when I check that one out. Usually the same for posters.

That fact was considered a RW smear.

Fortunately, the appeal process worked, and it was reversed.

All this tells me is they are embarrassed by their own morality.

Had one of my senseless hides reversed also. Nice check and balance.

it should have been reversed.

But the idea that a jury would deny objective facts...

I mean, despite the fact that the AWB and the magazine limit did nothing measurable to reduce crime, in terms of getting it passed through Congress and signed into law was a Big Deal... and is still both touted and used by many as an example of what future legislating should look like.

They've invested so much of themselves into the concept of supporting gun control that they are no longer capable of admitting even to themselves that they could possibly be wrong.

I want to have the debates. I want to test assertions and hunt the facts.

The other OP is nothing more than a tirade against the process itself because the process doesn't produce the results they anticipated. That should give us all a moment of pause to consider the implications of that.

Last edited Sat Aug 27, 2016, 02:14 PM - Edit history (1)

They are always looking forward to that "next election", or next court appointment that will magically make all their gun control dreams come true, with no real effort beyond online blathering on their part of course.

(If I counted correctly; six National election cycles since DU was created and it still hasn't happened once - stupid, stupid Democracy!

"Just "X" more Senators, Representatives, Judges etc. is all they need" ... to get approval to have doors kicked in and guns either confiscated or turned in with lengthy prison terms for disobedient gun owners.

Then, when it doesn't happen for the obvious reasons, it must be somebody's fault, usually ours.

"Lies and misplaced hope". But at least it might make a nice T-Shirt for them?

That the pinned post immediately above that post is

As a person who feels strongly that more gun regulation is needed, I feel welcome here. I welcome debate.

...'gun-control', in the sense of regulation and laws, has always been fabrication. The idea of control in a society of free people is an oxymoron. I've said many times that control is a myth. Apart what science makes possible, the only real people control is self-control.

The best and most beneficial government based crime prevention efforts are those which empower the individual and remove barriers to freedom and equality.

Violence is not caused by a tool. It's a stupid idea to blame a baseball bat for bludgeoning or to think that a ban will help. Bludgeoning is illegal. Assault is illegal. Murder is illegal. Is there anyone out there that doesn't laugh at that concept of "double-secret probation" in the movie Animal House?

Once you've become enamored with the idea that "the good people" (meaning those that agree with you) can somehow stop "the bad people" from doing bad things and "make them good", you're into a rabbit hole while huffing glue with Harry Potter's wand in your pocket.

at least by the time Bloomberg really got his group spinning.

All you have to do is 'Vote Democrat! and fight the NRA' which (in a new meme) is some huge juggernaut of domestic terrorism that just can't be controlled.

Though it is even "acknowledged that much of the gun violence is gang-related as are many of the mass-shooting incidents", apparently targeting the NRA (and its apologists - whatever THAT is, who the fuck apologizes for the NRA???) is easier then targeting the actual gangs who are responsible for so much of the violence.

Guess blaming the NRA and old white guys makes for a better sound bite.

Anyway, we are just a ban or 2 away from...what they couldn't tell you...

"A legitimate criticism of the article is that even if modest gun control legislation were to be enacted, it would probably have little effect on the shooting violence level in America; at least in the short term."

........as "gun control" has involved absolute fabrication from day one.

The first moral panic I recall involved the non-existent "plastic gun". The Glock that supposedly could pass undetected through airport screening ----- even though it had more than ten times the metal required to set off metal detectors, and the X-ray technology of the day had no trouble picking up it's outline. What a national disgrace that a ban of "plastic guns" actually made it through Congress. And a decade (or more) after Democrats stopped talking about this non-threat, Rachel Maddow attacked Dick Cheney for voting against the legislation.

The stupid is damn embarrassing, and damn politically costly.

to correct all of the misdirection/misinformation. I've actually considered posting a link to the transcript of that segment for the purpose of a 'group fisking'.

Edited to add link to transcript --- easy date to remember, actually:

http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rachel-maddow-show/2011-01-11

what a load of shit, plastic guns and cop killer bullets are pure hollywood bullshit. any rifle round can penetrate soft body armor. my understanding is that level ll armour only protects against pistol caliber rounds. most pistol ammunition (and '00' Buckshot) – NIJ Threat Level II-A, II, and III-A – the regular 3 to 6 lb. soft body armor vest (~1.8 - 2.7 kg.)
http://www.bulletproofme.com/How_to_Select_Body_Armor.shtml

She always had two go-to know-nothing "experts" on her show whenever she was blathering on this issue --- Richard Wolfe and E.J. Dionne. Haven't watched her in years. (Regarding the particular choice of those two - thanks a bunch for reinforcing the image of the self-righteous-in-ignorance/smug/aloof liberal, Ms. Maddow!)

BTW, the hollow points banned in NJ are every bit as likely if not more likely, to be stopped by a vest.

That's why its BS.

Once in a while, I'd love to see one of you come and try to defend this stupidity, but we both know you wont because its indefensible.

You mean the ones that are much less likely to penetrate the lightest body armor?

So it must be true!

Besides, they got a bunch of mailers from Bloomberg's Everytown telling them all about how deadly those imaginary bullets were.

Just one more fact based issue they are proud to totally ignorant about.

Now they can run back to Bansalot and tell everyone how gun owners don't care about the police lives, since we don't care about banning bullets that don't really exist.

So-called "cop-killer bullets" were very hard nonexpanding, pointed-tip handgun bullets designed for police, to penetrate sheet metal and glass without deforming; they were restricted out of fear that they might allow a handgun to penetrate soft body armor that would otherwise be rated to stop that caliber of handgun.

Hollowpoints are relatively soft, fragile bullets designed to open up like a parachute to make them penetrate *less*, thereby transferring more energy to the target and reducing the risk of overpenetration/ricochet. This coincidentally reduces their ability to penetrate soft body armor somewhat.

why are they banned like in NJ?

In NJ it's also illegal for car dealerships to be open in Sundays.

Basic philosophy seems to be mere citizens can't be trusted.

NJ certainly has a penchant for letting moralistic busybodies run other people's lives for them.

That isn't limited to NJ; when I was in Boston years ago for my son's second and third heart surgeries, I was shocked to find out that by law, most stores were required to close on Sunday.

People like you.

Same reason that legislation was passed banning non-existent "plastic guns".

Same reason that ballistic fingerprinting was/is considered a great idea.

Same reason that "studies" by Arthur Kellerman and David Hemenway are still cited as gospel.

People like you -- who are the left's equivalent of Fox Noise viewers -- will gobble up any nonsense that's fed to them.

NJ bans many of the most popular civilian guns in the nation and largely restricts carry licenses to the rich and politically connected or their staff, but even NJ doesn't ban hollowpoint or softpoint ammunition. Some jurisdictions may give you extra hassle if you stop for lunch or to go to the bathroom on the way to/from a shooting range if you have hollowpoint ammunition in the trunk of your car, and accidentally leaving some in the trunk after your trip could land you in prison, but it's completely legal to purchase, shoot at a range, hunt with, or load your home-defense gun with.

NJ law is fixated on the term "sportsmen" like it's 1950, but if you can get past that, here's the law:

http://www.njsp.org/firearms/transport-hollowpoint.shtml

Provided certain conditions are met, a sportsman may transport and use hollow point ammunition. There are no restrictions preventing a sportsman from keeping such ammunition at his home.

N.J.S.A 2C:39-3f(1) limits the possession of hollow nose ammunition. However, there is a general exception that allows for the purchase of this ammunition but restricts the possession of it to specified locations. This exception provides that:

(2) Nothing is sub section f (1) shall be construed to prevent a person from keeping such ammunition at his dwelling, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, or from carrying such ammunition from the place of purchase to said dwelling or land . . . [N.J.S.A 26:39-3g (2)].

Thus a person may purchase this ammunition and keep it within the confines of his property. Sub section f (1) further exempts from the prohibited possession of hollow nose ammunition "persons engaged in activities pursuant to N.J.S.A 2C:39-6f. . . ."
N.J.S.A 26:39-3f. (1).

Activities contained in N.J.S.A 26:39-6f. can be broken down as follows:

A member of a rifle or pistol club organized under rules of the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and which filed its charter with the State Police;
1. A person engaged in hunting or target practice with a firearm legal for hunting in this State;
2. A person going directly to a target range, and;
3. A person going directly to an authorized place for "practice, match, target, trap or skeet shooting exhibitions."

As with other ammunition and firearms, a sportsman would have to comply with the provisions of N.J.S.A 2C:39-6f and g when transporting hollow nose ammunition to a target range. The ammunition should be stored in a closed and fastened container or locked in the trunk of the motor vehicle in which it is being transported. The course of travel should be as direct as possible when going to and leaving from the target range with "only such deviations as are reasonably necessary under the circumstances." N.J.S.A 2C:39-6g.

If the sportsman's club member plans to hunt with a rifle and use hollow nose ammunition in a state where this is permitted, he must comply with the provisions of U.S.C.A. 926A and N.J.S.A 2C:39-6(f) and (6)(g), which is consistent with the federal law, in transporting the firearm and ammunition. The firearm should be unloaded and neither the firearm nor the ammunition should be readily accessible from the passenger compartment. If the vehicle does not have a trunk, the firearm and the ammunition should be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or the console. 18 U.S.C.A. 926A.

In addition, the sportsman should have a valid hunting license in his possession from the state in which he plans to hunt and should be familiar with that state's gun laws. N.J.S.A 2C:39-6(f)(2) requires a person hunting in this State to have a valid hunting license in his possession while traveling to or from the hunting area. Hunting with hollow nose ammunition is permitted in New Jersey. In the case of a New Jersey resident traveling to another state to hunt, it logically would follow that the hunting license would be from the state where the hunter is going. Although the federal statute does not require possession of a hunting license, it does require that the person transporting the firearm be going to a state where possession of that object is lawful. A valid hunting license from that state effectively supplies the proof.

These conditions for use and transport of hollow nose ammunition are consistent with the legislative intent to restrict the use of such ammunition to a limited number of people. It is well established that in construing a statute exceptions are to be "strictly but reasonably construed, consistent with the manifest reason and purpose of the law." Service Armament Co. v. Hyland, 70 N.J. 550, 558-559 (1976). The State Supreme Court has "characterized the Gun Control Law as 'highly purposed and conscientiously designed toward preventing criminal and other unfit elements from acquiring firearms while enabling the fit elements of society to obtain them with minimal burdens.'" Id. at 559.

"Just say no" to more gun control.

As of late.

that's my fault, i posted those articles. i couldn't pass up the challenge to disprove gravity or the sky being blue. im a bit of a dick and like to troll.

All that tells us is that your interlocutor will even reject science in the name of a political agenda.

what was your op referring to? i thought you were referring to my posts.

we've all been guilty of rejecting facts in order to support our beliefs.

Your citation of the science articles was perfectly legitimate which is what makes your detractor's complaints so dismaying.

It's hard to imagine a more telling example of someone -- your detractor -- taking only preliminary facts, drawing sweeping conclusions based on that limited knowledge then assuming absolute epistemological closure when newer/more complete facts become available.

If I wanted to create a caricature of an opponent to make them seem foolish and easily defeated I could not create one akin to what we see displayed and still make that caricature believable. Yet, here he has done it to himself -- and he has ironically done so in service to an effort to make us look ideologically close-minded.

SO what is it, blue or purple?

I can just as easily cite a conventional fact wholly unrelated to the discussion at hand -- compasses pointing North, for example -- and claim that proves gun control advocates are bull-headed and impervious to facts.

So why do you deny compasses point North?

Not accurately at least. That holds true south of the Equator. Compasses with different weighting are used in the Southern hemisphere.

There are no meaningless metaphors, just misunderstood metaphors.

you're now engaged in arguing against what all right thinking people understand as accepted fact.

That would seem to make you more damaging to his/your cause than mine.

Flat earth theory was once accepted as fact.

Last edited Tue Sep 6, 2016, 08:44 AM - Edit history (1)

that openly declares facts and arguing from facts to be anathema to their cause.

You accept self-defense is a right. You prefer facts and data over blindly accepting whatever someone else feeds you. I'm wondering how much distance is left between us.

Would it surprise you to learn that RKBA advocates also prefer to keep guns away from convicted violent criminals and would like to see substantive strategies that reduce the number of suicides and negligent discharges?

I'm not comfortable speaking for anyone but myself but I do believe I will fairly represent most everyone else and I invite you to ask them.

* We support the background system found in NICS and would like to see it expanded to allow private sellers to check on their own.

* We would like to see better funding and management of NICS as many of the more high profile incidents were a gun was purchased through a FFL slipped through the system because of failure to report/track a disqualified individual.

* Better mental health care for those in danger of suicide.

* Maintain or increase penalties for those who knowingly make transfers to disqualified persons.

* Confront inner city poverty that drives young people into the gangs that fuel the majority of the drugs and crimes involving guns. Considering a significant/tragic percentage of the inner city youth have criminal records that destroy their prospects of a better life it seems that having more life destroying laws will only perpetuate the iron pipeline

* re-examine the war on drugs (speaking of how prohibitions don't work)

I'm certain I've overlooked an idea or two.

These aren't just red herrings tossed out to muddy the waters. You've already seen the links showing 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides. Of the remaining 40% of criminal gun uses the overwhelming majority are by those with established criminal histories. The "virgin killer" just snapping one day is pretty much a myth.

A gun is just a thing, it only fires if the person holding it intentionally makes it fire or there is negligence. For those who intentionally act with malicious/hurtful purpose we need to stop them before it rises to the level of violence. In the case of negligence we need better awareness akin to the campaign to stop drunk drivers and make that sort of recklessness socially unacceptable.

In return RKBA advocates ask for very little apart from things such as interstate reciprocity and no bans based on presumption of guilt.

Again, I invite you to not take my word for it. Please ask the others.

Most of the state rifle associations I have contact with, support stricter sentences for crimes involving guns. Preferably with mandatory multi-years sentence minimums for repeat offenders.

Right now, if you attempt a straw buy, all that usually happens is you get denied and walk away, unless you have an outstanding warrant that pops up. These should all be investigated and prosecuted.

Part of the problem in Chicago is, criminals getting an early release to the street because gun crimes are plea bargained away as a first step. So you have criminals back on the street in a few weeks rejoining their gang and having a gun.

(FYI: The average time from a gun being stolen to being used in a crime is 6 and 1/2 years now. Most of our crime guns come from right here in Illinois 67%, Mississippi is second at 18% and Indiana/Wisconsin are tied for a distant 4th place. Source: Illinois State Police Crime Guns Report, 2015)

The legislature tried to pass stricter sentencing laws in 2013 and it got blocked by the Illinois Black Legislative Caucus in committee. They offered no alternatives.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-11-08/news/ct-met-illinois-legislature-emanuel-guns-1108-20131108_1_gun-bill-gun-legislation-lawmakers

First, I would modify this:
* We support the background system found in NICS and would like to see it expanded to allow private sellers to check on their own.
to say this:
* We support the background system found in NICS and would like to see it expanded to require private sellers to check on their own. Including sales to family members.

And I agree with much of what you said as to the causes of gun violence.

Now, what about careless gun owners? And the often tragic consequences of that carelessness?

The difference is that "allow" empowers private citizens to play a role in enhancing the chances that a gun will remain out of the hands of prohibited people. It's already illegal to transfer to those who are prohibited. "Requiring" private sellers to check their immediate family is a bit excessive. It will do nothing to change the activities of those who now engage in straw buying and such.

Would it help to make being carelessness illegal?

if dealers already do the check, why not require it of in family sales/trades also? You might have a large family and it is possible that a member could have issues.

And yes, this will not help with straw buyers. A big issue with Chicago gangs.

Carelessness might be helped with training. Is more training the answer?

I mentioned this elsewhere in this post.

Qualifying and a short test on safe handling and storage.

In 2014 the CDC states there were 586 unintentional homicides involving a firearm.

As I see it, anyone who CCs should be practicing at least every few weeks. When I shot competitively, my accuracy would suffer if I went more than 3 days without practice. Rifle doesn't equal handgun but (IMHO) every 3-4 weeks seems like a good goal for one who carries for self-defense.

Without registration and tracking you can't prove a crime has been committed and registration is a non-starter as the systems are as prone to abuse as they are useless.

Perhaps a Firearms Owner ID card is a compromise. Any seller presented with a valid FOID at the time of purchase would be indemnified and held harmless.

Training always helps. A mandate for training? A requirement for obtaining the FOID card? Demonstrated proficiency on a regular basis? I do not know.

Are the requirements actually to improve safety or to harass gun owners?

Requirements that are prohibitively expensive or onerous to satisfy will be fought. Lover Boy sometimes open carries because his job requires him to transport large sums of cash. He'd rather carry concealed but it costs nearly $200 every 5 years. Why spend that much money for something he can do for free without an ID check?

The requirement defeats it's presumed purpose.

that would also have to be licensed to conduct the training. To fund this, how about a small fee coupled with a minimal tax on purchases of guns/ammo?

It would seem to me that the benefits of training would help the optics of the situation by showing that gun owners care about the problem.

If the job requires, the job should reimburse, but I am not his boss so my opinion does not count here.

if you and I were both legislators we could create a bipartisan bill.

Since non LEs are statistically more responsible with firearms than, say, the cops, what is the value added of the training requirement? Is it really like the liability insurance idea, simply a means to limit ownership to upper incomes in addition to lining the pockets of insurance companies?

I don't think it would help with any optics. Bloomberg and his pet former Monsanto flack would still continue their demonetization and disinformation.

A friend of mine had years of service as a Force Recon Marine. He mentioned that they shot constantly. There is a reason, and we both know that most action can be improved by repetition. SO training of course should, in my view, be a requirement. Yearly training would not be burdensome to most people. I bring my vehicle for emissions testing, I buy a vehicle sticker, I buy a license every 4 years, etc.

And thanks for bringing up the tax, and the mandate. It adds to what I mentioned.

My feeling is that part of the reason that gun homicide is such a difficult topic is because the media is constantly focusing on gun violence even as the total numbers are dropping, and have been dropping for years. But the news is filled with incidents.

I also feel that this focus on violence feeds the perceived need for a gun by some people even as it feeds the perceived problem with growing violence using guns feeds the need for some to call for bans or stricter regulation.

If we merely focus on homicide directed at another, and realize that 10,000 instances each year translates to one person out killed out of 32,500 inhabitants each year, the odds of any one person being killed with a gun is relatively small. So fear, in my view, is driving both sides.

And of that 10,000, if training can eliminate 10%,or 1,000 people, I feel that the training would pay for itself in reduced social costs.

And this focus solely on numbers of dead does not include the costs of the wounded, the social costs involved in medical care, lost income, police costs, court costs, etc.

If training could reduce all these costs, it is worth it in my view.

Well, in addition to training on how to safely handle firearms the Army also trained Lover Boy to --

* Clean up after himself

* Fold his own laundry

* Address people he meets on the street as "sir" and "ma'am."

So...I APPROVE!

but many firearms trainers opposed Arizona's permitless carry because they thought it would be bad for business. What they found was people took classes anyway, knowing that it was a good thing. Too many people think state mandated training, Florida being among the lamest and Texas being among the most stringent, is enough. The average CCW holder, or gun enthusiast is generally better trained and have more experience than the average cop or soldier. I used to teach hunter safety courses to 14 year olds, as required in Wyoming for your first hunting license. Other than using rifles instead of pistols, my kids were better trained than NYPD. NYPD criteria is hitting a man sized target 35 times at seven yards. They fire something like once a year. That probably isn't unusual for most big city police. New Zealand has a requirement that pistol owners train twice the amount required for police, even though you can't carry there.
Force Recon is special forces, not relevant to most people. Neither is training for the Olympics or ISSF.

While Gun Culture 2.0 would benefit from training, many, like me, were trained as children. It is very important to know how to operate the weapon you happen to have. Had this guy knew how to turn off the safety and fire, the child would have survived.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/07/08/norwegian-island-firearms-mandatory-to-carry/


There are ten thousand homicides, eight thousand with guns. Almost all of them are criminal gangs killing each other. They don't bother to do anything else legal, the wouldn't get training or permits like the ones required in IL and NJ.

Would you support universal gun safety training, given in high school, similar to how drivers training is?

To accommodate religious/philosophical objections.

But mine is one vote.

.........should be required reading for all of those who favor "gun control":

https://www.amazon.com/Armed-Considered-Dangerous-New-Second/dp/0202362426/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1473260482&sr=1-1&keywords=armed+and+considered+dangerous

Both criminologists originally favored "gun control" until their research proved to them that it's a misguided way to deal with gun violence.

Once they found out and exposed actual facts, they instantly became "NRA Shills".

Just like any Dem that doesn't demand strict gun control isn't, by their definition, a "Real Dem".

Last edited Wed Sep 7, 2016, 10:13 AM - Edit history (1)

The person who started the conversation regarding the politics of "gun control" has shut down his/her own thread.

Things weren't going his/her way in the discussion. Control religiosity was being smacked down with facts. Can't have that!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172198928

Like I've said before, they don't want a discussion, they want a monologue.

The deleted threads and bansalot as it exists and operates, are objective proof of that.

"Why can't you gun owners just compromise a little?"

Then, when you say OK and ask what gun laws they are willing to give up in exchange for UBC or magazine limits, etc., they get all pissy and "How dare you suggest getting rid of a gun law!"

"Compromise" means what are gun owners willing to give up now, so they can figure out what we should give up later.

Having a "Discussion" falls into that same category. The discussion lasts right up to the point that someone disagrees with them.

Could not have said it better.

It's just as bad in GD.