Due to the outrageous fear mongering the controllers have been promoting.

Last edited Sun Aug 28, 2016, 04:58 PM - Edit history (1)

And just what is the percentage to overall permit holders? I bet the percentage is actually quite miniscule.

Schooled me on how Oklahoma had only 40,000 CCW permits when I pointed out per his stated website only had 3 in the database.

And how many were red-haired, left handed doctors with a speech impediment?

And no matter how low the percentage, that does not obscure the fact that there are 30,000 gun deaths each year. No amount of explaining, or exploring likelihood of shootings by a particular group can explain these deaths away.

By ones own choice and do not involve others and are not a threat in classrooms.

Are suicides by gun somehow less of a gun death?

Does the family suffer less because it is a suicide?

I don't blame the rope for the two that I know used hanging to commit suicide. You don't do your side any good inflating the numbers to try and benefit.

of gun owners. The 30,000 dead remain dead.

Gun Control Motto: No thought more complex than a bumper sticker can hold, no "research" so old and irrelevant that we won't use it.

"The nutters will be along any minute now to explain this away."

Sorry to say, you are the one that fails to understand that simple fundamental fact and is trying to conflate the two into one.

Interesting you are anti-choice

...are killed with fire and blunt objects and those who kill themselves with drugs or knives.

if were going to include suicide, then lets include all suicide not just suicide by gun. i know one who hung himself, another who overdosed.

what do you think are homicide rate would be if we included all suicide? definitely more than 30,000.

my friends deths don't count because there was no gun involved?

And this IS a gun group. Perhaps you should post on this topic.

you are correct, my apologies. on the topic of guns, which is you preferred firearm, caliber for target shooting? i enjoy my 12 gauge mossberg 500 with Improved Cylinder choke. i shoot 00 buck, slugs, and birdshot. my second favorite is my rifle chambered in .223 it has very low recoil. i can shoot all day without any discomfort.

A Springfield repro .58 musket.

Much more kick than your .223, less range, and probably less velocity but it does make a big hole.

And slower to fire as well.

Why slugs? Do you hunt also?

no, its just that slugs like buckshot and birdshot shoot differently. i like to test my firearms, that way if i ever have to use them (either for self defense or food) ill know how.

i would like to get my hands on a musket one of these days. what type of action is yours?

but i thought by the time the percussion cap was invented the musket was obsolete. both sides of the civil war used rifled muskets that shot minie balls. correct?

Rifled Musket Built as a smooth bore musket, later returned to armory to have the barrel rifled.

A "rifle" was fitted with a fully rifled barrel as original.
The term"rifled musket" was a commonly used to describe these weapons. They had a larger bore and a thinner barrel than a regular rifle of the time. It also used a relatively light powder charge (60gr of 2Fg) than a rifle of the same bore (80-100 gr 2Fg) while using a heavier projectile ( 585gr hollow base Minie vs a 286 gr round ball).

been building and shooting front stuffers for over 40 years.

shooting them? do they kick like a 12 gauge? the only long guns i've fired are an ar chambered in 556, a mossberg shotgun and a mosin.

The recoil is less than a modern rifle even though the muzzle energy is the same as a modern cartridge. The weapons are heavier, but we'll balanced in the hand.
My LongRifle has a 44"x15/16" barrel, it is .50 caliber and will throw a .495dis. 147grain cast lead patched round ball at 2500fps. using a charge of 100gr of Geox 2Fg black powder.
Equal to a modern 30-30.

I did with the uncles when I was younger.

The Springfield is a Dixie Gun Works .58 black powder.

Accurate, but has a kick. (An understatement)

They are fun to shoot. It is a percussion type, muzzle loader, although I have seen breech conversions.

And how many were red-haired, left handed doctors with a speech impediment?

small sub groups. A way of minimizing the 30,000 gun deaths each year.

I was so accustomed to being treated like dirt for my red hair and freckles as a kid (which thankfully went away as I got older), I wondered if there was indeed a problem with red heads and guns.

And all computer users are responsible for child pornography, identity theft, and botnets.

And everyone with a prescripition for painkillers are responsible for overdoses.

But you knew that.

Unanswerable with no context.

Which is the essence of gun control.

You constantly complain that gun are designed to kill. Yet, you treat that without context. You make your declarations without regard as to why any one party may act with deadly force and treat all parties as engaged in something bad.

If someone were to act against me with deadly force without provocation from me would I be entitled to use deadly force?

(And don't retreat to a slew of questions about the practicality of such a scenario. That debate can be had elsewhere. I'm asking about the legality/ethics/morality of employing deadly force.)

Was the Trayvon Martin case self-defense?

If Zimmerman had not been carrying, would Martin be dead?

Its a right to keep and bear, not a right to murder.

It seems you can't be bothered to differentiate.

Libel and defamation cases are often defended under the pretext of free speech rights. Yet, even when a party has been found to have libeled or defamed another party that offense has no bearing on the balance of free speech rights.

It was a clearest case of self defense possible, never mind the false narrative created by Ben Crump, race baiting ambulance chaser not so extraordinaire. The only reason it went to trial was because Rick Scott wanted to help out Angela Cory's re election, who is the DA in Jacksonville. She isn't well liked by the black community and was facing a tough re election. Even though the Seminole County DA determined it was self defense based on the evidence, Scott decided to help out sleazy Cory. This time, the NAACP and the NRA teamed up against her, and she lost the Republican primary.


If Zimmerman had not been carrying, would Martin be dead? Probably not, but the witnesses were calling 911, and the cops got there about a minute after the shot. Chances are, Martin would be doing time for felony assault at the very least. In Wyoming, it would likely be assault with a deadly weapon. Wyoming defines a "deadly weapon" as anything that can reasonably used to inflict death or grave bodily harm, including balled fists and sidewalks.
If Zimmerman were not carrying, would be be alive or not a vegetable?

Maybe, maybe not.When I was in Florida a few months ago, I ran into Crump's legal partner at a local shooting range. Coincidentally, our carry guns are the same make, model, and caliber.

Amazing.

which I attended. Facts and evidence don't have an ideology nor religion, they simply are the objective reality. That Objective reality is neither "alt right" nor "progressive", but simply the objective truth.
But then, I treat all ideologies the same way I treat all organized religion, always with skepticism and sometimes disdain.

Yes, that is the real reason why Scott chose her to be "special prosecutor". Either way, not only is he a Tea Party Republican, she is also extremely unethical. Just some of her antics trying to get Zimmerman convicted of something, would get her disbarred in any other state. Think Duke LaCrosse.

It was the testimony presented.

And was Trayvon Martin allowed to testify? No, he had been already executed by a clown who was looking for a reason to shoot his gun.

Zimmerman's subsequent history tells us all we need to know about his character and veracity.

Nothing you said or might think is supported by objective facts.

He's doing everything he can to avoid the discussion about whether or not people have a right to self-defense.

He's going to pick the most controversial particular cases that will win him the most support in the forum in order to muddy the waters.

story of my life. At least he used a good fly instead of gas station worms.

That explains it. A live victim, as opposed to the real perpetrator, the dead, unarmed black kid.

If they did, there would be no 'Miranda warnings'- Ernesto Miranda was a career criminal, as
well as a rapist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Miranda

He was told by the authorities to back away and let the police handle it.

But he was so excited at the opportunity to be the protector that he "prematurely fired" his weapon.

Plus another fine example of online mind reading.

But it's easier for some folks to buy into a comfortable narrative than read all those complicated court records, or respect the US Jury system.

They are a lot more powerful and connected than we thought.

And ummm, try the actual available court records, not CNN or the Daily Beast second hand crap as a source.

It might make you look slightly less foolish, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

But as a self appointed expert on the trial, evidence, witness statements and what all their motivations were, I figured you must have poured over all the actual transcripts already, to arrive at your considered opinions and findings.

Soooo...there's this thing called Google, maybe you've heard of it?

Several other effective search engines, or so I've been told.

But since gun controllers seem to go by bumper stickers and cartoons rather than actual facts, maybe it's a new concept?

Unable because you cannot find proof?

Not worth wasting any time on hopeless cases.

Besides, you've pretty much proven that you cant get any gun control passed, no matter how much you all whine and posture online about it.

Go back to your "activists", ask both of them about all their real world activities to support gun control.

Just admit that you cannot find this "evidence" that you claim exists. You will feel better.

use deadly force?

please take a moment to answer the question. I'm sure you would not want to give the appearance of evasion and avoidance.

The evasion and avoidance was not directed at you.

Doing something as "complex" and mentally challenging as Googling "Zimmerman v. Florida court record" and actually reading the court records is way beyond the average gun control fan's capabilities. Might be too "difficult" for them. Easier to cling to your religious beliefs, mythology and bumper stickers.

If they did, they might trip over some actual facts, as opposed to the manufactured media narrative, and have to restructure their incorrect and unsupported suppositions and that would make smoke come out their ears.

And nobody likes second hand smoke.

That would have nothing to do with the actions of the other >10 million concealed carriers

And I am not saying that every, or most, or any significant percentage of CC owners are killers.

be justified in using deadly force to protect myself?

It is the sworn duty of Law Enforcement to protect you!!! If they fail in this duty then it is their job to put a nice chalk ring around your body.

threads but he seems reluctant answer this particular question even though it has been put to him at least 3 times now by me and another poster.

You cannot fix the problem if you refuse to correctly and accurately identify the problem. Suicides via gun is a distinct and separate issue from gang shootings, which is a separate and distinct issue from friend/family shootings, which is a separate and distinct issue from spree killings.

Over 41 thousand people committed suicide last year; less than half used a gun. Magazine limits and bans on "assault weapons" will not address gun-related suicides, which occur in the privacy and leisure of a person's home and involve only 1 cartridge.

The US crime rate dropped in half from 1991 to 2010 or so, and it had nothing to do with gun laws, it had to do with 2 seemingly-unrelated progressive policies: cleaning the air and giving women control of their reproductive system.

To fight smog, we mandated catalytic converters on cars. But the lead in gasoline clogged the converters, so we outlawed leaded gasoline. Within a couple of years, the air was virtually free of airborne lead, and the children born after 1974 or so had far less lead in their tissues.

Lead causes brain damage, making children dumber, more violent, and less able to control their impulses or to plan long-term. When the lead was removed from the air, the children stopped being poisoned by it. Thus, when the new generation of lead-free children became teenagers and thus most likely to become violent criminals, far fewer of them became violent criminals because their brains were normal. This would have been around... 1989.


Likewise, women's rights expanded to both birth control and abortion, meaning that more women were having children at "the right time" and thus able to raise them better than in the older says, when women simply had to have as many kids as nature said, when nature said, and then had to try to raise them under far more adverse conditions.

The Pill and the IUD became popular in the mid-to-late sixties, so the effect of having fewer kids born into situations where they were likely to become violent criminals would have been... in the mid-to-late 80's.


Progressive social and economic policies save lives, but we can't get them passed with Republicans running things. And as long as the solution to gun violence is seen as a hardware problem, it will:
a) politically mobilize gun owners to a far greater extent than non-gun-owners
b) not address the root causes of violence and depression, thus not changing murder rates or suicide rates.

the solution is to "fix" those problems. But really fixing those problems is far more difficult than posturing about being "tough on crime". Posturing is favored by politicians from both parties.

Very nice post, by the way.

I want to see these problems fixed, but it's pretty much impossible with Republicans running things.

Many gun-control proposals, IMO, would require a very high expenditure of political capital, would have a long-term and fairly steep backlash affect FOR the Republicans, and would have no visible impact short term and very little (probably statistically insignificant) long term.

And it doesn't fix the situation that can lead to murder, but it might make murder a little less likely. For example, sometimes domestic abuse escalates to murder. If we assume that a gun-control policy reduced the odds of the abused being killed by his or her abuse, it doesn't change the fact that the abuse is still happening. Beatings and denigration and burning and cutting... those things are still happening, scarring the victim and anybody around him or her.

Whereas working to crack down on domestic abuser (through various methods) will not only make murder of the abused less likely, but also reduce the number of abusers, the number of abused, and the number of people affected on the periphery of the abusive situation.

This effect will not only be much more net positive for society, but because the kind of people that care about domestic abuse are in power, they would do other things that broadly benefit society.

That's my opinion.

We don't have a prayer of getting a lot of things that are broadly beneficial to our society done if we're not in charge.

Perhaps that will give some comfort to the families of the 30,000 victims.

How, exactly do you differ from Pamela Geller or Donald Trump, aside from
the identity of your particular bêtes noires?

As long as they can do what they wish to do, the consequences of their choices do not matter to them.

Sometimes these people are called Libertarians.
Sometimes they are called sociopaths.

As long as they can dictate to whom they wish to, the consequences of their choices do not matter to them.

Agreed?

decide to kill.