would be considered a failed attempt at self defense.  The evidence was very compelling that Martin started the actual physical altercation.

Emmeran wrote:

Look Dahl, there is a one in three hundred trillion chance you will be attacked by an angry mob of 175 transgender clowns at any moment, they will probably all arrive in the same small sedan.

No shit?

MSG Tripps wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

Look Dahl, there is a one in three hundred trillion chance you will be attacked by an angry mob of 175 transgender clowns at any moment, they will probably all arrive in the same small sedan.

No shit?

Yep - them circus clowns are a real threat to humanity.  You should be afraid and arm yourself to the teeth.

Oh and keep an eye out for clown cars, fucking harbingers of death they truly are.