Sheep Pasture 2

[>The_Liberal<]

Pardon me for being gone for so long. Not that I think I was missed. A lot of this information you've been giving me does make a lot of sense.

Please let me reply to some questions:

"Why do nearly all mass shootings occur in GFZs?"

Because they're populated. Look at the Tucson shooting. Not a GFZ, but there were plenty of people at that event. It is entirely sensible for owners of businesses to make their property weapons free if they cater to a crowd.

"There's an active shooter in a school right now - without a gun, how do you stop them?"

Prevention is the key. Once someone has been shot it is already a bad thing. The parents of the Columbine shooters and the sandy hook shooter should have been required to secure their weapons.

"pro gun violence" is the phrase that comes to mind?

I understand that pro-gun people see this as inflammatory. I wont try to justify posting it in this forum, but understand that I believe that guns contribute to gun violence. Primarily because humans cannot commit gun violence without a gun.

If I haven't aggravated too many here I got a few questions. Particularly for any sailors here. Referring to the navy yard shooting of course.

Why were there only two guards with guns there?
Isn't a military area teeming with weapons of all sorts?
Does the navy submit health records of mental patients to the background check system?
What is ELF? What does it really do?

I'm almost afraid to ask this last one, but what's an AR-15 shotgun? I thought it was a specific model of rifle.

 

[marshaul]

Because they're populated. Look at the Tucson shooting. Not a GFZ, but there were plenty of people at that event. It is entirely sensible for owners of businesses to make their property weapons free if they cater to a crowd.

Because that theory worked so well at Columbine, Aurora, Newtown, Virginia Tech, etc...

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Pardon me for being gone for so long. Not that I think I was missed. A lot of this information you've been giving me does make a lot of sense.

Prevention is the key. Once someone has been shot it is already a bad thing. The parents of the Columbine shooters and the sandy hook shooter should have been required to secure their weapons.

Cite a source that says Nancy Lanza didn't lock her weapons, he killed her for the guns. besides both the columbine shooters and the Sandy Hook shooter were legal adults, no law proposed or existing would've stopped them from obtaining a firearm. safe storage laws only apply to young children. both of the Columbine shooters were also gainfully employed and paid for their weapons, Eric Harris was even promoted to a manager at the pizza join he worked at... he wasn't really on anyone's radar, you're being overly simplistic

I understand that pro-gun people see this as inflammatory. I wont try to justify posting it in this forum, but understand that I believe that guns contribute to gun violence. Primarily because humans cannot commit gun violence without a gun.

It's also hard to fall down the stairs if your house is only one story, what's the point here?

If I haven't aggravated too many here I got a few questions. Particularly for any sailors here. Referring to the navy yard shooting of course.

Why were there only two guards with guns there?
Isn't a military area teeming with weapons of all sorts?
Does the navy submit health records of mental patients to the background check system?
What is ELF? What does it really do?

short answer no

I'm almost afraid to ask this last one, but what's an AR-15 shotgun? I thought it was a specific model of rifle.
an invention of the media, no such firearm exists to the best of my knowledge.

responses in bold

 

[marshaul]

lol, I missed this one:

...I believe that guns contribute to gun violence. Primarily because humans cannot commit gun violence without a gun.

I believe that cars contribute to car violence. Primarily because humans cannot commit car violence without a car.

I believe that knives contribute to knife violence. Primarily because humans cannot commit knife violence without a knife.

I believe that baseball bats contribute to baseball bat violence. Primarily because humans cannot commit baseball bat violence without a baseball bat.

I believe that fists contribute to fist violence. Primarily because humans cannot commit fist violence without a fist.

I believe that bombs contribute to bomb violence. Primarily because humans cannot commit bomb violence without a bomb.

I believe that shurikens contribute to shuriken violence. Primarily because humans cannot commit shuriken violence without a shuriken.

ad nauseam...

 

[chowda]

I believe that humans contribute to violence. Primarily because humans commit violence because of their humanity.

I've come across a new concept label, Civic Humanism/Bürgerhumanismus - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/humanism-civic/

Too long to read. What's the sugar packet synopsis?

Mine is, as long as there are beings, there will be a war of dominance and submission. It's animal, bird, fish, and probably everything down to plants as plants can and do kill each other to claim territory/resources.
Humans are animals, albeit a higher form, which has its curses and blessings. The blessing is we're smarter than the others so we can create weapons to protect ourselves from predation, from our own specie, or from others.

 

[chowda]

I believe that is one of our post-modern curses, the need for easily digested cartoons of gnarly ideas

I think you dismiss the bell curve, which has been around, well since any groups. Back in caveman time, there would be 10 percent of the tribe doing the thinking/leading, 80% falling in behind, in their order, doing the work, and the lower 10% trying to figure out how to get obamaphones, not do any work, steal, etc. The bell curve isn't era specific as people 50, 100, 200...years ago didn't give an hoot either. They were too busy living their lives, doing their work, taking their time off, with little to no interest in sitting and thinking/speculating on things.

Diogenese lived in a barrel or something outside of town because no one understood what he was thinking. The philosophers/thinkers are I'd guess the 1% ers of any era/generation. I'd think more, but these days, I'm too fluking tired......

 

[rcawdor57]

responses in bold

There are AR style shotguns and have been for several years. I've looked at a few over the years and after examining a few and doing some research decided against getting one. From what I've learned they aren't the most reliable shotguns available. There are also AK style shotguns available which are top of the line. IIRC the AK shotguns are built in Russia based on the AK47 design and do work very well. Link to Saiga AK style shotguns: http://www.saiga-12.com/


Here is a link to a fairly new AR shotgun on the market: http://www.raacfirearms.com/index.php3?pageid=AkdalProducts.htm

 

[chowda]

I believe that guns contribute to gun violence.

Excellent point.
I also believe that knives contribute to knife violence.
Fists and feet contribute to fist and feet violence.
Alcohol contributes to alcohol violence.
Drugs contribute to drug violence.
Body party contribute to sexual violence.

What I find interesting is all of a sudden, recently the term "gun violence" came into being as a phrase, and everyone in the mass media (yeah, even conservative ones), entertainment, and on all the internet started using that phrase, 'gun violence'.

I know it's to demonize an inantimate object, but I just find the dissemination of that phrase interesting.
Sort of like the phrase "11 million illegal [aliens/immigrants]". Everyone uses that same number....and that same number has been used for the last 20 years, so since 1992, there have been no more illegals dashing into our former nation.

Big conjob going on and it's interesting to witness. I'm just glad I don't have kids or I'd be very embarrassed and ashamed at the world I had left them....

 

[Nutczak]

Liberal;

Maybe this simple question may help you understand;

Do you keep a fire extinguisher in your home?
Why do you feel you "NEED" a fire extinguisher when you have a municipal fire department at your service?

Do you understand the correlation as to why millions of others and myself legally own and keep firearms now?

I have been legally carrying a handgun since 1989, I was forced to remove it from it's holster only once since then, I was being carjacked by a man with a knife to my side.
The outcome was that criminal was arrested, and jailed for the murder he committed during the carjacking he perpetrated against the woman who was the victim of his crimes before me, as she tried to get out of her vehicle in a panic, she got hung up in the seatbelt and he stabbed her in the side of her chest as she tried to get out of her car!
I was able to stop the crime against myself and hold him until the police showed 20 minutes later

 

[chowda]

The whole idea of "need" has always been interesting.
Why do some people want abortions to be legal if they don't "need" one? Why do people that can't/can no longer become pregnant want abortions to be legal? They clearly have no "need".
Why do some men want abortions to be legal? The whole logic behind infantcide is "it's MY body", so it clearly has nothing to do with the male, yet a male can be pro abortion?

 

[marshaul]

Nobody "needs" anything but food, water, and air.

If I don't "need" a firearm for self-defense, then you definitely don't "need" aggressive, violent, poorly-trained police pretending to protect you.

 

[papa bear]

i will try to answer these in color, please bear with me

Pardon me for being gone for so long. Not that I think I was missed. A lot of this information you've been giving me does make a lot of sense.

Please let me reply to some questions:

Because they're populated. Look at the Tucson shooting. Not a GFZ, but there were plenty of people at that event. It is entirely sensible for owners of businesses to make their property weapons free if they cater to a crowd.

there are lots of places that are populated. take gun shows for one.discounting the eleurothphobes that set them up. but you never hear of a shooter there. you could even say a TEA party rally was a target rich event. but there is a good chance there are armed people there. you do know also that all of the shooters were democratic and/or had leftist leanings


Prevention is the key. Once someone has been shot it is already a bad thing. The parents of the Columbine shooters and the sandy hook shooter should have been required to secure their weapons.

yes shooting anyone is a bad thing, even a BG. as far as the family securing their weapons, would you have had them lock up their gas tanks that were used in Columbine. also need to mention that the guns used in Columbine were straw purchased by a another person. that is already against the law. there it begs the question, what law could you pass that would keep guns from the Murderers and not keep them from honest citizens?


I understand that pro-gun people see this as inflammatory. I wont try to justify posting it in this forum, but understand that I believe that guns contribute to gun violence. Primarily because humans cannot commit gun violence without a gun.

saying a gun instigates gun violence, is the same thing as saying that a fork in the house, makes people fat. if the objective is to make less "gun violence" then the evidence is that more guns means less violence (look up John Lotts research)

If I haven't aggravated too many here I got a few questions. Particularly for any sailors here. Referring to the navy yard shooting of course.

Why were there only two guards with guns there?
Isn't a military area teeming with weapons of all sorts?
because President Clinton ordered, that all military personal be unarmed, while not in combat. this makes all bases GFZ. we already discussed those
Does the navy submit health records of mental patients to the background check system?
the shooter at the base didn't have a bad mental health record, he had never been treated for bad traits. i must point out though, that the progressives have established that we can't talk about someones mental record so we don't discriminate against them. kind of a paradox there. huh
What is ELF? What does it really do?

I'm almost afraid to ask this last one, but what's an AR-15 shotgun? I thought it was a specific model of rifle.
i think someone else answered this well

 

[>The_Liberal<]

Starbucks and CC

Hello Again. I hope you're all having a merry Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanza, or anything you choose to celebrate. Please pardon me for bringing my presence back here. I could not help but notice that my previous posts disappeared. I would like to offer you some more.

I'm seeing some hostility to TOR. It's really good thing. It brought freedom to many in the middle east without the $80 billion from the US. Ultimately I could just start using MKEGal's favorite coffee shop. Its a shame that all my posts were deleted. But you should know you have the wrong idea when you can't even listen to some dissent.

I took some time to learn about guns. Actually a lot more time than I thought I would. I still don't' think they belong in society but I come to you with a new found understating of ballistics.

Anyway, I would like to talk about Starbucks. This sort of thing is why I keep insisting that you stop carrying guns around. It's intimidating. I'm surprised they didn't make it a Wisconsin safe property and prohibit guns all together. Even concealed handguns frighten people. Open carry frightens people much more quickly and the response can even be dangerous to you. It can even paint you as a target for muggers.

Then may I kindly ask a few questions?

Do you feel like OC is still worth while if it may turn and minimize places others can CC?

I know many of you have Concealed Carry Licenses that the Department of Justice is required to give you, why not just CC?

 

[JamesCanby]

[snipped gratuitous comments]

This sort of thing is why I keep insisting that you stop carrying guns around. It's intimidating.

You "insist?" What gives you the right to "insist" that law-abiding citizens desist from legally "carrying guns around?" What do you believe is the basis for your being intimidated by an inanimate object, one that can do no harm unless it is used by its possessor? When was the last time you experienced intimidation that was caused by the actions of a law-abiding citizen who was legally carrying a firearm?

Even concealed handguns frighten people. Open carry frightens people much more quickly and the response can even be dangerous to you. It can even paint you as a target for muggers.

Pray tell, how do concealed handguns frighten people? Do hoplophobes such as yourself have x-ray vision that allows them to see concealed firearms? Are you often afraid of things that you cannot see? Have you consulted a mental health professional regarding your fear of invisible things?

As for hoplophobes' "response" to the sight of a legally and openly carried handgun, what kind of dangerous response do you envision occurring? Do you believe that hoplophobes fear handguns openly carried by police, even though far more innocent civilians are wounded or killed by police than by law-abiding citizens who openly carry firearms?

Can you provide any verifiable cite where an open-carrier has been "painted as a target by muggers?"

Then may I kindly ask a few questions?

Do you feel like OC is still worth while if it may turn and minimize places others can CC?

I know many of you have Concealed Carry Licenses that the Department of Justice is required to give you, why not just CC?

There are many law-abiding citizens who choose to legally openly-carry their firearm, just as there are those who have decided to conceal their firearm. It's a matter of personal choice where the law allows both modes of carry. The reasons for carrying in one mode over the other are varied. Those of us who openly carry believe that there is a crime deterrence aspect by doing so, as well as the ability for faster access to that self-defense tool when necessary. We also believe that openly carrying a firearm will help to normalize that practice among the general population, letting them see other ostensibly normal people who have chosen to carry the means of self defense. Carrying the means of self defense in an open, effective and safe way far outweighs worrying over the irrational response on the part of hoplophobes.

There is no basis for your supposition that openly carrying a firearm may somehow "minimize places others can CC." Property owners and businesses that want to prohibit firearms on their property seldom make any distinction between modes of carry. Most of us in the firearms-carrying community will not patronize a business that prohibits firearms whether they are carrying concealed or openly. We choose not to enter what is essentially a "gun free zone" where only criminals and law-breakers may indeed be carrying.

The Department of Justice has nothing to do with the issuance of "Concealed Carry Licenses." Every state has its own laws and statutes under which a law-abiding citizen may apply for such a permit and, if they pass the requirements for obtaining such a permit, they will be issued one. For the reasons cited above, and where open carry is not prohibited, each citizen will use their own judgement on the mode of carry they prefer. Some will choose to conceal, some will carry openly, and some will do both at the same time. It's called "freedom to choose" among legal alternatives.

As a Liberal, I thought you would be all for freedom of choice, but I guess you only believe in freedoms that you agree with.

 

[OC for ME]

Do not support SBX, they actively work to remove your RKBA. They act by supporting anti-liberty liberals hell bent on removing guns from the hands of the citizenry. The >The_Liberal< once again displays for all to see who liberals are and what they desire.

Engaging liberals in a intelligent manner lends credibility to their false premise.

 

[Running Wolf]

Hello Again. (...snip...) Even concealed handguns frighten people. Open carry frightens people much more quickly . . .

I honestly encourage you, and everyone else, to take responsibility for your own emotions. I am not responsible for your emotional reaction, and you are not responsible for mine.

 

[>The_Liberal<]

Thank you all for replying and I wish your families many blessing these holidays.

Nightmare,
The WI DoJ is required to give you a license no matter what misgivings they may have about you. Please see Statute 175.60(2)(a). I think it would be better if the DoJ has more discretion and be allowed to deny someone based on say violent misdemeanors.

JamesCanby,
I understand the idea of a handgun being an inanimate object. I can disagree a little when Glock claims to have 38 moving parts. More importantly a gun projects deadly force. It's kind of like the teeth and claws of a bear because a bear wouldn't seem so scary without them. The last time I was intimidated was before I went a to a meet and greet in a starbucks. I saw someone openly carrying a handgun which in and of itself is an action. As for citing a source for when open carriers where targetd by muggers please follow the links in my previous posts. Fast forward though Mr. Clark and you'll see.
The idea of OC causing problems for CC is simple. Consider a scenario where there is a restaurant and the owner is not aware of CC. One day there is an OCer that comes in and eats there. The owner is nervous and doesn't want the rest of his patrons to be intimidated. The owners does some research and sees that the risk of gun violence can be reduced by posting a sign on all the entrances and does so. Now the restaurant is closed to CC and they will have to leave their guns in their cars. Where the alternative is to go out of business like Lizzy's Green Cafe.
Finally The Wisconsin Department of Justice does have everything to do with issuance of Concealed Carry licenses.

Have a wonderful day!

 

[marshaul]

openly carrying… in and of itself is an action.

Is wearing clothes an action? What about not wearing clothes?

Justify your answer.

 

[Maverick9]

Thank you all for replying and I wish your families many blessing these holidays.

Nightmare,
The WI DoJ is required to give you a license no matter what misgivings they may have about you. Please see Statute 175.60(2)(a). I think it would be better if the DoJ has more discretion and be allowed to deny someone based on say violent misdemeanors.

JamesCanby,
I understand the idea of a handgun being an inanimate object. I can disagree a little when Glock claims to have 38 moving parts.

Have a wonderful day!

Words have precise meanings. A living being is animate, meaning 'sentient or alive'. You may need the help of a medical or psychiatric professional if you think an object is 'animate'.

Please review. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_sexuality

 

[JamesCanby]

Thank you all for replying and I wish your families many blessing these holidays.

Nightmare,
The WI DoJ is required to give you a license no matter what misgivings they may have about you. Please see Statute 175.60(2)(a). I think it would be better if the DoJ has more discretion and be allowed to deny someone based on say violent misdemeanors.

JamesCanby,
I understand the idea of a handgun being an inanimate object. I can disagree a little when Glock claims to have 38 moving parts. More importantly a gun projects deadly force. It's kind of like the teeth and claws of a bear because a bear wouldn't seem so scary without them. The last time I was intimidated was before I went a to a meet and greet in a starbucks. I saw someone openly carrying a handgun which in and of itself is an action. As for citing a source for when open carriers where targetd by muggers please follow the links in my previous posts. Fast forward though Mr. Clark and you'll see.
The idea of OC causing problems for CC is simple. Consider a scenario where there is a restaurant and the owner is not aware of CC. One day there is an OCer that comes in and eats there. The owner is nervous and doesn't want the rest of his patrons to be intimidated. The owners does some research and sees that the risk of gun violence can be reduced by posting a sign on all the entrances and does so. Now the restaurant is closed to CC and they will have to leave their guns in their cars. Where the alternative is to go out of business like Lizzy's Green Cafe.
Finally The Wisconsin Department of Justice does have everything to do with issuance of Concealed Carry licenses.

Have a wonderful day!

Responding to the bolded parts above:

The fact that a Glock may have 38 moving parts is irrelevant. The only "moving part" that matters is the trigger, and that requires positive action on the part of the owner. Please provide for me any cite where a properly holstered handgun went off all by itself.

The fact that YOU were intimidated by the sight of a properly holstered handgun is YOUR problem, not ours. As I asked in the previous post, are you not intimidated by the sight of a LEO who is openly carrying, even though more law-abiding citizens are wounded or killed each year by LEOs than are wounded or killed by law-abiding open carriers? Do you understand that most law-abiding, responsible open carriers full well understand the responsibility they bear for the safe and effective use of their firearm, and that they practice at the range far more often than most LEOs? That law-abiding citizens are not shielded by their organization/union from being prosecuted for negligent actions -- and that LEOs are, in all but the most egregious cases? By the way -- are you also intimidated when you see someone openly carrying a knife? A baseball bat? Take a look at the FBI stats regarding the incidence of deadly force inflicted by type of weapon. You know, some people used to be intimidated by the presence of an African-American man walking in their neighborhood, even though he presented no danger and was not engaged in any criminal activity. Often, the police were called because he "didn't belong there." Fear is often an irrational thought process.

Lastly, your straw-man scenario fails. No research can be found anywhere that supports the notion that posting a sign has ANY effect on reducing "gun violence." Law-abiding citizens will simply refuse to patronize such an establishment, while criminals will simply be emboldened with the knowledge that they are entering a gun-free zone and will not be confronted with deadly force when they commit a crime therein.