myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Gun Nuts
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 302, 303, 304 ... 312, 313, 314  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
coachg



Joined: 10 Sep 2000
Posts: 3290

PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2022 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let's take a moment to honor the sacrifice of your brave school children who laid down their lives to protect MalibuGuru's right to bear arms.

I'm a gun owner, ex Marine who comes from a family with a long history of serving in the military. For the life of me I just can't seem to wrap my head around how regulating guns or background checks violates my gun rights? I'm required to have a license to fly or drive; makes sense because the potential for me to injure or kill people if I'm not qualified to drive or fly. Why such resistance for the same type of regulation for guns?

My favorite though is administrators should be armed. Stop and think that through. Real life is not a Hollywood movie. People are fine when shooting at targets, but the whole world changes when the targets are shooting back. The only thing I can think of in the world that would be worse than the Texas school shooting is being an administrator who shot & killed the shooter but also killed one or two of the children by accident during the gun fight.

Coachg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20713

PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2022 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MalibuGuru wrote:
AR15 is not a weapon of war. Soldiers with m16 would find that laughable. AR15 is a high power 22 round.

During my extensive concealed carry training by nationally ranked SWAT officers and LAPD lawyers, we were repeatedly informed that AR-15s are probably the best home defense weapon for women or anyone else of small stature, especially if they are not highly trained police officers. Why? Because they have essentially no kick, they stay on target. If wall penetration is a concern (into an occupied bedroom, for instance), it's easy to buy ammunition designed to minimize penetration through two layers of sheetrock. On the plus side, that same ammo maximizes stopping power ... the whole point of self defense.

Many big, bad cops don't carry .45s because their kick leaves subsequent shots all over the place ... probably contributing to the fact that it takes a trained and experienced cop an average of 7 shots (gain, from my courses) to stop a perp. Think about that: if there are two assailants trying to behead your wife and gut your kid and their defender -- YOU -- is limited to a 10-round magazine, you will have a fraction of a second to decide which to save, because you're not saving both the wife and the kid.

I've been encouraging my wife to carry, because she's an OBVIOUS mugging target. I am, too, for several medical reasons. If I were ever out and about at night, or lived in any "progressive" (what a misleading name!) city, I'd be carrying. Where police are handcuffed by idiot politicians, my only defense is me, myself, and I. I thought she was joking when I showed her a picture of an outlandish but very real Terminator-style assault weapon and she said instantly, "I'll write a check for it right now". She wasn't joking.

Biden is telling us that Clinton's assault weapon ban decreased mass shooting deaths dramatically, and that they tripled after the ban was rescinded. Even Bezo's mouthpiece, the WAPO, calls BS on those claims.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17108
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2022 11:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The senator says "the evidence is clear: the ban worked." Except there's no evidence it saved lives – and the researcher behind the key statistic Feinstein cites says it's an outdated figure that was based on a false assumption.

by Lois Beckett Sept. 24, 2014, 11:57 a.m. EDT

In the ten years since the federal assault weapons ban expired, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has kept trying to renew the law, which she authored. In a press release this month honoring the 20th anniversary of the ban, she wrote, "The evidence is clear: the ban worked."

But gun violence experts say the exact opposite. "There is no compelling evidence that it saved lives," Duke University public policy experts Philip Cook and Kristin Goss wrote in their book "The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know."

A definitive study of the 1994 law – which prohibited the manufacture and sale of semiautomatic guns with "military-style features" such pistol grips or bayonet mounts as well as magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition – found no evidence that it had reduced overall gun crime or made shootings less lethal. "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence," the Department of Justice-funded study concluded in 2004. "Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement."

As we recently reported, key gun control groups say they are no longer making an assault weapons ban a priority because they think focusing on other policies, including universal background checks, are a more effective way to save lives. The Center for American Progress released a report earlier this month suggesting ways to regulate assault weapons without banning them.

Feinstein introduced an updated version of the assault weapons ban last year, in the wake of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in which the shooter used a type of rifle that had been targeted by the ban. She told her Senate colleagues to "show some guts" when they voted on it in April. The measure failed, 40 to 60. The push to improve background checks also failed, but attracted more support.

The key statistic that Feinstein cited in her recent press release — that the ban "was responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders, holding all other factors equal"— was rejected by researchers a decade ago.

Feinstein attributed the statistic to an initial Department of Justice-funded study of the first few years of the ban, published in 1997.

But one of the authors of that study, Dr. Christopher Koper, a criminologist from George Mason University, told ProPublica that number was just a "tentative conclusion." Koper was also the principal investigator on the 2004 study that, as he put it, "kind of overruled, based on new evidence, what the preliminary report had been in 1997."

Feinstein's spokesman, Tom Mentzer, contested the idea that the 2004 study invalidated the 1997 statistic that Feinstein has continued to cite. But Koper said he and the other researchers in 2004 had not re-done the specific analysis that resulted in the 6.7 percent estimate because the calculation had been based on an assumption that turned out to be false. In the 1997 study, Koper said, he and the other researchers had assumed that the ban had successfully decreased the use of large-capacity magazines. What they later found was that despite the ban, the use of large-capacity magazines in crime had actually stayed steady or risen.

"The weight of evidence that was gathered and analyzed across the two reports suggested that initial drop in the gun murder rate must have been due to other factors besides the assault weapons ban," Koper said.

Cook, the Duke public policy expert, told ProPublica that the "weak results" of the 1994 ban "should not be interpreted to mean that in general bans don't work."

He said Feinstein's updated version of the ban, which she proposed in 2013 and is more restrictive, might be more effective. An American assault weapons ban might also have an impact on drug and gang-related violence in Mexico, he said.

"Around 30,000 Americans are killed with guns each year; one-third of those are murders," Feinstein said in a statement to ProPublica. "Obviously there's no single solution, which is why I support a wide range of policy proposals to bring sense to our firearms laws. I continue to believe that drying up the supply of military-style assault weapons is an important piece of the puzzle—and the data back this up." (See Feinstein's full statement below.)

Gun rights groups have long criticized the ban, and Feinstein's defense of it.

"Gun rights organizations, Second Amendment people, always take Dianne Feinstein with the whole shaker full of salt," said Dave Workman, the communications director for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. "She's been a perennial gun-banner."

"One would think the lesson learned from banning alcohol, marijuana, and many other drugs and items [is that] it never works for anyone intent on obtaining any of these items," Jerry Henry, the executive director of GeorgiaCarry.org, told ProPublica. "All it does is put it in the background and helps establish a flourishing black market."

The National Rifle Association did not respond to a request for comment.

Full Feinstein statement:

"Around 30,000 Americans are killed with guns each year; one-third of those are murders. Obviously there's no single solution, which is why I support a wide range of policy proposals to bring sense to our firearms laws. We need to expand background checks, strengthen gun trafficking laws and make sure domestic abusers, the seriously mentally ill and other dangerous people cannot access guns.

"I continue to believe that drying up the supply of military-style assault weapons is an important piece of the puzzle—and the data back this up. These weapons were designed for the military and have one purpose: to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. They are the weapon of choice for grievance killers, gang members and juveniles, and they shouldn't be on the streets.

"A 2004 Justice Department study found clear evidence that the ban on manufacture and transfer of assault weapons reduced their use in crimes. The percentage of assault weapons traced as part of criminal investigations dropped 70 percent between 1993 and 2002, and many police departments reported increases in the use of assault weapons after the ban expired. In less than a decade, the ban was already drying up supply. The study suggested the law would have been even more effective if it had banned weapons already in circulation and if it had continued past its 10-year duration. Unfortunately those limits were part of the compromise that had to be struck to pass the ban into law.

"Let me be clear: Assault weapons allow criminals to fire more shots, wound and kill more individuals and inflict greater damage. The research supports that. A ban on assault weapons was never meant to stop all gun crimes, it was meant to help stop the most deadly mass shootings. That's why it needs to be a part of the discussion, or rampages like Sandy Hook will continue to happen."


In fact, most murders are carried out by hand guns, not automatic or semi-automatic weapons. But without such weapons, the slaughter at Sandy Hook Uvalde, and Las Vegas would have been much less. Facts, those pesky things that sick people can't handle.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SAS



Joined: 18 Feb 1997
Posts: 135
Location: planet earth

PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2022 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MalibuGuru wrote:
It's our right.
School administrators should be armed. The Mexican border is wide open, and Cartels are bringing them in bt the thousands


Border issues, and Mexican cartels have nothing to do with these mass shootings.

You are not a guru. You are an idiot.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4144

PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2022 12:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So. In following Isobars logic, a vulnerable woman should carry an AR15? If it’s the “best” for home defense maybe it’s the “best” for carrying?

Come on Isobars. If your wife’s safety is protected by her pistol at the shopping mall it is reasonable to assume it is sufficient in your home.

Assault rifles of 223 caliber have NO use in protection that warrants the risk they present and gun manufacturers should be liable for producing this product for mass sale.

At some point we have to draw the line on what is acceptable for personal ownership. I draw that line at revolvers, shotguns and non-semi auto rifles. I should be able to “reasonably” protect my life with those weapons. And, I should be required to have training and a license.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10348

PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2022 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guns have an undue influence on people, and as we have sadly learned over time, an unhealthy one. Just reading one of isobars' promotionary rants about guns reveals just how twisted folks can view and think about guns. In his view, it can be surmised that guns are a necessary part of life. The everpresent fear of violence and death warrants needing guns, often many of them. Simply having them at home is not enough, and it is somehow wise to carry them wherever you go. Leftist evil doers and dangerous illegal immigrants are everywhere these days.

The reality of having guns is like having an addiction. It's always something that eats at you. How many times a day does a gun owner think and fantasize about their weapons and how they might use them? How many bullets do they need to carry when they venture out each day? Do they need more than a single gun when they go out? Maybe it's enough having an extra one in the car, with lots of ammo too, just in case.

You know, I've never owned a gun, and I have to say that I've never needed one my whole life. It's a weight that I've never needed to carry on my mind. If I bought one, I would be doomed to think about it and fantasize about using it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Goodwind



Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 301
Location: On water

PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2022 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

When we compare the states head-to-head on the top 50 gun safety policies, a clear pattern emerges. States with strong laws see less gun violence. Indeed, the 13 states that have failed to put basic protections into place—”national failures” on our scale—have nearly three times as many gun deaths as the eight national gun safety leaders.

https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/?_gl=1*bdr2ag*_ga*ODgzNTIwODcwLjE2NTM1MDg1OTU.*_ga_LT0FWV3EK3*MTY1MzUwODU5NS4xLjEuMTY1MzUwODYxNy4w
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4144

PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2022 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SWC.

I’m afraid I have to disagree with the notion that guns are responsible for influencing people. I would say it is the other way around. A gun is only a tool. How that tool is used is the responsibility of the user. I have a small collection of firearms for target shooting. It was something I did as a kid and still enjoy. I haven’t, and will not carry one for protection. I believe them to be dangerous if used improperly (obviously). For that reason, carrying one does require constant vigilance. I’m not willing to spend that energy.

I can’t say that I have ever fantasized about using a gun on a human. I can’t imagine the bulk of gun owners has. That said, I continue to agree that our gun control laws are inadequate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10348

PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2022 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coboardhead,

We can disagree. But, maybe what I was trying to say is that guns offer a power over some folks that takes them to a realm outside your boundaries. You have to admit, guns are addictive to many in this nation. There are more guns than people in this nation.

You sound to me like someone that has a relationship with guns that is more normal, particularly more sports oriented in use. It's not like all gun owners are folks with an outlook like isobars, or even Bard.

When we get to problematic territory, it's about the folks that have an untoward interest in guns that can result in death and destruction. You have to remember that there are many here in the US that are angry and seem to be entralled by guns and their power.

You're right though, guns are just a tool, but I think that we can agree, a quite deadly one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 13435
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2022 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wsurfer wrote:
Need we say more?


your statement of the 15th of may after another right wing mass racist shooting...
please do not ever phase it that way again..

all guns should be kept in an armory for the militia. as the constitution says armed militia. Armories IMHO are or can be gun stores. the purpose was not to overthrow our government but to stop invaders or benedict Arnolds-terrorists within.

here are some early issues with militias that did not have enough arms or training.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 302, 303, 304 ... 312, 313, 314  Next
Page 303 of 314

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group