HR 4269

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Sorry if that term offended anybody with thin skin but the expression has a lot of validity. The fact I have to explain myself to a human being that thinks that there is no need for new restrictions because the old don't work anyhow.....
Wow
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually I believe what I said was your explanations were irrelevant
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by buckman

Actually I believe what I said was your explanations were irrelevant
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually I believe I said human being🔨🔨
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ecduzitgood]

Check out ghost guns on the National geographic channel. They could outlaw hand guns like Australia and only the drug dealers and criminals will have them.
Drugs Inc. on natgeo channel shows the ice dealers having handguns in Australia.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Guppy]

Today at Angle Tree Stone,,, I'm the nut with the baronet mounted LOL 2nd bench.... 🔫

[tysdad115]

If only criminals would follow laws. Now there's an idea.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

It would be great
But then they wouldn't be criminals
Try reality
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[stripermaineiac]

Here's the sad part of it all. just about every mass shooting has happened where guns aren't allowed. You don't see them at gun shows,sporting shops,open carry places,veteran meeting halls,outdoor recreation area or places where someone is protecting carrying a firearm. as long as there are inocent victims available those looking for victims will have a target.Unless there's someone there carrying a firearm.Then the story changes.

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripermaineiac

Here's the sad part of it all. just about every mass shooting has happened where guns aren't allowed. You don't see them at gun shows,sporting shops,open carry places,veteran meeting halls,outdoor recreation area or places where someone is protecting carrying a firearm. as long as there are inocent victims available those looking for victims will have a target.Unless there's someone there carrying a firearm.Then the story changes.

In most mass shooting events over the past several decades there has been a personal connection or grievance that determined the location of the murders. I've never seen any evidence that killers look to gun free zones as easy targets...it's a myth.

[nightfighter]

Originally Posted by spence

In most mass shooting events over the past several decades there has been a personal connection or grievance that determined the location of the murders. I've never seen any evidence that killers look to gun free zones as easy targets...it's a myth.

Oh Bull S hit... you and your myth dismissals are getting old. Do you need direct evidence? Or can you show even one mass event where perp was at least matched with even number of armed people? They might be sick, but their primal instinct to survive will drive them to act out where there will be no armed resistance.

[spence]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

They might be sick, but their primal instinct to survive will drive them to act out where there will be no armed resistance.

Well, I believe the majority of mass shootings are murder suicides.

[nightfighter]

/\ /\ /\

de·flect

/dəˈflekt/

verb

cause (something) to change direction by interposing something; turn aside from a straight course.
"the bullet was deflected harmlessly into the ceiling"


synonyms: turn aside/away, divert, avert, sidetrack;

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, I believe the majority of mass shootings are murder suicides.

You mean like San Bernadino, Ft Hood, the Washington Navy Yard, Aurora Colorado, Planned Parenthood, Chatanooga Tennessee, Charleston SC Church, and Arizona (Gabby Giffords)......those the ones you're talking about
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[tysdad115]

Reality is to make more laws? I'll stick to my version .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by DZ

It's great to play with word meanings but this is a real issue.

Which is exactly why we shouldn't "play" with word meanings. "Real" issues require real words, not play words. Falling back on mushy bromides such as "let's compromise" when foundational principles are at stake is not just about fixing a problem. It is, in regard to the Constitution in this case, about reversing the constitutional relation between citizen and government.

It is no big secret what progressive tinkering with constitutional rights over the past hundred years has been about. It is no secret that what progressives have been trying to achieve with incremental "compromises" is the elimination of the Constitution and its structural guarantee of individual rights. And replacing that with an all-powerful administrative central government which decides and dictates what rights the citizen has.

It is no secret that among the "vast residuum" of constitutional rights that progressive government has already vanquished, a few obstinate ones remain to be destroyed. The Second Amendment being at the top of the list.

It is no secret that a cherished goal of progressives is to abolish the Second Amendment. And it is no secret, that the ultimate goal of never-ending gun control "compromises" is to eliminate private gun ownership.

Of course, the ruse is that it is about fixing the problem of gun violence. In actuality, it is about fixing the central government's problem of its inability to convince the voters that they must not have guns.

And the propaganda which progressives have convinced even themselves of as being the "truth," is that they are trying to make our lives free "from" the eternal slings and arrows which life casts our way, such as fear, or want (poverty), or violence. But the real truth is that government cannot give us the "right" not to be plagued by nature's evils so long as we, as individuals, have inherent rights "to" or "of" some basic freedoms. Those pesky basic freedoms get in the way of government giving us the "right" to be free "from" bad stuff. Free people get in each other's way. They do unacceptable, offensive, stuff to each other.

The only way the government can give us the "right" to "freedom" from bad stuff, including violence to each other (or lack of health care, or catastrophic global climate change, etc.), is to have full control of us. It must have the power to give us that "right," and not to be limited by various individual "unalienable" rights.

Ultimately, it is not only the control of our natural impulses that progressive government must have in order to provide us the panacea for a trouble free life, but it requires the control of nature itself. The burden such a government imposes on itself is so great that it cannot truly "compromise" with irritating factions and splinter groups, with "extremists" or "kooks." With "clingers" to old things or silly notions. Not yet having the total power it wants, it must still play at little compromises which will eventually lead to its promised land.

So when the government raises a "real issue," beware of how it plays with words, and the meaning of those words. It's probably true that generations have gradually been conditioned to accept the pre-eminent role of the Federal Government in every aspect of our lives. So it's only natural to most that Presidents can willy-nilly make executive orders about whatever the President wants. Or that Federal Regulatory Agencies can do just about the same. And the rationale, or excuse, is that if the Congress fails to do what the President wants, then he can just go ahead and do it himself.

But note what such logic, such playing with the meaning of words, leads to. If we accept such governance, what is the meaning of the words in the Constitution? What is the meaning of the words of any law or statute? What is the meaning or necessity of Congress? Of what use are various competing localities such as States? They, and much more, including the "rights" you think you own, are all subject to the whim and pen of one person.

And that is what you wind up with when "compromise" overrules principle.

[ecduzitgood]

Ghost guns (Underground Inc.) will be on the National Geographic channel today at 5pm. for those who may want to watch it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

In most mass shooting events over the past several decades there has been a personal connection or grievance that determined the location of the murders. I've never seen any evidence that killers look to gun free zones as easy targets...it's a myth.

Did you just muddle yourself or was it just the deflect Nightfighter referred to?

Why did the "personal connection or grievance" DETERMINE the location" rather than the nature of the location determine its choice? Was there a "personal connection or grievance" with a theater that caused mass shootings there? Do "personal connections and grievances" have a strange predilection for predominantly expressing themselves in well-populated gun free zones? Do those with whom mass killers have a "personal connection or grievance" with never go to places where there might be guns? Couldn't the mass shooters not determine those places in which to kill as well?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Did you just muddle yourself or was it just the deflect Nightfighter referred to?

Like a muddle puddle tweetle poodle beetle noodle bottle paddle battle?

How many mass shootings can we come up with were there is evidence the killer chose the location because it was a gun free zone?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Like a muddle puddle tweetle poodle beetle noodle bottle paddle battle?

How many mass shootings can we come up with were there is evidence the killer chose the location because it was a gun free zone?

Why don't you fund an unbiased study ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Why don't you fund an unbiased study ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Buck, if gun free zones are killer magnets this shouldn't be difficult.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Buck, if gun free zones are killer magnets this shouldn't be difficult.

You're coming around eliminate gun free zones
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

"shall not be infringed". end of story.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

"shall not be infringed". end of story.

the framers were pretty smart and understood that statists would tend to use government to deny individual rights and grow governmental power which is why your rights are enumerated and guaranteed and why they provided remedies along with the enumeration of individual rights and limits on government throughout the Constitution and Bill of Rights...the Second Amendment enumerates your rights, limits government and provides a remedy

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Like a muddle puddle tweetle poodle beetle noodle bottle paddle battle?

How many mass shootings can we come up with were there is evidence the killer chose the location because it was a gun free zone?

Evidence? What evidence is there that some locations weren't chosen because they were gun-free zones? What evidence is there that the killer was not familiar with the lack of guns on a location, such as where he worked, even if it wasn't designated a gun free zone? If the majority of FBI defined mass killings were domestic in nature, occurring in private homes, which were obviously not designated as gun free zones, what evidence is there that the killer was not familiar with the lack of guns or where they were in those homes, especially if the available gun was in their hands?

A couple of the articles or "studies" that I've seen, which claimed to destroy the so-called "myth" of gun free zones, try to emphasize the personal motivation of the killer over the choice of location, and then insinuate that, therefore, the reason for the shooting was not the gun free zone. That is a straw man argument, since it is mostly not claimed that gun free zones are motivations to kill, but that they make it easier.

And then those "studies" bring up statistics such as 67% of mass shootings happened in private homes and only 15% in public gun free zones, and 30% in work places. Well, that 15% (another anti-gun "study" claimed that there were "no more" than 25%) occurring in gun free zones is "evidence" that, for some (15 to 25 percent), they are attractive locations.

So, even though private homes are not classified as gun free zones, as I said above, the shooter's knowledge and familiarity with who has guns and where they are, and the advantage of having the gun, perhaps the only one in the home, in his hand while his victims are unprepared for what is about to happen, gives the shooter a "gun free" advantage when he faces those unarmed victims he is about to shoot. A similar knowledge and comfort level exists in a workplace mass shooting.

So, granted that the motivation for the domestic or workplace shootings, as well even in the gun free zone ones, is not the location, the shooter is well acquainted enough with those locations to know he can either kill all of those he is really "motivated" to kill, or a good number before he is stopped. If he is stopped. And this is true, using the above statistics, in the vast majority of mass shootings.

On the other hand, if the killer actually knew that each person in the location of his choice was well armed and trained, would he be as likely to choose that location? Do we have "evidence" that no mass shooter would choose a place with less resistance?

I did a quick check on the subject and these are the first four I saw:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...un-free-zones/

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...john-r-lott-jr

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...ntrol/1770345/

http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/brown/080800.htm

I found a few which disputed the gun free zone "myth," but they had the typical straw man arguments. I suppose, if your inclination or preference is to believe them, then for you there is no "evidence" for the gun free zone "myth." I got a kick out of one anti-myth study which said:

"To put the improbability of mass deaths occurring at school in context, consider that the total number of handgun deaths in the United States (1980-2006) was about 32,000 per year. By comparison, since 1980, 297 people have been killed in school shootings. This amounts to roughly 9 deaths per year at school. Essentially, John Lott and other gun-advocates want teachers, professors, and security officers carrying guns in order to deter extremely unlikely events, a policy that has no substantiating evidence."

So all this urgent fuss about needing more gun control laws to make our schools safer from mass shootings is about deterring "extremely unlikely events."

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Evidence? What evidence is there that some locations weren't chosen because they were gun-free zones? What evidence is there that the killer was not familiar with the lack of guns on a location, such as where he worked, even if it wasn't designated a gun free zone? If the majority of FBI defined mass killings were domestic in nature, occurring in private homes, which were obviously not designated as gun free zones, what evidence is there that the killer was not familiar with the lack of guns or where they were in those homes, especially if the available gun was in their hands?

A couple of the articles or "studies" that I've seen, which claimed to destroy the so-called "myth" of gun free zones, try to emphasize the personal motivation of the killer over the choice of location, and then insinuate that, therefore, the reason for the shooting was not the gun free zone. That is a straw man argument, since it is mostly not claimed that gun free zones are motivations to kill, but that they make it easier.

And then those "studies" bring up statistics such as 67% of mass shootings happened in private homes and only 15% in public gun free zones, and 30% in work places. Well, that 15% (another anti-gun "study" claimed that there were "no more" than 25%) occurring in gun free zones is "evidence" that, for some (15 to 25 percent), they are attractive locations.

So, even though private homes are not classified as gun free zones, as I said above, the shooter's knowledge and familiarity with who has guns and where they are, and the advantage of having the gun, perhaps the only one in the home, in his hand while his victims are unprepared for what is about to happen, gives the shooter a "gun free" advantage when he faces those unarmed victims he is about to shoot. A similar knowledge and comfort level exists in a workplace mass shooting.

So, granted that the motivation for the domestic or workplace shootings, as well even in the gun free zone ones, is not the location, the shooter is well acquainted enough with those locations to know he can either kill all of those he is really "motivated" to kill, or a good number before he is stopped. If he is stopped. And this is true, using the above statistics, in the vast majority of mass shootings.

On the other hand, if the killer actually knew that each person in the location of his choice was well armed and trained, would he be as likely to choose that location? Do we have "evidence" that no mass shooter would choose a place with less resistance?

I did a quick check on the subject and these are the first four I saw:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...un-free-zones/

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...john-r-lott-jr

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...ntrol/1770345/

http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/brown/080800.htm

I found a few which disputed the gun free zone "myth," but they had the typical straw man arguments. I suppose, if your inclination or preference is to believe them, then for you there is no "evidence" for the gun free zone "myth." I got a kick out of one anti-myth study which said:

"To put the improbability of mass deaths occurring at school in context, consider that the total number of handgun deaths in the United States (1980-2006) was about 32,000 per year. By comparison, since 1980, 297 people have been killed in school shootings. This amounts to roughly 9 deaths per year at school. Essentially, John Lott and other gun-advocates want teachers, professors, and security officers carrying guns in order to deter extremely unlikely events, a policy that has no substantiating evidence."

So all this urgent fuss about needing more gun control laws to make our schools safer from mass shootings is about deterring "extremely unlikely events."

I kept reading and waiting for some good evidence, even one great anecdote and came up empty.

And your reasoning that because some mass shootings do happen in gun free zones as proof of it as a factor really doesn't pass the smell test.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I kept reading and waiting for some good evidence, even one great anecdote and came up empty.

And your reasoning that because some mass shootings do happen in gun free zones as proof of it as a factor really doesn't pass the smell test.

You didn't ask for proof, you asked for evidence.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You didn't ask for proof, you asked for evidence.

You didn't really provide either.

[tysdad115]

Thousands of overdoses every day, the lefts answer "Give everyone narcan, make it available over the counter", a few criminals commit murder , most instances any civilian with a firearm could have lessened the end result and the lefts answer " get rid of guns"..
Trying to use rationale when talking with these people is useless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Rmarsh]

The gun manufacturers are protected from product liability lawsuits.
The NRA heavily lobbied congress to pass a bill that gives them immunity from lawsuits being filed by victims killed or harmed by their products. I say that they should be held to the same standard every other business is held to which is if you make a product that kills thousands of innocent people you are going to pay for the damage it has created. Even the huge auto manufacturers cant buy that kind of protection.

Maybe I am not fully informed, but for the thousands of senseless killings that i read and hear about every day, there are very, very few stories of vigilanties to the rescue.

I am a gun owner myself but I see an obvious double standard here.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

The gun manufacturers are protected from product liability lawsuits.

Even the huge auto manufacturers cant buy that kind of protection.

I am a gun owner myself but I see an obvious double standard here.

I'm pretty sure if you run someone over with your car today the victim's family cannot sue the manufacturer of your car for damages...or maybe they could try but that would be ridiculous, would it not??

[Rmarsh]

Originally Posted by scottw

I'm pretty sure if you run someone over with your car today the victim's family cannot sue the manufacturer of your car for damages...or maybe they could try but that would be ridiculous, would it not??

They can sue the operator of the vehicle for negligence or the manufacturer if the car has an inherently dangerous defect like the ford truck gas tanks that killed people. Car companies get sued all the time. So why not gun companies....the answer I believe is that congress can be bought for the right price and was bribed.