HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » New Concealed Carry poll
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 07:51 PM

New Concealed Carry poll

Last edited Mon Jun 17, 2013, 08:40 PM - Edit history (1)

The whole geographical distinction became a clusterfuck. No one agrees on what a city, suburb, or even a corn field is, so I'm creating a new poll that doesn't require you to clarify where you live.

Do you support concealed carry: No concealed carry, universal concealed carry, shall issue concealed carry, or may issue concealed carry. Definitions are provided near the end of this entry in Wikipedia. Look for the chart. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States


126 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
I do not support concealed carry
33 (26%)
I support very limited concealed carry with greater training and testing than currently required
7 (6%)
I support broadening concealed carry rights but imposing greater training and testing that currently required
7 (6%)
I support may issue concealed carry
1 (1%)
I support shall issue concealed carry
58 (46%)
I support universal concealed carry, meaning no permit necessary.
6 (5%)
I say fuck guns and anything to do with them.
14 (11%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

293 replies, 25246 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 293 replies Author Time Post
Reply New Concealed Carry poll (Original post)
BainsBane Jun 2013 OP
BainsBane Jun 2013 #1
krispos42 Jun 2013 #12
BainsBane Jun 2013 #19
petronius Jun 2013 #2
BainsBane Jun 2013 #3
oneshooter Jun 2013 #16
X_Digger Jun 2013 #22
petronius Jun 2013 #29
geek tragedy Jun 2013 #80
GreenStormCloud Jun 2013 #88
geek tragedy Jun 2013 #119
GreenStormCloud Jun 2013 #124
Jenoch Jun 2013 #115
RKP5637 Jun 2013 #202
sarisataka Jun 2013 #4
NutmegYankee Jun 2013 #5
BainsBane Jun 2013 #6
NutmegYankee Jun 2013 #7
LiberalFighter Jun 2013 #128
NutmegYankee Jun 2013 #134
galileoreloaded Jun 2013 #8
BainsBane Jun 2013 #9
galileoreloaded Jun 2013 #10
BainsBane Jun 2013 #11
GreenStormCloud Jun 2013 #18
pintobean Jun 2013 #13
BainsBane Jun 2013 #17
pintobean Jun 2013 #20
BainsBane Jun 2013 #21
DainBramaged Jun 2013 #14
snooper2 Jun 2013 #15
GreenStormCloud Jun 2013 #23
BainsBane Jun 2013 #27
GreenStormCloud Jun 2013 #65
BainsBane Jun 2013 #76
GreenStormCloud Jun 2013 #85
Bazinga Jun 2013 #132
Hoyt Jun 2013 #28
Bazinga Jun 2013 #33
Hoyt Jun 2013 #34
Pelican Jun 2013 #45
Bazinga Jun 2013 #30
sarisataka Jun 2013 #32
Hoyt Jun 2013 #36
sarisataka Jun 2013 #38
Hoyt Jun 2013 #43
Lizzie Poppet Jun 2013 #92
Progressive dog Jun 2013 #204
CTyankee Jun 2013 #249
sarisataka Jun 2013 #255
rl6214 Jun 2013 #48
Hoyt Jun 2013 #50
rl6214 Jun 2013 #53
Hoyt Jun 2013 #55
rl6214 Jun 2013 #73
Hoyt Jun 2013 #81
rl6214 Jun 2013 #114
CokeMachine Jun 2013 #137
TheKentuckian Jun 2013 #24
BainsBane Jun 2013 #25
Pelican Jun 2013 #46
BainsBane Jun 2013 #49
Pelican Jun 2013 #52
BainsBane Jun 2013 #54
Pelican Jun 2013 #56
BainsBane Jun 2013 #57
Pelican Jun 2013 #58
BainsBane Jun 2013 #59
Pelican Jun 2013 #63
BainsBane Jun 2013 #75
Pelican Jun 2013 #77
BainsBane Jun 2013 #78
BainsBane Jun 2013 #79
GreenStormCloud Jun 2013 #86
Pelican Jun 2013 #89
BainsBane Jun 2013 #94
BainsBane Jun 2013 #60
GreenStormCloud Jun 2013 #66
BainsBane Jun 2013 #68
gejohnston Jun 2013 #108
BainsBane Jun 2013 #194
gejohnston Jun 2013 #200
BainsBane Jun 2013 #215
gejohnston Jun 2013 #219
BainsBane Jun 2013 #231
gejohnston Jun 2013 #234
newmember Jun 2013 #135
ceonupe Jun 2013 #160
GreenStormCloud Jun 2013 #69
dumbcat Jun 2013 #98
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2013 #103
newmember Jun 2013 #121
Jenoch Jun 2013 #152
CokeMachine Jun 2013 #188
ZombieHorde Jun 2013 #26
rrneck Jun 2013 #35
sarisataka Jun 2013 #61
rrneck Jun 2013 #74
Bazinga Jun 2013 #31
Hoyt Jun 2013 #37
Bazinga Jun 2013 #39
Hoyt Jun 2013 #44
Bazinga Jun 2013 #47
BainsBane Jun 2013 #62
Bazinga Jun 2013 #136
DainBramaged Jun 2013 #41
Nimajneb Nilknarf Jun 2013 #40
BainsBane Jun 2013 #42
Nimajneb Nilknarf Jun 2013 #64
BainsBane Jun 2013 #67
Nimajneb Nilknarf Jun 2013 #71
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2013 #104
Warren Stupidity Jun 2013 #70
Nimajneb Nilknarf Jun 2013 #72
Eleanors38 Jun 2013 #51
HolyMoley Jun 2013 #82
BainsBane Jun 2013 #83
GreenStormCloud Jun 2013 #87
BainsBane Jun 2013 #90
GreenStormCloud Jun 2013 #99
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2013 #107
gejohnston Jun 2013 #109
pintobean Jun 2013 #111
BainsBane Jun 2013 #91
GreenStormCloud Jun 2013 #101
BainsBane Jun 2013 #120
GreenStormCloud Jun 2013 #125
X_Digger Jun 2013 #112
BainsBane Jun 2013 #118
X_Digger Jun 2013 #122
BainsBane Jun 2013 #123
X_Digger Jun 2013 #126
BainsBane Jun 2013 #127
X_Digger Jun 2013 #129
premium Jun 2013 #131
X_Digger Jun 2013 #138
pintobean Jun 2013 #140
X_Digger Jun 2013 #141
premium Jun 2013 #142
BainsBane Jun 2013 #187
oneshooter Jun 2013 #209
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2013 #213
tammywammy Jun 2013 #218
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2013 #224
tammywammy Jun 2013 #225
BainsBane Jun 2013 #230
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2013 #240
BainsBane Jun 2013 #242
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2013 #260
BainsBane Jun 2013 #243
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2013 #257
Tommy_Carcetti Jun 2013 #212
premium Jun 2013 #84
roamer65 Jun 2013 #145
MadrasT Jun 2013 #93
BainsBane Jun 2013 #95
premium Jun 2013 #96
BainsBane Jun 2013 #97
premium Jun 2013 #100
Jenoch Jun 2013 #151
Logical Jun 2013 #147
BainsBane Jun 2013 #148
pintobean Jun 2013 #149
BainsBane Jun 2013 #150
pintobean Jun 2013 #153
BainsBane Jun 2013 #156
pintobean Jun 2013 #157
BainsBane Jun 2013 #158
pintobean Jun 2013 #159
Bazinga Jun 2013 #199
BainsBane Jun 2013 #214
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2013 #223
BainsBane Jun 2013 #236
Bazinga Jun 2013 #229
BainsBane Jun 2013 #237
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2013 #239
BainsBane Jun 2013 #241
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2013 #259
BainsBane Jun 2013 #244
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2013 #258
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2013 #261
BainsBane Jun 2013 #281
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2013 #282
BainsBane Jun 2013 #287
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2013 #292
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2013 #279
BainsBane Jun 2013 #280
BainsBane Jun 2013 #217
pintobean Jun 2013 #228
BainsBane Jun 2013 #235
pintobean Jun 2013 #245
BainsBane Jun 2013 #246
pintobean Jun 2013 #247
BainsBane Jun 2013 #251
pintobean Jun 2013 #253
BainsBane Jun 2013 #256
gejohnston Jun 2013 #203
oneshooter Jun 2013 #102
Decoy of Fenris Jun 2013 #105
CokeMachine Jun 2013 #110
premium Jun 2013 #113
pintobean Jun 2013 #106
Paladin Jun 2013 #116
X_Digger Jun 2013 #117
CokeMachine Jun 2013 #130
Recursion Jun 2013 #133
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2013 #139
oneshooter Jun 2013 #143
premium Jun 2013 #144
BainsBane Jun 2013 #166
CTyankee Jun 2013 #207
BainsBane Jun 2013 #221
X_Digger Jun 2013 #146
aikoaiko Jun 2013 #154
X_Digger Jun 2013 #155
BainsBane Jun 2013 #164
Decoy of Fenris Jun 2013 #165
BainsBane Jun 2013 #168
Decoy of Fenris Jun 2013 #170
BainsBane Jun 2013 #172
Decoy of Fenris Jun 2013 #173
BainsBane Jun 2013 #176
Decoy of Fenris Jun 2013 #177
BainsBane Jun 2013 #179
Decoy of Fenris Jun 2013 #181
BainsBane Jun 2013 #182
BainsBane Jun 2013 #183
Decoy of Fenris Jun 2013 #185
BainsBane Jun 2013 #186
BainsBane Jun 2013 #184
aikoaiko Jun 2013 #167
BainsBane Jun 2013 #169
aikoaiko Jun 2013 #205
Decoy of Fenris Jun 2013 #171
BainsBane Jun 2013 #174
Decoy of Fenris Jun 2013 #175
BainsBane Jun 2013 #178
Decoy of Fenris Jun 2013 #180
pintobean Jun 2013 #201
BainsBane Jun 2013 #216
aikoaiko Jun 2013 #206
BainsBane Jun 2013 #220
BainsBane Jun 2013 #222
CTyankee Jun 2013 #250
BainsBane Jun 2013 #254
BainsBane Jun 2013 #162
virginia mountainman Jun 2013 #161
BainsBane Jun 2013 #163
Scootaloo Jun 2013 #189
BainsBane Jun 2013 #190
jmg257 Jun 2013 #210
BainsBane Jun 2013 #226
oneshooter Jun 2013 #227
BainsBane Jun 2013 #232
oneshooter Jun 2013 #252
BainsBane Jun 2013 #233
CTyankee Jun 2013 #248
oneshooter Jun 2013 #290
GreenStormCloud Jun 2013 #262
BainsBane Jun 2013 #263
oneshooter Jun 2013 #211
Notafraidtoo Jun 2013 #191
beevul Jun 2013 #192
BainsBane Jun 2013 #193
DanTex Jun 2013 #195
BainsBane Jun 2013 #196
DanTex Jun 2013 #197
BainsBane Jun 2013 #198
CTyankee Jun 2013 #208
BainsBane Jun 2013 #238
Eleanors38 Jun 2013 #271
BainsBane Jun 2013 #272
Eleanors38 Jun 2013 #273
BainsBane Jun 2013 #276
Eleanors38 Jun 2013 #277
BainsBane Jun 2013 #278
Eleanors38 Jun 2013 #283
BainsBane Jun 2013 #284
Eleanors38 Jun 2013 #286
BainsBane Jun 2013 #289
BainsBane Jun 2013 #285
DainBramaged Jun 2013 #291
Jenoch Jun 2013 #264
BainsBane Jun 2013 #265
Jenoch Jun 2013 #266
BainsBane Jun 2013 #267
Jenoch Jun 2013 #268
BainsBane Jun 2013 #269
Jenoch Jun 2013 #270
Socal31 Jun 2013 #274
pintobean Jun 2013 #275
NaturalHigh Jun 2013 #288
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2013 #293

Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 07:55 PM

1. I apologize for the problems in the first poll

Although I got pissed off, I recognize the error was mine in not anticipating how contested geographical definitions are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 09:13 PM

12. I live in a "town" of 59,000

I moved here from a "city" of 8,500.



The former is in the distant suburbs of NYC, the latter would probably be the exurbs of the Twin Cities. I was among the corn and soybeans, but could be in downtown Minneapolis in about 45 minutes. Now the Metro-North commuter train can have me at Grand Central in about 75 minutes.



If it doesn't crash, and if that antique drawbridge in Norwalk isn't stuck again.



The best way to solve the question would be a population-density map. If you're in THIS color, you're rural, if you're in THAT color you're suburban, and if you're in THAT OTHER color you're urban.

But then you'd need a link to a cartography site that carries such things.

The Census Bureau has one, I think. I poked around a little on the Census website for your, but there doesn't seem to be a simple lookup feature or a map-making one.

Wikipedia articles on towns and cities gives a population density. If you live in the country (rural) you could use the county's average density, I guess.

Where I live is nearly 2,000 people per square mile. Where I used to live was a bit over 1,000 p/mi˛. The average of the county I live in now is 1,465 p/mi˛ , and the one I used to live in is 71 p/mi˛.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #12)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 10:07 PM

19. Yeah, it is far more complicated that I realized

I've lived most of my life in the city. I lived for seven years in Palm Beach county, FL, and everything there is suburban. I lived in a town of 29,000 for 9 months and in a suburb of Minneapolis for four. I see urban, suburban, and small town as very different, but everyone's perceptions vary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 08:08 PM

2. I support shall-issue CCW with a comprehensive training requirement

That requirement should address practical skills in firearms-handling, the legal ramifications of self-defense in all forms, and conflict management/avoidance techniques. I also think there should be no arbitrary or excessive fees to create a barrier to receiving a permit, nor any other requirements intended to discourage applicants - the regulation should be stringent but focused solely on valid questions of qualification...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 08:10 PM

3. So I would put that as option 3

Is the organizing you all are doing in the gungeon promoting such training and testing? Was that in the IL legislation you all celebrated?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 09:53 PM

16. Sounds a lot like the Texas model.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #16)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 10:10 PM

22. Sure does, doesn't it?

That seems to surprise some people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #16)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 10:57 PM

29. Thanks for the link - yes, the descriptions of the Texas system that

I've seen here on DU make me think that that's a good place to find examples and ideas on how this ought to be done in general...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #29)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 12:34 PM

80. Except that in Texas it's okay to use that concealed gun to shoot a purse snatcher in the back nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #80)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 01:44 PM

88. Only at night. Can't do it in daylight.

Don't snatch purses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #88)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 04:58 PM

119. Why is human life so much less valuable at night in Texas? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #119)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 05:14 PM

124. I don't know why the legislators wrote the law that way. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 04:19 PM

115. What you have described

is the way CCW is handled in Minnesota. I believe Wisconsin law is similar as well. My Korean War era army veteran father and my Iraqi War veteran nephew took the CCW class together. (I don't have a CCW.) They said much of the classroom time used by the instructor telling them the shitstorm they will start and be in the middle of if they ever pull their gun in public, let alone fire the gun and/or injure or kill someone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 08:15 AM

202. To me, what you say is the best solution. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 08:15 PM

4. From swamp to city

unless that is redundant...

I support shall issue with the caveat of a training requirement. I like the MN classroom requirements, they are fairly comprehensive on skills and legal issues. I would like to see a tougher practical test. Currently all you have to do is shoot in a general direction to pass; I would like to see a scored system in it's place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 08:16 PM

5. I guess I don't know what to choose.

My state requires a CCW to take a pistol to a range or buy ammo. I have never used it to carry it on myself. You need it just to put a pistol in the trunk of a car. To get it, you need to take an NRA certified safety class (law specifies that), pay $40 for fingerprinting and background check by local town, get issued town permit, then go to state police, pay $70, and get state permit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #5)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 08:22 PM

6. Typically these are folk who keep guns on their person

as they go about their business. It sounds like CT has far more careful laws than most. This whole thing arose out of a thread in the gungeon where members were happy about a law requiring Chicago to lift it's handgun ban and allow at will concealed carry. They then sought to mobilize members to extend at will everywhere. So it has to do not just with what you want for yourself, but what you think should be the law elsewhere. I suppose you could select the other response and say you think it should be up to localities, if that is what you believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 08:38 PM

7. Conn. definently has a different law than most states

The law has to be shall issue since it's a basic requirement of pistol ownership. You still have training in gun safety as a requirement. As for local vs state, I support a state law only because leaving it to localities would create a patchwork of laws, and that would just trip up otherwise innocent people driving to a range or to a competition. Almost every High School in the region has a rifle club (It's an Olympic sport) and they compete in marksmanship statewide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 05:36 PM

128. They need to separate the NRA from this crap.

It should be possible for non-NRA connected orgs to provide safety classes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #128)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 05:50 PM

134. It's just a standard.

To teach a class, you need a certified instructor. And much like ASME and IEEE provide standards for components and engineering design, the NRA does it for firearms safety courses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 08:38 PM

8. question. why ask this question at all? is there some new fear about individuals and CC?

 

here in AZ there is no law, anyone (other than prohibited persons, and specific locations) can carry whenever and where ever they want and the results are completely unremarkable. cops hardly ask if there is a gun in the car anymore, its just assumed there is.

just wondering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to galileoreloaded (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 08:39 PM

9. Ask Trayvon Martin

Oh wait. You can't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #9)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 08:40 PM

10. ask him what? whats the question? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to galileoreloaded (Reply #10)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 08:45 PM

11. What he thinks about concealed carry

Last edited Mon Jun 17, 2013, 10:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Here is some info from Mother Jones.

Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.
Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.
• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
• In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.

Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check


I am sure that virtually every DUer outside of AZ is grateful that they are not subject to the bigoted insanity that characterizes government and far too much of law in your state. FL is grateful that AZ exists because then at least one place is wackier.
More here:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 10:00 PM

18. Some of those statements are bogus.

Texas: Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
Texas keeps and publishes those stats. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2011.pdf

For the year 2011:
Crime------------------------------------Total Convictions----CHL Holder Convictions---------------CHL Holder Percentage of Total
Agg Assault W/ Deadly Weapon-------------2,765---------------3------------------------------------0.1085%
Deadly Conduct (Includes non-fierarm)----1,353----------------9------------------------------------0.6652%
Deadly Conduct, Discharge Firearm-----------244----------------2-----------------------------------0.8197%

In 2011 there were 518,625 CHL holders. 2012 had 584,850.

As you can see there are a lot of us that have CHLs, but the offenders in that type of crime are in the single digits. None of them rise to 1% of the convictions. That is a far cry for your claimed 480% difference.

SYG & homicides. You assume that all homicides are wrong. Yes, SYG does lead to an increase in JUSTIFIED homices. That is to be expected. Criminals are more likely to suffer catastrophic failure of their victim selection program resulting inpermenant total system shutdown for the criminal. You slant the statement by omitting the word "justified".

The Philly study has been debunked numerous times, including here on DU. Here is my standard reply to it:
Guns Are Not Bullet Magnets
Gun controllers love to trot out so-called scientific studies that show that carrying a gun makes one more likely to get shot.

Common sense says that is pure bullshit. Guns are not bullet magnets. Bullets don't curve in mid-air to go to a person carrying concealed. Thugs don't hunt for concealed carriers to shoot them on sight. You don't get shot because you have a hidden gun on you.

The ONLY reason why a person might get shot is that they are engaging in a behavior that will cause someone to want to shoot them, or they have the bad luck to be a victim of a random shooter or other criminal. (Examples of the latter would be mass shootings, serial shootings, gang initiation shootings, etc.) Merely carrying a concealed handgun will not make someone a target as nobody knows that you have the gun, therefore you can't be targeted for having a gun.

So the real question that should be asked is not if the person had a gun, but what were they doing when they were shot? It is well known from FBI statistics that over half of all murder victims were themselves engaged in a criminal enterprise. But criminals do not make up over half of our population, so one draws the reasonable conclusion the being a criminal is dangerous. Certain crimes would be more dangerous than others. Drug dealing and gang banging would be more dangerous than being a business embezzler. The dangerous criminals are well aware that they are targets for other criminals and are extremely likely to be armed. Naturally, those who style of crime is armed robbery are going to be armed. All of them will be engaging in behaviors that have a high risk of drawing gun fire, either from other criminals or from armed citizens.

The law-abiding person who is legally carrying will not be engaging in any of those activities. His behavior won't change (with very rare exception) from what it was before. So he won't be a target unless his luck runs out and a violent criminal targets him. Then his gun gives him the ability to fight back.

None of the so-called studies have ever made any attempt to separate the legal from the illegal carriers but instead have lumped them all together as if they were all legal carriers. Until a study makes such a differentiation they will all be useless and will discover nothing except that being a violent criminal is dangerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 09:17 PM

13. Nice edit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pintobean (Reply #13)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 09:57 PM

17. First I thought you had selected it as a joke.

Then when I reread how I'd written it I understood you meant it entirely seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #17)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 10:09 PM

20. No, not literally. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pintobean (Reply #20)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 10:10 PM

21. right, another writing error

already corrected by replacing literally with seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 09:27 PM

14. In the end, there are more of us here who are against this plague of guns than for them

and if you think carrying s gun makes you safer, what are you going to do when there's a gun pointed at you, play cowboy?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #14)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 09:30 PM

15. duck?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #14)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 10:19 PM

23. The key is to spot the attack coming and be ready.

If a criminal is going to attack you, he will almost always go though a series of steps. If you are alert and spot someone taking those step regarding you, then you try to avoid the situation by escape, let him know that you are ready if you can't escape (NO, you don't draw the gun yet.), finally - draw and fire if he produces a weapon, or otherwise attacks you.

Critical to his attack is isolation and approach. They will rarely attack you with a lot of others around. He will try to trail you to an isolated spot, or wait in ambush. Be alert for anybody following you, or waiting, as you go to an isolated area, such as a parking lot.
Observe their posture and body language, looking for pre-assault indicators. (That's a police term for that type of body language.) There are web sites and DVDs to learn them.

If you think someone has targeted you, escape if you can. If you can't, make eye contact, and use your own body language to let him know that you are armed. He WILL read it and understand. He is a criminal and that skill is part of his livelihood/hobby. Usually he will abort the attack at that moment. (Be alert, he may have accomplices)

Don't talk if he tries to engage you in conversation. Say, "Stay away." When he starts to talk to you is called, "the interview". He is in the final part of selecting you as a victim. He isn't sure yet. You want to fail the interview. It is OK to be impolite to strangers in dangerous situations. Take control of the situation. He has a script for a play and you are supposed to play a certain role. If you aren't following his script for you it presents him with a situation in which he can't be sure of what you will do. Experienced criminals will back off and look for easier prey. At this point you have also put you hand under your clothes and on the gun, ready if things go south.

If he attacks or then pulls a weapon, you are also ready.

This has been a brief summary. There are detailed books and videos on the subject, many used by law enforcement for training.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #23)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 10:35 PM

27. That's not what happens

Far more often people are killed by crossfire. Why would a killer track you? Are you a drug dealer? Killers don't go around tracking men with guns. What happens is there is a shooting between rival crooks, a drive by, or something like that. Shooting at them only worsens the situation because you would draw the fire away from their intended target toward you. It also increases the casualties of innocent by standers.

The only way the argument you post makes sense to me is if you were a woman concerned about rape, but you're not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #27)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 06:51 AM

65. I am talking about common robbery criminals, not deliberate assassins.

If you are targeted for deliberate assassination, you are screwed. Defense against such would be a different topic. I was writing about how to avoid and deal with the common criminal who would use force to rob you.

If there is a drive-by, take cover. CCWers don't commit drive-bys, so don't blame us for the actions of criminals.

You misunderstand much about legally carrying a gun. My gun does NOT make me an almost-cop. Its purpose is to help me survive a very bad violent situation if I can't avoid it some other way. Muggers and common criminals target people who look like they can't fight back. Since I am a senior citizen with a mild disability, I can't win a fight against a young man who may have decided that he is willing to hurt and possible kill me to get my wallet that usually has only a few dollars in it. But by being alert to the signs that I have been targeted as a potential robbery victim, and being able to deal with it if it happens, I can avoid being a victim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #65)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 12:22 PM

76. CCwers don't commit drive bys?

Or have public shootouts? Really? Because Geckosfeet is chomping at the bit to have such an option. Those in support of universal CC obviously want anyone to be able to have a gun on them.

So your plan is to kill someone who plans to rob you? Here I thought you were concerned with your life. In that situation, I would simply give the thief my money. Your chances of having that gun used on you are pretty high, as Mother Jones demonstrates. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #76)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 12:46 PM

85. You left out something critical.

You said, "So your plan is to kill someone who plans to rob you?" Not quite. My plan is to kill someone who credibly threatens to kill or greatly harm me as part of robbing me. Notice the difference between what you said and what I said. If he is going to threaten me with deadly force then I will respond with deadly force. Disparity of force and the situation will come into play.

I looked at that article. There are a lot of falsehoods in the article. I have already pointed out some of them in another post, responding to you. Nowhere in the article does the author claim that my gun will be used on me. If that were true, and known to be true, would police be placing themselves in greater danger by being armed? Gun-controllers frequently seem to assign criminals with super-ninja powers against the intended victim. If I do my part of situational awareness right, he won't get the drop on me. If I do my part of telegraphing to him that I am armed (Without drawing my gun.) then he will be very likely to leave me alone. If things go all the way south, and he presents a credible threat then I will defend myself. No more warnings. I will fire as quickly as I can draw and put the gun on target. (A little under one second at a distance of 9 feet. Over 50% of self-defense shootings are at distance of less than 9 feet, IIRC.)

I do not want universal CC. To carry in public a person should have training. I went into more detail in another post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #76)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 05:43 PM

132. I'll admit I'm no black belt in google-fu,

but the search "concealed carry, 'drive by'" yielded zero instances of drive-by's committed by ccw permittees.

One thing about facing a mugger. If you have a gun, you still have the option of complying! However, if you have been denied the right to bear arms for your own self-defense, all you can do is comply and trust yourself to the good graces of a violent felon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #23)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 10:35 PM

28. You are walking down city street with your gun, how do you recognize "threat?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #28)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 11:31 PM

33. I thought that was pretty well covered in GSC's post.

Body language and actions.

Or were you looking for a more incriminating answer? Perhaps you want him to say a hoodie, skittles, and iced tea?

That would fit the narrative better than sound advice on situational awareness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bazinga (Reply #33)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 11:32 PM

34. No wouldn't expect them to be honest about their need to tote and all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bazinga (Reply #33)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 01:13 AM

45. Ha..

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #14)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 11:13 PM

30. Run!

I've been to enough shooting competitions to know that moving targets are a heckuva lot harder to hit.

That said, if running weren't an option (eg I'm standing between an attacker and my little boy) I have a hard time seeing how "playing cowboy" is a worse option than being shot unarmed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bazinga (Reply #30)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 11:23 PM

32. Rule 6

Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #32)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 11:34 PM

36. The old "dodge and shoot" technique recommended in gungeon back before gun nuts started going, well,

nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #36)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 11:41 PM

38. I believe retreat should not be required by law

but it is a damn good idea 99% of the time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #38)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 01:03 AM

43. I think it should be required, but especially not endorse stand your ground BS.

I also think most gun toters are afraid they might pull a Zimmerman and not want responsibility or to have the the possibility of tracing weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #38)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 02:37 PM

92. Precisely: tactical decisions should belong to the individual.

"One size fits all" doesn't work for conflict situations...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #92)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 08:31 AM

204. "tactical decisions"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #38)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 08:16 AM

249. not if they look anything like the guy in the blue shirt in response #233 by BainsBane!

seriously, that is one sad f*ck...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #249)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 11:48 AM

255. If I saw any of those pictured

I would start retreating immediately

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #36)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 01:22 AM

48. Better than throwing a can of beans at them.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #48)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 01:25 AM

50. It works for me, but you gun lovers don't get to go bang bang.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #50)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 01:55 AM

53. Sure it does, then you will swoop in, disarm the gun owner

 

Disassemble the gun and throw the pieces into the bushes in one swift motion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #53)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 02:02 AM

55. Your post indicates why mental health care is part of solution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #55)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 10:40 AM

73. Hey, I'm not the one that said I could do that...

 

You did

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #73)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 12:36 PM

81. You should have written it down clearer -- didn't say I "could" do that, I said I "did it"


to one of those so-called law-abiding gun owners who brandished his weapon. If you are going to stalk someone and keep records of what they posted months or years ago, at least get it right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #81)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 04:13 PM

114. You need a remedial reading course. Re read post 53

 

It says you WILL not "could" as you say in your post. Totally laughable. And just because someone remembers your hilarious post (as someone else did in this very thread with your tales of bean cans and bicycle wheels) does not make it "stalking" you. You give yourself a lot more importance than you really have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #114)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 06:03 PM

137. +1000

 

Not much else -- trying to stay out of trouble. Apparently there exists an "alertsalot" group to go with the other *alot group.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 10:22 PM

24. Universal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #24)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 10:24 PM

25. How many free kills

Do you want? Should you get to take out three of us a year, six, ten?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #25)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 01:15 AM

46. Statistically, that would be a terrible neighborhood....

 

... even by modern standards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #46)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 01:22 AM

49. That's per gunner

per year. Presumably the gunners would conceal their guns to go into neighborhoods like mine where they can kill people of color, women, and children--those of us, who one member pointed out, have no right to life. I'm assuming that's what the NRA will next assert that gun owners have a right to kill anyone they want. After all, that's what stand your ground is about. Then there is the guy in TX acquitted for killing a woman because she wouldn't have sex with him. I'm sure there was great celebration about that in MRA quarters. Look how many parents get rid of their kids by leaving loaded guns laying around, while the NRA lobbies to defeat measures requiring gun safes and instead advocates storing weapons in children's bedrooms. I don't know why they hate their own offspring so much, but there is no understanding the depths of that kind of evil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #49)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 01:45 AM

52. There's no understanding the depths of that paragraph....

 

Seriously... Is this how you go through life on a daily basis? You are assuming that everyone with a gun thinks this?

Presumably the gunners would conceal their guns to go into neighborhoods like mine where they can kill people of color, women, and children--those of us, who one member pointed out, have no right to life.

Just from a coldly logical standpoint... statistics... if this were true the streets would be running red with wild west shoot outs and mass graves of people of color, women and children. Of course this isn't true but why let that stop you?

Cynthia McKinney... is that you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #52)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 02:01 AM

54. No

I don't. It was based on the hypothetical free kills scenario, which as I pointed out is not too far from reality as it stands. I have read enough posts form gun folk on this site to know that many think a great deal about killing people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #54)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 02:06 AM

56. Do you have a good example...

 

... where concealed carry advocates express their desire to travel to other neighborhoods to attack people of color, women and children to the exclusion of everyone else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #56)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 02:29 AM

57. Well, no

That wasn't serious. Even the question wasn't serious. For heaven's sake. But if you want examples of gunners thinking about killing people, this thread is a start.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023031723


I do believe gun policy is racist and that some elements would like to see guns in the cities to wipe out the population of color. That's why I call the NRA the new KKK. I don't, however, think any legitimate Democrat holds that position. So it's quite possible that some Republican trolls on this site would like to see that, but I don't believe that is the desire of pro-gun Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #57)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 02:32 AM

58. Then why did you say it?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #58)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 02:36 AM

59. Partly irony

As for the original question, the guy wants universal concealed carry, meaning anyone can carry a gun around with them, regardless of who they are. That is obviously a recipe for homicide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #59)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 04:47 AM

63. Do you believe that someone who is willing to commit homicide will be deterred...

 

... by legal restrictions on whether or not they can carry a weapon concealed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #63)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 12:16 PM

75. Yes

If not for CC, Trayvon Martin would still be alive, as would the kid killed by the guy who shot him because his music was too loud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #75)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 12:26 PM

77. The logical gymnastics you have to perform are amazing...

 

They don't care about killing people but do care about whether or not the law says they can tuck a pistol in their pants... wow...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #77)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 12:31 PM

78. It's called examples

keep denying them. Obviously there are a lot of people here who don't care about killing people, since they've specified conditions in which they would do just that. If you plan on using a gun for self defense or to keep yourself from being robbed, you plan on killing.

You deny reality. There are many, many cases of CC holders committing murder. But you deny facts and that make up some bullshit excuse. If you don't plan on killing someone, WTF are doing carrying around a gun in the first place? That's the whole point of the thing. What a tangled web you weave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #77)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 12:32 PM

79. 508 murders committed by CC holders

http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

Only 508. It's not like their lives count or anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #79)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 01:20 PM

86. Take a closer look. VPC is lying.

I love it when people take that VPC headline and don't look at the internals. First, they started counting in 2007 and accumulate the numbers. So that is six years worth, instead of an annual rate. That is a deceptive practice to enable them to use the most alarming number possible.

Go to the VPC page you linked, click on the total killed box, scroll down to Michigan. You will find that they list people with CCWs who committed suicide, killing no one but themselves. There is no listing of method, so some of those would be by means other than a gun. How many? Unknown. Now look at the numbers, 29, 43, 28, 29, for a total of 129 suicides of undetermined means. Do you really believe that having a CCW made any difference to those people? VPC shamelessly uses their deaths (some by pills, some by hanging, etc.) to push the number higher.

Further, remember that a CCW is NOT a license to merely own a gun, it is a license to carry one in public. So if the murder happens at home, where the offender could have a gun anyway, in what way does having a CCW contribute to the act? Even without a CCW the offender would still have a gun and still commit the crime. The CCW is irrelevant in those cases.

Some CCWers do go bad. I posted the stats for Texas DHL convictions for murder/manslaughter. There are over 1/2 million CHL holders yet we make up a very tiny percentage of the total state-wide convictions. 1.047% is our percentage. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2011.pdf

Nationally we estimate that there are over 12 million people in the country with CCWs, and the number is growing daily. Out of 12 million people, some will go bad, but the number each year that do go bad is very small. After all, it has taken VPC six years to reach the number that they have, and they had to cheat to get that number.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #79)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 02:05 PM

89. There is a difference between...

 

... saying that their lives "don't count" and other emotional blackmail vs the statistics of the situation and realizing that out 300 million people, 10s of millions of gun owners and millions of people who conceal carry every day, that 508 is not that bad.

This is the part where you claim that I don't value any human life and why don't I think of the children!!!

Followed by the part where I ask why you don't put as much emphasis and emotional angst into everything that kills more than 508 people...

Can we just go to the end where you make an actual point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #89)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 02:39 PM

94. emotional blackmail

Yes, it is truly horrible to provide evidence of just how wrong you are. You said no CC holders kill, a point that is obviously ludicrous. I provide evidence of cases where CC holders have killed, and you become angry.


The point is you relentlessly promote policies that result in the highest homicide rate in the First Word. You pretend the death count is irrelevant. When you advocate for war, you own the deaths. That's as true for domestic as foreign war. You have the America you want, full of blood and violence. Be proud. You've worked hard for those achievements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #58)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 02:37 AM

60. As for the racial element

Look how stand your group is applied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #60)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 07:15 AM

66. I assume you mean "stand your ground", not "stand your group".

SYG is NOT a license to kill. It only means that you don't have to retreat if you have a legal right to be there, nothing more. If you shoot someone and claim SYG, all of the elements of self-defense still have to be met. In Texas, as in most states, all shootings have to go before a grand jury where they are found to be justified, or charged. If the elements of self-defense are not met, then it is murder or manslaughter charges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #66)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 07:20 AM

68. It's a license to kill people of color

To pretend otherwise is a bullshit. All one needs is a fear, and gun toting paranoids fear people of color. Therefore they are allowed to kill any person of color. Has their ever been a case where a black man successfully invoked a stand your ground defense against a white man? I doubt it.

But defend them. I would expect nothing else from you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #68)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 03:38 PM

108. in Florida, most

self defense shooting are intra race. I'm willing to bet that is true in general since this corresponds with crime in general, meaning the victim and the attacker is generally the same race. If I am going to be a crime victim, statistically, the attacker is going to be white. If I shoot him, he is still going to be white.

In Iowa, although it doesn't have SYG, an Asian man did prevail in a self defense claim against two white guys. I don't look for race in the papers. BTW are you saying California's common law SYG is also racist? Are you saying it is racist to defend yourself? Or have laws defending yourself? There is another possibility, but it makes you sound kind of............

Honestly, I have a hard time wrapping my head around how you might have come to that conclusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #108)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 04:30 AM

194. Stand your ground has been evoked by white men who have killed people of color

AT least that is what the press coverage surrounding Zimmerman has said. You are talking here about all shootings.

Do you actually deny that our justice system is racist? Would you contend the death penalty isn't racist, or that prosecution and punishment more generally isn't racist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #194)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 08:00 AM

200. and they went to prison most of the time.

The only ones that I saw make that claim were emotional rants by people who oppose self defense in general, or don't understand what SYG actually means.

Do you actually deny that our justice system is racist? Would you contend the death penalty isn't racist, or that prosecution and punishment more generally isn't racist?
That has nothing to do with SYG specifically. While there is racism in the judicial system, and society as a whole, I think it is more classist than racist.

Many in the media, especially progressive bloggers, have inaccurately and irresponsibly described the law as "the presumption of innocence of a crime stops the investigation". I think this lead to more SYG claims that in fact were not even remotely self defense. Perfect example: in Tampa, not long after the Zimmerman case started, a store clerk was murdered in the small store. A couple of days later, a lady turns her self in saying she killed him but was "standing her ground" thinking those would me magical words that would stop any further investigation. Granted she wasn't arrested or prosecuted because:
the in store cameras showed it was a guy, and investigators found evidence that she was a couple of hundred miles away that entire day. In this case, it was evoked by a woman of color who falsely confessed to killing a man of color.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #200)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 08:40 PM

215. like the guy in Texas acquitted for killing a woman

because she dared to withhold sex from him. I shudder to think the celebration in gun circles over that one.

A successful stand your ground defense means they do not go to prison. I need to see stats to believe you, but given who I'm talking to, I know any information you provide is unreliable. When I have time I will investigate the matter myself. The idea that that only the application of gun law is absent of racism is ludicrous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #215)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 09:22 PM

219. newspaper accounts unreliable

which is why I don't pay attention to them. There is no celebration that I know of. I actually doubt that is the whole story.

successful stand your ground defense means they do not go to prison. I need to see stats to believe you, but given who I'm talking to, I know any information you provide is unreliable. When I have time I will investigate the matter myself. The idea that that only the application of gun law is absent of racism is ludicrous.
Yeah it is true of any self defense case. They come from the state of Florida, but even if I provided them, you would claim they were "NRA propaganda." I doubt you will or do or will investigate it yourself. It is not like you provide much evidence yourself. I found it amusing that you didn't find Stratfor.com "acceptable" but your sources are flimsier to non existent.
SYG is not a gun law, it is a use of force law, different concept.
If Trayvon were a poor white kid from a trailer park the only things that would be different would be the lack of outrage. Unlike Trayvon's more affluent parents, they couldn't hire a PR flak/ambulance chaser. No PR, no press attention and no national outrage. The right wouldn't care, because it wouldn't serve their purpose, unless they wanted to say a Hispanic gunned down a white kid. Many media faux liberals wouldn't care because he was "redneck trailer trash".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #219)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 12:57 AM

231. My source is the same GAO report that Statfor cited

except I read the report itself, something you yourself steadfastly refuse to do. How on earth is that flimsier? You're really desperate now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #231)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 01:25 AM

234. Actually, I did read it.

I didn't say it was flimsy. But they were dependent on the ATF for information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #58)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 05:52 PM

135. ha ha, maybe this is the OP

 





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #57)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 11:09 PM

160. Most gun control comes from the desire of the ruling white elites to not have armed black folk

 

From ronald reagan in CA against the black panthers

To many states in the south using may issue as a defacto way to prohib black ownership. Heck the only city in our state with special gun laws is Durham and they were established when durham was the black urban businesses mecca.

most gun control laws were designed not for safety but for controlling who could have guns. In many places like NYC and many CA cities only the supper rich elite or by default retired police officers can have CCW thanks to may issue laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #54)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 07:22 AM

69. Think does NOT mean fantasize.

Of course we think about killing people. Anybody who carries a gun should think about it. The consequences of killing someone are immense. You damn well better be right if you do. Anything that serious deserves to be thought about. There is a reason we call it, "in the gravest extreme." That is more than just a legal phrase, it is a reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #49)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 02:46 PM

98. Wow! Just Wow!

That has to be the most whacked out post I have ever seen here. Seriously? You really mean what you said?

I think you need a nap, or maybe professional help.

Just Wow!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dumbcat (Reply #98)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 03:03 PM

103. Check out post #57...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dumbcat (Reply #98)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 05:02 PM

121. lol

 




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #49)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 08:24 PM

152. "...Presumably the gunners would conceal their guns to go into neighborhoods like mine

where they can kill people of color, women, and children--..."


When and where have CCW holders ever gone into Minneapolis to shoot people as you have described?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #152)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 01:13 AM

188. Quit it -- you'll mess up her mellow!!

 

That's all!!

They're watching me.

Take Care,
CM

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 10:30 PM

26. I don't know, but I would love to hear

a good argument for each of those positions, and then critiques of those arguments by the authors of the other positions. That could be really fun if the arguments avoided the classical fallacies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #26)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 11:33 PM

35. I support broadening concealed carry rights

but imposing greater training and testing that currently required.

A public space is a much more challenging environment for someone who uses a firearm for self defense. The combination of unfamiliar environs and people significantly complicate the rules of engagement and carrying a gun in public should assume more training in safety, conflict deescalation and the law.

More importantly, firearms have been an important part of American life for our entire history, and they show no signs of becoming less so for the foreseeable future. In fact, given the fact that concealed carry laws have spread to almost all fifty states and guns are being manufactured and sold at historic rates, education to help the population deal with those changes would certainly be considered a progressive/liberal objective.

We should use government to give people the tools they need to thrive in the world. If government is unwilling or unable to intervene to keep people safe, it should educate them so that they can do so themselves. Firearms education is one tool among many that would aid us in that objective.

We, as liberals, should take every opportunity to show people that government can work for them to support their efforts to live happy and healthy lives. Education about the use of some of the most ubiquitous technology in the world is such an opportunity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #35)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 02:54 AM

61. Someone else's words

but a good summation of legal and moral risks of choosing to carry

“You are not bulletproof.”
Make haste slowly! While full-capacity magazines and semi-automatic pistols provide today’s gunfighter with more, their arrival on the market coincides with multiple assailant attacks, so there is no real advantage. You can be killed by just one lucky shot fired at you by someone who couldn’t hit the barn door if you closed him in the proverbial barn from inside it. Sage gunfighter’s advice from the 1800′s is still valid: make every shot count. As a civilian, you have no business spraying bullets recklessly around, even when your life is in danger. God help you if an innocent by-stander is hit by one of your rounds. You can expect to be judged not only by a prosecutor, and possibly by a judge and jury on criminal charges, but also by a jury in a wrongful death civil suit if you survive the gunfight and your opponent doesn’t. Be very careful when you fire your gun. You still have to be sure of your backstop, so that you don’t hit innocent bystanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #61)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 11:32 AM

74. True that. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 11:20 PM

31. I like 3 but I voted for 5.

I'm all for more training, so long as the requirements aren't so strict as to preclude all but the special forces.

But I think it is more important to eliminate a system whereby a government official may arbitrarily award permits to the rich and connected while denying the needy or the minority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bazinga (Reply #31)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 11:36 PM

37. I'd like to see equal training provided by those not steeped in guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #37)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 11:50 PM

39. Not entirely sure I follow.

You want ccw courses to be taught by someone unfamiliar with guns? Or do you want training to include reasons not to carry a gun?

Not sure why anyone would advocate for the former, and as for the latter, you may be happy to know that my ccw class included a lot of reasons not to carry a gun. The main one being the tremendous liability involved if you ever have to use it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bazinga (Reply #39)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 01:05 AM

44. Nope, I want equal time for someone who doesn't worship/accept gun culture BS.

. . . . And myth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #44)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 01:16 AM

47. Still not clear.

In what setting is "gun culture" given disproportionate time?

Are we talking about ccw classes, equal numbers of comments on internet posting boards, equal coverage in public school curricula?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bazinga (Reply #47)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 03:33 AM

62. Congress, and everything having to do with guns and gun policy.

Last edited Tue Jun 18, 2013, 10:26 PM - Edit history (2)

I'm guessing he doesn't want some trigger-happy hero fantasist giving the classes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #62)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 06:01 PM

136. well that's more clear

I agree that all sides should have an equal voice. I don't approve of the NRA's influence on congress any more than I approve of wall street's, super-pac's, banker's, or billionaire mayors'.

Your comment about "trigger happy hero fantasists" I'd just more of the same, so I'll just say again that the average gun owner and your idea of him are two vastly different things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bazinga (Reply #31)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 12:20 AM

41. How did we guess that you'd be for concealed carry?




I guess the chance to spread the joy of your gunz vrought you here...........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 11:53 PM

40. Life was good in the 18th Century when there were very few laws.

 

Then, as now, there were two kinds of people: Good and Bad.

Bad people have always done as they pleased without regard for laws. Good people treat others with respect.

That is how things have always been. It is not possible to effectively legislate moral behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nimajneb Nilknarf (Reply #40)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 12:39 AM

42. Now the bad people wield power

and make up organizations like the NRA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #42)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 06:50 AM

64. I'm less concerned with the overtly bad than with the morally misguided who believe they are good.

 

The NRA isn't gathering information on peoples' phone calls wholesale, running weapons to Mexican gangs, incarcerating tens of thousands of people for victimless drug crimes, or sacrificing thousands of our young people in the prosecution of pointless foreign wars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nimajneb Nilknarf (Reply #64)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 07:18 AM

67. They have killed far more

More since Sandyook than all the soldiers who died in Iraq. They are evil incarnate. All they care about is profits. Every dead child is an opportunity for them to raise money. They are the single most murderous and evil force in American society. They have waged war on the American public and killed more American since 1968 than all of the wars since the English first colonized this land. Jesus. The military can't begin to compete with the bloodlust of the gun cabal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #67)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 09:38 AM

71. To call that claim hyperbolic would be such an understatement, I don't have an adjective for it.

 

I realize this is a deeply political forum where people even attribute weather events to the policies of the opposing political party, so it's understandable that exaggeration is a common tool of rhetoric.

Blaming an organization that has a different point of view than yours for thousands of crimes committed by individuals, and for suicides that flow from the physical and mental health problems of other individuals, seems to me simplistic and unlikely to change any minds in your favor. I can forgive your emotional intensity given the gravity of the Sandy Hook tragedy.

The results of your own poll show that opinion is sharply divided even among participants here. About half are in favor of at least a somewhat libertarian position on the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #67)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 03:06 PM

104. Naaah, the American Automobile Association has killed more.

Only someone in the car cabal could deny it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nimajneb Nilknarf (Reply #40)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 07:27 AM

70. The murder rate was much higher.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #70)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 09:42 AM

72. Indeed it was, and even higher in many parts of Europe.

 

People came to this continent for unfettered economic opportunity and freedom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 01:42 AM

51. Shall issue (my vote) & more training. And less hatred in the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 12:39 PM

82. Now that IL has been shown the error of their ways,

 

the next goal should be forcing the 7 "may issue" States to switch to "shall issue".
Be it through the courts, or legislatures, rights should not be subject to the whims, discretion and prejudices of local police chiefs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HolyMoley (Reply #82)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 12:44 PM

83. I know. Imagine Illinoisans thinking their residents had a right to live

You all showed them the error of their ways. We can't have that homicide rate dropping. Gotta make sure there are lots and lots of murders of African American little girls.

Don't you just hate it when people care about human life more than guns? Is to irrational. It's not like those kids are worth money or anything. Their lives are completely worthless. The gun nuts sure showed them. So many funerals to look forward to.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #83)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 01:42 PM

87. The right to live includes the right to self-defense.

The right to self-defense is empty if you deprive people of reasonable tools of self-defense.

Have you taken a look at El Paso, TX?

Population: El Paso 994,200 Juarez, Mexico - 1,332,131

Location: On the US-Mexican border, astride a major drug smuggling and human smuggling route. Juarez, Mexico, is just across the river.

Murders: El Paso - year 2010 - Five (5) murders - Juarez - year 2010 - 3,111 murders.

Juarez has Mexico's super strict gun laws that basically disarm the ordinary citizen. There is only one legal gun store in the entire country. It is in Mexico City and is owned and run by the Mexican Army. El Paso has Texas' gun laws and has more guns than people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #87)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 02:28 PM

90. Jesus, quit the dishonest bullshit

El Paso--Juarez is the serial killer capital of North America. Of course they are women being killed, so it obviously trivial to you. Laws mean nothing when they aren't enforced. You really are duplicitous in the examples you use. Do you have no shame whatsoever? Gun nuts do everything to disempower the ATF, flood Mexico with guns, and then try to use that as an example of gun control.
The point is effective laws, like Britain and Japan, but you're not honest enough to use those examples.

You've just said you're concerned about defending property, that you will use your gun against someone trying to take five dollars from you. You've said you're not concerned about someone killing you, but that you are willing to kill them to protect property. That really is the heart of the matter. Human life is meaningless compared to property.

Now your right to self defense depends on flooding a city far away from you with guns so that children are slaughtered on mass. The evil behind that effort sickens me.

Listen, let's just agree that we will never share a common value. There is no point in talking about anything. We are as far apart on issues of politics and morality as two human beings could possibly be. I will never in a million years consider a few dollars worth more than a human life, and I don't want anything to do with people who do. Excuse me while I go vomit.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #90)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 02:49 PM

99. When someone threatens my life, it doesn't matter how much is in my wallet.

If someone threatens me with a deadly weapon, then the deadly fight is on.

Why doesn't El Paso have even more crime that Juarez? After all, it has more guns.

Most of Mexico's guns are smuggled in from the countries were they make real AK-47s. You can't legally buy real AK-47s anywhere in the U.S.

Tough luck that you don't like facts. I will continue to post them as I see fit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #90)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 03:23 PM

107. Why does Houston (w/'shall-issue' CCW) have 1/2 the murder rate of 'no-issue' Chicago?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12592109#post2

It is seeking to spread concealed carry into urban areas, when all evidence shows that concealed carry leads to higher homicide rates.


You've been proclaiming that "shall-issue increases murder rates" bullshit for a while now,
and it's high time somebody called you on it. Per the FBI:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/preliminary-annual-uniform-crime-report-january-december-2012/tables/table-4/view

January to December 2012

Offenses Reported to Law Enforcement
by State by City 100,000 and over in population

HOUSTON
2011 198
2012 2,177,273 217

CHICAGO
2011 431
2012 2,708,382 500

"dishonest bullshit", indeed

I have little respect for those that peddle factually challenged conspiracy theory, and even less
for those that couple it with with an overweening sense of self-righteousness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #90)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 03:46 PM

109. Look up the FBI statistics for El Paso

The Juarez serial killer doesn't seem to operating in El Paso.
The article basically says JPD cops are corrupt, incompetent, and misogynistic.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/03/201138142312445430.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #90)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 04:01 PM

111. Talk about dishonest bullshit

Now your right to self defense depends on flooding a city far away from you with guns so that children are slaughtered on mass. The evil behind that effort sickens me.


Then there's this from the link in your OP:

The number of permits revocations is typically small. The grounds for revocation in most states, other than expiration of a time-limited permit without renewal, is typically the commission of a gross misdemeanor or felony by the permit holder. While these crimes are often firearm-related (including unlawful carry), a 3-year study of Texas crime statistics immediately following passage of CHL legislation found that the most common crime committed by CHL holders that would be grounds for revocation was actually DUI, followed by unlawful carry and then aggravated assault. The same study concluded that Texas CHL holders were always less likely to commit any particular type of crime than the general population, and overall were 13 times less likely to commit any crime


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #87)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 02:35 PM

91. It wouldn't occur to a genius like you

That killers are going over to Juarez to dump those women's bodies, and get their kicks by killing women over there? No, of course not. You reduce it to the most simplistic, reductionist, and fraudulent argument about guns. Your cynical attempt at manipulation really is astounding. You may buy that supremely moronic NRA propaganda, but no one who doesn't worship guns and has a functioning brain stem does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #91)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 03:00 PM

101. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I posted the total number of murders (3,111), not limited to women. It appears from your posting the murders of men don't count. Vehicles get inspected going each way, as it is an international border. Given the vehicle inspections, transporting a corpse across the border would have an extremely high risk of discovery. So your fantasy of killers transporting bodies to Juarez fails against the reality of the border inspections.

Live people are smuggled, but that is by well-organized smuggling rings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #101)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 05:00 PM

120. Learn something

Americans easily move over the border. The women killed are Mexican. The idea that all of those killers are Mexican strikes me as highly unlikely. Learn something, for fucks sake. This is about hatred of women.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023021983


Don't you dare mention Juarez-El Paso in such callous terms again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #120)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 05:21 PM

125. Women aren't the only ones killed.

The total murders in 2010 was 3,111. Many more men than women killed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #91)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 04:02 PM

112. LOL, only you and your imagination could hand-wave the facts away so creatively. *snort*

National Missing and Unidentified Persons doesn't show a higher missing persons rate in El Paso compared to any other comparable-sized southern city.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #112)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 04:57 PM

118. Wake up

The women are Mexican. The area is a haven for misogynistic killers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023021983

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #118)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 05:05 PM

122. So in your fevered imagination, it's CHL holders in TX crossing the MX border to kill women?!? LOL!!

I think the phrase, "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof" comes to mind first.

Along with, "I'll have some of whatever he's drinking!"

Just for shits and giggles, is there anything other than your fevered imagination behind this claim (he asks as though he expects an honest answer..)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #122)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 05:07 PM

123. No

The murders have nothing to do with guns, other than drug cartels may be involved. The other guy raised that death count as some disgusting and false example of the failures of gun control, as though gun control caused those murders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #123)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 05:23 PM

126. Lol, get your story straight (if you can)..

El Paso is almost crime-free compared to Chicago.

You may find the *fact* disgusting, but only because it gives lie to the false utopia you imagine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #126)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 05:27 PM

127. Your dishonestly is repulsive

There is no effective gun control in Chicago or Mexico, as you well know. Anyone can write a law. Enforcing it is another issue. It you want examples of the application of gun control, look at Japan or the UK. But it's perfectly obvious you don't care about the truth.

That you would laugh at femicide really says everything there is to know about you.

I don't want anything to do with anyone who thinks killing women is funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #127)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 05:39 PM

129. I'm laughing at your fevered imagination- that CHL holders kill undocumented women in the US..

.. then sneak across the border to dump the bodies.

That being the only way your cognitive dissonance can be "reconciled".

The fact is, El Paso has a lower murder rate than Juarez, and CHL holders in TX are convicted of crimes at a rate approaching 15x less frequently than the general public over 21 in TX.

So you're positing ninja CHL holders who murder in the US, targeting *only* women who nobody will report as missing, so as to not affect the missing persons rate in El Paso, who then sneak the bodies across the border, evading customs and US border patrol searches, then they return home.

Umm, yah. You and Occam should have a chat, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #129)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 05:43 PM

131. Everything she's posted here is nothing but

 

fevered imagination, I quit taking anything seriously from this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #131)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 06:14 PM

138. I had though just overly hyperbolic before this thread..

Now I'm beginning to wonder about the honesty (and frankly grasp on reality) of the poster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #138)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 06:57 PM

140. From my observations

it appears to be just with this issue. She seems pretty reasonable on other subjects.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pintobean (Reply #140)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 07:10 PM

141. That's good, then. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pintobean (Reply #140)


Response to premium (Reply #142)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 01:08 AM

187. I tend to take threats to my life rather personally

But I understand you all maintain that's irrational because I have no right to life. If I were rational I would recognize your right to make sure everyone has guns is more important than my life, which I have no right to, so I'm told.

Your language is completely sexist. Hysterical and shrill are both sexist terms. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from insulting me based on gender.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #187)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 09:44 AM

209. If you have had threats made to you then you need to report them

to the proper authorities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #187)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 02:38 PM

213. You also take factual accuracy rather casually:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172124771#post91

BainsBane (11,035 posts) Response to DonP (Original post)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 04:50 AM
91. Murder rate down 40% in Chicago


In fact, murders in Chicago are up 16%, from 431 in 2011 to 500 in 2012:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/preliminary-annual-uniform-crime-report-january-december-2012/tables/table-4/view

January to December 2012

Offenses Reported to Law Enforcement
by State by City 100,000 and over in population

CHICAGO
2011 431
2012 2,708,382 500


Can we assume your other posts are of similar accuracy?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #213)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 08:54 PM

218. The Chicago homicide rate for 2013 is significantly down at 34% at the end of May.

In early May, the Chicago Police Department released figures indicating the city marked a 43 percent decline in the number of murders over the first four months of this year, as compared to the same period last year. For the first quarter of this year, Chicago registered 93 murders, its lowest January-to-April tally since 1963.

Then this month came news that Chicago experienced a 31 percent decrease in shootings for the month of May, which meant that through May of this year the city's murder count had declined 34 percent from last year. Chicago homicides still outnumber those in larger cities, such as New York and Los Angeles; it suffers from weaker gun laws in both its home state and surrounding states than those two cities, allowing criminals easier access to guns purchased elsewhere.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/the-truth-about-chicagos_b_3468649.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tammywammy (Reply #218)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 09:34 PM

224. Granted- but it's still double that of 'shall-issue' Houston.

If the OP's notion that "CCW causes homicides" were true, shouldn't it be the opposite?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #224)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 09:49 PM

225. Separate topic

But I agree with your post.

I also support concealed carry like we have in Texas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #213)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 11:30 PM

230. This year

Look at a calendar. What does it say? This is 2013. Try to keep up. I know it's difficult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #230)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 02:55 AM

240. Well, good for them- their murder rate is now only about 1.5x that of Houston's.

Which has 'shall-issue' CCW, by the way.
I thought that was supposed to increase homicide rates; I seem to recall someone saying something along those lines here...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #240)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 03:58 AM

242. Well, then we should expect the homicide rate in Chicago

to fall to Houston's by next year. If everyone has guns, no one can possibly kill anyone. Isn't that what the argument is in bizarro world? Guns tame the wild beast, while gun control magically turns an otherwise peaceful population into homicidal maniacs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #242)

Fri Jun 21, 2013, 12:25 AM

260. It's possible- after all, the murder rate in St. Paul fell after 'shall-issue' went into effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #240)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 04:30 AM

243. I wonder what keeps the Japanese from murdering each other?

Since their homicide rate is a fraction of our own, yet they have very effective gun control.

International homicide rates

Japan. 0.4 per 100k
UK. 1.2
USA 4.8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Obviously gun control is lethal, while gun proliferation has absolutely nothing to do with the highest homicide rate in the First World. Clearly the problem is that enough people aren't walking around with guns to make this country safe.

I know. Those numbers don't count because they don't prove what you want. The only legitimate statistics are the ones that prove that homicide occurs in inverse relation to the number of guns in the population. Guns aren't really designed to kill. They are machines of love that magically make people feel all warm and fuzzy.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #243)

Fri Jun 21, 2013, 12:15 AM

257. Possibly their extremely high suicide rate, i.e., they're taking it out on themselves

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Japan

Suicide in Japan has become a significant national social-issue. Japan has one of the world's highest suicide rates, and the Japanese government reported the rate for 2006 as being the ninth highest in the world. 71% of suicides in Japan were male, and it is the leading cause of death in men aged 20-44.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #138)


Response to HolyMoley (Reply #82)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 12:45 PM

84. I'm a big supporter of CC,

 

but, as 1 member said in another thread, there is no right to CC, other than that, I do agree that it should be shall issue, but with more stringent qualifications.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HolyMoley (Reply #82)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 07:40 PM

145. I agree with your "take" on " may issue".

Too often it become a game of favorites in my state. Those days are now gone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 02:39 PM

93. Pass

I don't know the difference between all the versions of concealed carry you posted, and I am not interested enough in the issue to learn the distinctions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #93)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 02:40 PM

95. 38,000 homicides a year

I would think something in that would warrant interest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #95)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 02:44 PM

96. Of which 2/3rds of those are suicides,

 

which is more of a mental health issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #96)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 02:46 PM

97. I'm sure you can find a way to discount the rest of those deaths too

and explain how expanding background checks are totally unnecessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #97)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 02:52 PM

100. I'm not trying to discount anything,

 

I'm just pointing out a fact, I realize that using a gun to commit suicide makes it more likely that it will be successful, but someone who is determined to end their life will find a way to do so, the trick is to hopefully intervene before the fact and get the person to a mental health professional.

And I have never said that UBC is unnecessary, I've supported it over and over here on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #97)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 08:09 PM

151. On your other thread

on this topic you said there was a shootout in front of your house and your car was damaged. Where do you live? (I'm not looking for an address, I'm just interested in what part of what city do you live where such shootings are common?)

Edit: Ok, I read the rest of your other thread. I don't understand what your point was about the distinction of whether someone lives in a city, suburb, small town, or rural and how it relates to guns.

I will correct you on two things. Your city does not have a population of 500,000. You can own property in the woods of NE Minnesota without the need for shotgun. There are many people that do it. We have 235 acres in northern Minnesota and while we frequently have guns up there, we never leave them there (even though our place has never had a break in) and we don't usually have shotguns unless it is grouse season. If you leave the bears and wolves alone (we have seen both on our property) they will leave you alone. A little common sense goes a long way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #95)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 07:55 PM

147. LOL, you people always tend to add the suicide numbers in. To be misleading I assume. n-t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #147)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 07:58 PM

148. That's really funny

Ha ha. WTF is wrong with you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #148)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 08:08 PM

149. He's not laughing about the suicides

he's laughing at you. But you know that. It's you assuming DUers aren't smart enough to see the obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pintobean (Reply #149)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 08:08 PM

150. Cool story, bro

I cited DOJ numbers. He wants to claim 2/3 of those deaths don't count. DUers can decide for themselves what to think about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #150)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 08:28 PM

153. True story, sis

Highlights:

Firearm-related homicides declined 39%, from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011.

Nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69%, from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 victimizations in 2011.

Firearm violence accounted for about 70% of all homicides and less than 10% of all nonfatal violent crime from 1993 to 2011.

From 1993 to 2011, about 70% to 80% of firearm homicides and 90% of nonfatal firearm victimizations were committed with a handgun.

Males, blacks, and persons ages 18 to 24 had the highest rates of firearm homicide from 1993 to 2010.

About 61% of nonfatal firearm violence was reported to the police in 200711.


http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4616

And, from your link in the OP, look at what was happening during that same time frame:


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pintobean (Reply #153)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 10:31 PM

156. Indisputable proof




The number one factor influencing violent crime

Is the percentage of young males in the population, a criminologist told me. Crime rates have gone down as the birth rate has dropped.

Your link to concealed carry is wishful thinking without any empirical base. It's nice for the multi-billion dollar corporate gun lobby to provide such snazzy graphics though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #156)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 10:45 PM

157. I didn't claim cause and effect

but it, sure as shit, disputes the crap you've been trying to peddle.

I wonder what that criminologist would think of your theories on CCWs effects on big city murder rates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pintobean (Reply #157)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 10:47 PM

158. Right, you just thought I was stupid enough to believe the implication

Not a chance, bud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #158)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 10:53 PM

159. I don't think you're stupid, and I'm not a liar.

Good night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #158)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 07:33 AM

199. When disproving the claim that liberalized ccw causes an increase in crime,

one does not have to prove that ccw causes a reduction in crime. It is sufficient to show that crime does not increase.

You have made the claim that expansion of ccw will cause an increase in homicides, particularly among minorities. Evidence has been provided to the contrary, but you are free to refute that evidence with some of your own.

The debate tactic of bombarding your opponent with personal attacks, dishonest misrepresentation, accusations of racism, relentless pontification, and endless hyperbole is doing your credibility no favors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bazinga (Reply #199)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 08:36 PM

214. I don't care about property crime

The entire theory of CCW is premised on the idea that your property is worth more than the lives of the rest of us. I do not hold to that. I can see an argument where having a gun makes you better able to defend yourself from theft. I can see an argument where a woman with a gun might be better able to protect herself against rape, and I understand how important that is. (However far to often they have those guns used against them). So I could concede those points on a theoretical basis. Very few gunners here, however, are women. So you do not carry because you fear rape. you seek to protect your property.

What I can see no theory of is how CCW reduces homicide. Common sense says the opposite, particularly when there have been 508 homicides by CCW holders. Now, you believe your money to be worth more than the life of the mugger or anyone else in the vicinity, or people like Trayvon Martin and the young teenager killed because the CCW holder didn't like the volume of his music. I do not concede the fact.

Besides, I have seen no evidence provided by anyone. It's possible I missed it. I can't keep up with the swarm of gunners descending on me, but I have seen no evidence of anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #214)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 09:31 PM

223. "I have seen no evidence provided by anyone." Here you are-the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports:

So, now you have no excuse...

UCR Publications

Crime in the United States

An annual publication in which the FBI compiles the volume and rate of violent and property crime offenses for the nation and by state. Individual law enforcement agency data are also provided for those contributors supplying 12 months complete offense data. This report also includes arrest, clearance, and law enforcement employee data. Use the new online UCR Data Tool to research crime statistics for the nation, by state, and by individual law enforcement agency.


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr-publications#Crime

What I can see no theory of is how CCW reduces homicide. Common sense says the opposite...


Well, 'common sense' seems to have betrayed you.

I give the following examples of large cities in states that went 'shall-issue', from the year before
SI went into effect and 2011 (the latest complete year available from the UCR site)

You were most definitely wrong about your home state, Minnesota.
The first figure is population, the second is murder and non-negligent manslaughter:

2002

Minneapolis 390,415 47

St. Paul 293,002 13

MN went 'shall-issue' in 2003


2011

Minneapolis 385,531 32

St. Paul 287,665 8


How 'bout another state with large cities that went 'shall issue'?- Ohio

Ohio went 'shall-issue' in 2004. Turns out, it's a mixed bag- Cincinnati and Columbus declined, Akron and Cleveland increased:

2003

Akron 214,622 16

Cincinnati 324,297 71

Cleveland 468,446 73
(note: the number was lower in 2003, but the rate increased due to declining population)

Columbus 726,151 109



2011

Akron 199,256 27

Cincinnati 297,160 61

Cleveland 397,106 74

Columbus 787,609 87

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #223)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 01:43 AM

236. You do understand that correlation in and of itself is not proof?

You don't seem to. For example


Gosh. Global warming must be caused by pirates.



There are many other factors to consider, particularly when you have chosen such large gaps of time, the most important being the percentage of the population of young men. That is one of the reasons this editorial is so important.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023045482

If the gun lobby truly believes that evidence is on their side, why do they work so assiduously to outlaw research?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #214)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 10:45 PM

229. I'm sorry but you're wrong again.

As much as you want gun-owners to be blood-thirsty, heartless neanderthals, the truth is they just aren't.

CCW is not about property defense, it is aboutself-defense. You know this, and yet you continue to misrepresent those who disagree with you as somehow secretly desiring to kill people over a few dollars. It shouldn't surprise you that "gunners" dig in their heels and refuse to listen to/compromise with you.

A mugging situation has nothing to do with the $5 in my pocket, it has everything to do with the gun or knife in my face. It wouldn't matter if every dime I owned was in my pocket, all that matters is getting home to my family, by any means. Is that unreasonable?

You have a false perception that if using a gun is an option then somehow it is the only option. The truth is the gun is the last option.

Plan A) Situational awareness/avoidance
Plan B) Run
Plan C) Negotiate
Plan D) Comply (by throwing what they demanded in one direction and running in the other)
...
Plan X) Warn
Plan Y) Brandish
Plan ZZZ) Fire to stop the threat

I'm sure even you would agree that lethal force is justified in defense of one's life. After all, we have a right to life, no?

If someone claimed that CCW reduces homicide, I must have missed it. I know you have claimed that CCW somehow increases homicides, which hasn't been substantiated with statistics. In fact, your post #214 was a response to evidence to the contrary. You even attempted to dismiss that evidence with the facetious, non sequitur "evidence" of your own. Feel free to support your claim with evidence, or not. I'm much more concerned with your perception of gun-owners than whether or not either of us is right concerning the correlation of CCW and homicide.

As far as the 508 people killed by CCW permittees in the last 6 years, others have adequately addressed the policy implications of that statistic. I would only add my condolences to their families. Lives ended prematurely are tragic no matter the means. I feel the same for the 20,000+ who take their own lives each year with a gun. Far from dismissing these deaths, we should really do all we can to lift the hands that hang down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bazinga (Reply #229)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 01:55 AM

237. Someone just did make that claim

Friendly iconoclast. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3050787

Here's the situation. In this thread on fantasies of being the good guy with the gun, a couple of posters gave their scenarios for being the tough guy. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3031723

One poster described a situation in which he was being stalked by someone. I pointed out that is not what happens, that most shootings are not directed at you in particular unless you happen to be involved in something nefarious. More likely, they are shooting at someone else and you might get caught in the cross fire. He went on to tell me that if someone is targeting you for assassination, you're probably done for, that he was talking about a mugging. In my view, if someone wants the few bucks in my wallet that badly, I'd prefer to give it to him than kill him. YMMV.

Mother Jones has published information suggesting that those carrying guns are more likely to kill or hurt someone or themselves than the population at large. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check They have also shown a correlation between density of guns and homicide rates. Now, correlation is not proof, I understand. The problem is prohibitions on federally funded research and other restrictions forcing destruction of any documentation about guns badly impairs the ability to find clear answers to these questions, which is why the plea made in this editorial is so important. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023045482

My question is that if the gun lobby is so certain evidence shows that more guns equal fewer deaths and CC equals fewer deaths, or doesn't increase them, why do they work so assiduously to prohibit research?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #237)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 02:51 AM

239. I did not. I demonstrated that your assertions that "CCW increases homicide" is wrong.

These, remember?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12592109#post2

Star Member BainsBane (11,117 posts)
2. Were this the typical gun post, I wouldn't have bothered

contacting you. We are all used to a certain discourse from the Gungeon crowd. That thread goes far beyond what "pro-gun Democrats" espouse. It is seeking to spread concealed carry into urban areas, when all evidence shows that concealed carry leads to higher homicide rates.


And again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3050387

What I can see no theory of is how CCW reduces homicide. Common sense says the opposite,


I provided actual statistics in post #223, and your response is to misrepresent what I said- I made no claim
that CCW reduces murde/homicider rates, I merely pointed out that your repeated assertions about it are
demonstrably wrong.

You are entitled to your own feelings and opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts...





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #239)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 03:57 AM

241. They are not demonstrably wrong

at best inconclusive. You have no isolated for any variables whatsoever. So tell me what you plan to do about lifting the ban on research into guns? Or do you support that ban? Do you like the gun lobby consider it a threat to have informed answers to these questions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #241)

Fri Jun 21, 2013, 12:24 AM

259. 'Shall-issue' passed in Minnesota, and the murder rate did not increase.

Same in Ohio (for the most part).

You were wrong, you were shown to be wrong, and now you are dissembling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #239)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 04:42 AM

244. When I have a chance I will search academic databases

to see if I can find some recent studies on concealed carry and gun proliferation and homicide more generally. I'm not optimistic given the ban on federally funded research, but I'll see what I can find. I know you won't be interested, but I'll do so anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #244)

Fri Jun 21, 2013, 12:22 AM

258. What's wrong with the FBI's "Crime in The United States" reports?

Do you have any evidence that their methodology is not accurate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #244)

Fri Jun 21, 2013, 12:32 AM

261. You mean you did not have evidence at hand when you made your original claim?

A reminder:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12592109#post2


...That thread goes far beyond what "pro-gun Democrats" espouse. It is seeking to spread concealed carry into urban areas, when all evidence shows that concealed carry leads to higher homicide rates...


Unless and until you can demonstrate the statistics published by the FBI at:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

are incorrect, there are no studies that you can find that would be relevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #261)

Mon Jun 24, 2013, 04:16 AM

281. I have read reports to that effect

but I have not found any recent academic studies. There is clear correlation between homicide rates and the numbers of guns in a community. More guns, more homicides.
That point is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain stem since that is what guns are designed for.




As for not getting this done per your time table, I actually have a job and things to do at work. Not to mention internet outages do to storms, but in reality what does it matter? It's not like you care one iota about evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #281)

Mon Jun 24, 2013, 04:40 AM

282. You needn't bother- I've already done it, and provided links to same

You not only refuse to accept it, but you act as if I've not posted anything- while you keep
posting tertiary sources like the Mother Jones article you got the graphic from.

The fact is, no matter what spin you choose to apply:

The number of guns in the US has risen while homicide rates have fallen.

I'd point out the many, many discussions of the record number of ATF background checks in the Gungeon
and the FBIs Crime in The United States reports:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr-publications#Crime

Note especially the decline in murder/manslaughter rates between 1995 and 2011.

That same decline occurred while the number of guns in the US rose 30-40%


So once again, your claim that

More guns, more homicides. is demonstrably incorrect

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #282)

Mon Jun 24, 2013, 02:40 PM

287. how cynical

to cite background checks while simultaneously working to limit background checks. Not only bullshit, it's dishonest and cynical bullshit, since so many gun sales are not subject to background checks, which is exactly how the gun cabal wants it.

Amazing that you can even produce that with a straight face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #287)

Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:28 PM

292. I *am* in favor of universal background checks. Search my posts.

And while you're at it, kindly lay off your bullshit about what my stance on the issue is.

What I don't care for was all the excess baggage added onto the last attempt to pass UBCs in Congress-
I don't do uncritical acceptance, and never have

In fact, I was saying five years ago that I had no problem for the most part with Massachusetts' gun laws
(which include UBC:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x182340

friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-02-08 12:34 PM
Original message
Now to get rid of "may issue" laws

They are a violation of 14th Amendement. The idea of some politician getting to choose who
gets to exercise a constitutional right always stuck in my craw.

New York and Massachusetts are the most blatant examples I can think of.

I never had much problem with the Massachusetts gun laws otherwise.

(The "approved list" and limits on magazines to 10 rounds or fewer are
stupid but might pass muster Constitutionally)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #244)

Mon Jun 24, 2013, 03:15 AM

279. You can stop pretending to look for that non-existant evidence now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #279)

Mon Jun 24, 2013, 04:13 AM

280. remdi95

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bazinga (Reply #199)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 08:47 PM

217. Oh, you mean pintobean's post

that's supposed to be evidence.

You guys are so funny.
Yes, incontrovertible proof indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #217)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 10:09 PM

228. That's twice

What respect I had for you is completely gone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pintobean (Reply #228)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 01:26 AM

235. Your pal told me your post was evidence

Last edited Thu Jun 20, 2013, 07:09 AM - Edit history (1)

It look me a bit to remember what evidence I had supposedly seen. Then I realized what post he was responding to. So that graphic illustrates perfectly such correlations. You don't respect it, there is nothing I can do about that. It's your problem entirely.

I can live with your having the same level of respect for me that I've had for you for many months now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #235)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 07:50 AM

245. It's been obvious from day one

that you don't have any respect for anyone who disagrees with you on anything, or challenges anything you post. I hope that's just part of your on-line personality. If someone was actually like that IRL, life would suck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pintobean (Reply #245)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 08:03 AM

246. Oh, just quit whining




No one forces you to subject yourself to my opinions. I would much prefer you didn't. I don't think I've once entered a thread of yours. You follow me around for the purpose of feeling outraged. Get a life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #246)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 08:10 AM

247. That made me lol.

What a predictable reply. I wonder if the queen is paying any attention to your challenge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pintobean (Reply #247)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 08:40 AM

251. If you must know

The opinion I formed on you had nothing to do with your views on any subject since I so seldom see you discuss any issue. You seem to spend most of your time attacking the character of other posters.

Now, proceed as usual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #251)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 09:07 AM

253. That should be good for a laugh for anyone

who had seen your transparency page, which was viewable from shortly after you got here, until about a month ago. You were in the teens most of that time and, at one point, tied for 2nd place for the most hidden posts in a 90 day period. You may even have held sole possession of 2nd place for a while. Of course, all those hidden posts were always someone else's fault. You always claimed innocence.

I don't go after people for disagreeing with me, I go after people who treat other DUers like shit. And when I do, I usually address the behavior, not a person's character. My transparency page has never been anywhere near being exposed. I'm sure that isn't due to lack of effort from you and your friends.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pintobean (Reply #253)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 11:54 AM

256. Oh the transparency page

Yes, look at my transparency page. It must eat you up that you can't point to it. I haven't had a post hidden in 81 days. How about you?

You don't go after people for disagreeing with you. To do that you would have to state an opinion, and I never saw you make a single point of substance prior to this week. In fact, you used to pretend you weren't a gun proponent. You go after people for existing. You have consistently treated me and others badly. You make a sport of it. So I suggest you look after your own house rather than continually wagging your finger at others. DU has an alert system for that sort of thing. No one needs you to act as hall monitor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #93)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 08:25 AM

203. The difference between "may" issue and "shall issue"

is that may issue, the issuing authority may turn down issuing a permit to qualified persons for any or no reason. That doesn't mean they actually have higher standards. To get one in LA or Orange County, you have to give enough to the Sheriff's election campaign. New York, for example, has no standards other than having "just cause" which means nothing really. Some may issue states, especially NY and CA have counties that are functionally shall issue. In NYC, you just have to be rich.
In shall issue states, the issuing authority must issue the permit to those who meet the standards under the statute. It doesn't matter how liberal or strict the criteria is, the key thing is removing arbitrary discretion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 03:01 PM

102. I see that you needed to go to Bansalot for help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #102)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 03:08 PM

105. "My poll wasn't going the way I wanted, plz halp!" n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #105)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 03:46 PM

110. Even with their help

 

it still isn't going her way -- go figure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CokeMachine (Reply #110)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 04:05 PM

113. I don't think that her cohorts in Castle Bansalot

 

want to get involved it this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #102)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 03:17 PM

106. That just makes the poll totally useless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pintobean (Reply #106)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 04:29 PM

116. A link to this poll has been posted in the Gungeon. Happy now? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #102)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 04:32 PM

117. Bwahaha!

First poll didn't go the way they wanted, so self-delete- http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023035330

Now rally the rabble!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #117)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 05:43 PM

130. Thanks for the link!!

 

Reading the comments was just funny. People are cheating by calling where they live a City. Hell, I grew up in a place called Hall City (before they renamed it _ _ _ City) and has a population of 400. We all called it a city. We also had a City hall, City parks, City water and sewer, City Clerk, City jail, etc.). I guess we were always living a lie. I now live in a city of 50K and it's still the City of _____. Don't tell anyone here that we are a suburb of SF. We generally don't even claim Marin County.

Have a good day!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 05:46 PM

133. Hey, at least we all seem to agree "May Issue" sucks

That's something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 06:45 PM

139. Just for the record...

...I live now within 10 minutes driving from downtown Philly. I consider my area suburban. The population is 35,000.

I do not now nor have I ever had a carry permit.
My "shall issue" opinion has not changed since I lived in Philadelphia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 07:19 PM

143. It seems to me that "calling out the troops" from Castle Bansalot didn't help.

Her side is still loosing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #143)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 07:33 PM

144. So far, she's gotten one reply,

 

from someone who's just as "out there" on the gun control issue as she is.
It looks like Castle Bansalot ain't doing so well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #144)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:27 AM

166. "bansalot"

translation: supports the horror of Democratic Party positions like background checks.

As opposed to the Tea bag positions advanced by gun cultists.

Have you written the President, VP, and the Democratic senate to tell them how authoritarian they are? Everyone can't be Ted Cruz, though I have no doubt the gun lobby is working diligently to make sure everyone who isn't is tossed out of office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #166)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 08:59 AM

207. they gotta give this up. They aren't fooling anyone...

funny how they "think" they are, LOL! Maybe they grandiosely think they are on a dashing secret operation to sabotage a liberal Democratic website. "See, we're Dems too and we support 'rational' gun safety laws' (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)"...

Only they can't quite carry it off...too bad...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #207)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 09:28 PM

221. Truth is irrelevant to them

They create their own world, just like the Teabagger do. Of course, they also share some of the same beliefs and sources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #143)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 07:52 PM

146. Did you see the original of that post?

0. Do me a favor
unfreep this poll.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023036569


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #143)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 09:21 PM

154. For posterity

Last edited Wed Jun 19, 2013, 08:51 AM - Edit history (1)

6-18-13


updated: 6-19-13

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #154)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 09:52 PM

155. Lol, you expecting an imminent self-delete, too? Glad I wasn't the only one. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #155)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:21 AM

164. So how do you figure you're side is winning

In gunner math is 83 more than 105? Did the NRA teach you that?

Amazing how many "people" with just a handful of posts voted for shall issue, isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #164)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:26 AM

165. In "Concealed carry" vs "No concealed carry", CC is winning, so there's that.

At least at the time of this posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #165)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:28 AM

168. no

Not even close. Do none of you know basic math? I mean, I'm very weak at math myself, but I can add. Fuck everything to do with guns means they don't want you to have a gun at all. Even if you ignore every other category, that means you lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #168)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:30 AM

170. 112 for CC, 91 against.

I do not support concealed carry
72 (35%)
I support very limited concealed carry with greater training and testing than currently required
15 (7%)
I support broadening concealed carry rights but imposing greater training and testing that currently required
13 (6%)
I support may issue concealed carry
0 (0%)
I support shall issue concealed carry
77 (38%)
I support universal concealed carry, meaning no permit necessary.
7 (3%)
I say fuck guns and anything to do with them.
19 (9%)


15+13+0+77+7= 112


72+19= 91



Basic math.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #170)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:32 AM

172. Oh, so lesser concealed carry that exists now

Is a win for you? I thought this was all about extending concealed carry. If that's the case, no need for shall issue at all, is there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #172)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:34 AM

173. Sorry, didn't see a "Lesser concealed" option. Or anyone voting for it.

Hell, even I support a tightened CCW legislation in certain areas where such will benefit a reduction in crime rates. However, it is still CC, and I think the legislation potential in "tightened" CCW laws should apply even with expanded CCW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #173)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:39 AM

176. Number 2?

if that's a win for you all, I'm good with that. No problem whatsoever. I thought this was about gun policy. Here I find out it's a pissing contest. I would have conceded that yesterday. I don't care whose tackle is the biggest. I myself don't have any tackle. I care about guns out in circulation in the hands of people like Zimmerman and the other 508 CC permit holders who have committed homicides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #176)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:41 AM

177. Nope.

"I support very limited concealed carry with greater training and testing than currently required"

I agree to that in certain geographical locations, possibly cities or other high-density populations, but not as an overall whole. They should be the exception, not the rule, and in either case, the option supports concealed carry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #177)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:43 AM

179. fine. That's a good option. Let's enforce it.

Deal? Will the gungeon agree to work on that instead of shall issue? Shit, I almost chose that option myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #179)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:45 AM

181. I'd agree to that. Our common ground is far more common than you think, Bains.

I'll post something up in the RKBA forum later on, gauge some interest in regards to geographically-based CCL for cities that wish it, with a shall-issue as the standard option. Is this acceptable?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #181)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:47 AM

182. That would be awesome!

Totally, totally awesome!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #181)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:50 AM

183. As long as you are talking about very careful testing

training and background checks for everyone. Agreed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #183)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:57 AM

185. I wouldn't be opposed to that, with a provision;

Testing is something that has to be regulated across the board, not on a city-by-city basis, lest there be potential for abuse of the system either in favor of or against CC. Likewise, the cost for said training, testing, and background checks would have to avoid being prohibitive.

Also, to be blunt, I don't expect the response to be favorable. Don't get your hopes up.

I'll make the post soon, definitely within a day, but probably not immediately, as I want to research crime rates as proof of necessity before making the post, and honestly, I'm just tired as all get out at the moment. I'd like to catch a nap before I write 'er up.

Otherwise, does that sound decent?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #185)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 01:01 AM

186. a statewide basis is fine

Yes, that sounds fine. I prefer it not be shall issue, because that's not what option 2 was but I understand that would be a necessary compromise for the gungeon crowd.

I can tell you from looking at the names in number 2, they didn't consider it shall issue. There are several members of "castle bansalot" in there. But as I said, I understand the importance of compromise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #181)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:53 AM

184. Though number 2

Isn't for shall issue. That would actually be closer to three. Still, if you would push for the training, testing, and background checks, I'd feel a lot better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #155)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:27 AM

167. Well it isn't going the way she wanted even after soliciting votes


I suspect cognitive dissonance will kick in and she'll have to resolve the conflict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #167)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:29 AM

169. well, you recruited all kinds of members

to vote with no to virtually no posting history on the site. Isn't that handy. Despite all the activity in the laundry room, you're still losing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #169)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 08:56 AM

205. I recruited nobody.


You're relatively new at DU, but these types of polls about guns or gun rights usually pan out at 50-50 for or against in General Discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #167)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:31 AM

171. Probably. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #167)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:36 AM

174. the cognitive dissonance has already kicked in on the pro gun violence side

I've just been told that all of the options except one count for your side, so that means you don't need to extend shall issue at all. We could all agree on option 2 and live happily ever after.

See, I kind of figured the options looking to EXPAND concealed carry would be on one side the ones looking to LESSEN it would be on the other. But if greater restrictions than the law currently allows is a win for you, I'm more than happy to give it to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #174)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:38 AM

175. Why don't you just delete again? It'll spare you lots of heartache. :) n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #175)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:42 AM

178. So it is a pissing contest?

God. How juvenile. It really is a waste trying to debate with grown men who play with toys.

Okay, you won. Yours is bigger, Do you feel really big and strong now?

The poll is in my journal. You'll be able to access it anytime you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #178)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:44 AM

180. Well, it was, when you were "winning". Suddenly now it's not? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #178)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 08:03 AM

201. Amazing

2 of your posts, less than a half hour apart:

Your language is completely sexist. Hysterical and shrill are both sexist terms. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from insulting me based on gender.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023036569#post187

God. How juvenile. It really is a waste trying to debate with grown men who play with toys.

Okay, you won. Yours is bigger, Do you feel really big and strong now?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023036569#post178

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pintobean (Reply #201)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 08:41 PM

216. guilty

I did think about that one later on. You're right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #174)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 08:57 AM

206. #2 is Texas. they limit CC to trained and tested folks.


If you're OK with Texas, I'll mark you down as a CC supporter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #206)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 09:27 PM

220. read downthread

I already said I don't have a problem with that, though I cannot comment on Texas' law since I am not familiar with it. That doesn't mean, however, giving a permit to every sociopath who turns up. The other guy is working on it. He said he doesn't expect you all to go along with it but is putting together evidence to try to persuade gungeon folk.

There is an amazing number of votes from people with less than 10 posts on that poll. I'm not the only one who observed it. I've got this saved in my journal in case anyone should be interested in further examining those names.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #206)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 09:30 PM

222. Amazingly, I created the various options to try to give people

an opportunity to express their views on various types of concealed carry. I didn't create a poll where all but one choice was a "loss" for me but a "win" for gun forces. Is number 2 is a win for you, I've love nothing more than to see you lobby for that throughout the US rather than seeking to establish shall issue and universal. I don't give a fuck about "winning." I'm an adult. I care about human life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #222)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 08:31 AM

250. your opponents just can't see that, but it is very clear.

at the end of the day, it is more about what gun safety regulation is the most effective and saves lives. but if your goal is to try some gotcha games, your stage of development isn't very well developed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #250)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 09:30 AM

254. Some people never seem to get beyond

the schoolyard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #143)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:17 AM

162. Wow, your math really sucks, dude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:00 AM

161. bear with me on this post please

I am on my android phone and I hate to type with it...

I not only support shall issue conceal carry. I actively practice it. currently I'm in Greensboro North Carolina Marriott Hotel near the airport. I am carrying a concealed 45 caliber handgun as I type this. and besides my wife you dear users are the only people that know this.

in the course of my job I go to a lot of potentially dangerous locations late at night alone. thankfully tonight is not one of those nights but I did not know when I left the house.

my family is depending on me to not only make money but to make sure their father and husband comes home alive at the end of the day. my 45 is a way of helping make sure that happens

and yes I'm in compliance with all laws in regard to the concealed gun north carolina honors a Virginia ccw permit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #161)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:18 AM

163. Oh, a 45

I currently have two bullet holes in my car from one of those.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 01:51 AM

189. If I can't carry my claymore openly, why should you get to hide your gun? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #189)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 01:56 AM

190. Hey, excellent point

This?



I suppose a gunner would say swords aren't protected by the 2nd Amendment (but then neither is concealed carry), but the precise text says "arms." I guess it would depend on whether the framers meant guns exclusively. I translate gun nut imperfectly, so take that for what you will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #190)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 10:22 AM

210. FWIW - Swords were/should be definitely covered...

they are mandatory arms for many militia members in the original Militia Acts.

For some reason, once deemed obsolete, no one seems to care all that much about swords...sort of like the original meaning of "well-regulated militia" in the 2nd and constitution becoming obsolete with the creation of the National Guard. Now so many choose to simply ignore that purpose.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #210)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 09:51 PM

226. Probably because one needs skill and physical condition to use a sword

Whereas any indolent slob can shoot a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #226)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 10:08 PM

227. Since you don't shoot, how would you know that to be fact.

Come on and join me at my range. You can try your hand at 300-500 yard targets, with no scope. See for yourself how "easy" it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #227)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 01:11 AM

232. Isn't that the point of the new snazzy weapons?

That they are easy to shoot with little kickback? I've been told that is why the AWB is such a horrible idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #232)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 08:54 AM

252. This is real competition shooting. what you showed is crap.

&list=PLEC01DBFE8852A1E7




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #227)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 01:23 AM

233. For example

Please note, I have nothing against the corpulent. I'm horizontally challenged myself, but I also know that I am not a paragon of physical conditioning.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #233)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 08:12 AM

248. Holy shit! Look at these guys!!!

That first one in particular. I can't see how he could even walk to a shooting range from a car...the guy posing with all those guns --- that must be a paragon of mental health right there...and the guy with the wheelbarrow! I am speechless...the pictures say it all...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #233)

Mon Jun 24, 2013, 04:18 PM

290. Since you probably didn't bother to look at my post#252.

The top junior shooter at the NRA Garand Matches is a young lady "of color".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #226)

Fri Jun 21, 2013, 01:02 AM

262. Are you calling senior citizens "indolent slob"s?

It is a brutal fact of life that as we get older we our physical fitness declines. I am a senior citizen. I have a disability. There is no way that I would be able to defend myself against a young street mugger, except by the use of a gun.

My wife, a few years ago, used her gun to prevent herself from being forced to open the office door. If she had opened it, the mugger would have then had to silence her so she couldn't call the police while he stole stuff. Since she was about 60 at the time, and a small (4'10") frail (osteoarthritis) woman, it is unlikely that she would have survived being silenced. When the would-be attack saw that she was armed, he fled. Nobody got hurt. Are you suggesting that she was an indolent slob for not trying to fight him using personal skill and strength?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #262)

Fri Jun 21, 2013, 01:07 AM

263. I'm glad your wife is safe

I am not calling seniors or the disabled indolent slobs. It is quite obvious the one does not need the kind of skill or physical conditioning required for sword fighting to use a gun. Ever watch the Borgias? Cesare Borgia in history or representation compared to some of the images I post below. I rest my case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #189)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 10:31 AM

211. If you can conceal it, why not.

However if you mean this type of claymore then you are out of luck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18A1_Claymore_Antipersonnel_Mine

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 04:09 AM

191. Not a Gun owner.

But i don't have a problem with licensed concealed carry.

Studies show that crime decreases when probability of being caught is too great to take risk,the only exception is with mental illness.

What i would like to see is all guns be registered and accounted for. Things i would like to see.

1.All guns tied to owners through a free license registration with harsh penalty's for not doing so,in the case of home protection one gun could have multiple people registered to it in the house hold.

2.I would like to see bullets also being registered to the same license,you buy a box of ammo it has internal serial codes or some kinda unique finger print that is tied to you at purchase quickly and easily with a scan each box being different,in the case of people reloading ammo have decent shell casing catches at gun ranges so you can easily get your shells back.

3. Guns bought anywhere including shows will be registered with a quick bar scan on your gun Id,If someone steals your weapon you are required to report it quickly,but for some reason you don't notice it gone and its used in a crime it can be tied to you making it easier for law enforcement to track the criminal.

4. ammo can not be bought with out your free gun license and with each box being unique will be easier for law enforcement.

5.if you want to sale a gun to a Friend or someone else a transfer from your id to their id must take place.

6.guns found not to be registered ever will still be able to be traced to the original seller who will be forced to comply.

Most guns used in crimes are not stolen but bought legal at first then sold repeatedly for cheaper until it gets in the hands of desperate people. I don't think this is a end all solution but i do believe it will remove most of the safety and freedom people who commit crimes with guns have with our current system.

I do not favor medical background checks because i believe it is a invasion of personal effects but i believe the registration of weapons and ammo fits just fine with "well regulated" part of the second amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 04:13 AM

192. Interesting poll results.

Not the results you expected, are they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #192)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 04:15 AM

193. No, they aren't

but it may have helped forge a compromise. Someone is going to post a thread in the gungeon later, so we'll see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 05:55 AM

195. Interesting group of "DUers" voting yes in this.

Of course, there's the usual gungeon crew, but then also a surprising number of the "yes" votes come from people with 10 posts or less. Could this be the next generation of gun trolls? Or maybe those are socks that the current generation of gun trolls creates in order to vote in polls like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #195)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 05:58 AM

196. Interesting, isn't it?

And now they have great joy in showing me how wrong I am and how they "won." Evidently winning includes counting option two. I noted that I'm happy to go with option two instead of spreading will issue. They of course are not.

I'll have this poll on hand in case MIRT or the administrators take an interest. I'm keeping it in my journal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #196)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 06:09 AM

197. Well, it is somewhat of on illustration of an "intensity gap" on guns.

Just the fact that there are so many gun trolls here does show that there is a contingent that is very dedicated to the cause. Part of it, of course, is that the loophole in DU rules makes guns an easy way for all kinds of right-wing trolls to hide without having to express any progressive opinions. But, still, are there other issues where so many people create new accounts just to pump up poll results?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #197)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 06:17 AM

198. I can't think of any

but I don't have an expansive knowledge of all the hot button issues on the site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #197)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 09:17 AM

208. I really don't know why they have such a burning desire to "prove" that they are good Dems.

They are unmasked time after time. Why not just own up to what one is and live with it?

They also look so stupid when they fail again and again to convince real Dems that they are brethren. They aren't fooling anyone here...they should take up another hobby or something...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #208)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 02:22 AM

238. Seriously

I ultimately think they are desperate to try to prove to themselves that their views are legitimate. They have to know they aren't convincing anyone here, but they have an almost pathological need for self-justification and will twist numbers every which way in a desperate effort to prove to themselves that guns have nothing to do with homicide rates, or worse, that gun control somehow magically causes murder. It's the strangest case of mass cognitive dissonance I've seen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #196)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 05:45 PM

271. Ah, now we gave it: Calling in MIRT to expunge those with whom you disagree.

You can call in YOUR side for this poll at any time.

But that is not your strong suit, is it?

However, as befitting the gun control outlook writ large, you have folks who know how to work DU's system, don't you? Efforts to stigmatize and engender hatred toward fellow DUers have largely failed and have grown tiresome, but controllers can't let up; it's like an addiction. No wonder folks have begun to think that this animosity towards gun-owners goes uway beyond guns and crime -- beyond mass murders -- and is more plausibly explained by a generalized hatred of tens of millions of fellow Americans for a host of perceived sins. A hatred which cravenly, feverishly seeks out legitimacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #271)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 07:36 PM

272. Sigh

Invent anything you want. Reality obviously means nothing. Carry on with that persecution complex you so carefully nourish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #272)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 08:00 PM

273. Ho-hum

Paranoia. The usual Castle BansAlot™ Talking Point. That & 24-7 projection.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #273)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 10:12 PM

276. Democratic Party gun policy

that's what the Gun Reform Activism Group supports, on a Democratic website of all places. The fact you despise us and the party's policy tells us everything we need to know about you and your game here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #276)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 10:51 PM

277. I have seen little to indicate you are liberal or progressive.

In fact, I am probably more liberal than you. So there. Of course, all manner of discussion over what that means takes place in DU.

Except in Castle BansaLot™.

You really need to keep that projection down. It's really obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #277)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 11:22 PM

278. Really?

Is that why you defend the NRA, an organization dedicated to electing Republicans? When have you ever posted about anything other than guns, and on that issue you oppose Dem policy at every turn. To know where people stand on other issues you'd have to read another thread sometime. Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

Remdi95

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #278)

Mon Jun 24, 2013, 10:05 AM

283. Really.

You, of course, make one untrue accusation after another against your enemies. And that includes your untrue accusation that I "defend" the NRA. This is par for the course for you.

Unlike you, I am not obsessed with demonization and stigmatization of fellow Democrats. You are developing a fine reputation for this.

It's easy to hate and demonize, and then go back to a small group who shares your "sweetest of moral pleasures" with a clear conscious. How "Democratic" is that? For that manner, how feminist is that?

You can get away with a lot on this issue; animosity and hatred toward gun-owners is sanctified on DU. But be clear on this: It is obvious to all, and it is ineffective. We are not going away, unless you and others can effect a formal ban or ostracism .

The real question is how much you want to obsess on this culture war, and how much you want to dis-credit yourself? I have found that the only folks who can keep up the energy for bitter negativity are those who increasingly isolate and stigmatize themselves. Most over-indulge on negativity and pull back; some even come to see the "other side" as human and are able to reach understanding. And a few play the court jester, throwing insults and smear about like Johnny Appleseed, then hop-skipping off with a trollish giggle; like I said above, you got a blank check on this issue. But few if any are "good" at that hack behavior, and more importantly, they do no good for their "cause" because -- well, how seriously can anyone take a guy/gal like that? And you aren't "good" at it.

BTW, how did you vote in your own poll?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #283)

Mon Jun 24, 2013, 11:16 AM

284. Your position on this issue is not in line with Democrats

it's far closer to the Tea Party, and that is the only issue I've seen you post about. You defended the NRA on their efforts to ban legislation on gun safes. Discredit myself? Among whom? Gun nuts? BFD. It's not a "culture war." It's a war that has taken more lives since Sandyhook than US soldiers died in Iraq and more lives since 1968 since all the wars in US history. Human life has value, and I not going to stop working to stop senseless murder because it hurts your feelings. That some selfish people so unconcerned about the lives of fellow Americans don't respect me is the last thing that concerns me. Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney wouldn't respect me either. That didn't stop me from protesting the war in Iraq. You are free to ignore me anytime you like. But if you think I"m going to sit back and watch immoral gun tyranny reign without doing anything, you mistake me for a sociopath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #284)

Mon Jun 24, 2013, 12:24 PM

286. More attacks, more animosity, more untruths...

Let's be clear: Your efforts here are not to "stop murders." They are efforts to ban guns, and attack fellow DUers. It IS a culture war and I think you know it. I think the credence you give "hurting feelings" is a curious insight into your real motives. It still isn't working.

Show my post regarding gun safes.

This is a good opportunity to broach a topic and a little speculation. I believe the fury and animosity (which you seem to concede) goes WAY beyond concern for crime rates, beyond even mass murders in school. There seems to be a lot of scapegoating for frustrations some "libersls" are experiencing. The anger over NSA revelations, the continued opposition to the ACA, the side-lining of lefties within the Party, the go-ahead for shale pipelines, firefights over racism on DU, the rape of women in the military, the continued dominance of the GOP even when they are not in voting power, the shredding of reproductive choice, the build-up for more war, etc.

Don't you think all this underwrites the selection of pro-2A fellow DUers as a group to go after? There is too much hatred (really by a comparative few on this site) to be explained by gun policy. I have noticed, parenthetically, a thread in Second Wave feminism where men are seen as using guns to effect dominance over women, using hunted animals as metaphors for women.

What are your thoughts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #286)

Mon Jun 24, 2013, 03:18 PM

289. Find one post in which I have ever advocated for banning all guns

Just one. Go on now. Look in the Gun Control Activism Group to see what I said about that this very morning.

And you expect me to take you seriously?

Your emphasis on culture wars is part of an effort to diminish the significance of lives lost from gun violence. The gun battle is a very real war, by far the bloodiest one in American history.

I didn't insult you. I made an assessment of where you align on guns in accordance with public polling. As many of the polls published on Daily Kos make clear, the only political demographic with majority opposition to background checks and other measures advanced by the President and the VP is the Tea Party. 91% of the country supports background checks. Those are facts as recounted in polling data. If you consider agreeing with the Tea Party to be an insult, you should probably reconsider your positions on some aspects of gun policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #283)

Mon Jun 24, 2013, 11:18 AM

285. I have to wonder

how hard it is to do a word search in a poll? We're not talking rocket science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #195)

Mon Jun 24, 2013, 04:30 PM

291. The calls went out, the trolls heeded the calls, no poll to small to sway

god forbid there is any anti-gun poll here on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Sat Jun 22, 2013, 01:30 AM

264. Your 2nd and 3rd options

are meaningless. "...greater training and testing than currently required...' by WHOM? Those requirements vary a great deal by the various states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #264)

Sat Jun 22, 2013, 03:18 AM

265. Too late to change now

After more than 200 votes. The point is some states are lax so rather than pushing for shall issue without distinction, some care about training and testing and background checks as a prerequisite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #265)

Sat Jun 22, 2013, 05:54 AM

266. "...some care about training and testing and background checks as a prerequisite."

What you are describing is the law in Minnesota, a state without a city that has a population as high as 500,000.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #266)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 03:24 PM

267. excuse me, I live in that state "without a city"

In the largest city in the sate, in the metro area of 2 million.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #267)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 03:49 PM

268. I am trying to understand

why you attemtped to make the distinction between 'city', 'town', 'suburban' and 'rural' with that poll of yours as it relates to conceal carry.

I was born in Minneapolis. I grew up in a small, rural town far from Minneapolis. I have lived in an inner ring suburb. I have lived in Duluth, and I have lived in northern Twin Cities' suburbs where I live now. What does it matter where a person lives as it relates to conceal carry?

You are the one who made the distinction between the various types of cities, towns, etc. Minneapolis has a population of less than 400,000. Are you now including the populations of the suburbs in your thinking? Why now and not before?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #268)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 04:04 PM

269. because I believe much of the divide on guns is between urban and rural/suburban

for those of us who live in the inner city, guns mean something very different than to those who live elsewhere. We are the victims of gun violence and witness first hands the fallout of gun proliferation. I resent people who live in places like Wyoming working diligently in put more and more guns in circulation in cities like Chicago where they will be used to kill children and other innocent bystanders. Rather than arguing you don't have a right to bear arms, I suggest you not usurp my right to be free of gun violence. That a gun nut thinks he can only be free if me and my neighbors die--or pretends more guns doesn't mean higher mortality-- turns my stomach. It's hard for me to believe such people don't want to see us killed, since they work so hard to impose policies that ensure that happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #269)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 04:34 PM

270. How is disarming people

in Wyoming, or even Wyoming, Minnesota (about 5 miles north of Forest Lake) going to help decrease inner city violence? The answer is crime and criminal control, not in banning guns. The people gunning after you are not the CCW holders, it's the criminals. Do live in Uptown? I know of a story of a retired Marine with a CCW who was going to his car in Uptown and stopped three criminals from robbing and possibly kill him because he was armed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #269)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 08:06 PM

274. Complete disarmament and repealing the 2nd is extremely fringe.

Nobody of any importance in the political world is calling for it. It was never even mentioned on the national stage after the recent horrors.

Our Senate couldn't even agree to increased background checks, let alone renewing a national AWB. It wouldn't have even mustered more than a slight annoyance in the House regardless.

The DNC platform is not anywhere close to yours, nor any other Kucinich-esque type confiscation position. You will be waiting longer for that to become mainstream as I will for an atheist or at least an agnostic to be elected President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #268)

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 09:06 PM

275. I told her not to

pretend to speak for city dwellers. She posted that self deleted disaster of a poll 10 minutes later.

The difference in attitude at the closing of the 1st poll and the beginning of this one is amazing.

Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 06:35 PM

78. I must delete this poll

Gunners have proved themselves too dishonest to honestly communicate where they live. Suddenly they are calling every suburb and tiny hamlet a city. Evidently they think if there is a human within sight of their house, it's a city.


Most people copy and paste the OP in the last reply before they self delete. Calling a bunch of DUers dishonest is a new approach. It kinda looks like a temper tantrum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pintobean (Reply #275)

Mon Jun 24, 2013, 02:45 PM

288. Yes, it's a temper tantrum.

Anti-gunners as a group scare me more than genuine gun nuts (and believe me, I know some genuine gun nuts that I wouldn't trust with a slingshot).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pintobean (Reply #275)

Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:37 PM

293. Reminds me of the Caucasian-Canadian that purported to speak for African-Americans...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread