# Bipartisan Gun Safety Measures



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

What do folks think about the Senate framework? No national Red Flag legislation, no requirement for states to implement them, slightly expanded background checks (probably ineffective), no raising the age limit to 21, no ban, etc. Pretty toothless, IMO.

There was a post on another thread about the 9th Circuit Court ruling that a law raising the age limit to 21 to buy a semiautomatic rifle violated the 2nd Amendment and was unconstitutional. The poster implied that the May 11, 2022 ruling was significant because it came from a court known to be "liberal". However, as Paul Harvey used to say, there is "the rest of the story". The ruling wasn't from the entire court, but a panel of three judges. The two who ruled the law unconstitutional were Trump appointees, so Federalist Society-apporived, far right judges just like the rest of his appointees. The dissenting opinion was from a Clinton appointee. No surprise.

Also, in response to the Buffalo shooting, New York passed a package of bills, one of which requires a gun license to buy a semiautomatic, and you can't get a license until you're 21. Also, in order to get a license you must meet several requirements, one of which is having a "legally recognized" reason for wanting to possess a firearm. Seems reasonable to me.

I predicted that no effective gun safety measures would come out of Congress following the recent spate of mass murders. So far they look to be on track.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

It doesn't matter if a weapon is a semi, fully automatic, bolt, pump, break action, lever action, revolver, pistol, single shot, etc. The weapon doesn't harm/kill people, people harm/kill people.

What would be next on the "ban list", 3-D printers? Because one could make a ghost gun with it. Will you have to have a "special permit", or show a need to own a metal fabricating lathe because a weapon can be manufactured with one? Will they "ban" vehicles, because one can use that for mass human harm/death?

I could go on, but the point is mute and I'm sure you understand where this would be going. Once a bill/law is passed, it's more difficult to have it removed from the books. Be careful how far and what you open your door to. Once inside?????

There are "Nut Cases" now, has, and always will be. Don't place a chokehold on a law abiding citizen because of the actions of a few. One reason Japan didn't invade the US after the Pearl Harbor attack, was because they new the citizens of this great country were armed to the teeth and it was the worlds largest armed force. Yes....the "sleeping giant would have been awaken" with a very bad attitude.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

The question was what do you think about the proposed Senate package? I don't think it will do anything. 

We've all heard all of your arguments before, ad nauseum. Slippery slope, yada, yada yada. NRA playbook, not working....


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

paddler said:


> So, what do you think should be done to address gun violence in the US? Or do you think 101 mass shootings here, vs France, in second place with 8, vs a third place Germany with 5 is okay? We've all heard all this before, slippery slope, yada, yada yada. NRA playbook, not working....


Leave it alone!! No change is necessary. If one wants weapon restrictions/gun control, move the hell out of the USA to a country that has these laws in place where you can "feal safe".


----------



## callofthewild2 (May 10, 2021)

pretty sure my opinion on what to do about gun violence will not be a popular one.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Paddler - anyone who states an opinion, that doesn't align with yours, will obviously be wrong. I know it'll be hard, based on your track record, but let's try to keep this thread from spiraling down into a flaming pile of crap.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

It sounds like my opinion will pizz off everyone responding, but I like it. It is a start. No, it won't magically fix everything, but neither will any other single fix argued about here and elsewhere on endless threads and discussions. 

It also isn't a done deal and I will believe it only when I see a bill signed on the presidents desk.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Catherder said:


> It sounds like my opinion will pizz off everyone responding, but I like it. It is a start. No, it won't magically fix everything, but neither will any other single fix argued about here and elsewhere on endless threads and discussions.
> 
> It also isn't a done deal and I will believe it only when I see a bill signed on the presidents desk.


Makes sense. Many a slip between cup and lip. We'll see what, if anything, actually is signed into law.

I think the "incentive" to states meant to encourage Red Flag laws will have little to no impact, as states who haven't developed them likely won't. Also, the expanded background checks for 18-21yo buyers probably won't go far enough, as many of the perpetrators fly under the radar until it's too late. Interesting that many of the more powerful measures are off the table entirely.

Doing nothing, as suggested above, guarantees more of the same. Doing little guarantees a little bit less of the same.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

We already know that you want to violate constitutional rights paddler. And anything short of that won’t appease you. Some people like the constitution, some don’t. You can try and minimize my reference to the 9th Cir decision last month, but guess what? It’s still the cutest trolling law in all of the 9th Cir and the law requiring someone to be 21 to buy a long gun in California is still struck down as unconstitutional. It will remain that way unless it is overturned. So take veiled shots all you want, you’re still wrong. 

I am actually encouraged by this news. Not necessarily that I like the final result, but because our elected officials (at least these ones) are showing an ability to come together and discuss things that are important and realize it is not an “all or nothing” provision like the OP and so many others around the country demand.

Our country was founded on the principle of compromise. If our founding fathers subscribed to the political tribalism of today, we would not be a nation today. Make no mistake, their compromise was not weakness. These were powerful, influential, strong-headed, opinionated men. But for the good of the country, they put their pride and demands aside and formed a “more perfect Union.”

These 20 senators are showing that can still happen, and regardless of the result, it leaves me encouraged that statesmen/women still exist. I’m also more loyal to the country than a political party too, so call me old fashion.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

People use firearms to defend themselves from death or injury at least 10 times as much as the amount harmed or killed by firearms each year. Gun bans and gun control beyond what exists now CAUSES more death and injury, look at the repealed DC and Chicago gun bans, look at the increase in the rates of violent crime in the UK after the gun bans there, look at the absolutely insane rate of sexual assault in Australia. Guns save lives and it's not a complicated problem, there isn't some magical rate or relationship between the amount of casualties caused by guns to the amount saved by guns, it's over 10 times the rate in the RIGHT direction and it only gets worse if you screw around with it.

But no one's going to convince you, because you're paddler. If MSNBC told you the sky was green you would be telling us we all need to wear yellow sunglasses until we agree.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

I merely corrected the record. The implication was that a liberal majority of the 9th Circuit Court ruled the California law unconstitutional. To quote:

_All that said, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (yes, THAT 9th Circuit in the liberal mecca of the country) just ruled on May 11th of this year that California's law requiring someone to be 21 years old to purchase a semi-automatic centerfire rifle is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. So while I've tried to tell one certain member for years his proposal would violate the constitution, now we have a federal appellate case to show for it. (It's almost like a constitutional law scholar knows more about the constitution than some who is not. Weird...huh?) So while that type of a law sounds all good, if it violates the constitution, it violates the constitution._

I accepted that post at face value, as many others probably did. But I wondered why New York would pass a law after that May 11th decision that also raised the age limit. So I looked up the decision, and discovered that it wasn't handed down by the entire court, but a right-wing majority three-judge panel. Thus, the implication was inaccurate, and the issue of constitutionality appears to be unresolved as of this writing.

It's also a very important issue, as raising the age to purchase semiautomatic weapons could actually help decrease mass murders, and many think it reasonable. But it appears to be off the table for the bipartisan panel. Sad.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

No, gun control is a complete non-issue. The issue is with mental health, full stop.

So, first point: when you increase gun control past the current point it hurts considerably more people than it helps. You can care about mass shootings killing people and that's fine but if you make laws that reduce those shootings to zero (saving the 300 or so lives a year that they take) but those same laws make it impossible for 200,000+ people to defend themselves from attackers and over 30,000 of those people die, you clearly have made the wrong choice.

Second point: the mental health and socio-economic factors that cause violent crime don't go away when access to guns go away. Restricting guns doesn't make that violent crime go down, it makes it go up. We have 30 years of recent proof of that.

The currently proposed bill gives states the option to enact red flag laws if they want, we'll see if that's good for the states that choose to do it, but previous experience says probably not. The bill would also give a lot of money to states for mental health and education, which is the perfect thing for the problem.

Now this isn't to say I wouldn't have defended my guns (and high capacity magazines) with my life before knowing the ratio of good gun use to bad, you could show me mass shooting and gun homicide victim rates up to equal of the number of people saved by guns and that would still be the case. These numbers are for people more sensitive than me.


----------



## caddis8 (Sep 10, 2007)

My .02- (not worth a nickle). Admittedly, I'm not an AR guy. But just because I'm not an AR guy doesn't mean that just because I don't want one or have use for one that another person can't have it. 

In order to have a fully automatic machine gun one has to either be a FFL, or have an SOT license. Some people call it a Class 3 (incorrectly). Fully automatic guns are legal to certain people. Do something similar (not exactly)

I would propose something like a Class 2 permit to buy certain classes of firearms (semi-automatic firearms over .22 caliber that can hold more than 15 rounds in a magazine- an AR). This permit should require training, a mental evaluation, and a waiting period, credit check, and a few other things (still chewing on it). Once one gets it, then it is good to purchase items without a waiting period. Show the card, buy the firearm. If a person is convicted of a violent crime, card revoked. If a DUI is given, card revoked. I'm not sure about mental health diagnoses- because someone can have clinical depression and still be a responsible gun owner. Red flag laws targeting certain medical conditions will drive people who need help but want to keep their guns away from getting help- and therefor more apt to commit crimes. 

The 2nd ammendment is a very big deal. It is a slippery slope- because constitutional rights matter- all of them. Even the ones we disagree with. Taking an entire class of guns away isn't acceptable. However, I think that something can and probably should be done. We can't take evil away. People kill people, guns don't. But giving guns to people who shouldn't have a gun isn't a great solution either.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Dude, mass shooting deaths from AR-15s are less than 300 people in the last 20 years. 300 deaths out of about 30,000 deaths per year including homicide, suicide, and accidents. 600,000 gun deaths vs 300 and guns prevented violence about 4.5 million times in that same period. This focus on AR-15s is ridiculous.


----------



## caddis8 (Sep 10, 2007)

Jedidiah said:


> Dude, mass shooting deaths from AR-15s are less than 300 people in the last 20 years. 300 deaths out of about 30,000 deaths per year including homicide, suicide, and accidents. 600,000 gun deaths vs 300 and guns prevented violence about 4.5 million times in that same period. This focus on AR-15s is ridiculous.


I'm not sure that your information is correct, but that's ok. Per the FBI (and only counting 2000-2018) there have been 247 mass shooting events. (Defined as 4 or more people killed). 884 killed and 1546 wounded. That has increased since then. That is a lot less than total gun violence deaths. 

Nut jobs that want to kill people shouldn't get guns easily. People who are responsible shouldn't have to have access to guns restricted. Both are true. 

Closing loopholes for background checks at gun shows I think it a no brainer. I'm not for background checks for when a gun is given as a gift/inheritence between direct family members. I also believe there should be incentives given for having a fireproof safe or something to safely store guns in a home. 

We have glamorized killing people through movies and entertainment. 

My brother was directly involved with the shooting in Smithfield when Desirae Turner was shot. She was shot with a .22. The two young men that shot her had absolutely zero regard for her life. It was discussed that video games and other things (porn) had altered their sense of reality. I agree with this to an extent. All that to say that some bad guys will get guns.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

If there were 884 killed and 1546 wounded total in mass shootings between 2000 and 2018 I doubt very much that even a quarter of those were done via rifle and even less by AR-15s judging by the year over year stats on gun homicides and that would mean it's even less than 300. Gun violence is done by handguns for the vast majority of events but for soooooome reason the result is to go after AR-15s. That reason isn't because anyone thinks banning or restricting AR-15s will reduce gun violence (maybe they think it, but that doesn't make it correct), it's because they want to ban the most popular firearm type without regard to facts.

You will never stop crazy people from harming other people with weapons by taking weapons away. You have to fix those people or remove them from society. You could easily cause more death and injury to happen by restricting good people's access to firearms.

Those kids used an adult's weapon in that crime, that should be a crime for the adult, and that adult should be in prison for a long time.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

paddler said:


> Thus, the implication was inaccurate, and the issue of constitutionality appears to be unresolved as of this writing.


Actually, it was entirely accurate. The 9th Circuit ruled on this issue, and California's law was struck down. Circuit Court decisions are only binding in their own circuit, I thought you knew that with as much as you lecture us on the law, constitution and how it works. I'll try to drop down to a 5th grade level next time so you can understand.

FYI- panel decisions are binding, unless they are overturned. Randomly selected 3-judge panels are standard operating procedure. It doesn't matter what president appointed the judge. The judicial system isn't like you, thankfully! But I'm guessing you knew that and are just trying to be dishonest in your analysis again.

Cheer on your team, puddler. I doubt there is a single person on this forum that cares what you have to say anymore.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

caddis8 said:


> My .02- (not worth a nickle). Admittedly, I'm not an AR guy. But just because I'm not an AR guy doesn't mean that just because I don't want one or have use for one that another person can't have it.
> 
> In order to have a fully automatic machine gun one has to either be a FFL, or have an SOT license. Some people call it a Class 3 (incorrectly). Fully automatic guns are legal to certain people. Do something similar (not exactly)
> 
> ...


This is my general direction. I don't know how to sketch out the details but I would hope to see something along these lines plus meaningful red flag laws.

I don't think the requirements are too tough. Having a couple fresh eyes on individuals seeking semi-automatic weapons could help prevent mass shootings, or at least reduce the casualty rate. Even slowing the attainment down by a week or two could be a major hurdle for these killers who often act semi-impulsively. And I think we could design a policy "net" broad enough to catch the Uvalde shooter without stopping a law abiding citizen from having such a weapon for home defense.

Maybe we'll get there? Seems like the public willingness to work on this is expires in less than a month. We move on so quickly. 

And to the broader theme.... it takes a person & a gun to pull off a mass shooting. And semi-automatic weapons like AR-15s provide novices like these killers better opportunity to kill more people in less time. They are the weapon of choice for these young men for a reason. We can't ignore that obvious trend just because most other gun violence is done with a semi-automatic pistol.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Sounds like Caddis8 and Backcountry are circling around a proposal similar to what I came up with so many years ago. I don't care too much about the fine details, but coming up with a scheme that keeps these weapons of choice out of the hands of the usual perpetrators is the goal. I have yet to speak with a hunter who objects to the reclassification idea, but perhaps it could be refined a bit.

That wasn't the topic of this thread, however. My question was if the measures under dicussion by the Senate panel will be effective in decreasing mass murders. I'm not optimistic.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

Jedidiah said:


> If there were 884 killed and 1546 wounded total in mass shootings between 2000 and 2018 I doubt very much that even a quarter of those were done via rifle and even less by AR-15s judging by the year over year stats on gun homicides and that would mean it's even less than 300. Gun violence is done by handguns for the vast majority of events but for soooooome reason the result is to go after AR-15s. That reason isn't because anyone thinks banning or restricting AR-15s will reduce gun violence (maybe they think it, but that doesn't make it correct), it's because they want to ban the most popular firearm type without regard to facts.
> 
> You will never stop crazy people from harming other people with weapons by taking weapons away. You have to fix those people or remove them from society. You could easily cause more death and injury to happen by restricting good people's access to firearms.
> 
> Those kids used an adult's weapon in that crime, that should be a crime for the adult, and that adult should be in prison for a long time.


I vote for removing them from society.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

MrShane said:


> I vote for removing them from society.


We used have to lots of big nice buildings staffed with men who were professionally trained to deal with these people, and we used to fill these buildings up with the fruits and nuts and either fix them or isolate them forever. Nowadays we let them post on internet forums all day instead.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

The current legislation being considered on guns is decent legislation. I get so tired of the constant trope that “guns don’t kill people”. Okay sure that’s technically true. You know what else is true? We are a civilized society, based in the rules of law. The idea that further measures on guns are always a bad thing is such asinine BS. We may as well throw out all laws by the rationale of some gun nuts. There is reasonable gun legislation. A waiting period for those under 21 to get an assault rifle? Oh my goodness that is just the end of American society as we know it isn’t it?(Heavy sarcasm). I would fully support semi-automatic weapon purchases age requirements being moved to a 21 age restriction. This legislation doesn’t even do that. Truly, if you don’t think gun laws work, well…I guess that means no laws in any faucet of life works. Let’s legalize meth, legalize drunk driving, and just let society be a free for all because only those who don’t care about the law will commit crimes right? We don’t need to ban anything, we don’t need to heavily restrict law abiding gun owners, but gun laws in the United States can and SHOULD be improved especially when reasonable measures are placed on the table.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

taxidermist said:


> Leave it alone!! No change is necessary. If one wants weapon restrictions/gun control, move the hell out of the USA to a country that has these laws in place where you can "feal safe".


You are not the only one who lives in this society, and the general population doesn’t agree with you. I would even say by quite a bit of polling data, most Americans ARE on board with some changes to the gun laws in this country. I don’t support major or whole-scale changes or bans, but I do support common sense, reasonable measures. It’s just wild how some of you can look at the carnage of guns in the country and still sit here and think “nope we shouldn’t even consider trying to improve the gun problem in America”. Now that….that’s certainly the smart and reasonable approach. Roughly half the country supports an all out ban on semi-automatic long guns. We live in a common society taxidermist, and your way is no more/less right than any other Americans view on the subject. The gun conversations a difficult and complicated one, but plenty of AMERICANS believe we can improve gun laws and the process of buying firearms in this country. The like it or leave it mentality is by far one of the cringiest American ideals out there. The idea that nothing can be improved because well…we’re so great and perfect….is not how progress is ever made.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Jedidiah said:


> People use firearms to defend themselves from death or injury at least 10 times as much as the amount harmed or killed by firearms each year. Gun bans and gun control beyond what exists now CAUSES more death and injury, look at the repealed DC and Chicago gun bans, look at the increase in the rates of violent crime in the UK after the gun bans there, look at the absolutely insane rate of sexual assault in Australia. Guns save lives and it's not a complicated problem, there isn't some magical rate or relationship between the amount of casualties caused by guns to the amount saved by guns, it's over 10 times the rate in the RIGHT direction and it only gets worse if you screw around with it.
> 
> But no one's going to convince you, because you're paddler. If MSNBC told you the sky was green you would be telling us we all need to wear yellow sunglasses until we agree.


This legislation doesn’t ban anything, but not even the text of the legislation that I’m sure you haven’t read or researched, is going to convince you.

So tell me, what specifically in the legislation this thread is about do you disagree with without using the usual cliches of every gun conversation? What specifically?


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> This legislation doesn’t ban anything, but not even the text of the legislation that I’m sure you haven’t read or researched, is going to convince you.
> 
> So tell me, what specifically in the legislation this thread is about do you disagree with without using the usual cliches of every gun conversation? What specifically?


He said the legislation doesn't go far enough, and that's what this response is about. I've read the original bill closely, and read the bipartisan compromise as well. My point is that the gun control he wants kills more people than it saves, seems simple. How about you go make another selenium thread?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Jedidiah said:


> He said the legislation doesn't go far enough, and that's what this response is about. I've read the original bill closely, and read the bipartisan compromise as well. My point is that the gun control he wants kills more people than it saves, seems simple. How about you go make another selenium thread?


Do you support the bill? I would agree full gun control is no more a reasonable response than gun laws can’t be improved at all and should be left entirely alone. I think the current bi-partisan bill in congress is at least a step in the right direction. I’d actually prefer an age limit restriction change to 21 on semi-automatic weapons altogether, but it seems to be a bill of decent measures.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

I appreciate the mental health and education portions of the bill. I am less than neutral on the red flag portion, even though it only provides support for states that want to use it. Red flags reported by average people will be abused. I do not support restricting or modifying the sale of semi-automatic weapons to people under the age of 21, I've hunted with kids from 13 on and those kids have used semi-automatic .22 lr and shotguns. I disagree with the idea that a semi-automatic gun is more dangerous, in the right hands a pump shotgun could easily do as much damage, especially when a bunch of cowardly garbage cops are standing outside a classroom with their cowboy boots filled up with their own warm, fragrant, liquid fear.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> You are not the only one who lives in this society, and the general population doesn’t agree with you. I would even say by quite a bit of polling data, most Americans ARE on board with some changes to the gun laws in this country. I don’t support major or whole-scale changes or bans, but I do support common sense, reasonable measures. It’s just wild how some of you can look at the carnage of guns in the country and still sit here and think “nope we shouldn’t even consider trying to improve the gun problem in America”. Now that….that’s certainly the smart and reasonable approach. Roughly half the country supports an all out ban on semi-automatic long guns. We live in a common society taxidermist, and your way is no more/less right than any other Americans view on the subject. The gun conversations a difficult and complicated one, but plenty of AMERICANS believe we can improve gun laws and the process of buying firearms in this country. The like it or leave it mentality is by far one of the cringiest American ideals out there. The idea that nothing can be improved because well…we’re so great and perfect….is not how progress is ever made.


I'll purchase your Airplane ticket, (1st class) to any country you wish to begin your new life in. So what is it, the UK, France, how bout a slow boat to China or N .Korea???


----------



## lifesshort (Apr 3, 2017)

I do not feel that the guns are the issue. I think that something has changed in people over the last 30-40 years. In the seventies when I was in High School we took guns to school in our trucks to go hunting when school was out. No one shot anyone the guns were there. Why now do PEOPLE KILL OTHER PEOPLE to make a statement. What has changed? Not the guns. Our society wants a quick fix on everything(knee jerk reaction) outlaw the guns. IMO this will not help. We need to figure out what is happening different in society. Outlawing guns is the easy way out but not the right way. If a young person is not responsible at 18 to own a gun are they responsible enough to join our military. Should we outlaw cars to stop drunk drivers. Same logic as outlawing guns to stop shootings. Maybe society needs to figure out why everyone now takes no responsibility for their actions. It is always someone elses fault. END OF RANT


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

lifesshort said:


> I do not feel that the guns are the issue.


This is 100% correct. We can already see that banning guns didn't help the issue in other countries and instead made it worse, we banned or regulated handguns and other types of guns in Chicago and DC for 30 years and repealed those bans in 2008 and 2010. The result of the bans was rising violent crime and the result the repeals was immediate reduction in violent crime. Gun crime doesn't exist in a vacuum.

To the point of mental health: we're ignoring insane people. I've made some jokes, I think they're pretty funny...but in all seriousness there are actually insane people walking around and it's a danger to all of us. We stopped committing them a couple decades ago, and stopped monitoring their behavior and medication, no kidding. There's more criminally insane people walking around today than there ever were.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

lifesshort said:


> I do not feel that the guns are the issue. I think that something has changed in people over the last 30-40 years. In the seventies when I was in High School we took guns to school in our trucks to go hunting when school was out. No one shot anyone the guns were there. Why now do PEOPLE KILL OTHER PEOPLE to make a statement. What has changed? Not the guns. Our society wants a quick fix on everything(knee jerk reaction) outlaw the guns. IMO this will not help. We need to figure out what is happening different in society. Outlawing guns is the easy way out but not the right way. If a young person is not responsible at 18 to own a gun are they responsible enough to join our military. Should we outlaw cars to stop drunk drivers. Same logic as outlawing guns to stop shootings. Maybe society needs to figure out why everyone now takes no responsibility for their actions. It is always someone elses fault. END OF RANT


It's much easier, and less expensive to take the "knee jerk reaction" of outlawing guns. The government is to enthroned in spending billions of dollars helping Ukraine fight the Russian invasion. Don't get me wrong, I Would LOVE to see them whoop the Russians. But take care of the issues here at home FIRST then help. 

The US would never spend the money they have so far to Ukraine, on mental health for those that need it here at home.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Did 1-Eye just reply to himself 4 times? Was he going for top of the page?

As for researching “the text of the legislation” being asked about here- nobody has at this point because the text has not been drafted fully. So to try and sit on one’s high horse lecturing about reading the text when there isn’t actually text yet seems misguided.

We know the basic framework, but the text has not been drafted or released yet (as of this writing).


----------



## bthewilde (Feb 8, 2018)

Just time to get a Home FFL I say. Thinking of doing this myself, via RocketFFL.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

So, the Trib reports this morning that Cox is open to "any" dialog regarding gun safety, including raising the minimum age.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

The Trib is reporting something he said openly in his press conference? Man, those news breakers are at it again!

Others are “reporting” a little more context than puddler.









Gov. Cox 'open' to discussing red flag law in Utah


Gov. Spencer Cox said Thursday morning he’s “open to discussing” a red flag law in Utah, a gun proposal that has repeatedly gone nowhere in the state Legislature. His willingness for talks could signal a stark turnaround after the Texas school shooting, but Cox also said he has not yet found a...




kutv.com


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

paddler said:


> So, the Trib reports this morning that Cox is open to "any" dialog regarding gun safety, including raising the minimum age.



Is this a bad thing?

Red Flag laws seemed to be the main focus of the questioning at the presser. 

Gov. Cox 'open' to discussing red flag law in Utah


LOL, Nilla was a little faster on the draw than I.  

Back to work..


----------



## caddis8 (Sep 10, 2007)

To be clear there are things that I don't love. I'm not sure about raising the age. There's not a nickels worth of difference as far as functionality between a Ruger 10-22, my beloved SX3 for geese, my S&P 9mm. I'm not an AR guy, but I recognize that just because I'm not an AR guy doesn't mean those who are shouldn't have access to them. I'm more along the lines of the great Matthew Quigly "I never said I didn't know how to use one, just said I didn't have much use for it." 

It's not easy stuff. I think there probably are some reasonable things that can be done withou disregarding the 2nd Amendment. Red Flag laws in my mind are more concerning as far as constitutionality with 4th and 14th ammendment implications. 

There are larger issues at play than just guns, I'm not naive to that. Insurance companies need to do more to cover mental health. It's pitiful what they cover.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

The Trib reports that Cox is open to discussing raising the minimum age, which was not reported by KUTV. He apparently said he's "open to the discussion", but "not there yet":









Utah's governor urges lawmakers to keep an "open mind" on gun legislation


Gov. Spencer Cox spoke on issues surrounding gun control and gas prices during his monthly press conference.




www.axios.com


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Jedidiah said:


> I appreciate the mental health and education portions of the bill. I am less than neutral on the red flag portion, even though it only provides support for states that want to use it. Red flags reported by average people will be abused. I do not support restricting or modifying the sale of semi-automatic weapons to people under the age of 21, I've hunted with kids from 13 on and those kids have used semi-automatic .22 lr and shotguns. I disagree with the idea that a semi-automatic gun is more dangerous, in the right hands a pump shotgun could easily do as much damage, especially when a bunch of cowardly garbage cops are standing outside a classroom with their cowboy boots filled up with their own warm, fragrant, liquid fear.


You say in the right hands. Okay sure, but a lot of the people picking up an AR-15 and going and killing a bunch of people are not those people. They choose the weapons because they are relatively easy to operate, and can rapidly fire round after round with very little skill or experience. I own an AR15, in fact my shotgun, .22, etc. are all semi-automatic weapons. I’m not against them, but the pull of a trigger can be carried out far more easy and rapidly in the wrong hands than an action that takes more to operate imo. As far as hunting with a semi-automatic weapon, I don’t have an issue with someone under 21 operating a semi-automatic weapon under the supervision of someone 21+, just the purchase of these weapons. Most hunting laws require that already anyway. The idea 3 years of heavier restrictions on a person 18-20 walking into a gun store and purchasing an AR15 is a pretty reasonable and minimal gun measure. Can’t drink alcohol until you’re 21 because your brain isn’t developed and yet you can go pull an AR15 off the shelf.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

taxidermist said:


> I'll purchase your Airplane ticket, (1st class) to any country you wish to begin your new life in. So what is it, the UK, France, how bout a slow boat to China or N .Korea???


You’ll be purchasing tickets for about half the country as far as those who want to ban AR’s and even more than that for those who want more common sense gun restrictions set in place. Tax, you’re as every bit unreasonable as anyone who wants to ban guns outright, you’re just the other side of the coin.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

lifesshort said:


> I do not feel that the guns are the issue. I think that something has changed in people over the last 30-40 years. In the seventies when I was in High School we took guns to school in our trucks to go hunting when school was out. No one shot anyone the guns were there. Why now do PEOPLE KILL OTHER PEOPLE to make a statement. What has changed? Not the guns. Our society wants a quick fix on everything(knee jerk reaction) outlaw the guns. IMO this will not help. We need to figure out what is happening different in society. Outlawing guns is the easy way out but not the right way. If a young person is not responsible at 18 to own a gun are they responsible enough to join our military. Should we outlaw cars to stop drunk drivers. Same logic as outlawing guns to stop shootings. Maybe society needs to figure out why everyone now takes no responsibility for their actions. It is always someone elses fault. END OF RANT


Should we remove drinking under the influence laws since drunk drivers will drive drunk anyway? Only law abiding citizens obey the law right? What’s the point of any of these laws if only honest people are honest? As far as everything else you say, I agree with as well, but I think better gun laws are a part of the conversation. There’s now 328 million people in this country, and with that you’re going to get more nut jobs. There’s plenty of societal things contributing as well though I agree.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I have a question for those of you that want stricter regulations placed on the AR type of rifles or to ban them completely. 

What will be your opinions when these individuals switch over to sawed off shotguns and the gun grabbers want tighter restrictions and bans on them?

Sent from my SM-A426U using Tapatalk


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

taxidermist said:


> It's much easier, and less expensive to take the "knee jerk reaction" of outlawing guns. The government is to enthroned in spending billions of dollars helping Ukraine fight the Russian invasion. Don't get me wrong, I Would LOVE to see them whoop the Russians. But take care of the issues here at home FIRST then help.
> 
> The US would never spend the money they have so far to Ukraine, on mental health for those that need it here at home.


Then when they do that and try to take care of Americans you’ll call it socialism.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

All it takes, is for the first "ban" to become law. After that, the snowball will turn into a full blown avalanche. 

I'd like to see someone TRY and take something from me. I would be willing to "protect my domain" with whatever means is necessary.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Critter said:


> I have a question for those of you that want stricter regulations placed on the AR type of rifles or to ban them completely.
> 
> What will be your opinions when these individuals switch over to sawed off shotguns and the gun grabbers want tighter restrictions and bans on them?
> 
> Sent from my SM-A426U using Tapatalk


Semi-automatic weapons are simply a different category of weapon. In the right hands as mentioned above, a pump shotgun can be just about as efficient. The thing is, most the nut cases killing a bunch of people or kids aren’t the people who can operate a weapon in that fashion or really have much experience beyond grabbing an AR15 loading 20 or 30 round magazines and pulling the trigger over and over and over. Minutes, seconds, and less rapid fire matters in the form of lives in these instances.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Then when they do that and try to take care of Americans you’ll call it socialism.


I don't even know why I entertain your remarks. You certainly can't read a remark and understand what the content is about. Jump in your Subaru, grab your granola bars and head up to Bell Rock Ridge and smell the sagebrush. Possibly make friends with a rock and hug a juniper tree.

I've placed you on my ignore list, so I wont see your remarks 1deer1


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

taxidermist said:


> All it takes, is for the first "ban" to become law. After that, the snowball will turn into a full blown avalanche.
> 
> I'd like to see someone TRY and take something from me. I would be willing to "protect my domain" with whatever means is necessary.


No ban is even being proposed here? Can you read?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Edit…you know what I’ll just not.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Cox says that he's "not there yet" because if someone can join the military at 18 he has a hard time saying they cannot buy the civilian version of a weapon of war. Others have agreed. But as an 18yo in the military he would be part of "a well-regulated militia", and under the direct supervision of his commanding officers. There is a night and day difference between him and the typical mass murderer.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Critter said:


> I have a question for those of you that want stricter regulations placed on the AR type of rifles or to ban them completely.
> 
> What will be your opinions when these individuals switch over to sawed off shotguns and the gun grabbers want tighter restrictions and bans on them?
> 
> Sent from my SM-A426U using Tapatalk


Short-barrelled rifles and shotguns are already Class III/NFA firearms. They are also nowhere near as lethal as the semiautomatic firearms, long gun or pistol, that fire centerfire ammunition and accept detachable magazines that are the usual weapon of choice of these typically unskilled mass murderers. I think we've covered this before.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Maybe we should raise the age to join the military to 21 also then. This is a funny conversation, you talk about banning AR-15s and then act like no one's talking about AR-15s "who said anything about banning AR-15s, crazy". The only place polls say half the country wants to ban AR-15s is in the mainstream media, and I can tell you that the mainstream media doesn't represent reality at all. They are also not getting anywhere near an honest response in any kind of polls they do. I'm not 100% against raising the age to buy military style weapons to 21, I don't like it but I could see how it goes.

Two years ago I was on the same side as 1-eye and paddler, but two years of you people doing what you have done has changed my mind. I'm with taxidermist on the bans. Try to take any of my weapons away (and that's what they are, weapons...not sporting rifles) and the result will be at least one man in a wooden box. That's not chest thumping, that's as much fact as the sun coming up tomorrow.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Remember, my proposal to reclassify these weapons isn't a ban, never was. It was an attempt to increase screening for those who want to buy these weapons, while allowing those who feel they must own them to do so if they meet criteria. I think most people support more robust screening. Given the choice, I think even most 2A guys would support it over a total ban.

But we've strayed pretty far off topic. Sounds like the Senate panel has hit a snag or two. Maybe nothing at all will be accomplished, it certainly looks more and more like nothing will pass that will actually reduce mass shootings. I'll bet a nickle.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

paddler said:


> Remember, my proposal to reclassify these weapons isn't a ban, never was. It was an attempt to increase screening for those who want to buy these weapons, which I think most people support. Given the choice, I think even most 2A guys would support it over a total ban.
> 
> But we've strayed pretty far off topic. Sounds like the Senate panel has hit a snag or two. Maybe nothing at all will be accomplished, it certainly looks more and more like nothing will pass that will actually reduce mass shootings. I'll bet a nickle.


Yeah, I would agree with enhanced screening for buying handguns and military style weapons if it was done in good faith. In many of the states where this kind of legislation has passed, it has not been in good faith and that's really where the inflection point lies: we have seen these kind of laws misused right away. Some people, including 1-I here, can't help bringing up the idea of banning some types of weapons outright and that's completely out for me.

Mass shootings are a miniscule amount of deaths in this country, and the deaths averted by responsible gun owners outnumbers just that number by 100 to one or more. Messing with that number in such a way that even 1% of those deaths that could be averted are NOT is worse than leaving the mass shootings alone altogether. The number one reason for any of this for anyone should be the lowest net loss of life for non-perpetrator targets.

Edit: there shouldn't be talk of "I think even most 2A guys would support it over a total ban". Total bans of anything are out, more people are adamant on that than you could probably imagine. As a matter of fact, I think the pro-gun control folks should be making deals with us on the order of no longer requiring form 4's for suppressors. No one's committing crimes with suppressors, that regulation just exists to make them hard to get for legal gun owners. But you'll probably see just how much the vast majority of this country doesn't like a good deal of the things going on including this, in voting form, coming up here soon.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Some of the toughest gun laws in states, also have the highest crime rate. Laws wont, and never have stopped the violent weapon crimes. They have made that city/state a target for the criminals to do what they do. 
If a "responsible" gun owner would lock up their weapons, it can make a difference toward suicide and accidental shootings. These folks we are hearing about on the news, creating all this mess, will come into possession of a weapon, be it from the streets, or they steal it in some way. They wouldn't be able to steal a weapon if it were locked up.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Jedidiah said:


> Yeah, I would agree with enhanced screening for buying handguns and military style weapons if it was done in good faith. In many of the states where this kind of legislation has passed, it has not been in good faith and that's really where the inflection point lies: we have seen these kind of laws misused right away. Some people, including 1-I here, can't help bringing up the idea of banning some types of weapons outright and that's completely out for me.
> 
> Mass shootings are a miniscule amount of deaths in this country, and the deaths averted by responsible gun owners outnumbers just that number by 100 to one or more. Messing with that number in such a way that even 1% of those deaths that could be averted are NOT is worse than leaving the mass shootings alone altogether. The number one reason for any of this for anyone should be the lowest net loss of life for non-perpetrator targets.
> 
> Edit: there shouldn't be talk of "I think even most 2A guys would support it over a total ban". Total bans of anything are out, more people are adamant on that than you could probably imagine. As a matter of fact, I think the pro-gun control folks should be making deals with us on the order of no longer requiring form 4's for suppressors. No one's committing crimes with suppressors, that regulation just exists to make them hard to get for legal gun owners. But you'll probably see just how much the vast majority of this country doesn't like a good deal of the things going on including this, in voting form, coming up here soon.


I'm not sure where you get your statistics, but here is some polling data performed after the Uvalde shootings:


*Requiring background checks on all gun sales:* Eighty-eight percent strongly or somewhat support; 8% strongly or somewhat oppose. *Net approval: +80*
*Creating a national database with info about each gun sale:* Seventy-five percent strongly or somewhat support; 18% strongly or somewhat oppose. *Net approval: +57*
*Banning assault-style weapons: *Sixty-seven percent strongly or somewhat support; 25% strongly or somewhat oppose. *Net approval: +42*
*Preventing sales of all firearms to people reported as dangerous to law enforcement by a mental health provider:* Eighty-four percent strongly or somewhat support; 9% strongly or somewhat oppose. *Net approval: +75*
*Making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks: *Eighty-one percent strongly or somewhat support; 11% strongly or somewhat oppose. *Net approval: +70*
*Requiring all gun owners to store their guns in a safe storage unit: *Seventy-seven percent strongly or somewhat support; 15% strongly or somewhat oppose. *Net approval: +62*
*BUT,* voters also support a proposal that’s been floated by many advocates of gun rights:


*Equipping teachers and school staff with concealed firearms to respond in the event of a school shooting: *Fifty-four percent strongly or somewhat support; 34% strongly or somewhat oppose. *Net approval: +20*
Note that Red Flag laws weren't covered, nor was beefing up the mental health system, or increasing school security. And I don't know that any of the measures polled are being discussed by the Senate panel. No reason for optimism. The Dems and Republicans remind me of Charlie Brown, Lucy and the football.


----------



## Wire (Nov 2, 2017)

paddler said:


> I'm not sure where you get your statistics, but here is some polling data performed after the Uvalde shootings:
> 
> 
> *Requiring background checks on all gun sales:* Eighty-eight percent strongly or somewhat support; 8% strongly or somewhat oppose. *Net approval: +80*
> ...


Not sure where you got your numbers either. The media loves to claim a "poll" but who do they really poll?? It would be very easy to poll people from certain areas/voting affiliations to get the numbers you want most.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Here's a link to the Politico/Morning Consult poll, and the methodology used:



https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000180-fe73-de59-a7ec-ff77a2360000



Methodology: This poll was conducted between May 25-May 25, 2022 among a sample of 1920 Registered Voters. The interviews were conducted online and the data were weighted to approximate a target sample of Registered Voters based on gender by age, educational attainment, race, marital status, home ownership, race by educational attainment, 2020 presidential vote, and region. Results from the full survey have a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Your mass media numbers are trash. Disregarded.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

The big hang up with the "red flag law" is with a spouse or domestic partner. Should the partner lose their guns as well if the one individual gets their guns confiscated due to a red flag? The left argues yes, because the they are in the same house and still "available" to the individual losing their weapons.

But by what basis should the other partner, who hasn't done anything wrong lose their weapons?

And, if you accept the logic of a spouse / partner loosing their rights if a partner does something bad... why not a neighbor losing their weapons as well? I mean the initial person could just walk next door and take those. What about 2 houses away? 3? 4? Where does it end.

-DallanC


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Jedidiah said:


> Your mass media numbers are trash. Disregarded.


So, you think right wingnut media is more reliable than mainstream media. Got it. We're done here.



DallanC said:


> The big hang up with the "red flag law" is with a spouse or domestic partner. Should the partner lose their guns as well if the one individual gets their guns confiscated due to a red flag? The left argues yes, because the they are in the same house and still "available" to the individual losing their weapons.
> 
> But by what basis should the other partner, who hasn't done anything wrong lose their weapons?
> 
> ...


It would end at cohabitants.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

So you are ok disarming a completely innocent individual of their rights due to the actions of someone else outside of their control?

/smh

-DallanC


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

paddler said:


> So, you think right wingnut media is more reliable than mainstream media. Got it. We're done here.


All mass media is tabloid trash. If you can't give official government data or independent studies directly, the data doesn't exist. As a matter of fact if it's from any mainstream media at all from either side of the aisle, I am 100% more inclined to believe that the opposite of the opinion presented is what is actually true.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

DallanC said:


> So you are ok disarming a completely innocent individual of their rights due to the actions of someone else outside of their control?
> 
> /smh
> 
> -DallanC


I think a better question is if someone in your home expresses suicidal or homicidal ideation, or is a threat to themselves or others in any way, would you want to keep guns in the home? Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable in that situation. Ask Adam Lanza's mom how that worked out.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

I’ve put this thought through my head ad nauseam and see no solution aside from absolute abolition of firearms (which won’t happen).

Sure sure we can do waiting periods, more in-depth background checks, require training, yada yada. But I don’t believe they solve for the situation and simply satisfies the “feel good” petitioners.

I feel that the onus falls on society, not laws.

It is each person’s responsibility to be attentive to those within their circles and not dismiss concerning behavior(s).

Social media participants should be especially conscious of comments made and behaviors illustrated because many assailants tend to post veiled or open threats prior to committing violent acts. Those who are following these individuals and fail to act bear the burden of responsibility (conscious or legal depending on your school of thought) for failing to report these individuals.

This is a societal issue. Not a Constitutional issue. Something has gone wrong with the modern psyche and we need to identify the “why” and work to repair this.

As sportsmen, we can all support 2A rights. As humans, we can support the right to life.

Until we pull our political heads out of our bums, we are chasing our tails.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Jedidiah said:


> Maybe we should raise the age to join the military to 21 also then. This is a funny conversation, you talk about banning AR-15s and then act like no one's talking about AR-15s "who said anything about banning AR-15s, crazy". The only place polls say half the country wants to ban AR-15s is in the mainstream media, and I can tell you that the mainstream media doesn't represent reality at all. They are also not getting anywhere near an honest response in any kind of polls they do. I'm not 100% against raising the age to buy military style weapons to 21, I don't like it but I could see how it goes.
> 
> Two years ago I was on the same side as 1-eye and paddler, but two years of you people doing what you have done has changed my mind. I'm with taxidermist on the bans. Try to take any of my weapons away (and that's what they are, weapons...not sporting rifles) and the result will be at least one man in a wooden box. That's not chest thumping, that's as much fact as the sun coming up tomorrow.


The current legislation has nothing to do with bans or even an age raise limit. That’s what this thread started about. I’ve given my opinion on those subjects but the actual legislation isn’t talking about either of those things. Also, you can take whatever you want from polls, but there’s plenty of data for a variety of sources that reasonable gun safety measures and laws have broad support.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Jedidiah said:


> Yeah, I would agree with enhanced screening for buying handguns and military style weapons if it was done in good faith. In many of the states where this kind of legislation has passed, it has not been in good faith and that's really where the inflection point lies: we have seen these kind of laws misused right away. Some people, including 1-I here, can't help bringing up the idea of banning some types of weapons outright and that's completely out for me.
> 
> Mass shootings are a miniscule amount of deaths in this country, and the deaths averted by responsible gun owners outnumbers just that number by 100 to one or more. Messing with that number in such a way that even 1% of those deaths that could be averted are NOT is worse than leaving the mass shootings alone altogether. The number one reason for any of this for anyone should be the lowest net loss of life for non-perpetrator targets.
> 
> Edit: there shouldn't be talk of "I think even most 2A guys would support it over a total ban". Total bans of anything are out, more people are adamant on that than you could probably imagine. As a matter of fact, I think the pro-gun control folks should be making deals with us on the order of no longer requiring form 4's for suppressors. No one's committing crimes with suppressors, that regulation just exists to make them hard to get for legal gun owners. But you'll probably see just how much the vast majority of this country doesn't like a good deal of the things going on including this, in voting form, coming up here soon.


I’ve brought it up as part of the ongoing broader conversation. I don’t support banning any of them. An age increase? Yeah, I support that 100%.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Wire said:


> Not sure where you got your numbers either. The media loves to claim a "poll" but who do they really poll?? It would be very easy to poll people from certain areas/voting affiliations to get the numbers you want most.


And people like yourself love to pretend sourced data means nothing. I’m not saying every poll is totally accurate, but they’ve polled a lot more people than you or I.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Jedidiah said:


> Your mass media numbers are trash. Disregarded.


It’s hilarious. “If those polls don’t say what I like they don’t mean anything”


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

DallanC said:


> The big hang up with the "red flag law" is with a spouse or domestic partner. Should the partner lose their guns as well if the one individual gets their guns confiscated due to a red flag? The left argues yes, because the they are in the same house and still "available" to the individual losing their weapons.
> 
> But by what basis should the other partner, who hasn't done anything wrong lose their weapons?
> 
> ...


I can agree Red Flag Laws are murky.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Jedidiah said:


> All mass media is tabloid trash. If you can't give official government data or independent studies directly, the data doesn't exist. As a matter of fact if it's from any mainstream media at all from either side of the aisle, I am 100% more inclined to believe that the opposite of the opinion presented is what is actually true.


Government data? You’ll disregard that too if it’s not the Administration you like. You either consider collected data or you don’t. I do. Is it bias in some cases? Sure. So look at the methodology and those polled. There’s plenty of polls out there that are not trash as you just want to disregard them as. Some? Sure.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

To wrap my thoughts in a post, because people here like to murk up what you say/discuss. I own an AR15. I own plenty of semi-automatic weapons. I am not in favor of banning them, but I am in favor of a raised age requirement and more strenuous process/waiting period to get approved to buy one. The ease at which a weapon can fire round after round after round clearly matters to the relatively inexperienced POS who pick them up and go murder people with them. You should be able to buy the guns, but I’m okay with a more thorough process and a change in age when you can start buying those guns.

As far as polls, some are more accurate than others and if you look at the methodology of the poll you know what ones to take more from, but completely disregarding all of them is just frankly stupid. America is a changing and diverse country, and the more these things happen, the greater public sentiment will grow to do something, so let’s try to take reasonable measures that help try to fix the issue of guns falling into the wrong hands.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

What's the methodology for when a third of the population doesn't pay attention to your polls and refuses to participate in them? 100 million people who don't care what you say and might even give false answers in the polls for laughs. Got a methodology for that one? I don't think you can even conceive of the lack of regard we have for the left side of this country.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

paddler said:


> It would end at cohabitants.


It has to end at the person that is a danger, or it can’t pass. It has no chance to see the light of day if you’re going to say that law abiding citizens that have presented absolutely no threat to themselves or others are going to have their guns taken.

That’s fascism, not freedom. Pick your side, I guess.

I support red flag laws. I advocated in the room with Utah legislative leaders for red flag laws before most of the people touting them now had even heard about them. But we still do have a constitution in this country. One I’ve sworn and taken an oath to defend. The government simply can’t take someone’s property without due process. Independent of the 2A, this is a bedrock principle our nation was founded upon and continues to operate under.

Some don’t like the constitution. I get it. But I do, and always will. I happen to think it’s kind of important.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

paddler said:


> I think a better question is if someone in your home expresses suicidal or homicidal ideation, or is a threat to themselves or others in any way, would you want to keep guns in the home? Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable in that situation. Ask Adam Lanza's mom how that worked out.


If anyone in my home had those ideas/ intensions, they would have one hell of a time getting into any of three Liberty Safes that secure said weapons. PERIOD.... Why worry/ Do you not own a very well made safe to secure your weapons? Or, do you not own any and are throwing out remarks about a hot topic in the media?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Jedidiah said:


> What's the methodology for when a third of the population doesn't pay attention to your polls and refuses to participate in them? 100 million people who don't care what you say and might even give false answers in the polls for laughs. Got a methodology for that one? I don't think you can even conceive of the lack of regard we have for the left side of this country.


I mean I would say none of these things do the country, studies, or research any good. I’ve had people tell me they deliberately lie on DWR surveys. Like why? You complain about wildlife management then deliberately screw up the efforts to gain good information to improve? It’s stupidity. People love using 2016 as a “polls were wrong” kind of thing. Actually…they were all within the margin of error and essentially right on nationally. In 2020, the hope for that 1/3 was the polls they didn’t like were wrong…we’ll they weren’t(I know then the goal post gets moved to voter fraud stole the election which is even more asinine bulls***)I would say it’s actually damaging to your own cause and the country to deliberately sabotage surveys and polls. It makes no sense. I don’t love the media, they certainly are biased, but they aren’t any more of an enemy than your favorite politician. Polls conducted correctly (and many are) are generally right on within the margin of error. I do look at how a poll was conducted before I judge it, but there’s good polls with valid information than show Americans want for better gun laws is growing and over half the country. Most people don’t live in deep red Utah. I know, we all live in our own bubbles and boxes, but I look at data and information because most the country isn’t Sevier County Utah.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Pretty sure Nancy Lanza had a gun safe. Removing the guns from the home for safekeeping would be a more certain way of keeping them out of a potential shooter's hands until the threat no longer exists.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

It all comes down to the fine print (which doesn't exist). When that actually happens more people than us will chime in.
Then we can get into the lawsuits and send it to the SC. But who is going to actually respect their decision? Funny corner some people are painting themselves into.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I mean I would say none of these things do the country, studies, or research any good. I’ve had people tell me they deliberately lie on DWR surveys. Like why? You complain about wildlife management then deliberately screw up the efforts to gain good information to improve? It’s stupidity. People love using 2016 as a “polls were wrong” kind of thing. Actually…they were all within the margin of error and essentially right on nationally. In 2020, the hope for that 1/3 was the polls they didn’t like were wrong…we’ll they weren’t(I know then the goal post gets moved to voter fraud stole the election which is even more asinine bulls***)I would say it’s actually damaging to your own cause and the country to deliberately sabotage surveys and polls. It makes no sense. I don’t love the media, they certainly are biased, but they aren’t any more of an enemy than your favorite politician. Polls conducted correctly (and many are) are generally right on within the margin of error. I do look at how a poll was conducted before I judge it, but there’s good polls with valid information than show Americans want for better gun laws is growing and over half the country. Most people don’t live in deep red Utah. I know, we all live in our own bubbles and boxes, but I look at data and information because most the country isn’t Sevier County Utah.


 lol, who said anything about election fraud? Guilty much? Don't worry baby, Dinesh and his 2000mules can't hurt you here.

Even if I had been talking about that, it's a miniscule part of the reason the media you trust is complete trash. Even if it weren't for the disgusting nature of the people running it (that CNN producer who was running Chris's show while he was basically committing treason...you know the one, I can't even repeat it for how disgusting it is), it's mostly fabricated. Here's this story about USA Today reporter that was just making everything up and was able to do it for more than a year and get it all published. Who knows what's real when they just run this all the time? Again...the only thing that matters is official data and studies, your media is garbage, and their polls are fake not only because the samples are tainted but because we can't trust they won't just make it all up.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/06/16/usa-today-gabriela-miranda-retractions/


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

But hey you know, now that you mention it, the 2020 election polls were incredibly wrong, wrong by double digits of points in many cases. So wrong they were actually election interference.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Please stay on topic. Election fraud and other topics pertaining to similar trains of thought need to be discussed on other forums. Not this one.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Thanks Bax, I can't stand when people start up with that crap.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

-DallanC


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

DallanC said:


> -DallanC


1:23:34? You expect anybody to watch this? Funny!


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Better than watching some nutjob repeatedly reply to his own year-old posts for the last 8 years...


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Its actually very well done. I learned a few things. He completely and visually debunks some of the left's arguments. Brings up some interesting points to consider. It is lengthy, but its because he takes the time to address and talk over individual points... and even demonstrate those faulty arguments being presented.

-DallanC


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)




----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

paddler said:


> Also, in order to get a license you must meet several requirements, one of which is having a "legally recognized" reason for wanting to possess a firearm. Seems reasonable to me.


Who determines this? That is the entire point of the two sides I think. One doesn't believe self defense is a "legally recognized" reason for a Semi Auto. They also definetly don't believe hunting is a reason for a semi auto. 

So, what seems reasonable to some really doesn't matter depending on who determines it. If they say there is no legal protection for AR's or SA's in general, then is any reason recognized??


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

RandomElk16 said:


> Who determines this? That is the entire point of the two sides I think. One doesn't believe self defense is a "legally recognized" reason for a Semi Auto. They also definetly don't believe hunting is a reason for a semi auto.
> 
> So, what seems reasonable to some really doesn't matter depending on who determines it. If they say there is no legal protection for AR's or SA's in general, then is any reason recognized??


Good question. I don't know what constitutes a "legally recognized" reason. Imagine they have a list, or criteria. Pretty sure that "I'm an 18yo loner high school dropout and I live in my mom's basement and spend my days playing Call of Duty and I need an AR to shoot prairie dogs like they do in South Dakota" doesn't qualify.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

lol....you can take your "legally recognized" and shove it up next to the place where your communist state run media should go


----------



## caddis8 (Sep 10, 2007)

Jedidiah said:


> lol....you can take your "legally recognized" and shove it up next to the place where your communist state run media should go


I believe that place is called Wal Mart.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

caddis8 said:


> I believe that place is called Wal Mart.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Back to the original subject though, guns do literally actually 6 times more good than bad by the DOJ's own statistics and the number is likely much higher than that. All guns are good and the harm they do is miniscule but not only should you have the proper firearms to defend yourself you should also have the firearms to defend yourself in a civil defense situation. Any occupying force that is trying to use military might to subjugate a population is wrong and every human being on this planet should have the means to defend themselves from that possibility even (especially) if it's their own government. Get an AK, they're great...hey speaking of AKs, there's a lot of the Zastava ZPAPM70s available right now and they're just fantastic.









Gun Facts | Guns and Their Use in Crime Prevention


Research on guns as they are used in self-defense (defensive gun use). Includes information on how often they are used, victim injury rates for different defense tactics, as well as international crime data.




www.gunfacts.info





ZPAPM70: Zastava Arms ZPAPM70 7.62x39 16.5" | Ready Gunner (At that price, why not get two?)


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

I know what you're going to say, "But Jed, we live in democracy, everything's safe and there's Carebears lining the street everywhere you go handing out free cannabis candy!" No kidding, I was on the side of the author of this thread two years ago. Then one side of our government used state sponsored political violence for a year straight, mayors/governors in 10 or more major cities allowed and incited terrorism for a year, and continue to allow it today. Gun control? Answer's no.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Jedidiah said:


> Back to the original subject though, guns do literally actually 6 times more good than bad by the DOJ's own statistics and the number is likely much higher than that. All guns are good and the harm they do is miniscule....


You keep saying this. Do you have a link showing this that ends in ".gov"? gunfacts.info looks unreliable.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

gunfacts.info has references to real historical data, I'm not going to spoonfeed it to you. Though I know your reason for asking is the standard paddler-type reason and that reason is to cherry pick one statistic you can find and parade it around like it's proof God loves you most.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Jedidiah said:


> lol, who said anything about election fraud? Guilty much? Don't worry baby, Dinesh and his 2000mules can't hurt you here.
> 
> Even if I had been talking about that, it's a miniscule part of the reason the media you trust is complete trash. Even if it weren't for the disgusting nature of the people running it (that CNN producer who was running Chris's show while he was basically committing treason...you know the one, I can't even repeat it for how disgusting it is), it's mostly fabricated. Here's this story about USA Today reporter that was just making everything up and was able to do it for more than a year and get it all published. Who knows what's real when they just run this all the time? Again...the only thing that matters is official data and studies, your media is garbage, and their polls are fake not only because the samples are tainted but because we can't trust they won't just make it all up.
> 
> ...


So the Fox News poll that shows 63% of Americans support an assault weapons ban must also be a farce right?


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> So the Fox News poll that shows 63% of Americans support an assault weapons ban must also be a farce right?


Don't know, don't watch Faux News, chief. Here's a good example though which also illustrates my point on the polls. The truth is that your media has been allowed to represent a reality that just doesn't exist for so long that you're now at a point where it's upside down from the real world.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Jedidiah said:


> lol....you can take your "legally recognized" and shove it up next to the place where your communist state run media should go


It’s hilarious how much some of you show your true colors at times. “Communism! Socialism!! Other buzzwords!!!!!”


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Jedidiah said:


> Don't know, don't watch Faux News, chief. Here's a good example though which also illustrates my point on the polls. The truth is that your media has been allowed to represent a reality that just doesn't exist for so long that you're now at a point where it's upside down from the real world.
> 
> View attachment 152298


You’re right. The extremely right wing Fox News is for sure trying to push gun control. No doubt. Or maybe…just maybe…there’s a lot of Americans who want better gun policy.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Btw 82% of respondents to that Fox News poll also said they support raising the age limit to 21 on AR’s. But I’m sure the polls are upwards of 30+% off and the majority of American certainly don’t support that because well….taxidermist and jedidiah say so on an Internet forum.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

I don't know man, you seem to like Fox a lot but it's not really my cup of tea and I don't think it's very accurate. You can keep watching it though. None of this matters in a country where one side just used two years of terrorism for political gain though, and that's one set of data you can't use illogic to reason your way out of.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Jedidiah said:


> I don't know man, you seem to like Fox a lot but it's not really my cup of tea and I don't think it's very accurate. You can keep watching it though. None of this matters in a country where one side just used two years of terrorism for political gain though, and that's one set of data you can't use illogic to reason your way out of.


Like I said. Must be wrong, because you said so on the Internet. The point is, even the most right wing national media source, says you’re wrong.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

If you think that's "the r most right wing media source" I've got news for you bucko. Every one of those polls you're talking about uses their own website or tv channel to advertise for respondents in their polls, that automatically makes the results invalid. No mainstream news source has valid polling numbers because the only reason people watch any of them is for confirmation bias. What's funny is that you're arguing that because the confirmation bias should be some way you assume it should be, all of these data must be accurate.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Jedidiah said:


> If you think that's "the r most right wing media source" I've got news for you bucko. Every one of those polls you're talking about uses their own website or tv channel to advertise for respondents in their polls, that automatically makes the results invalid. No mainstream news source has valid polling numbers because the only reason people watch any of them is for confirmation bias. What's funny is that you're arguing that because the confirmation bias should be some way you assume it should be, all of these data must be accurate.


Of course, because Jedidiah on a Utah hunting forum says so, I know. You’re much more accurate. (Political bubbles are a hell of a drug). Fox is the most right wing main national media source in the nation and to claim otherwise is simply asinine. And yes, I’m sure the people watching Fox News are watching it because they love gun control.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

And now the standard claiming that I'm saying these things myself when I just gave you thousands of pages of data proving otherwise, and a sample of polling that shows the complete opposite of what the mainstream media says, from respected polling organizations. Don't get mad 1-I, just get educated and you won't need to get mad.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Jedidiah said:


> And now the standard claiming that I'm saying these things myself when I just gave you thousands of pages of data proving otherwise, and a sample of polling that shows the complete opposite of what the mainstream media says, from respected polling organizations. Don't get mad 1-I, just get educated and you won't need to get mad.


Sorry if I don’t trust looking through a website that looks like a 3 year old created it, and has pop ups every 5 clicks. I get you want to disregard polls and info you don’t like, even when it comes from one of the most staunchly right wing media companies in the nation, but you live in that delusion if you’d like.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Also, again, this is all beside the point when city, state, and federal governments have endorsed open terrorism in our country. There are no popups on that site at all beyond the first one asking for donations or participations in the polls. You can scroll to the bottom of any one of the categories and see the lists of studies and official government data supporting the facts presented.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Jedidiah said:


> Also, again, this is all beside the point when city, state, and federal governments have endorsed open terrorism in our country. There are no popups on that site at all beyond the first one asking for donations or participations in the polls. You can scroll to the bottom of any one of the categories and see the lists of studies and official government data supporting the facts presented.


This isn’t what we’re talking about here. The website you tried to cite here is a pop up infected, virus prone, propaganda website that looks like a website when the Internet first released. No, I’m not looking through your sketchy, pop up riddled, obvious propaganda laden website. In the first five minutes I had a pop up telling me I was a “Winner, winner, winner”…..yes Jedidah…real legit lol. Why don’t you fill out all your info in one of the “you’re a winner” pop ups if that source is so wonderful.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

You have some kind of infected trash on your computer, wonder what kind of websites you go to. I get none of that and I'm not even running a popup blocker...of course there's also the good chance you're just a liar and not happy about seeing data that goes against your brainwashing.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

This is the list of statistics and articles that the "Guns and Crime Prevention" section gets the entirety of its facts from:

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Kleck and Gertz, Fall 1995 ↩
This ongoing victimization survey involved people from the government personally interviewing victims in person. Some criminologists believe this induces self-reporting biases (e.g., people don’t like to tell the government they own a gun). Thus, this low number from the National Crime Victimization Survey is considered to be an outlier and not reliable. ↩
Firearm Violence, 1993-2011, Bureau of Justice Statistics, May 2013 ↩
Estimating intruder-related firearm retrievals in U.S. households, 1994. Robin M. Ikeda, Violence and Victims, Winter 1997 ↩
Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, Kleck, Gertz, 1995 ↩
Crime statistics: Bureau of Justice Statistics – National Crime Victimization Survey (2005). DGU statistics: Targeting Guns, Kleck (average of 15 major surveys where DGUs were reported) ↩
Targeting Guns, Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, from the National Self-Defense Survey ↩
Targeting Guns, Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, from the National Self-Defense Survey ↩
FBI Expanded Homicide Tables 14 and 15, 2017 ↩
Death by Gun: One Year Later, Time Magazine, May 14, 1990 ↩
Unintentional Firearm Deaths, 2001, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control ↩
Targeting Guns, Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997 ↩
National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000 ↩
Residential Burglary: A Comparison of the United States, Canada and England and Wales, Pat Mayhew, National Institute of Justice., Wash., D.C., 1987 ↩
Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 86, No.1, 1995 ↩
Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, Wright and Rossi, 1986 ↩
Implications for the Prevention of School Attacks, United States Secret Service and United States Department of Education, 2002 ↩
Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws, Clayton Cramer, David Kopel, Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994 ↩
ABC News, July 17, 2001 ↩
Sheriff Greg White, Cole County, Missouri, Guns to be allowed on campus?, KRCG News, July 31, 2009 ↩
The Value of Civilian Handgun Possession as a Deterrent to Crime or a Defense Against Crime, Don B. Kates, 1991 American Journal of Criminal Law ↩
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities, U.S. Department of Justice, 1979 ↩
National Crime Victimization Survey, Department of Justice ↩
2001 National Gun Policy Survey of the National Opinion Research Center: Research Findings, Smith, T, National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago, December 2001. ↩
2001 National Gun Policy Survey of the National Opinion Research Center: Research Findings, Smith, T, National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago, December 2001. ↩
Americans by Slight Margin Say Gun in the Home Makes It Safer, Gallup Poll, October 20, 2006 ↩
Gun Crazy, S.F. Examiner, April 3, 1994 ↩


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Here's the list from the "Mass Shootings" section:

“One or more persons engaged in killing or attempting to kill multiple people in an area (or areas) occupied by multiple unrelated individuals. At least one of the victims must be unrelated to the shooter. The primary motive appears to be mass murder; that is the shooting is not a by-product of an attempt to commit another crime.” United States Active Shooter Events from 2000 to 2010, School of Criminal Justice, Texas State University, 2014 – published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ↩
“Slaughter of four or more victims by one or a few assailants within a single event, lasting but a few minutes or as long as several hours”, Multiple Homicide: Patterns of Serial and Mass Murder, James Alan Fox, Jack Levin, Crime and Justice, Vol. 23, 1998 ↩
Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012 ↩
Public Mass Shooters and Firearms: A Cross-National Study of 171 Countries, Lankford, 2016 ↩
How a Botched Study Fooled the World About the U.S. Share of Mass Public Shootings — U.S. Rate is Lower than Global Average, Lott, 2018 ↩
A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000 and 2013, FBI, September 2013
↩
Mass Shootings: Media, Myths, and Realities, Jaclyn Schildkraut, H. Jaymi Elsass ↩
The facts shoot holes in Obama’s claim that US is only host to mass killings, John Lott, December 2015 ↩
Mass Shootings: Maybe What We Need Is a Better Mental-Health Policy, Mother Jones, November 2012, analysis of 62 mass public shootings ↩
A Study of The Pre-Attack Behaviors of Active Shooters In The United States Between 2000 and 2013, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2018 ↩
Repeat tragedy: Rampage shootings in American high school and college settings, 2002–2008. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 1286–1308. ↩
Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics, Davi Barker, July 2013 and updated thereafter ↩
Crime Prevention Research Center web site ↩
A Guide to Mass Shootings in America, Mother Jones, May 2014 ↩
Mass Shootings in America: Moving Beyond Newtown, Homicide Studies, 2013 ↩
Mass Murder in the United States: A History, McFarland, June 2007 ↩


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

So there you go. Even if you were telling the truth about the security and content of the website, which you are not and this isn't the first time you've tried this sort of thing, now folks can do some of their own reading and be safe.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

By the way, did you know that several of the first modern school shooting perpetrators had a copy of this book in their locker? It was Stephen King's first book, he pulled it from publication after the correlation between the book and school shootings became apparent. I bet he'd like to discuss it with you, I hear he has a Twitter account.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rage_(King_novel)


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

Why do people on this site, who should be educated on rifles more than those not educated on rifles, still continue to call an AR style rifle as an ‘assault rifle’.
Do your homework and Google up the definition and history of the AR-10,15 style rifles already.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

MrShane said:


> Why do people on this site, who should be educated on rifles more than those not educated on rifles, still continue to call an AR style rifle as an ‘assault rifle’.
> Do your homework and Google up the definition and history of the AR-10,15 style rifles already.


Years of conditioning. We stopped putting insane people away right about the time the rise of the militant left started and it's not a coincidence...many people who need medication and supervision run news outlets in all levels of the mass media organizations and they peddle their perversion and insanity to millions just like them.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

🍿🍺

This thread has gotten quite entertaining......


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Jedidiah said:


> You have some kind of infected trash on your computer, wonder what kind of websites you go to. I get none of that and I'm not even running a popup blocker...of course there's also the good chance you're just a liar and not happy about seeing data that goes against your brainwashing.


The website you directed me to, looks like a middle school student did it. And no, I visited it on my IPhone…you know Apple…one of the most heavily protective devices available, and still got stupid scam ads. Your sketchy website is trash, sorry about that.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

MrShane said:


> Why do people on this site, who should be educated on rifles more than those not educated on rifles, still continue to call an AR style rifle as an ‘assault rifle’.
> Do your homework and Google up the definition and history of the AR-10,15 style rifles already.


It’s semantics. We all know what guns we’re referring to here. I’ve said semi-automatic weapons, and I’m referring to all semi-automatic weapons in most of what I’m saying.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> The website you directed me to, looks like a middle school student did it. And no, I visited it on my IPhone…you know Apple…one of the most heavily protective devices available, and still got stupid scam ads. Your sketchy website is trash, sorry about that.


I'm on unmodified Chrome on a desktop, I've never seen anything like what you're talking about and never done anything to prevent it. You either have an infected device or you're a liar.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Jedidiah said:


> I'm on unmodified Chrome on a desktop, I've never seen anything like what you're talking about and never done anything to prevent it. You either have an infected device or you're a liar.


Yeah bro, definitely me who’s lying here. Between these and asking me for a donation for their sketchy propaganda website, I’m not spending a minute more on it. . I’ve been the 5 billionth click twice now! So stoked to get my Samsung TV!


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Now click on something lol. I’m not arguing with you over your website that looks like it was designed by a child any more. Defend it all you want.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

You 100% have your phone all trashed up. I just went to the site on my desktop, sent you a gif of me doing it. I just went to it again on my phone, no ads except for their own popup asking for donations.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

DallanC said:


> -DallanC


Dallan, I just finished that clip and you are right, it was put together very well.
Too bad it wasn’t a little shorter so that more people would be willing to watch it.
Thank you for sharing.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

You've got your phone all junked up.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

iPhones are the most secure because of their market share, but that doesn't help when 100% of the sub-100 IQ people in the world use them. No one can write enough code to fix stupid. Go run gunfacts.info through some website checkers, here I did one for you.









Report for gunfacts.info | Norton Safe Web


Norton Safe Web has analyzed gunfacts.info for safety and security problems. Click now to view Norton Safeweb's rating for gunfacts.info




safeweb.norton.com


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> It’s semantics.



It’s not though. “Assault rifle” has a specific meaning, and so many of the guns being called “assault rifles” do not actually fit that definition. 

Why would we want to be accurate in our descriptions though? Why would that be important? Silly semantics…


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

I hate to differ (Vanilla can't hear me anyway) but you're wrong, Webster's changed their definition to assist the crazies in pushing gun control. Don't like reality? No worries, just make it what you want. Ruger 10-22? Assault rifle. Airsoft guns, many BB guns, paintball guns, gel blaster guns, even some nailguns? Assault rifles now, baby!









Definition of ASSAULT RIFLE


any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire… See the full definition




www.merriam-webster.com


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

MrShane said:


> Dallan, I just finished that clip and you are right, it was put together very well.
> Too bad it wasn’t a little shorter so that more people would be willing to watch it.
> Thank you for sharing.


Yea his point about the availability of the popular 30 carbine with high capacity mags post WWII, that you can mail order to your home with no background checks was very interesting. No real difference in the number of mass shootings then until now. Definitions of what a mass shooting is seems to be changing.

It is lengthy... but its worth the watch. IMO he covered it pretty fair and made some good points to ponder.

He's had some interesting gun videos in the past, I've been watching his channel off and on for a few years now.

-DallanC


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Does anyone else appreciate the fact that 1-I just did the liberal meme of pretending the website is unfit when it contains the complete undoing of his position in fully factual information and is in fact provably sound?


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Nope. Looks like a BS site to me. 

Way off topic, though. Looks like a final draft from the Senate may not drop before the recess. Hung up on Red Flag and Boyfriend Loophole. Watch this space.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

paddler said:


> Watch this space.


lol


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Jedidiah said:


> Does anyone else appreciate the fact that 1-I just did the liberal meme of pretending the website is unfit when it contains the complete undoing of his position in fully factual information and is in fact provably sound?


Your website is terrible. Does anyone appreciate Jedidiah will broadcast a website as his main source when it looks like it was made by a middle school student and operates like it too? Moving on though as I said.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> It’s not though. “Assault rifle” has a specific meaning, and so many of the guns being called “assault rifles” do not actually fit that definition.
> 
> Why would we want to be accurate in our descriptions though? Why would that be important? Silly semantics…


We all know what guns we are referring to. Telling people “you don’t even know what assault rifle technically means” is not an effective argument. Everyone in this conversation knows we are referring to long barrel semi-automatic rifles. If you want to debate terms to deflect, okay that’s fine, but none of us are unsure of what we’re talking about here. So yes, in this conversation it is largely semantics.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

To each his own. For anyone that's not a manchild, the Mass Shootings section here:









Mass Shootings | Insight about Mass Public Shootings, Weapon Types, Mental Illness, Motivations


Research on both "mass public shootings" and "active shooter events". Includes information on occurrences over time, international data and the correct definitions for such events.




www.gunfacts.info





And the Guns and Crime Prevention section here:









Gun Facts | Guns and Their Use in Crime Prevention


Research on guns as they are used in self-defense (defensive gun use). Includes information on how often they are used, victim injury rates for different defense tactics, as well as international crime data.




www.gunfacts.info





...have some great facts based on actual studies and statistics instead of a bunch of SSRI and Clonazepam addicts responding to a mainstream media poll.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> We all know what guns we are referring to. Telling people “you don’t even know what assault rifle technically means” is not an effective argument. Everyone in this conversation knows we are referring to long barrel semi-automatic rifles. If you want to debate terms to deflect, okay that’s fine, but none of us are unsure of what we’re talking about here. So yes, in this conversation it is largely semantics.


As pistols are often used by mass murderers, I included them in those that would be reclassified. All centerfire semiautos that use detachable magazines, long gun or handgun. Think John Wick.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

paddler said:


> As pistols are often used by mass murderers, I included them in those that would be reclassified. All centerfire semiautos that use detachable magazines, long gun or handgun. Think John Wick.


I’ve been including all semi-automatic weapons in what I would like to see happen, so I agree with you pistols as well. I’m just saying when people bring up the “that’s not actually an assault rifle”……well it’s not the term people are focused on it’s the long barrel semi-automatic rifles that can hold magazines with 20,30, hell even 100 rounds. I’m just saying, it’s all semantics when we all know what everyone is talking about whether they call it an assault rifle or ArmaLite…like no one having the discussion doesn’t know what everyone in the discussion is referring to.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

paddler said:


> As pistols are often used by mass murderers, I included them in those that would be reclassified. All centerfire semiautos that use detachable magazines, long gun or handgun. Think John Wick.


How is it that you people are unable to have any kind of real world discussion without referencing fantasy entertainment? Hands down 100% the time, any conversation will contain a reference to pop culture with an inference that movies are real life. It seems like that could be a marker for schizophrenia.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Jedidiah said:


> How is it that you people are unable to have any kind of real world discussion without referencing fantasy entertainment? Hands down 100% the time, any conversation will contain a reference to pop culture with an inference that movies are real life. It seems like that could be a marker for schizophrenia.


Uh, that was a joke.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

You can say my desire to actually be accurate in this discussion is a deflection, but to me it makes me think you accept ignorance simply because it agrees with your position. 

I’ll value accuracy over politics any day. Let me restate that again: I’ll value accuracy over politics any day. Words have meaning and they matter. Especially when things get convoluted like this topic gets all the time. If you think that’s deflection, then go see the handful of specific measures I’ve proposed on this very forum on this topic. I don’t see you coming forth with much other than criticizing others. Kind of your MO. 

You call it semantics, I’ll call it ignorance. Accuracy over politics any day. Words matter. Deflect that. 

Then go read my specific proposals.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

I don't post here a lot anymore, mostly when something really interesting comes up, but I do read a good deal and ignore most of it. This particular post catches my attention because it's such a perfect paddler formulation: he's going to say something no one wants to hear and he's going to say it over and over, and he's going to update you on it by posting to his own thread for over a year. If you engage, he doesn't want to hear anything about the subject except what he's set for the parameters. He knows almost no one here is on his side in anything he wants to tell us about but he's going to beat you over the head with it and complain when you don't argue the way he wants you to.

This form of gun control, all of it, is immoral. It's immoral because it's a matter of punishing 330 million people for what less than two dozen have done in more than 20 years, and more importantly it's immoral because it causes more harm to people's ability to avoid death and injury by far. It's unconstitutional, the Constitution provided for the ability to keep the same arms as the military for the purpose of defending the country from invaders and their own government: if our government wants to use weapons of war on any of us in significant enough numbers that act itself makes the government illegitimate and makes the arms necessary. That's a good thing, no part of the country should have the power to subjugate another part through force, much as the left seems to think they should.

I don't care if you think it's "outside the subject matter". You're communists and fascists, and I'm ashamed to share my home with you.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Looks like the Senate panel has agreed on the text of a draft bill but it hasn't been released yet.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

I'm sure the dip chits will think that an "AR" rifle is an "Automatic Rifle" and not what it really is. "Armalite Rifle" that was developed by the company back in the 1950's. And get this....They were based out of California. 

Guess I better begin recruiting new members of the NRA.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

I'd like to know just how many of our "law makers" ( I call them Puppets) back in Washington have had any kind of weapon training or education. I dare say less than 25%.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

taxidermist said:


> I'd like to know just how many of our "law makers" ( I call them Puppets) back in Washington have had any kind of weapon training or education. I dare say less than 25%.


How many are walking around with paid security that are carrying semi or full automatic centerfire weapons with detachable magazines to protect them?


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

taxidermist said:


> Guess I better begin recruiting new members of the NRA.


Good luck with that. Nobody in their right mind would join today's NRA.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

I've only read summaries but the Senate bill sounds promising. Hopefully the debate on the floor is functional and we can continue to see bipartisan negotiations.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

paddler said:


> Good luck with that. Nobody in their right mind would join today's NRA.


Nope.......
I would !! Just to spite you.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Wouldn’t it be a strange world if we would listen to each other’s ideas, internalize them, then respond with an equally thought provoking response?

I’m reminded of an old poem that was quoted in the classic western, Rooster Cogburn: 

“A wise old owl lived in an oak;
The more he saw the less he spoke;
The less he spoke the more he heard:
Why can't we all be like that bird?”

I want you to consider this before you respond:

Topics like this are important. They are necessary. This thread is currently not an exchange of ideas or an effective use of your time when throwing words against a wall. Are we acting any better than the fat cats of Washington on this Forum or are we stopping to their levels with every rebuff and retort?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Jedidiah said:


> I don't post here a lot anymore, mostly when something really interesting comes up, but I do read a good deal and ignore most of it. This particular post catches my attention because it's such a perfect paddler formulation: he's going to say something no one wants to hear and he's going to say it over and over, and he's going to update you on it by posting to his own thread for over a year. If you engage, he doesn't want to hear anything about the subject except what he's set for the parameters. He knows almost no one here is on his side in anything he wants to tell us about but he's going to beat you over the head with it and complain when you don't argue the way he wants you to.
> 
> This form of gun control, all of it, is immoral. It's immoral because it's a matter of punishing 330 million people for what less than two dozen have done in more than 20 years, and more importantly it's immoral because it causes more harm to people's ability to avoid death and injury by far. It's unconstitutional, the Constitution provided for the ability to keep the same arms as the military for the purpose of defending the country from invaders and their own government: if our government wants to use weapons of war on any of us in significant enough numbers that act itself makes the government illegitimate and makes the arms necessary. That's a good thing, no part of the country should have the power to subjugate another part through force, much as the left seems to think they should.
> 
> I don't care if you think it's "outside the subject matter". You're communists and fascists, and I'm ashamed to share my home with you.


Yeah….that last sentence standing for nearly 24 hours now, shows what hypocrites the mods here are in what they decide to sensor.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

2full said:


> Nope.......
> I would !! Just to spite you.


Support gun rights entirely or not….the NRA is a corrupt and horrible organization at this point well beyond what some hate them for. The NRA is just not a good organization.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Yeah….that last sentence standing for nearly 24 hours now, shows what hypocrites the mods here are in what they decide to sensor.


Thanks for that.


----------

