Gun Legislation

[Seth Milner]

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.

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

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

The Bobblesby Twins are back . . .

You will just have to overlook my ignorance; how could I ever forget that I was swapping spits with two of the world's most renowned experts on practically every subject . . . silly me. Ammosexual . . .? Mimic Boatrocker much?

I'm curious to know this rstrong: You say you don't own a gun, (and I think it great you've never needed one,) so obviously, there's no crime in the vast, frozen Utopia you live in; so tell us what steps you would take to protect yourself and your family should someone ever decide that your neck of the woods needs a little crime, and they break into your home in the middle of the night and threaten you with great bodily harm, or sexually assault one of the females that may be in your home? I don't think you'll be asking them "can't we just be friends and work this out"?

[O Really]

.. so tell us what steps you would take to protect yourself and your family should someone ever decide that your neck of the woods needs a little crime, and they break into your home in the middle of the night and threaten you with great bodily harm, or sexually assault one of the females that may be in your home? I don't think you'll be asking them "can't we just be friends and work this out"?

I'm guessing he would do the same things he does to get over watching "Clockwork Orange" or defending against the other monsters in his anxiety closet.

But let's look at the scenario you posed. Do the intruders bust in through the patio door, or do they pick the lock or cut the glass like in the movies? Did the home alarm not go off? Did the dog not bark? If you're asleep and the attackers come in fast and loud (like the cops would), you're disoriented, scared, and have no real opportunity to find your piece. If they actually do sneak in, you're looking down the barrel of their piece when you wake up. And why are these guys invading your house looking to ravage your women anyway? It's really unusual for such a raid to be random.

Or maybe you hear them trying to sneak in and shoot at the shadow. Opps. Might have been your wife coming back in from taking the dog out on a mid-night emergency trip.

[Vrede too]

I've lived my entire somewhat adventurous life suffering only some petty theft and minor scams, and never a home invasion. So, the real question is whether it's worth being afraid for decades and placing your family at greater actual risk when the bad thing almost certainly won't happen and, as O Really says, odds are you won't be able to respond effectively with gun violence anyhow.

America thrives on a very profitable culture of fear, far more so than I saw in the dozens of comparable nations I've visited. Seth Milner epitomizes the intentionally desired result.

[Seth Milner]

I'm guessing he would do the same things he does to get over watching "Clockwork Orange" or defending against the other monsters in his anxiety closet.
Such as?

But let's look at the scenario you posed. Do the intruders bust in through the patio door, or do they pick the lock or cut the glass like in the movies? Did the home alarm not go off? Did the dog not bark?
What difference would it make how they got in? What's the point here?

If you're asleep and the attackers come in fast and loud (like the cops would), you're disoriented, scared, and have no real opportunity to find your piece.
Most gun owners wouldn't have far to look.

If they actually do sneak in, you're looking down the barrel of their piece when you wake up.
Then one of us would get shot.

And why are these guys invading your house looking to ravage your women anyway? It's really unusual for such a raid to be random.
Ever hear the expression "crime of opportunity"? I don't think it ever came out as to whether the young preacher's wife was a target, or a crime of opportunity; she was an attractive young woman.

Or maybe you hear them trying to sneak in and shoot at the shadow. Opps. Might have been your wife coming back in from taking the dog out on a mid-night emergency trip.
Those scenarios are always a possibility. One of the first things a gun owner learns, is when it's legal to shoot and when it's illegal to shoot. Your scenarios are those of a pacifist alarmist.

I've lived my entire somewhat adventurous life suffering only some petty theft and minor scams, and never a home invasion. So, the real question is whether it's worth being afraid for decades and placing your family at greater actual risk when the bad thing almost certainly won't happen and, as O Really says, odds are you won't be able to respond effectively with gun violence anyhow.
That was then; this is now. Gun violence is at an all time high, and yes, the likelihood of being a victim is slim in differing parts of the country. Owning a gun is not being afraid; however there are those who are paranoid who feel it's necessary to own an arsenal. I've never experienced a home invasion either, but I have had a credible threat on my life perpetrated by people in high places; so I carry a weapon. "Gun violence" is a criminal act; protecting oneself is not.

America thrives on a very profitable culture of fear, far more so than I saw in the dozens of comparable nations I've visited.
You think maybe it's because American criminals thrive on a very profitable and lenient "legal system"?

Seth Milner epitomizes the intentionally desired result.
And Seth Milner is legally armed.

[JTA]

I'm guessing he would do the same things he does to get over watching "Clockwork Orange" or defending against the other monsters in his anxiety closet.
Such as?

But let's look at the scenario you posed. Do the intruders bust in through the patio door, or do they pick the lock or cut the glass like in the movies? Did the home alarm not go off? Did the dog not bark?
What difference would it make how they got in? What's the point here?

If you're asleep and the attackers come in fast and loud (like the cops would), you're disoriented, scared, and have no real opportunity to find your piece.
Most gun owners wouldn't have far to look.

If they actually do sneak in, you're looking down the barrel of their piece when you wake up.
Then one of us would get shot.

And why are these guys invading your house looking to ravage your women anyway? It's really unusual for such a raid to be random.
Ever hear the expression "crime of opportunity"? I don't think it ever came out as to whether the young preacher's wife was a target, or a crime of opportunity; she was an attractive young woman.

Or maybe you hear them trying to sneak in and shoot at the shadow. Opps. Might have been your wife coming back in from taking the dog out on a mid-night emergency trip.
Those scenarios are always a possibility. One of the first things a gun owner learns, is when it's legal to shoot and when it's illegal to shoot. Your scenarios are those of a pacifist alarmist.

I've lived my entire somewhat adventurous life suffering only some petty theft and minor scams, and never a home invasion. So, the real question is whether it's worth being afraid for decades and placing your family at greater actual risk when the bad thing almost certainly won't happen and, as O Really says, odds are you won't be able to respond effectively with gun violence anyhow.
That was then; this is now. Gun violence is at an all time high, and yes, the likelihood of being a victim is slim in differing parts of the country. Owning a gun is not being afraid; however there are those who are paranoid who feel it's necessary to own an arsenal. I've never experienced a home invasion either, but I have had a credible threat on my life perpetrated by people in high places; so I carry a weapon. "Gun violence" is a criminal act; protecting oneself is not.

America thrives on a very profitable culture of fear, far more so than I saw in the dozens of comparable nations I've visited.
You think maybe it's because American criminals thrive on a very profitable and lenient "legal system"?

Seth Milner epitomizes the intentionally desired result.
And Seth Milner is legally armed.

I lived in a shit neighborhood for about five years, that's when I decided to purchase a gun and taught my ex how to use it. I mean, it's probably unlikely, but home invasions do happen, and obviously it's fear that motivates people to arm themselves.

There's a million different scenarios. If someone breaks in maybe they just wanna steal some cash and jewelry and be on their merry way without wanting to harm anybody, but personally I'd rather be armed and have the option to defend myself rather than sit back and watch my wife get raped or my family get murdered, because that's also a possibility albeit slim.

Luckily where I live now the chances of this happening are basically none. If I lived in a very rural area you bet your ass I'd be armed.

That being said I still don't think any idiot ought to be able to conceal carry without taking a CWP course, but I also vehemently disagree with the fascist police state of NJ's strict gun laws.

[O Really]

No, Seth, my scenarios are not those of any philosophical position, although I wouldn't think being called a "pacifist" would be a bad thing. But "alarmist" I'm not. It's not me making up scenarios where there's danger behind every bush. (well, OK, there may be danger behind every Bush, not not every shrubbery). My scenarios are right out of the news, day in and day out, and supported by probably as much self and home defense as you've had.
Seems to me the minister's wife's attackers came in through an unlocked door; whether she was armed or not, she had no opportunity to pick it up.

Maybe Seth's picked up some enemies in life, and maybe people really are out to get him. If so, out of the ordinary security precautions are reasonable survival techniques. For most, however, there are many other precautions to take that are effective before you ever get to the point of needing your firearm. In the case of the minister's wife, simply locking the door on his way out would have done it.

[Vrede too]

I've lived my entire somewhat adventurous life suffering only some petty theft and minor scams, and never a home invasion. So, the real question is whether it's worth being afraid for decades and placing your family at greater actual risk when the bad thing almost certainly won't happen and, as O Really says, odds are you won't be able to respond effectively with gun violence anyhow.

That was then; this is now. Gun violence is at an all time high ...

Once again, Seth Milner responds to rational argument with utter bullshit. See: violent crime and his cowardly running away when busted. No wonder he compensates for his lack of balls with guns.



The rate was even higher than 1993 during Prohibition, but I'm not bothering to search it since, as always, Seth Milner, the supposedly intelligent, honest and responsible gun owner, will run shrieking away from yet another screw up. "His" consistent incompetence makes a better case for gun control than I could ever hope to.

America thrives on a very profitable culture of fear, far more so than I saw in the dozens of comparable nations I've visited. Seth Milner epitomizes the intentionally desired result.

You think maybe it's because American criminals thrive on a very profitable and lenient "legal system"?

:?: :?: :?: :!: :!: :!: We incarcerate a greater proportion of our people than anywhere else on Earth. The "investigative journalist" fails research, facts and logic, again.

My point is proved. Gun violence has declined but the fear merchants have duped terrified Seth Milner into thinking it's "at an all time high".

[Vrede too]

That's your choice, JTA, but understand that having a gun unquestionably places you and your family at greater risk, not reduces it.

... That being said I still don't think any idiot ought to be able to conceal carry without taking a CWP course....

I think you meant something different. Conceal carry does require taking a CWP course, one that any idiot can pass.

My opinion is that all possession should require stringent adherence to training and regulation standards, and that some weaponry should be banned. We do it for cars and drivers and auto death rates have steadily declined because of it.

[JTA]

That's your choice, JTA, but understand that having a gun unquestionably places you and your family at greater risk, not reduces it.

... That being said I still don't think any idiot ought to be able to conceal carry without taking a CWP course....

I think you meant something different. Conceal carry does require taking a CWP course.

My opinion is that all possession should require stringent adherence to training and regulation. We do it for cars and drivers and auto death rates have steadily declined because of it.

True. Good thing my family consists of just me .

If I had children though, I wouldn't be comfortable having guns lying around that weren't locked up.

Yeah I guess I can see your point. Training as in requiring a training course before purchasing a firearm? I could get behind that. In addition to a course when I was a kid, I had a close friend/gun enthusiast teach me how to properly handle a pistol when I first bought mine. I can't imagine just rolling up to the gun store and buying a gun having no idea how to use it. I'm sure some people do exactly that.

[Vrede too]

I don't want you easily committing suicide after the next crazy girlfriend, either, or shooting your pecker off during your next Friday night drunk.

I'd go for ongoing, regular repeat training and certification, too. It'll enhance safety and will weed out at least some of the folks that have gone nuts since the first time.

[Vrede too]

Seth Milner needs peers.

‘A militia of toddlers?’ Iowa bill to let children use handguns divides even 2nd Amendment supporters

[Seth Milner]

Once again, Seth Milner responds to rational argument with utter bullshit. See: violent crime and his cowardly running away when busted. No wonder he compensates for his lack of balls with guns.



The rate was even higher than 1993 during Prohibition, but I'm not bothering to search it since, as always, Seth Milner, the supposedly intelligent, honest and responsible gun owner, will run shrieking away from yet another screw up. "His" consistent incompetence makes a better case for gun control than I could ever hope to.

Maybe I misunderstood what you wrote earlier?

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

"It's only February." . . . . Phoenix, AZ and Newton, KS - now 43, at least.

And it's not February 2010. . .
Once again, Vrede too responds to rational argument with utter bullshit and outdated statistics.

My point is proved. Gun violence has declined but the fear merchants have duped terrified Seth Milner into thinking it's "at an all time high".

Oh pardon me! I should have checked your above chart <snicker> before I made any comments concerning increasing gun violence. I could have sworn this is the year 2016 . . . :-0?> If you'll give me your phone number, we'll do this quicker; I can call you and verify your highly knowledgeable facts before I post opposing remarks. K---B


Addendum: A woman was killed in a domestic dispute last night, two cops wounded, another cop shot and killed;(It's only February) a female first-day-on-the-job rookie. I suppose the cops were carrying guns because they were "terrified". Oh, and by the way: the shooter violated a gun law.

[Vrede too]

I was bored, opened the post to see what new whiny stupidity and irresponsibility "he" came up with.

Maybe I misunderstood what you wrote earlier?

Maybe you're an idiot. Mass shootings, as horrible as they are, don't equal "Gun violence is at an all time high." Are you really so illiterate or is this just yet another wussy running away from your flub?

And it's not February 2010. . .
Once again, Vrede too responds to rational argument with utter bullshit and outdated statistics.

Thanks in part to the gunhugger restriction on gun violence research, up to the year data is difficult to find, something you would have discovered if you weren't the laziest "investigator" ever. Here's 2013, a further decline from 2010: Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.5.

Oh pardon me! I should have checked your above chart <snicker> before I made any comments

No, you should have checked to see if there's a shred of evidence backing up your false claim, both before posting it and after being challenged. Why is this concept so extraordinarily difficult for you?

concerning increasing gun violence.

You are such a pansy! "increasing" is not your earlier "all time high." If there's been any increase since 2013, it's clear to anyone with half a brain and the balls to admit error that it has not reached the 1993 level, let alone the Prohibition rate. Once again, your extreme cowardice calls into question whether your ammosexual terror of the world has any relation to actual risk.

I could have sworn this is the year 2016 . . . :-0?> If you'll give me your phone number, we'll do this quicker; I can call you and verify your highly knowledgeable facts before I post opposing remarks. K---B

You don't verify anything, regardless of method. That's the issue. You just routinely spew bullshit, get busted by the actual data, then throw a diversionary tantrum sans offering any contradictory data at all, and never, ever admit that you were wrong. This is why I don't bother opening up 90% or more of your posts. Your cretinous, immature, valueless pattern never changes.

Now, throw another foot-stomping crybaby fit dodging the facts while not posting anything that supports, "Gun violence is at an all time high," or just run shrieking away. We all know that you will.

[O Really]

One can argue over whether firearm killings are increasing or not, or more precisely, whether certain types of killings are. I'd guess - guess - that there are more incidents of mass killings and that people are more willing to look to firearms to "solve" their personal problems, frustration, anger, etc. But whether any type of violence is increasing or not doesn't directly affect ones individual need to carry a weapon designed for lethal force. Do you have a really spiteful and violent relationship with an ex-spouse or other family member? No? Then you've reduced your chances of getting shot by a large amount. Do you hang around bars in the middle of the night? No? Then you've suddenly got much much safer statistically. Are you in an occupation where it is easy to make enemies? No? Then your chances go down some more. Can you just drive away when somebody cuts you off? Yes? Then you're getting practically lock-safe secure. Seth mentioned "crime of opportunity." Cut down the opportunities and you sharply reduce your likelihood of being a victim to near nothing. Locked cars parked under the light with nothing valuable visible rarely get broken into or stolen. And yada and yada.

I don't say choosing to carry a firearm isn't sometimes a reasonable decision. It certainly can be. For me personally, if I'm driving at night along some back road or interstate, I'll have some weapons in the car. Why? Because I'm in a situation where I can't control my environment. I can't help it if I have a flat or some other mechanical issue; I can't control where it happens, and I can't control who may show up or what their intentions might be. But if my life were such that I felt it necessary to go around armed all the time, I'd move somewhere else or change whatever would be necessary to create a more secure environment.

I also don't say that having a firearm in the house might not be useful. Under the right circumstances, it certainly can. But I do say that needing to use that firearm should be considered as a later choice rather than a first choice. A person who leaves the door unlocked and his/her stash visible on the table shouldn't expect that having a gun will keep them safe. A person whose family includes kids can't be considered to be "keeping his family safe" if s/he leaves a loaded firearm lying around the house. Conversely, a firearm safely stored away from the kids is going to be inaccessible in many situations - at least in time to do something useful with it.

Most people don't bother to learn what firearm is best for their use in their home. They buy something they like without regard to how they might use it. .40 Caliber for an apartment? If you need to fire it you'll have a good chance of shooting up your neighbor's home. Not willing to train a lot, or have a spouse who really isn't interested in firearms? Revolvers are better than semi-autos, and shotguns are even better. My point is simple: firearms are worthwhile tools that obviously can be dangerous to the user as well as to others. Users should be licensed, and obtaining a license should involve significant training. How long is the sometimes-required drivers' education class?

[Vrede too]

A huge element of "Are you in an occupation where it is easy to make enemies?" is - Are you in the underground drug marketplace created by con drug prohibition?

One could argue that the effect (if not the intent) of our current situation is a mutually supportive cabal of pushers, cops, prisons, con pols, racists, gun makers, fear mongering media, gun advocates and perpetually frightened citizens like Seth Milner.

[O Really]

A huge element of "Are you in an occupation where it is easy to make enemies?" is - Are you in the underground drug marketplace created by con drug prohibition?

One could argue that the effect (if not the intent) of our current situation is a mutually supportive cabal of pushers, cops, prisons, con pols, racists, gun makers, fear mongering media, gun advocates and perpetually frightened citizens like Seth Milner.

Well, there's that, too.

[Seth Milner]

I was bored,
No surprise there. You're always boring.

Maybe you're an idiot. Mass shootings, as horrible as they are, don't equal "Gun violence is at an all time high." Are you really so illiterate or is this just yet another wussy running away from your flub?

Thanks in part to the gunhugger restriction on gun violence research, up to the year data is difficult to find,May as well blame your sleazy whining on someone else.

No, you should have checked to see if there's a shred of evidence backing up your false claim, before posting it {/color]As you should have before posting your outdated statistics?

You are such a pansy! Once again, your extreme cowardice calls into question whether your ammosexual terror of the world has any relation to actual risk.
I've nothing to fear of the world; just one small faction who's corruption was revealed. Unlike you. who's so afraid you'll accidentally shoot yourself in the ass or foot if you so much as touch a gun . . .

You don't verify anything, regardless of method. That's the issue. You just routinely spew bullshit, get busted by the actual data, then throw a diversionary tantrum sans offering any contradictory data at all, and never, ever admit that you were wrong. This is why I don't bother opening up 90% or more of your posts. Your cretinous, immature, valueless pattern never changes. Now, throw another foot-stomping crybaby fit dodging the facts while not posting anything that supports, "Gun violence is at an all time high," or just run shrieking away. We all know that you will.
Tantrum . . ? That's hilarious! It so easy to read into your own anger, stupidity, and foot stomping in your post! Your so-called statistics are flawed; you know it, your ass is busted, you can't stand the humiliation, and now you've got to go change your shorts. While you're changing, have one of your doctor buddies rub some of this on your poor galled **ass:

*** Please note that your anus and forehead areas are interchangeable

[rstrong]

Hush, Seth. The adults are speaking.

[Vrede too]

... Now, throw another foot-stomping crybaby fit dodging the facts while not posting anything that supports, "Gun violence is at an all time high," or just run shrieking away. We all know that you will.

Let me guess - prediction proved.

[Seth Milner]

That's your choice, JTA, but understand that having a gun unquestionably places you and your family at greater risk, not reduces it.
A "greater risk" of what? I don't deny accidents happen, and having a gun in the home does pose a risk of someone being hurt or killed if responsible measures are not taken; but because someone buys a firearm doesn't mean that person has created a serious risk scenario in his/her home. There are many, many more responsible gun owners than there are irresponsible gun owners.

... That being said I still don't think any idiot ought to be able to conceal carry without taking a CWP course....

I think you meant something different. Conceal carry does require taking a CWP course, one that any idiot can pass. My opinion is that all possession should require stringent adherence to training and regulation standards,
I think JTA meant what he said; not what you would like him to think. I don't know about S.C. or where you live in N.C., but the course I took was rather stringent.

and that some weaponry should be banned.
I believe if you'll read backwards, somewhere you'll find I agreed with that.

We do it for cars and drivers and auto death rates have steadily declined because of it.
Correct me if I'm wrong . . oh wait, you already did tried, when I said that gun deaths are at an all time high; I think this chart is a bit more accurate than your 5 year old chart:

Medical ailments, such as cancer and heart attacks, kill considerably more people each year than either guns or automobiles, according to the CDC. But firearms and motor vehicles are among the leading non-medical causes of mortality in the United States. They kill more people than falls do each year, and considerably more people than alcohol.

The steady decline in motor vehicle deaths over the past 65 years can be attributed to a combination of improved technology and smarter regulation. The federal government mandated the presence of seat belts in the 1960s. The '70s brought anti-lock brakes. The '80s brought an increased focus on drunk driving and mandatory seat belt use. Airbags came along in the '90s. More recent years have seen mandates on electronic stability systems, increased penalties for distracted driving and forthcoming requirements for rear-view cameras.

The result has been safer cars, safer roads, better drivers and a decades-long decline in motor vehicle fatalities, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

By contrast, the history of American gun control regulation has been more erratic. Restrictions passed in earlier eras, such as the assault weapons ban, have been undone recently. During the George W. Bush administration, Congress passed laws that prohibited law enforcement from publicizing data showing where criminals obtained their guns and granted gun-makers immunity from some civil lawsuits.

Technological advances, like smart-gun technology that prevents people other than the owner from firing a gun, have been stymied by opposition from the National Rifle Association and from many gun owners. Modest regulatory changes, including universal background checks, enjoy overwhelming support from gun owners and the American public. But those, too, have been thwarted under pressure from gun-rights advocates and the NRA.

( I stated once before that I have no dealings with, nor do I support the NRA)

The result? A gun mortality rate that's slightly higher than where it stood 50 years ago. Particularly vexing is that there may be ways to improve gun safety and reduce firearm deaths -- particularly suicides -- that haven't even been thought of yet. But innovations in gun safety are hard to come by, in large part because of Congress's longstanding ban on many types of federal gun research.

Firearms kill roughly 30,000 people a year. But Wintemute estimates that there are only a dozen full-time gun violence researchers in the United States. “There’s so many things we’d like to do,” Hemenway told the Trace earlier this year. “Just pick a topic, and we’d like to know more about it, from things like open carry to gun training to gun storage to gun theft to straw purchasers.” But he explicitly tells his students not to join the field because of the severe difficulties that researchers face in obtaining funding and publishing their results.

Gun deaths and vehicle deaths are in many ways two different problems. Gun deaths are typically intentional -- people deliberately kill either themselves or someone else. Motor vehicle deaths, by contrast, are usually accidental.

Still, we've been able to make driving much safer thanks to a combination of smart regulation technological innovation. We could potentially do the same with guns.

Bottom line: There's smart people and there's dumb people. Smart people own hand-guns for protection from criminals and dumb people. Smart people know how to handle weapons and treat them with respect. Dumb people know how to handle weapons as well, but feel they need a whole arsenal to play with, or use them to maim or kill people who "piss them off".