Gun Legislation

[Sometime Lefty]

No more backyard shooting ranges in residential areas with a density of one or more dwelling units per acre. If your home is zoned for less the one home per acre then you can blast away at all hours.

[Vrede too]

Are the Executive Residence and state Capitol in residential areas and what's the zoning density?

[Vrede too]

Drowning in Blood: Kalamazoo and the Other 41 Mass Shootings This Year

"It's only February."

[Vrede too]

Phoenix, AZ and Newton, KS - now 43, at least.

[Seth Milner]

Drowning in Blood: Kalamazoo and the Other 41 Mass Shootings This Year

Phoenix, AZ and Newton, KS - now 43, at least.

"It's only February."

Now ask me why I'm so cowardly I have to carry a concealed weapon. This world's going bat-shit crazy; McDonald's isn't absolutely safe anymore. Gun laws aren't worth a fart in a whirlwind.
BTW, referring back to our earlier pissing contest: Some states issue Concealed Weapon permits which cover any type of weapon, (as billy pilgrim pointed out about Florida), others issue Concealed Gun Carry permits, which only cover handguns, some issue CCW permits which cover any type of weapon or firearm. (same as Florida's Concealed Weapon permit; differs in name only.) When I got mine, it was called a license, period. I could carry any type of firearm, concealed or unconcealed. States laws have changed now, so I'm happy to stick to my concealed sidearm.

At any rate, if I'm in a restaurant somewhere and some half-baked low-life starts spraying lead, if I've got a shot, he/she's going to get it.

[O Really]

At any rate, if I'm in a restaurant somewhere and some half-baked low-life starts spraying lead, if I've got a shot, he/she's going to get it.

Yeppers. And the guy down the counter sees somebody else spraying lead and thinks you might also be a half-baked low-life and then you get it. Personally, I wouldn't want to be standing up firing a gun in a crowd when the cops show up, either. Might not have the opportunity to explain that I'm "one of the good guys with a gun."

[O Really]

Five more... http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/5-dead ... &ocid=iehp

[rstrong]

Now ask me why I'm so cowardly I have to carry a concealed weapon.

It's understandable.

The fact remains though that despite all the mass shootings, they're rare enough that your carrying a weapon still makes you and those around you LESS safe than more. And that's without considering that the easy availability of guns makes those mass shootings far more common in the first place.

It's kind of the opposite of herd immunity. Some vaccines are a weakened form of the virus. A small number of people do indeed contract the virus from those vaccine. But you're playing the odds: The chances of contracting the virus from the vaccine are FAR lower than the chances of getting the virus from someone else if you don't take the vaccine. And the more people who are immunized, the less chances there are of an epidemic.

Guns have the opposite effect: A small number of people are indeed killed in mass shootings. But you're playing the odds: The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are FAR lower than the chances of being killed in a self-caused, child-caused or pet-caused gun accident. And the more people who have guns, the greater chance of you being shot by someone else merely being irresponsible with a gun.

[JTA]

Drowning in Blood: Kalamazoo and the Other 41 Mass Shootings This Year

Phoenix, AZ and Newton, KS - now 43, at least.

"It's only February."

Now ask me why I'm so cowardly I have to carry a concealed weapon. This world's going bat-shit crazy; McDonald's isn't absolutely safe anymore. Gun laws aren't worth a fart in a whirlwind.
BTW, referring back to our earlier pissing contest: Some states issue Concealed Weapon permits which cover any type of weapon, (as billy pilgrim pointed out about Florida), others issue Concealed Gun Carry permits, which only cover handguns, some issue CCW permits which cover any type of weapon or firearm. (same as Florida's Concealed Weapon permit; differs in name only.) When I got mine, it was called a license, period. I could carry any type of firearm, concealed or unconcealed. States laws have changed now, so I'm happy to stick to my concealed sidearm.

At any rate, if I'm in a restaurant somewhere and some half-baked low-life starts spraying lead, if I've got a shot, he/she's going to get it.

Yeah ditto.

[Vrede too]

... Guns have the opposite effect: A small number of people are indeed killed in mass shootings. But you're playing the odds: The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are FAR lower than the chances of being killed in a self-caused, child-caused or pet-caused gun accident. And the more people who have guns, the greater chance of you being shot by someone else merely being irresponsible with a gun.

And, the odds of an "accident" are less than of a family member or stranger intentionally killing you with your own gun, while those odds are less than you committing suicide with it.

Be armed if you want but be honest with yourself that you're foolishly increasing risk to yourself, friends and family, not reducing it.

[Seth Milner]

Five more... http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/5-dead ... &ocid=iehp

Told ya: This world's going bat-shit crazy.

[Seth Milner]

Guns have the opposite effect: A small number of people are indeed killed in mass shootings. But you're playing the odds: The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are FAR lower than the chances of being killed in a self-caused, child-caused or pet-caused gun accident. And the more people who have guns, the greater chance of you being shot by someone else merely being irresponsible with a gun.

And my odds of being killed in a car wreck are FAR greater than my being killed by a gun, so what? People intentionally kill people with cars; therefore I drive defensively. People kill people with guns; therefore, I will be in a position to possibly defend myself. Your "why can't we all just get along and sing Kum-bah-ya" reasoning is useless as carrying a knife to a gunfight.

[Seth Milner]

And, the odds of an "accident" are less than of a family member or stranger intentionally killing you with your own gun, while those odds are less than you committing suicide with it.
Gun owners are suicidal? That's rich! If a stranger kills me with my own gun; that proves I had the balls to challenge him rather than grovel, plead, and give him the satisfaction of seeing me piss my pants in fear because I was unarmed. The "accident" factor is as remote as winning the lottery; it's possible, but the odds are astronomical.

Be armed if you want but be honest with yourself that you're foolishly increasing risk to yourself, friends and family, not reducing it.
The risk may be heightened, yes, but there's no foolishness in taking steps to protect yourself and/or your loved ones. The foolishness is in believing that we live in a Utopia society where everything is all peachy-keen and we walk around in robes and sandals singing hymns and hugging one another. You go ahead with your fantasy, and while you're at it, let us know when we're going to have clean air, water, and all solar power.

[Vrede too]

A devout Quakeress lived in the country with her husband. She woke up to the sound of something breaking downstairs. She woke her husband. "Samuel, listen." "I think there's a prowler. Thee needs to go see." The Quaker got up, grabbed a hunting rifle and just as he came to the top of the stairs, sure enough, there was the prowler opposite him below, frozen at the sight of a gun pointed at him. The Quaker, aiming the gun right at the man said: "Friend, I mean thee no harm, but thou art standing where I am about to shoot."

[Seth Milner]

Now ask me why I'm so cowardly I have to carry a concealed weapon.

It's understandable.

So tell us, O'Wisened One, do you own a handgun? (if legal in your country, state, province or whatever) If you do, why?
If you do, do you have a carry permit? If you do, why?
If you do have a concealed, or otherwise permit, do you carry it at any time? Why?
If you were confronted and threatened with death or bodily harm, and you had the opportunity to defend yourself with deadly force, would you?
Would you use deadly force to protect your wife or other family member?
Would you use deadly force to save someone else from death or great bodily harm?
Do you really think that a gun-control law, federal or state is going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?
Do you really think that a gun-control law, federal or state is going to keep criminals from committing crimes?
Do you really think that a gun-control law, federal or state is going to make guns harder to get for criminals?

Do you really think that anyone who carries a handgun is in fact a coward?

[Seth Milner]

(Quaker Humor)

That's a good one.
But, in light of rstrong's argument, I would say this:

A particular professor (rstrong) was known to have a sour disposition, and one day he barked at his class, "If there are any utter ignoramuses here, please stand up!" After a long silence, one friend (Seth Milner) slowly stood up. "I see," said the professor, "so you admit to being a total ignoramus, then?" "Um, not exactly, Friend," replied the boy, "but I do hate to see thee standing up there by thyself."

[rstrong]

Now ask me why I'm so cowardly I have to carry a concealed weapon.

It's understandable.

So tell us, O'Wisened One, do you own a handgun? (if legal in your country, state, province or whatever) If you do, why?
If you do, do you have a carry permit? If you do, why?

I've never owned a gun. I have no need to.

Yes, handguns are legal. But with more restrictions than in the US. While rifle and shotguns have much less restrictions, you can only carry a handgun from your home to a shooting range, gun shop or competition, unloaded and locked.

An Authorization to Carry (ATC) lets you carry a handgun loaded and (if specified as a condition of carry) concealed. Few other than employees of armoured car companies get these. Anti-mob lawyers for example.

On the other hand a Quebec man killed a cop and disabled another with his handgun in his home because he legitimately believed he was about to be killed by armed robbers. (No announce search warrant in the middle of the night). Found not guilty. Try that in America. They'd have given him the electric chair.

If you were confronted and threatened with death or bodily harm, and you had the opportunity to defend yourself with deadly force, would you?
Would you use deadly force to protect your wife or other family member?
Would you use deadly force to save someone else from death or great bodily harm?

Well, sure.

But I wouldn't "protect" them in such a way that *increases* the danger of death or bodily harm. What part of this do you not understand?

Do you really think that a gun-control law, federal or state is going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?
Do you really think that a gun-control law, federal or state is going to keep criminals from committing crimes?
Do you really think that a gun-control law, federal or state is going to make guns harder to get for criminals?

Tougher drunk driving laws didn't stop drunk driving, but they demonstrably greatly reduced the risks of being killed by a drunk driver.

Tougher kidnapping laws didn't stop kidnapping, but they reduced the risk of your family members being kidnapped for ransom. (This used to be a big deal, and still is in much of the world.)

The same goes for bank robbery and most every other criminal law. What part of this do you not understand?

Just having less guns around makes you safer. THIS IS DEMONSTRATED, OVER AND OVER AGAIN. America's "gun in every purse, glove compartment and school locker" policy means weekly mass shootings and more-than-weekly gun deaths of people being shot by children and pets.

And as someone else here wrote, "No small measure of police violence can be directly linked to the gun industry shills at the NRA's insistence on arming every unsavory American that wants to be armed. It's given the cops the perfect excuse for their abuses."

Compare similar Canadian and US cities. Washington, D.C. consistently has a murder rate over ten times that of Canada's capital city of Ottawa, despite roughly the same population.

"Handguns are available for self protection in Seattle, but not in nearby Vancouver, Canada; handgun killings are five times more common and the handgun suicide rate is ten times greater in Seattle. Guns make impulsive killing easy."
- Carl Sagan, Demon Haunted World

If protecting our family is REALLY your concern, which gun law regime would you want to live under?

Do you really think that anyone who carries a handgun is in fact a coward?

Police and armoured car company employees need them. (A few months ago here, someone tried to rob armored car employees with a knife. They had guns. It did not end well for the robber.)

As for the rest, the answer is still no. I can't dismiss them all as cowards, not when they're *increasing* the danger to themselves and those around them. There's also small penis syndrome, old fashioned stupidity and willful pig-ignorance.

[rstrong]

(Quaker Humor)

That's a good one.
But, in light of rstrong's argument, I would say this:

This from someone who, unable to back what they wrote with facts or at least a credible argument, prefers to hurl insults when demonstrated wrong.

[Vrede too]

... What part of this do you not understand? ...

Ah, the response to so, so many of ammosexual Seth Milner's posts.

[O Really]

The issue isn't so much whether one should "protect" him/herself and their family, but more an understanding of the risks and most effective "protection." The idea of "protecting" from a myriad of real and perceived risks has become the central theme in the fear-mongering of politics and news people. Every night - every night - there is at least one segment on every news show where they tell about some event and use the term "we'll tell you how to protect..." With firearms, the assumption is that you'll need to protect yourself/family from an armed attacker who you see coming. For someone with reason to believe they'll be in that situation, carrying an easily accessible loaded firearm would be appropriate. But those types of attacks are pretty rare, compared to other hazards. There is an argument that even in the "live shooter" scenario, that anyone with a gun will be a priority target (real-life examples available) and that "protecting" oneself and family is better done by following the "run-hide-fight" response.

And then there's the question of whether a person can use his/her firearm in a manner that helps defend. Do most of those who feel the need to go armed to the grocery take practical shooting instruction? Do they even practice at a range that allows shooting from a draw? If they're carrying a semi-auto, do they carry it with a live one in the chamber, as would be needed for a rapid response, or do they carry it with safety on and nothing in the chamber as would be safer for their family around them?

People like to keep firearms in their houses as protection against "home invasion." Fine, but as a safety measure, they keep them relatively inaccessible in time of emergency. If you really expected someone to attack, you'd have the weapons out, always within reach, with extra security on the door. You'd open the door with gun in hand, and survey outside before leaving. You'd put up perimeter security, and have a plan with your family of what to do if an attacker tries to get in. If you don't do these types of things, you don't really expect to be attacked, you're just playing.