Just buy some golf clubs.
Unless I misunderstand the effects of a government shutdown (ATF cannot process firearm background checks) it looks like that gun grabber in the Whitehouse has figured out how to enforce an AWB… Let the Republicans shut down the government! 
Moron walks around elementary schools armed with shotgun & side arms. Police can’t do anything about it.
Man protesting with gun prompts new protocol for school district
Fuck him. And fuck US gun “laws.”
NRA sponsored gun lobbyist kills a bull elephant for NBC sporting show. He claims he snuck up on it it its “bed.”
Why is this day and age would anyone kill an elephant ‘for fun?’ These are sentient animals and there are not that many of them left. He should be made to eat it.
Everybody’s favorite ex-police chief, Mark Kessler, the one who got fired for making incendiary videos threatening ‘libtards’ and the Secretary of State, abusing county property, and target shooting at images of city council members, has a new job:
“Kessler now has a radio show. And for audiences eager to lap up angry-foul-mouthed anti-liberal rants alongside a heaping helping of right-wing conspiracism, he has partnered for the enterprise with another far-right figure, radio host Pete Santilli.”
Santilli is special, too.
“Last May, Santilli told listeners that he wanted he wanted to “shoot Hillary Clinton in the vagina” and then watch her slowly die afterward…”
Kessler thinks shadowy DC elites are responsible for the loss of his job. I hope someone with authority is keeping an eye on these self-styled ‘patriots.’ Both seem distinctly unstable. What kind of normal person wants to shoot someone in the vagina and stare into their eyes while they die? I wonder how long it will be before their guns, using their magical powers, turn these “good guys” or one or two of their listeners into a “bad guys”? Will pro-gun folks denounce these two?
Ah, so now we have it: anyone carrying a gun is looking for an excuse to use it. So of course they’re a danger to everyone around them. :rolleyes:
Fortunately, the vast majority of people who carry don’t meet this stereotype.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
And I’m still waiting to hear you explain how I know you’re not really a threat to me, and what right I have not to be exposed to the threat you represent. If you have no answer, you can go ahead and say so, rather than let it be the simple and obvious inference.
[/QUOTE]
Simple- there is no threat, because I am not a murderer. You can be reasonable sure of this because if I’m openly carrying I almost certainly have been cleared by the authorities to have a carry permit.
Maybe in your state. Where I live, like a lot of states, you can open carry if you have a gun and… that’s it. Don’t have to be cleared by jack shit.
So does knowing one’s state’s open carry laws change the calculus?
That just mean that perhaps you’ve gotten away with murder.
Utterly clueless.
You presumably know you’re not an unstable individual one fenderbender away from an angry rampage. The rest of us, who have never met you before, have no idea whether you are or not. And if 99.999% of a time the guy carrying a gun around is perfectly harmless, the 1 in 100,000th time he isn’t we could end up dead. People buy lottery tickets with far longer odds than that.
Consider the idiot from Oregon above, deliberately walking past schools carrying guns. He meant no harm and broke no laws. Of course, there have been other occasions when people have walked near schools carrying guns, and have subsequently gone into those schools and shot lots of people including children. How do we know which one of these guys is which before the shooting starts?
I’m pretty sure **Elvis **is not overly worried that a gun just lying there is going to suddenly leap up and shoot him. There is always a presumption that people are involved in the process.
As for the “gun in the holster”, I’m reminded of the Family Guy episode where Peter goes to his high school reunion pretending to be a cowboy astronaut millionaire and someone grabs his hat and says “Hey - this comes right off!” That’s the thing about guns in holsters - they come right out. You may wait to worry until the gun is pointed at you, which seems a bit late in the process to me. Some of us worry because we’re concerned that it might end up pointed at us and think it’s better to react when there’s still a chance to do something about it.
Again, you’re missing the point. Fear of a random stranger with a gun - in a context where people have no apparent need for a gun other than wanting to have one - is not irrational; my colorful description of a particular hypothetical random stranger was not meant to limit the discussion to the wifebeater-wearing community. And it’s not as if random strangers don’t shoot people on a fairly regular basis these days, so there’s more than a little justification for that fear
The idea that “an armed society is a polite society” is even predicated on that fear of what another person with a gun might do. Some people think the best response to that fear is to get a gun themselves. Others, like Elvis, think the best response is for no one to have guns. Frankly, removed from the context of the Second Amendment the “no guns at all” argument would be a far more compelling one (as it is already in places like the UK). That America must work within the context of Constitutional rights does not change that equation, nor should it prevent people from testing the extent to which that amendment applies in pursuit of less violence in society.
No, but you apparently missed the bit about CONTEXT. Of course people will have guns at the gun range. And if you happen to encounter one of those guys later you will have the context that “he was at the gun range, hence has his gun on him”. The rest of us, seeing a guy with a gun at the grocery store, won’t have that context and will wonder, and watch, and worry.
Hell, even your boy Lumpy there, faced with the prospect of the “random stranger in the grocery store with a gun” being a black guy, said he’d want to keep an eye on him. Does that make him a hoplophobe too?
“Most polls this year have found that about 80 percent of Americans support expanded background checks. About 74 percent of National Rifle Association members support expanded background checks for all gun purchases, a position that the NRA has stridently opposed.”
And now, even gun retailers, dealers, pawnshop, and manufactures support expanded background checks. Most Gun Dealers Support Expanded Background Checks, Survey Says | HuffPost Latest News
Neither were most other murderers, until they suddenly became murderers. Most of them thought exactly what you think, too. So what makes you different? Are you somehow not susceptible to the same impulses, the same frailties as ordinary humans?
So was Aaron Alexis. What good did it do?
There is no excuse for this. If we can force poor dirt farmers to tolerate elephants that are destroying their crops, we can tell rich hunters that they cannot shoot them for fun.
I wouldn’t put it past him.
So? How often does that happen?
I drive on a freeway with hundreds of other motorists who could drive me off the road into a tree. Every day I risk my life on the roads on the faith that the guy driving next to me isn’t
Aside from the fact that this is very rare, what makes you think that any of your regulations would prevent this from happening? Most people who commit crimes with guns are already no allowed to possess a gun and are ignoring laws to begin with. So if I see a known felon with a gun, I get nervous but I have no reason to believe that stricter gun laws would keep a gun out of that felon’s hands. Do you?
It depends on what you’re used to.
I’m used to seeing people with guns, you’re not. I am more comfortable around people with guns, you’re not. I don’t assume they are homicidal maniacs (or any more likely to be homicidal maniacs), do you?
Really? Which random strangers shoot people on a regular basis? Are you talking about people like the navy yard shooter? Is that the basis for your arguments to didarm the public? Do you weigh the toll of these events against the incidents of defensive gun use or do you only look at one side of the equation?
And if he could craft a law that would make the criminals give up their guns, he might have a point… but every law he proposes would only disarm the law abiding citizens who voluntarily dispose of their guns to obey the law.
I agree that you would have a better argument if we didn’t have a cosntitutional right to keep and bear arms and if you could actually get rid of virtually every gun in society. In the real world, most gun violence is committed by people who are not allowed to possess guns and there is no law that anyone has proposed that would disarm the people who are most responsible for gun violence. AND there is some reason to believe that gun crime would increase if the criminals knew that they (and cthe cops) were the only ones with guns.
No, I think that I also said that my awareness would be heightened if I saw someone carrying. But I don’t have a desire to outlaw guns, mostly because I see both sides of the gun equation, there are many incidents of defensive gun use every eyar. I don’t see why you think we should only consider one side of the equation…
ANECDOTE WARNING!
I’ve owned guns, hunted with guns, shot targets with guns, and concealed-carried guns pretty much all my life. I’ve never fired one at a human, and hope I never will. I am pretty sure, at this point in my life (I’m 63), that I know my own ability to resist (irritation? temptation? provocation? inebriation?) and this makes me quite confident that I’ll never wake up one morning and just shoot someone, or draw my gun the next time some asshole cuts me off in traffic. You and the rest of the human race are really quite safe around me if I’m carrying.
I’ve known or had acquaintance with at least three people in my life who have killed other humans in personal exchanges (not in the context of war, vehicular accident, etc.). The behaviors and speech patterns of all of them – and presumably thus their thought patterns, although admittedly I cannot read their minds – included common outbursts and frequently words like “hurt”, “teach a lesson to”, “fix” and even “kill”.
I do not believe that these gentlemen “thought exactly what * think”. I believe their thoughts are quite different. I believe that they are indeed not operating under the same impulses as many of the rest of us. I conclude that these persons should never have access to firearms.
Sadly, what I cannot figure out is any way to objectively identify such people in advance of them taking actions that are harmful – or even fatal – to other humans. I’d be more than happy to interview candidates and pass my own personal judgment on them, but I don’t think that will qualify as acceptable in a legal sense. Nor do I think I could make much of a dent in 330 million people, even if I was on salary. 
Sad. :rolleyes:
You’ve been asked many times what a “law-abiding citizen”, one who will always be one, is, and how one can tell. Do you have an answer other than your trademark juvenile invective?
Hyah. Shuah.
You finally found someone to tell you how many? How many times did you have to ask? What was the answer?
Schmuck.
How do I know? Hell, how do YOU really know?
Yet they all claimed, or would have, to be “law-abiding citizens”, right? I’m guessing they each had records that would point to the “shall issue” block in the flowchart too, right?
No question. So then the question becomes what we do to protect other humans from them. Blunt-instrument, blanket approaches to legislation and enforcement in the cause of a safe society are hardly rare in the law, they’re probably even the norm. And there is one such available to us, probably the only effective way, and it’s one that’s even proven effective in virtually the entire rest of the civilized world, too.
The problem isn’t how to identify psychopaths; that’s as futile as you say it is. The problem is how to prevent them from being a mortal danger to others and themselves. That one is doable. In the process, you also protect society from the dumbass killers, not just the psychopath killers.
There’s also protection for potential suicides. There have been studies, as profiled recently on NPR, which showed that for suicidal people the greatest moment of danger to themselves is usually a rather small window of time. The easy availability of guns makes it more likely that a suicidal person will fatally inure themselves, while acting within that “window.” Studies show that if people are unable to act and fatally injure themselves within that window, they are likely to survive. In other words, the majority of gun-suicides are preventable, impulse suicides.
People sometimes assume that if a suicidal person doesn’t have a gun, they’ll find another way to kill themselves. The studies profiled in the link above demonstrate that this is often not the case. Also, an attempt with a gun is by far the most likely to result in a fatal injury, among the most popular methods of suicide.
Know? I can’t, with any more certainty than I can know that the sun will come up tomorrow and not go nova. But as for knowing myself, I’m suggesting that five and a half decades of opportunities to misuse guns gives me a pretty high level of assurance.
As for my acquaintances, I never said they shot people to death. One did, but one used a knife and the other used the “blunt instrument” (strange you should mention it) approach with fists and wooden objects. I don’t believe any of them paid any attention to the concept of “law abiding citizen”. As I said earlier, their thought patterns seemed dramatically different from my own. But – at least after probably their late teens – I believe all had racked up sufficient transgressions of greater or lesser moment that I sure as hell wouldn’t have put them on any “shall issue” list that I had control over.
I’m saddened that you cannot see the problems with your own “blunt instrument” approach to this matter. There are a host of reasons that the USA just isn’t going to take the path “proven effective in virtually the entire rest of the civilized world” even if I agreed that said path would be preferred. First there’s that silly 2nd Amendment problem. Neither the “personal firearms aren’t really protected and we can ban all of them” nor the “all guns are available to everyone and this cannot be infringed in any way” interpretations have been upheld by the relevant authority, SCOTUS. You’ll need another Amendment to overcome this hurdle, and I think even you can see this just isn’t going to happen.
And if by some magic, suddenly overnight the 2nd was stricken from all publications everywhere and succeeding Amendments were renumbered, leaving the present 2nd to be just a wisp of fading memory, there is still no way any government agency is going to be able to collect 200 million or more guns from 330 million citizens. Make up your own fictitious numbers for percentages of willing compliance versus resistance, and there will still be shitloads of illegal guns left out there. And lots of newly minted scofflaws holding some of them.
We need to find some other ways to address the problems of alienation, frustration, economic disadvantage, and self-pity that seem to contribute to violence in our society, thence (to some extent) into misuse of firearms. One simple and straightforward method might be to Legalize Drugs[sup]TM[/sup], and use War on Drugs money for psychological treatment programs. Hell, let private enterprise produce and sell weed and cocaine. They’re both processed agricultural products. We use another highly processed agricultural product every day. It’s called bread, and it costs less than 3 bucks a pound including growing, harvesting, transporting, processing, packaging, and advertising, including profit for every step along the way. Dope shouldn’t be all that different, and 3 buck a pound coke will sure take all the attraction out of gang warfare over street drugs. And keep a lot of people out of prison who should be with their families and being productive members of society. I know it’s a hijack, but a kinder, gentler (and maybe more stoned 
) society may misuse guns less.
So, doing what virtually every other civilized country has done is so unrealistic here that it’s pointless even to discuss, while programs aimed at fundamentally altering human nature itself are worth serious consideration. Mmm, don’t think so, Chief.
Yes, by all means, and there’s simple careless accidents that also wouldn’t have happened or been fatal if the means hadn’t been present. All the more reason that blanket approaches to broad societal problems are effective, even if some are inconvenienced by them, even unfairly.
Second Amendment modification or repeal will require far more alteration of the human nature of sufficient citizens of the present US of A to make it pointless to discuss. Look around, do you see the way the political winds are blowing? Sweet persuasion doesn’t seem to be working, and I suspect it will work even less well when the final agenda (ban guns!) is admitted.
On the other hand, societal change through social motivation does work, provided there is no intransigent opposition already in place to resist it. Take, for example, the success of anti-alcohol campaigns such as that pioneered by MADD.
Bottom line is, you’re not going to be able to POOF! all those guns away, not in my lifetime or yours. That being the reality, we are left to ponder other means whereby violence may be reduced.