Sometimes it reminds me of The Running Man. The masses are mindless, numb observers in the going's on in the country. Something horrific is played out on the boob tube in front of them and they think nothing of it, even though it may be happening just down the block and they're next.
You know, I'd like to think that I may someday become involved in politics, more than I already am (ie, actually running for an office instead of being a loud voice in the crowd). Sometimes I wonder if it's really worth it and if it's really possible for a person to get up behind a podium and honestly state their personal stances on all the major issues and still get elected. If you happen to say the wrong thing about one of the hot-button issues then the one-issue-voting zealots that oppose your view will vote against you no matter what else you happen to say. It's a sad state of affairs when you have to lie just to get elected, no matter how good of a person you really are.
Take that probability and then combine it with the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. In all that time don't you think it would be possible for the right series of events to happen that would create life? In that time frame the Earth managed to create a working nuclear fission reactor at Oklo. Isn't it just as probable that life could also be created in that same time frame? The weaker life creations die out and the stronger survive, over and over and over and over again until 4.5billion years later we write about it on Slashdot. It's not that unlikely at all IMHO.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym S[tephen] G. Tallentyre.
You know, I'd be willing to bet that the lawyer that was "offended" was some legal bigwig like a district attorney. Security guards wouldn't listen to anyone else, would they? It might have even been a judge. Judges are lawyers after all. Either way I bet it was some bigwig lawyer at the courthouse.
Those two men were exercising their constitutionally-protected rights on public property, and they had every right to be there. Do you know what malice means? Apparently not.
Oh, and you're doing a dis-service to to Aaron Sorkin and John Spencer.
I'm quite liberal and I'm also a gun aficiando. Do you have any idea how many guns I have within 30 feet of me right now? LOL. Being a liberal and being a gun aficionado and defender of the 2a are not mutually exclusive. Conservatives do not have a monopoly on gun-lovers. Unfortunately I find all too often people who are quite passionate about one topic such as gun control or abortion suffer from some form of short-sighted dementia that prevents them from being able to comprehend any other major issue and balance their thoughts accordingly. I read Packing.org every so often. That site is a large collection of discussion boards related primarily to the issue of concealed carry of weapons and state that do or do not issue CCW permits. A lot of support for legislation brews there. It never ceases to amaze me how well the majority of the discussion board contributers on Packing.org can block out everything happening in this country or around the world that doesn't directly pertain to their guns or their gun rights. They picked one issue and made that their loan deciding factor for the elections. I know many people on those discussion boards personally and I'm always amazed when they unwittingly display their impenetrable mental block to anything outside of their little realm. The exact same thing can be said about those against abortion and a woman's right to choose. Up goes the mental block and out goes any ability to listen to any other side of the discussion. Rationality can not exist in that mental state. It's this inability to see the whole picture (or the forest through the trees as one might say) that truely frightens me.
You final question is an interesting one. I wish we had the answer to that question and all questions that may or may not lead up to your final question. Unfortunately we don't have the benefit of hindsight. We do however have minds of our own. We posess the ability to think and rationalize. Fortunately for us individuals can think much faster than any bureaucracy. We just have to make sure we aren't wearing blinders when some important happens, lest we miss it and make the wrong decision on incomplete information.
Quite true. Yes, that is very telling. There's nothing like a big label on you or your vehicle that says SUCKER like a rental tag. There are a lot of stories like this. Someone should write them all down, sort them, and put them on a nice website with searching abilities.
I suspect you're probably right. Of course I'm not so concerned about some violence in the culture (stories, movies, etc..). It's the lack of ethics that concern me the most.
Exactly. Criminals already don't bother following the laws so why should gun control laws be any different? Criminals don't generally get their guns from citizens. They simply buy them on the street. Much easier. Joe-Bob with in van in a dark alley doesn't run background checks and doesn't ask too many questions.
Well, actually they aren't "anti-gun." However they see logical flaws in the 2a and can't fully defend it. There are flaws in it. Even I as a gun aficionado recognize that. The ACLU has on occasion provided 2a defense to it's members. They aren't anti-gun. They just don't take many 2a cases. In all honesty people that want to protect their rights should donate to multiple organizations, especially those that specialize in specifics rights. The NRA is more than a little specialized. There's another 2a group that isn't nearly as vocal as the NRA-ILA but is almost as big. I'm struggling to remember what they're called. They tend to keep quiet though, unlike the NRA. I can't think of what they're called but I'm sure it will eventually come to me. I support both the NRA and the ACLU, among others (EFF for example). One entity can't defend all your rights effectively.
My comment wasn't meant to be funny at all. Danse had a very insightful comment and I was chiming in with a "me too!" comment in support of his statement. Where's the humor in that? Stupid moderators. Trolls are for kids!
That Senate hearing I attended had a former retired LEO detective speak about crime rates and how much more prevalent it is than most people realize. He threw out some statistics and told a few really good stories. I wish I could find my notes now. He did a good job of speaking. Another speaker gave out a really interesting statistic. Florida enacted legislation to allow people to conceal and carry a firearm with a permit (which of course requires training, a background check, etc). Many politicians warned it would be like the Old West on every street corner. Some state official (AG perhaps?) told all state law enforcement agencies to report any and all incidents involving people with CCW. i forget how many people were issued permits in the first year but it was a helluva lot. Not a single incident involving a CCW permit holder was reported. I forget what the exact number is but in Florida something like 1 in 100 people have a run in with the law in the span of a year. There were something like 20,000 permits issued that first year and not even 1 person in 20,000 CCW permit holders had a run in with the law. I forget the exact numbers but it was about as dramatic as what I wrote. It was a huge hit against the statistics. Very interesting. He closed by using the statistics to show that CCW holders in Florida have fewer run ins with the law than off-duty Florida law enforcement officers. Now that's saying something.:-)
Austraila added a gun control law that even prohibited the extremely common Remington 1100. The result? A dramatic increase in crime the very next year. Austrailia had the highest crime rate in the world in 1999. Gun control failure.
Britain pretty much doesn't allow anyone to own a gun. The result? All the criminals are armed and the citizens have nothing to defend themselves with. Britain went one step further. You don't even have the right to defend yourself anymore. That's a pretty basic human right. The result? Britain has a higher (yes, HIGHER) crime rate than us Yanks here in the states with all our guns. Britain's crime rate in 1999 took a massive jump, at which time 1 in 4 Brits were victims of crime (London Telegraph survey). Britain had the second highest crime rate in 1999, followed by Wales, Holland, Sweden, and Canada (figure that out). Gun control failure. This is an interesting read.
In 1999 Portugal, Japan and Northern Ireland reported the lowest overall crime rates. Interesting list.
So again, gun control laws don't work. They disarm the law-abiding citizens and not the criminals. Put it in terms of animals. Take away one animals ability to defend itself from a predator and the predator will dominate. The food-chain and ecosystem change. It's really quite simple.
California does still issue though. Of course they have a huge list of "lethal-looking" guns that they of course ban but I wouldn't think that your's would be among them. Ever hear the story about how they came up with their list of guns to ban?
They are alternatives to nightsticks, lojacks, and actually putting hands physically on a suspect.
Yes and no. This is a rather disturbing thing to consider too. There has been a lot of talk and news reports about police using taser in situations where their life or anyone else's life isn't threatened. They simply used the tasers so they wouldn't have to get their hands dirty, essentially. That's a disturbing change. Tasers are still a weapon when it comes right down to it. While the good folks at TASR would like you and all other investors to think they aren't lethal they very well can be. I'm not saying that if you get shot by a taser you'll die. It certainly heightens your risk. Heart disease is a major factor in the human motality in this day and age. I forgot how many people have some form of heart disease but it's extremely high. Asininely high. People with heart murmurs and irregular heartbeats don't fair too well from being bit by a taser. I'm certainly not against their use. I think they rock and officers should be trained in their effective use. I just happen to see their downside and the changes in some LEOs mindsets. The change is rather disturbing. I hope it gets reversed soon.
No authentication or encryption in the 802.1Q standard. Ya'll can think Cisco for this fuckup. There were a number of pre-standard VLAN-like implementations back in the day. Most had authentication and encryption between 802.1Q switches and routers. Cisco's didn't however. It didn't have jack. However they put their pre-standard implementation on every single device they made and by default embraced a ground up approach to the use of VLANs, their VLANs. Unfortunately Cisco's implementation became so wide-spread that the IEEE 802.1Q working group ratifying any other VLAN implementation other than one compatible with Cisco's would lead to the creation of a standard that the majority of the market would ignore. The majority ran Cisco hardware and did anything Cisco told them. That's what I call a monopoly (or was a monopoly). Not all the competing standards died right away. Enterasys' (Cabletron's) pre-standard implementation called SecureFast thrived for years due to its widespread use within its userbase. It had so many features that netadms needed quite badly that they were willing to go with a homogenous Enterasys environment to get it. Cisco screwed the pooch and we netadms have been stuck paying the price since, what, December 2000 IIRC? Thanks Cisco.
I saw another Discovery show that proved that global warming was a crock. That show also dispelled the myth of North American deforestation. It all made sense to me. There are lots of arugements from all different angles. Who really knows who is right. My mother gave me a book for X-mas by Michael Crichton called "State Of Fear". I haven't had time to read it yet but my mother did over the holidays. She told me a little about it. In it she said Crichton dispelled the myths about global warming, deforestation, DDT, and much more. The book really interested her and she's pretty swift. It sounds like a book I'd recommend. Maybe I'll write a Slashdot review for it. Anyhow you might be interested in it. I can't vouch for what's in it yet but she did say he cited lots of sources. It's probably worth reading
Kudos. Hey, I'm curious about something. Since you live in a state (OR) with a shall-issue CCW law, do you utilize it? I'm in one of the 4 states that still doesn't have any form of the law on the books.
Assault weapons by definition have a selectable rate of fire. These have been effectively OUTLAWED since shortly after WWII. Get you media-influenced mind past the Hollywood-titled "Assault Weapons Ban" [SIC!] and try to get your mind around what that law actually did. It outlawed guns by cosmetic features. It had nothing to do with actual "assault" weapons which were nearly impossible to legally posess unless the ATF gave you the go ahead. Does a vertical front grip on a gun make it more or less lethal? Well it certainly helps people maintain a better grip on their gun. I'd think that would help prevent dropping and accidental discharge. Funny. Why would we want to ban that? Of course why would we ban a gun with a vertical front grip and not ban another gun with an identical action that didn't have the front grip (same damn gun with the excetion of a missing piece of plastic)? Is it more deadly because it looks more lethal? Is my Glock less lethal because it's clip is (was) only allowed to have 10 rounds in it instead of 13?
Clinton's "assault weapons ban" was really just for show. In all honesty it didn't have any effect on criminals, primarily because they don't follow the laws anyway. Fancy that. The only the the law affected was law-abiding citizens who are trying to work within the bounds of the law. The AWB allowed bayonets one rifles if they gun was shipped to the US from a foreign country that way. However if the new gun owner modified the gun in any way, the bayonet had to be removed. I remember a story written about a World War I museum owner that had charges filed against him because he had authenticate US 1917, German Mauser, and French Lebel rifles shipped to his museum. Upon receiving the rifles he disassembled, cleaned, and repaired the rifles before putting them on display. These rifles came with bayonets. Since he "modified" these rifles he wasn't legally allowed to have the bayonets on the rifles. That makes a lot of sense. That law didn't do anything. It was really just for show.
I don't think any firearm afficionados mind a waiting period. There currently is one anyways. The current system makes people purchasing a firearm wait while the FBI and I believe the ATF run a background check on them. I think it would be a good idea if people purchasing a firearm for the first time waited longer a little bit longer than those who have already purchased a firearm and been through the background check previously. I still think those folks should have a background check (criminal record and protection order checks are the easiest to perform) of course. That's a given. New purchasers could wait longer while a more thorough check is performed.
Now it is worth pointing out that people can legally buy fully automatic weapons. They have to pay a large fee to the ATF for their permit and they have to go through an exhaustive background check (IIRC this one takes months). They are then subject to a heightened set of rules and restrictions that other people. I don't know anyone that has gone through this process personally and I know a helluva lot of gun owners. Criminals will not get their hands on a gun through this process though. Criminals don't bother buying their guns from dealers that run the required background checks anyhow. Lou, selling guns out the back of his van in the alley just off the redlight district doesn't bother calling in background checks if you know what I mean. You might not be able to think of a reason why someone should legally posess a firearm that can fire 40 rounds per second but I'm sure some law-abiding citizen can. You might not be able to think of a reason why someone should own a.50cal rifle or.50 pistol but I'm sure some law-abiding person can. You might not be able to think of a reason why someone should own a handgun but I'm sure some law-abiding citizen can. Just because someone can't think of a reason someone would legally want to own something is not justification for outlawi
I call out your faulty logic. Having a gun will deter someone from breaking into you house. If a criminal knows you have a gun, there's a much better chance he's either going to rob someone else, or not do it at all.
Exactly. This is working in Canada who has more guns per capita than us here in the US. They have more guns per person and yet they have very little violent crime. Coincedence? I think not. If the Canucks can do it, why can't we?
I LOVE discussions like this. It makes it so much easier to tell my like-minded friends from the never-fired-a-gun-but-they're-bad foes. Thanks, friend.:-)
Sure they do. Ever hear of Canada? Canada has more guns per capita than us here in the US and yet they have practically no gun-related murders. They also have a very small TCI or crime rate. They have very little of this type of crime because EVERYONE has a gun. Crooks don't like attacking people that might have a gun. They don't mind cops with guns because they are ham-stringed by department policies and laws and they know it. Citizens are much less likely to fully comprehend the laws and will be much more likely to shoot first and ask questions later. That's why most of Canada's criminals went south to the US where it's much easier to do what they do best without getting shot. Don't blame the problem on the guns. Don't blame the problem on lawful gun owners either. Criminals ignore the gun laws (obviously). Gun control laws do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. All they do is keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens that wish to protect themselves.
What's the chance of getting attacked in your home? I mean really?
Not all that unlikely. Think about it from another angle. If an individual or individuals enter a home when they know a person is likely to be there (at night for example) that person or those persons have a plan for dealing with the inhabitants of that home. It could be as simple as tieing them up while they rob the place, shooting them in cold blood, driving them to ATMs to empty their bank accounts and then killing them, or any combination of heinous things. About a month ago a few miles to my east a woman was the victim of a home invasion. She lived but will never be the same again (is any victim ever the same?). If a home invasion does happen to you, it's likely that you will be injured in some way or even killed. Maybe you've heard of our local serial killer, self-dubbed "BTK" for "Bind, Torture, Kill." It's been on CNN for some time now, America's Most Wanted too. He invades his victim's homes. Home invasions are not that uncommon. I heard testimony before the Kansas Senate FSA Committee last year from a Kansas House member on behalf of a woman in her district that had been the victim of a home invasion. This invasion wasn't for money. It was to rape the mother. The attacker told her he'd kill her children down the hall if she screamed or fought him. When you look at raw statistics take into account that home invasions are listed in many different categories including but not limited to burglary, violent offences, aggravated assault, forcible rape, and murder. There isn't a category in the FBI's UCR for home invasions.
I'm also sure that the people who have been the victim of a home invasion would also disagree with your sentiment that it doesn't happen very often. I have a good example from you from the town in which I currently live. Have you ever heard of the Wichita Massacre. Yes, the name is a bit on the Hollywood-side but once you read the story you'll feel the title is quite justified. Only one person survived that night raped by the attackers and by her friends forced to rape her at gun point and after being shot in the head. That happened in a well-to-do neighborhood. Want to hear about another person who was the victim of another home invasion? Have you heard about Bridget Kelly? Her attacker only shot her 3 times in the back after robbing and raping her. I think there are some people who would disagree with you when you trivialize the number of people that are the victims of home invasions.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I'd like to think that I may someday become involved in politics, more than I already am (ie, actually running for an office instead of being a loud voice in the crowd). Sometimes I wonder if it's really worth it and if it's really possible for a person to get up behind a podium and honestly state their personal stances on all the major issues and still get elected. If you happen to say the wrong thing about one of the hot-button issues then the one-issue-voting zealots that oppose your view will vote against you no matter what else you happen to say. It's a sad state of affairs when you have to lie just to get elected, no matter how good of a person you really are.
Take that probability and then combine it with the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. In all that time don't you think it would be possible for the right series of events to happen that would create life? In that time frame the Earth managed to create a working nuclear fission reactor at Oklo. Isn't it just as probable that life could also be created in that same time frame? The weaker life creations die out and the stronger survive, over and over and over and over again until 4.5billion years later we write about it on Slashdot. It's not that unlikely at all IMHO.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym S[tephen] G. Tallentyre.
You know, I'd be willing to bet that the lawyer that was "offended" was some legal bigwig like a district attorney. Security guards wouldn't listen to anyone else, would they? It might have even been a judge. Judges are lawyers after all. Either way I bet it was some bigwig lawyer at the courthouse.
Oh, and you're doing a dis-service to to Aaron Sorkin and John Spencer.
I'm quite liberal and I'm also a gun aficiando. Do you have any idea how many guns I have within 30 feet of me right now? LOL. Being a liberal and being a gun aficionado and defender of the 2a are not mutually exclusive. Conservatives do not have a monopoly on gun-lovers. Unfortunately I find all too often people who are quite passionate about one topic such as gun control or abortion suffer from some form of short-sighted dementia that prevents them from being able to comprehend any other major issue and balance their thoughts accordingly. I read Packing.org every so often. That site is a large collection of discussion boards related primarily to the issue of concealed carry of weapons and state that do or do not issue CCW permits. A lot of support for legislation brews there. It never ceases to amaze me how well the majority of the discussion board contributers on Packing.org can block out everything happening in this country or around the world that doesn't directly pertain to their guns or their gun rights. They picked one issue and made that their loan deciding factor for the elections. I know many people on those discussion boards personally and I'm always amazed when they unwittingly display their impenetrable mental block to anything outside of their little realm. The exact same thing can be said about those against abortion and a woman's right to choose. Up goes the mental block and out goes any ability to listen to any other side of the discussion. Rationality can not exist in that mental state. It's this inability to see the whole picture (or the forest through the trees as one might say) that truely frightens me.
You final question is an interesting one. I wish we had the answer to that question and all questions that may or may not lead up to your final question. Unfortunately we don't have the benefit of hindsight. We do however have minds of our own. We posess the ability to think and rationalize. Fortunately for us individuals can think much faster than any bureaucracy. We just have to make sure we aren't wearing blinders when some important happens, lest we miss it and make the wrong decision on incomplete information.
Quite true. Yes, that is very telling. There's nothing like a big label on you or your vehicle that says SUCKER like a rental tag. There are a lot of stories like this. Someone should write them all down, sort them, and put them on a nice website with searching abilities.
I suspect you're probably right. Of course I'm not so concerned about some violence in the culture (stories, movies, etc..). It's the lack of ethics that concern me the most.
Exactly. Criminals already don't bother following the laws so why should gun control laws be any different? Criminals don't generally get their guns from citizens. They simply buy them on the street. Much easier. Joe-Bob with in van in a dark alley doesn't run background checks and doesn't ask too many questions.
Well, actually they aren't "anti-gun." However they see logical flaws in the 2a and can't fully defend it. There are flaws in it. Even I as a gun aficionado recognize that. The ACLU has on occasion provided 2a defense to it's members. They aren't anti-gun. They just don't take many 2a cases. In all honesty people that want to protect their rights should donate to multiple organizations, especially those that specialize in specifics rights. The NRA is more than a little specialized. There's another 2a group that isn't nearly as vocal as the NRA-ILA but is almost as big. I'm struggling to remember what they're called. They tend to keep quiet though, unlike the NRA. I can't think of what they're called but I'm sure it will eventually come to me. I support both the NRA and the ACLU, among others (EFF for example). One entity can't defend all your rights effectively.
My comment wasn't meant to be funny at all. Danse had a very insightful comment and I was chiming in with a "me too!" comment in support of his statement. Where's the humor in that? Stupid moderators. Trolls are for kids!
That Senate hearing I attended had a former retired LEO detective speak about crime rates and how much more prevalent it is than most people realize. He threw out some statistics and told a few really good stories. I wish I could find my notes now. He did a good job of speaking. Another speaker gave out a really interesting statistic. Florida enacted legislation to allow people to conceal and carry a firearm with a permit (which of course requires training, a background check, etc). Many politicians warned it would be like the Old West on every street corner. Some state official (AG perhaps?) told all state law enforcement agencies to report any and all incidents involving people with CCW. i forget how many people were issued permits in the first year but it was a helluva lot. Not a single incident involving a CCW permit holder was reported. I forget what the exact number is but in Florida something like 1 in 100 people have a run in with the law in the span of a year. There were something like 20,000 permits issued that first year and not even 1 person in 20,000 CCW permit holders had a run in with the law. I forget the exact numbers but it was about as dramatic as what I wrote. It was a huge hit against the statistics. Very interesting. He closed by using the statistics to show that CCW holders in Florida have fewer run ins with the law than off-duty Florida law enforcement officers. Now that's saying something. :-)
Britain pretty much doesn't allow anyone to own a gun. The result? All the criminals are armed and the citizens have nothing to defend themselves with. Britain went one step further. You don't even have the right to defend yourself anymore. That's a pretty basic human right. The result? Britain has a higher (yes, HIGHER) crime rate than us Yanks here in the states with all our guns. Britain's crime rate in 1999 took a massive jump, at which time 1 in 4 Brits were victims of crime (London Telegraph survey). Britain had the second highest crime rate in 1999, followed by Wales, Holland, Sweden, and Canada (figure that out). Gun control failure. This is an interesting read.
In 1999 Portugal, Japan and Northern Ireland reported the lowest overall crime rates. Interesting list.
So again, gun control laws don't work. They disarm the law-abiding citizens and not the criminals. Put it in terms of animals. Take away one animals ability to defend itself from a predator and the predator will dominate. The food-chain and ecosystem change. It's really quite simple.
California does still issue though. Of course they have a huge list of "lethal-looking" guns that they of course ban but I wouldn't think that your's would be among them. Ever hear the story about how they came up with their list of guns to ban?
Yes and no. This is a rather disturbing thing to consider too. There has been a lot of talk and news reports about police using taser in situations where their life or anyone else's life isn't threatened. They simply used the tasers so they wouldn't have to get their hands dirty, essentially. That's a disturbing change. Tasers are still a weapon when it comes right down to it. While the good folks at TASR would like you and all other investors to think they aren't lethal they very well can be. I'm not saying that if you get shot by a taser you'll die. It certainly heightens your risk. Heart disease is a major factor in the human motality in this day and age. I forgot how many people have some form of heart disease but it's extremely high. Asininely high. People with heart murmurs and irregular heartbeats don't fair too well from being bit by a taser. I'm certainly not against their use. I think they rock and officers should be trained in their effective use. I just happen to see their downside and the changes in some LEOs mindsets. The change is rather disturbing. I hope it gets reversed soon.
*sigh* Was the information illegally obtained? We already have laws covering that. That isn't a matter of freedom of speech. Try again, troll.
No authentication or encryption in the 802.1Q standard. Ya'll can think Cisco for this fuckup. There were a number of pre-standard VLAN-like implementations back in the day. Most had authentication and encryption between 802.1Q switches and routers. Cisco's didn't however. It didn't have jack. However they put their pre-standard implementation on every single device they made and by default embraced a ground up approach to the use of VLANs, their VLANs. Unfortunately Cisco's implementation became so wide-spread that the IEEE 802.1Q working group ratifying any other VLAN implementation other than one compatible with Cisco's would lead to the creation of a standard that the majority of the market would ignore. The majority ran Cisco hardware and did anything Cisco told them. That's what I call a monopoly (or was a monopoly). Not all the competing standards died right away. Enterasys' (Cabletron's) pre-standard implementation called SecureFast thrived for years due to its widespread use within its userbase. It had so many features that netadms needed quite badly that they were willing to go with a homogenous Enterasys environment to get it. Cisco screwed the pooch and we netadms have been stuck paying the price since, what, December 2000 IIRC? Thanks Cisco.
I saw another Discovery show that proved that global warming was a crock. That show also dispelled the myth of North American deforestation. It all made sense to me. There are lots of arugements from all different angles. Who really knows who is right. My mother gave me a book for X-mas by Michael Crichton called "State Of Fear" . I haven't had time to read it yet but my mother did over the holidays. She told me a little about it. In it she said Crichton dispelled the myths about global warming, deforestation, DDT, and much more. The book really interested her and she's pretty swift. It sounds like a book I'd recommend. Maybe I'll write a Slashdot review for it. Anyhow you might be interested in it. I can't vouch for what's in it yet but she did say he cited lots of sources. It's probably worth reading
Kudos. Hey, I'm curious about something. Since you live in a state (OR) with a shall-issue CCW law, do you utilize it? I'm in one of the 4 states that still doesn't have any form of the law on the books.
Clinton's "assault weapons ban" was really just for show. In all honesty it didn't have any effect on criminals, primarily because they don't follow the laws anyway. Fancy that. The only the the law affected was law-abiding citizens who are trying to work within the bounds of the law. The AWB allowed bayonets one rifles if they gun was shipped to the US from a foreign country that way. However if the new gun owner modified the gun in any way, the bayonet had to be removed. I remember a story written about a World War I museum owner that had charges filed against him because he had authenticate US 1917, German Mauser, and French Lebel rifles shipped to his museum. Upon receiving the rifles he disassembled, cleaned, and repaired the rifles before putting them on display. These rifles came with bayonets. Since he "modified" these rifles he wasn't legally allowed to have the bayonets on the rifles. That makes a lot of sense. That law didn't do anything. It was really just for show.
I don't think any firearm afficionados mind a waiting period. There currently is one anyways. The current system makes people purchasing a firearm wait while the FBI and I believe the ATF run a background check on them. I think it would be a good idea if people purchasing a firearm for the first time waited longer a little bit longer than those who have already purchased a firearm and been through the background check previously. I still think those folks should have a background check (criminal record and protection order checks are the easiest to perform) of course. That's a given. New purchasers could wait longer while a more thorough check is performed.
Now it is worth pointing out that people can legally buy fully automatic weapons. They have to pay a large fee to the ATF for their permit and they have to go through an exhaustive background check (IIRC this one takes months). They are then subject to a heightened set of rules and restrictions that other people. I don't know anyone that has gone through this process personally and I know a helluva lot of gun owners. Criminals will not get their hands on a gun through this process though. Criminals don't bother buying their guns from dealers that run the required background checks anyhow. Lou, selling guns out the back of his van in the alley just off the redlight district doesn't bother calling in background checks if you know what I mean. You might not be able to think of a reason why someone should legally posess a firearm that can fire 40 rounds per second but I'm sure some law-abiding citizen can. You might not be able to think of a reason why someone should own a .50cal rifle or .50 pistol but I'm sure some law-abiding person can. You might not be able to think of a reason why someone should own a handgun but I'm sure some law-abiding citizen can. Just because someone can't think of a reason someone would legally want to own something is not justification for outlawi
Exactly. This is working in Canada who has more guns per capita than us here in the US. They have more guns per person and yet they have very little violent crime. Coincedence? I think not. If the Canucks can do it, why can't we?
I LOVE discussions like this. It makes it so much easier to tell my like-minded friends from the never-fired-a-gun-but-they're-bad foes. Thanks, friend. :-)
Sure they do. Ever hear of Canada? Canada has more guns per capita than us here in the US and yet they have practically no gun-related murders. They also have a very small TCI or crime rate. They have very little of this type of crime because EVERYONE has a gun. Crooks don't like attacking people that might have a gun. They don't mind cops with guns because they are ham-stringed by department policies and laws and they know it. Citizens are much less likely to fully comprehend the laws and will be much more likely to shoot first and ask questions later. That's why most of Canada's criminals went south to the US where it's much easier to do what they do best without getting shot. Don't blame the problem on the guns. Don't blame the problem on lawful gun owners either. Criminals ignore the gun laws (obviously). Gun control laws do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. All they do is keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens that wish to protect themselves.
Well said!
Not all that unlikely. Think about it from another angle. If an individual or individuals enter a home when they know a person is likely to be there (at night for example) that person or those persons have a plan for dealing with the inhabitants of that home. It could be as simple as tieing them up while they rob the place, shooting them in cold blood, driving them to ATMs to empty their bank accounts and then killing them, or any combination of heinous things. About a month ago a few miles to my east a woman was the victim of a home invasion. She lived but will never be the same again (is any victim ever the same?). If a home invasion does happen to you, it's likely that you will be injured in some way or even killed. Maybe you've heard of our local serial killer, self-dubbed "BTK" for "Bind, Torture, Kill." It's been on CNN for some time now, America's Most Wanted too. He invades his victim's homes. Home invasions are not that uncommon. I heard testimony before the Kansas Senate FSA Committee last year from a Kansas House member on behalf of a woman in her district that had been the victim of a home invasion. This invasion wasn't for money. It was to rape the mother. The attacker told her he'd kill her children down the hall if she screamed or fought him. When you look at raw statistics take into account that home invasions are listed in many different categories including but not limited to burglary, violent offences, aggravated assault, forcible rape, and murder. There isn't a category in the FBI's UCR for home invasions.
I'm also sure that the people who have been the victim of a home invasion would also disagree with your sentiment that it doesn't happen very often. I have a good example from you from the town in which I currently live. Have you ever heard of the Wichita Massacre. Yes, the name is a bit on the Hollywood-side but once you read the story you'll feel the title is quite justified. Only one person survived that night raped by the attackers and by her friends forced to rape her at gun point and after being shot in the head. That happened in a well-to-do neighborhood. Want to hear about another person who was the victim of another home invasion? Have you heard about Bridget Kelly? Her attacker only shot her 3 times in the back after robbing and raping her. I think there are some people who would disagree with you when you trivialize the number of people that are the victims of home invasions.