This forums stance on guns
Posted by EndTheFed (+20) 9 years ago
Knowing that most of you are leftists, I'm curious to see where you people stand on gun control and that topic in general. Especially after the shootings.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+183) 9 years ago
Let's ponder this for a moment....

http://www.lvrj.com/news/19257519.html

Please note the article states there were 300 people in the joint when the armed citizen took out the shooter. If you have ever been in the Players, you would see that there is room for about 100.

Considering this took place during the Runamucca Biker Rally it would be safe to assume there were probably 30-50 other armed citizens in the Players that nite who exercised considerable restraint.

The only problem here is that these incidents don't lead all major media news for a month.

[This message has been edited by Oddjob (1/19/2013)]
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+141) 9 years ago
This is a link to some really dumba$$ gun videos. Enjoy

Very humorous!
Considering how they were captured on video, it makes me wonder how many of those were set-ups (pre-scripted events).

I will say that most depictions were of stupid people doing stupid stuff in general, but that does not mean I believe they were all real-life situation. I do not know anyone who would hold a rifle away from their shoulder -body- when shooting it. I have seen people who reload their own, intentionally put in too much powder just to see what it will do.. Stupid in and of itself.. but if they hand that off to someone else to fire, I consider that as being criminal, thus taking them out of the Law-Abiding Citizen classification.

Again, can anyone attest to how many were real and not staged?

I won't.

Especially with most of those hand-gun episodes that had no flash or any evidence of powder smoke, just a bang and a jerk, which could have been good acting & editing.

Then there are those where we do not even see the gun going off. ??
Were blanks (bullet-less rounds) or snap-caps (casings with just a primer) being fired and the ID10T just being a good actor? The gun in the book is a prime example of sounding like a snap-cap and not
an actual round.

Of course if they are all actually staged -faked or set-up- stupid events, what should we call those who believe them to be real?
Top
Posted by Joe Whalen (+614) 9 years ago
State-by-state incident reports compiled by the Violence Policy Center of innocent citizens and law enforcement officers killed by persons issued CCW permits.

http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+141) 9 years ago
The Constitution says the people can keep and bear arms. It does NOT say we can fire those arms. It also doesn't say anything about ammunition.

It also doesn't say what kind of arms we can keep and bear.

It looks like you missed my prior post about the US v Miller case that the SCOTUS heard in 1939. The second was pretty well interpreted with that post.

All Adult Male inhabitants are considered to be the Militia and
anything that serves to increase the efficiency of the Militia (those weapons that are common or have a Military use) are protected for civilian ownership.

Here is the link again.
http://supreme.justia.com.../case.html
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2713) 9 years ago
Of course if they are all actually staged -faked or set-up- stupid events, what should we call those who believe them to be real?


Maybe we can say that they haven't been around guns during their life so they aren't as astute at picking out the items you described?
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+141) 9 years ago
State-by-state incident reports compiled by the Violence Policy Center of innocent citizens and law enforcement officers killed by persons issued CCW permits.

http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm


I just saw this post. So I took a couple minutes to read it. I am wondering if you had? FYI it is based on 2007 information.

When you read that, you will hopefully see something that I have mentioned. It is not Armed Law-Abiding Citizens (LAC) that we have to worry about. It is criminals who ignore the laws to begin with, that we have to concern ourselves with.

It shows that of 32 states there were 370 incidents of a concealed carrier killing someone. Look at those numbers very carefully as they do not add up.

Some of the incidents have to be crossing into two or more categories. So, how many of the concealed carriers were actually licensed? The only reference that gives any indication is when it says that 10 unintentional fatalities were by licensed concealed carriers. That equates to about 2.7 percent.

How many were criminals? Roughly 97.3 percent.

How many of that 370 incidents were by criminals who had prior convictions and were already prohibited from legally carrying a firearm? 71.6%

Restricting the LAC from carrying a firearm only serves to make things safer for the Criminals out there, while making it unsafe for the general public. Just like the Gun Free School Zone Act (GFSZA) that the SCOTUS originally overruled as Unconstitutional in 1995 (by the way) made the areas where we keep our most precious resource (our children) for hours each weekday, a Safe Haven for the COWARDS who are bent on killing, as they know there will generally be no armed resistance.

Please note that, the study done in the post I am responding to, only covered concealed carry.

Can anyone provide a source citation (hopefully a credible one) to a study done on Openly Carried firearms?

And Yes, I have seen the reports on the ID10T in N.C. who was stupidly transporting a loaded shotgun in a gun bag and caused an ND at the outside checkpoint of the Gun-Show.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+141) 9 years ago
Maybe we can say that they haven't been around guns during their life so they aren't as astute at picking out the items you described?


I can also pick out all the falsehoods with what is called Professional Wrestling too.

But there are a great many who believe all of it is real.

Top
Posted by Joe Whalen (+614) 9 years ago
Res ipsa loquitor.

Why the contortions, Donald?

The Concealed Carry Killer reports referenced in the VPC link cover the years leading from 2007-present. Each one of those deaths were caused by the actions of a concealed weapons permit holder. Note how incident dates range from 2007 to 2012 and how the heading above each incident report reads "Concealed Weapon Permit Holder" followed by the shooter's name.

Gun Appreciation Day Special: 3 accidental shootings, 5 wounded at gun shows.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+141) 9 years ago
Res ipsa loquitor.

Why the contortions, Donald?

The Concealed Carry Killer reports referenced in the VPC link cover the years leading from 2007-present. Each one of those deaths were caused by the actions of a concealed weapons permit holder. Note how incident dates range from 2007 to 2012 and how the heading above each incident report reads "Concealed Weapon Permit Holder" followed by the shooter's name.

Gun Appreciation Day Special: 3 accidental shootings, 5 wounded at gun shows.


I might agree that it is speaking for itself, but not in the way that you might intend. Please read on.

Let's look at the opening of the link I was referring to.
"Total People Killed by Concealed Carry Killers."


If the data in fact is for multiple years rather than just 2007, then we are talking an unusually and extremely low number all in all. Making its use as justification for gun-control not only misleading, but a great injustice.

The very first statement here basically sums it up.
The Violence Policy Center's Concealed Carry Killers database documents 370 incidents in 32 states. In more than three quarters of the incidents (295) the concealed carry killer has already been convicted


Of the 370 incidents, 295 of the concealed carriers have already been convicted.

Further down, it says:
An additional 10 incidents were fatal unintentional shootings involving the gun of the concealed handgun permit holder.
Now we have something that discusses the shooters actually being Concealed Carry Permit holders. The way it is worded implies that all of the prior lists were not actually Permit Holders, but were simply people who were carrying concealed.

Example, in many States, a Concealed Carry Permit is not required to possess a Concealed Firearm inside your personal dwelling or owned place of business. This is not the same as having a Concealed Carry Permit, but I see far too often where some will point to the fact that the Law allows it as meaning they had an actual Permit.

That rational is a twist if nothing else. Personally, I view Permit Laws as an infringement of the Second Amendment, but being a LAC, and to avoid legal entanglements, I have undergone background checks multiple times to maintain my Concealed Pistol License. In some States that I have been, those background checks have been almost as rigorous as the ones I had to undergo for my Military Security Clearances and the Security Clearances I have had to do for civilian employment over nearly 40 years.

And considering this statement by the VPC site, I would be more likely to challenge their credibility, than to blindly accept all that they are saying.
Because detailed information on such killings is not readily available, the VPC is forced to rely primarily on news accounts for reports of such killings and subsequent legal proceedings.


That statement in and of itself is speaks volumes or as you put it.
Res ipsa loquitor
Top
Posted by pc (+125) 8 years ago
Joe said:
"Gun Appreciation Day Special: 3 accidental shootings, 5 wounded at gun shows."

Meanwhile, in Chicago, where gun laws are among the very strictest in the nation, 17 people were shot over the weekend, 2 fatally.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9199) 8 years ago
Logical fallacies, how do they work?
Top
Posted by pc (+125) 8 years ago
Great question.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9199) 8 years ago
Indeed.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+141) 8 years ago
Meanwhile, in Chicago, where gun laws are among the very strictest in the nation, 17 people were shot over the weekend, 2 fatally.


And this is just one city. Can anyone find what the stats for the City of Kennesaw, GA are?

I would compare them as Chicago basically has the most restrictive gun ownership laws where Kennesaw mandates gun ownership.

We would then see the effect of the two trains of thought. I will not try to twist information the way those who are against guns would, and will say that if we look at that per capita; 17 shootings in Chicago ends up being a low figure.

I wish I could find that data comparing more than just the Rest of GA or comparing to the National Average. But here is that link:
http://www.cityrating.com...nesaw.html

[This message has been edited by Donald Mullikin (1/21/2013)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9199) 8 years ago
Logical fallaciesstatistics, how do they work?

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (1/21/2013)]
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+141) 8 years ago
Logical fallaciesstatistics, how do they work?


For an answer to that, you would have to contact those that conducted the investigation/survey and complied the data.

Now, something else to consider, it would be a natural conclusion by most that in a city where guns are required to be in every home, that the number of murders by gun would go up.

Here is an article that shows that argument might be a fallacy.
[url]http://kennesaw.11alive.com/news/crime?page=1


Please notice that a knife was used in this case even though based upon the City Ordinance (at least one firearm being possessed by the head of household in every home), a firearm should have been present and available.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9199) 8 years ago
Could someone please correlate the # of unicorns in Chicago vs the # of pirates in Kennesaw? I think there's something here, but I can't quite make it out.

If you could somehow work this into a venn diagram, I think this would be the most helpful.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (1/21/2013)]
Top
Posted by Cactus Plains (+98) 8 years ago
who now have cheap flying death robots, which doesn't seem to upset the 2nd amendment absolutists nearly as much as you think it would.

And SWMS sensors; very good, another cover, I think they are trying to sell guns, not control them, they want another civil war like they suckered us into a 100 and some years ago ... the Civil War ...
Can you believe the American people were baited so to speak into partisipating in such controlled ignorance and wickness against brothers etc

Thanks I can re adjust my theory now ... the 85% with rh+ did not evolve from monkey, except maybe one bloodline, that magical power maybe gone but left the world programmed to continue the total destruction

Pike said God is SATAN (God of War and Red Hot Deserts aka Custer corruption County ... pay your taxes to who?

he (Pike) was tapped into the ether???

Cactus Plains
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9199) 8 years ago
See? Even Cactus P. is stepping up his game in honor of the inauguration.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+141) 8 years ago
who now have cheap flying death robots, which doesn't seem to upset the 2nd amendment absolutists nearly as much as you think it would.


Is the Government operating death drones here in the US? If so, then there may be a Second Amendment issue.

I know they are operating Surveillance Drones which violates everyones 4th Amendment rights to be secure against unreasonable searches.

http://www.usconstitution...t.html#Am4
Top
Posted by Cactus Plains (+98) 8 years ago
I guess you are referring to your god; Akhenaton jr. 50/44/6 ;
ever notice how closely he resembles Akhenaton the Pharaoh who destroyed Egypt a couple thousand years ago. Also the resemblance of the CIA wife and two kids to the wife and kids of Akhenaton???

Sigmund Froid suggested that Akhenaton was the biblical "Moses"?

If you know the all knowing intelligent design God aka the God Mind which connects all plants and animals to the universal God Mind.

You might realize SATAN is the anti-christ and has been since the education system that roots from "the tower of babel" was forged to deceive?

All knowing intelligent design God maybe very angry about the corruption of your inaugeration!

Cactus Plains
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeri Dalbec (+3259) 8 years ago
But...all in all...the Aliens are only worried about protecting Mother Earth so maybe all the rest of it is a "moot" point:-)
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17468) 8 years ago
Is the Government operating death drones here in the US? If so, then there may be a Second Amendment issue.


I don't believe the 2nd Amendment is an issue here, as the government death drones aren't using guns.

Hmmmm.....but that does bring up an interesting question. Are the chemtrails the government drones use to poison our land considered to be "arms" and thus afforded 2nd Amendment protections?

I'll leave that one up to the more-educated constitutional scholars here at mc.com.
Top
Posted by Aut (+17) 8 years ago
Whether for or against gun control laws: Everyone here has failed to mention that any such LAWS will only impact LAW ABIDING citizens. How many of these gun related CRIMES were committed by people who would actually follow new gun laws/regulations? Ummmm.... I'm guessing very few. These shootings that have spurred such vigorous conversations were crimes...yes crimes! The people who committed these crimes are .... Ding ding! You guessed it! -NOT law abiding citizens. Therefore, more regulations do not impact their actions whatsoever; they are not going to say, "Oh, there's new gun regulations now. I better stop getting guns [illegally] and shooting people [illegally]!"

Let's use some common sense - the gun killings are done by criminals. As for anyone who will bring up the accidental gun killings: there doesn't need to be more laws; there needs to be more education (and enforcement of current laws). I remember being offered hunters/gun safety courses as a young child (around 10). They do not offer these in my area anymore because parents were outraged that there would be a "gun class."

[This message has been edited by Aut (1/29/2013)]

[This message has been edited by Aut (1/29/2013)]
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+141) 8 years ago
I remember being offered hunters/gun safety courses as a young child (around 10). They do not offer these in my area anymore because parents were outraged that there would be a "gun class."


Ah, but those classes are still generally available, its just that now, they are not publicly promoted anymore.

Most Gun Clubs offer a wide variety of firearm and hunter safety educations. Or will know who gives the class you seek.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9199) 8 years ago
No hunter's safety courses in Wyoming? I call bullpoop.
Top
Posted by Aut (+17) 8 years ago
Actually, I'm not from Wyoming. I noticed that it said that after I posted, but I didn't take the time to figure out how to change it. I'm from MI. I do believe that there is some hunters safety/gun courses offered by the DNR, but they have to be sought out by the persons who want to take them. At one time, they were offered through our public school system in my district (via the DNR), as after school courses or as en electives for middle school students.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+141) 8 years ago
No hunter's safety courses in Wyoming? I call bullpoop.



Here is a link to the Wyoming State Hunter Education area.

http://gf.state.wy.us/Hun...lcome.aspx

And here is a list of the courses offered by them.
http://gf.state.wy.us/Hun...eList.aspx

Please note that they even offer Bow Hunter Classes.

EDIT: Originally read it wrong, am correcting my mistake.

Now for AUT's benefit!

Michigan? No hunter education?

Try again!
http://www.hunter-ed.com/michigan/

[This message has been edited by Donald Mullikin (2/7/2013)]
Top
Posted by Aut (+17) 8 years ago
Now, Donald, for your sake: I am COMPLETELY aware that MI has hunters' education courses; I have been involved with MI DNR education outreach programs. As I stated in my post there ARE hunters' safety courses in MI through the DNR, but they have to be sought out now.

What I was saying, that was apparently missed, is that there was a time in my town that hunters' safety was simply "offered" to young people via after school courses and/or even electives IN school. The "open" access to this type of education is limited now. I say "open" access not because they are not open to the public, but because, again, they have to be sought after, and are not advertised/offered in school. This has happened because of parent outcries about "guns in school".
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9199) 8 years ago
This has happened because of parent outcries about "guns in school".

Do you have proof of this, or is this just something that you believe?
Top
Posted by Aut (+17) 8 years ago
This is something that I have seen. Obviously not all the parents have made such outcries, but enough of them have to influence such courses' availability via the schools.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9199) 8 years ago
What's the cost structure for these classes? Was enrollment down? Is this just where you live, or across Michigan as a whole? If so, how precisely were you gauging the intent of parents in school districts remote from your own?

What I'm trying to get at is there could be any number of reasons that these classes have disappeared.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+141) 8 years ago
I remember being offered hunters/gun safety courses as a young child (around 10). They do not offer these in my area anymore because parents were outraged that there would be a "gun class."
emphasis added for clarity

Ok, so I posted where Not only WY but also MI conducts Hunter Education and Firearms training, that does not need much searching in either state to locate, by the way.

Now you claim:
Now, Donald, for your sake: I am COMPLETELY aware that MI has hunters' education courses; I have been involved with MI DNR education outreach programs. As I stated in my post there ARE hunters' safety courses in MI through the DNR, but they have to be sought out now.


Which is it?
Please keep your story straight.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17158) 8 years ago
"They do not offer these in my area anymore..."
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+141) 8 years ago
"They do not offer these in my area anymore..."


Well David, I don't know which town you may live in, but there are some links that you may wish to look at.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/huntin.../basic.php

http://www.hunter-ed.com/washington/
http://www.examiner.com/a...rses-now-1
http://www.tacomassportsm...terEd.aspx
http://www.tacomarifle.org/index.htm

Where don't they offer these courses here in Washington State?
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17158) 8 years ago
Donald, I found your picture on the web:

Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+141) 8 years ago
Donald, I found your picture on the web:


Sorry, it couldn't be one of my pictures, I use charcoal for my medium. Though it clearly depicts a lot of the Politicians I use for models.

Are you a politician by chance?
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6166) 8 years ago
Donald's lack of acuity is fascinating.
Top
Posted by Aut (+17) 8 years ago
Really Donald? Get my story straight? Yup, I'm pretty sure it hasn't changed. The following was my initial post on this matter:

"I do believe that there is some hunters safety/gun courses offered by the DNR, but they have to be sought out by the persons who want to take them. At one time, they were offered through our public school system in my district (via the DNR), as after school courses or as en electives for middle school students."

My further posts reiterated this statement; therefore, my story HAS NOT changed.

You seem to be simply LOOKING for something to be contradictory about, and I'm not going to clarify myself any further on the matter, as I was VERY clear, already. With that said, I'm done with this discussion; it's not leading anywhere. I'm not lowing myself to that level of an argument, as you will probably beat me with experience.

[This message has been edited by Aut (2/10/2013)]
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+141) 8 years ago
Really Aut?
they have to be sought out by the persons who want to take them.


I am not a resident of your state, yet I found them without any extensive searches.

So where do they require to be sought out?

From what I am seeing they are advertised and the links are open for public viewing.

Or are you trying to make it sound harder than what it really is?

If so, what is your objective in that deception?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9199) 8 years ago
I... I... I don't know what to say. I'm starting to think that "Donald Mullikin" is some sort of elaborate performance art project.
Top
banned
Posted by Bobby Boatley (+74) 8 years ago
Hello Goodfellows. My 2nd Amendment Right is my gun permit.
Top
banned
Posted by Bobby Boatley (+74) 8 years ago
Hey B. Woood. Are you some kind of communist? You certaintly haven't since enough violence in your lifetime to form an opinion. Setting behind your desk and never having to fear for your life in combat will certaintly change your opinion. They are many many evil mean people who just want to harm innocent people. I won't be a victim. Humbly yours: B. Boatley.
Top
Posted by Sledge H. (+6) 8 years ago
Well said, Bobby!!!!!!!
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+141) 8 years ago
I... I... I don't know what to say. I'm starting to think that "Donald Mullikin" is some sort of elaborate performance art project.


I have no idea what you are trying to say.. please explain it. "elaborate performance art project"?

Rest assured, I am an educated human being and not someones project.

Likewise, I am a free-thinker and do not follow any specific Political Party agenda/platform, as I will not have someone telling me what I will be thinking to be thinking properly, according to whatever the political party happens to be.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9199) 8 years ago
All I can say donald, is good luck at the Turing competition. I think you've got a real shot this year.
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2713) 8 years ago
10 Pro-gun Myths, Shot Down

http://www.motherjones.co...fact-check
Top
Posted by Aut (+17) 8 years ago
So where do they require to be sought out?

From what I am seeing they are advertised and the links are open for public viewing.

Or are you trying to make it sound harder than what it really is?

If so, what is your objective in that deception?


Donald there is no deception there if you know what the word SOUGHT means. Let me help you out a little bit.

sought: verb
simple past tense and past participle of seek.
seek: verb (used with object)
1.to go in search or quest of: to seek the truth.
2.to try to find or discover by searching or questioning: to seek the solution to a problem.
3.to try to obtain: to seek fame.
4.to try or attempt (usually followed by an infinitive): to seek to convince a person.
5.to go to: to seek a place to rest.
(dictionary.com)

Did you have to do an internet "search" for that information? Ummmm, yup! Therefore, you SOUGHT that information out.
Once again, such courses need to be SOUGHT out by persons wanting to participate (i.e if one wants to participate, one must SEEK out information on when and where courses are taking place). I never said they were DIFFICULT to find, nor did I say they were not available. I simply said they were not offered through the schools anymore.
Donald, stop taking my, and others', words and "fitting" them into your argument, just for the sake of arguing. I know what I said, and I meant what I said.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+141) 8 years ago
Donald there is no deception there if you know what the word SOUGHT means. Let me help you out a little bit.

sought: verb
simple past tense and past participle of seek.
seek: verb (used with object)
1.to go in search or quest of: to seek the truth.
2.to try to find or discover by searching or questioning: to seek the solution to a problem.
3.to try to obtain: to seek fame.
4.to try or attempt (usually followed by an infinitive): to seek to convince a person.
5.to go to: to seek a place to rest.
(dictionary.com)

Did you have to do an internet "search" for that information? Ummmm, yup! Therefore, you SOUGHT that information out.
Once again, such courses need to be SOUGHT out by persons wanting to participate (i.e if one wants to participate, one must SEEK out information on when and where courses are taking place). I never said they were DIFFICULT to find, nor did I say they were not available. I simply said they were not offered through the schools anymore.
Donald, stop taking my, and others', words and "fitting" them into your argument, just for the sake of arguing. I know what I said, and I meant what I said.


With my NOT being from the same area as you.. of course I searched. However, you seem to have misunderstood my statement of "From what I am seeing they are advertised" I continued from there by explaining that the online indications of public advertisements that I found, also have links directly to the information about the classes.

If they are advertised locally, then if people pay attention to what goes on around them, there is no real need to search for a thing.

An example is how our News in the Seattle area does, they will give a bit of information about a subject on the air-waves, and instruct the listeners to go to their Online News Site for more information, those who are interested can get the information without searching as they were told where to find it. This is a common practice of how things are being "Publicly Announced" in todays society!
>EDIT: Additonally, television commercials do very much the same thing, announce it and tell you where to go to get the additional information. Again, no searching involved. End Edit <
That was the basis for my statement!

Why are you trying to make it into something it was not?

[This message has been edited by Donald Mullikin (2/26/2013)]
Top