It is excellent.

Here's part of the problem, when you're childish and are only driven by emotion you see ordinary hunting rifle, to scary looking military assault rifle people killer.
But the fact is every one of them is a bolt action Remington 700 rifle.
Every. Fucking. One.

Baloney. The problem is not that the childish and emotional see something like that on the store wall and get scared. The problem is that real assault rifles are in circulation, and being used to slaughter people. When the actual murder machines are banned, then we can talk about what to do with the little ol' guns that never hurt a fly.

Real assault rifles are very illegal and extremely expensive. None of the examples above are assault rifles, but the perception of the masses reacting to the appearance means there can be no dialog.

The masses are afraid of the scary looking ones, and the nut jobs are attracted to the scary looking ones. The scary looking ones are only marketed because they have an emotional impact on everyone. Good guy or bad. If you get rid of the scary looking ones, will the bad guys want to get a farmer's wood stock gun to do their terrorizing?

This was discussed in detail here about 15 years ago (maybe longer). Facts stated then are now well proven. As number of guns increases, violent gun deaths increase massively. It has been a fact all over the world for hundreds of years. Assault weapons have increased massively in the past twenty years. We have not yet even begun to accept reality. We have seen exactly what was predicted here 15 years ago. And still some continue to deny - emotionally.

How ironic. Since owning and carrying a bigger gun does change a person's emotions. They become more entitled. And suddenly feel righteous authority. A gun changes a person's attitude.

How many guns were available in the old west? Lies (myths, fiction, hearsay, speculation, westerns) assumed everyone out west had and needed a gun. Reality. Research confirms that among maybe 15 wagons might be only three or four guns. As was so obvious even 15 years ago, a gun cost about one or two year's wages. Back then, 'automobile type' finance plan did not exist. Pioneers had to plan in advance who would first fire so that the few others with guns still had a loaded gun.

Only two places made all guns - Harper's Ferry and Springfield MA.. Guns were never the magic tool that we have all been told must have existed. Myths and fears of today did not exist back then. The west was not as dangerous as the emotional are told to believe today.

Same fears and emotions now justify assault weapons for protection. Include what we have all learned from the news. Defense with a handgun is almost useless against assault weapons with large clips. Virtually impossible. As was demonstrated by an armed guard in Columbine and in Kentucky. As demonstrated by hundreds of police trying to stop two bank robbers in LA. As demonstrated by the actions of Sheriff deputies recently in FL.

Only the emotional and ignorant think fortifying schools will help. We know it is stupid because the Donald also recommended it. Fortifying only works when same hardware fortifies every mall, post office, every airport and train station, etc. Did extremists forget to mention that? Of course. This problem is only created by too many weapons sold to wackos who need high velocity projectiles fed by large clips. Since that makes them even feel better. Projectiles that only have one purpose - murder on a mass scale. Guns that make even armed deputies think twice before confronting them.

Did an LA bank robbery not yet make that obvious to everyone? So how many still did not learn that - instead listen to a wacko president promoting lies and more gun sales. Assault rifles mean even police can only be victims - not be protection.

Instead of teaching kids, we must put diminishing school budgets (diminishing thanks to the same extremists who need military and more civilians with guns) into fortifying schools. Only armed resource officer that can provide any protection must constantly wear helmets, body armour, and M-15 assault rifles with large clips. We must have SWAT in every school - according to extremists. And stop putting money into education. Since education only creates moderates.

The NRA is a lobby to increase gun manufacturer profits. Of course the NRA advocated more guns, more body armor, and education money diverted into highly armed guards at every school. That increases profits. We must leave shoppers, drivers, homes, and commuters unprotected so that more assault weapons can be sold.

Only one problem exists. We have hundreds of thousands of assault rifles everywhere in America. Even an old west was never as dangerous as the NRA now wants America to be. We cannot even do research into gun violence since that will also reduce sales and profits. Research into gun violence was banned because of what the early research discovered.

NRA was never about protecting people. Their myth is to increase profits. NRA even got customers to pay (dues) for promoting those companies. Purpose of the NRA is - profits. Promoting lies and fears - and more assault rifles - means everyone must now waste money on guns. Less educated kids means more extremists who can be manipulate by NRA propaganda.

If assault rifles are needed, then so are M-60 grenade launchers and 155 mm howitzers. Both are needed for the exact same reason (myth). Profits.

Worst case of hoplophobia I ever saw.

Whoops, lost your credibility right there. :headshake

Worst attempt at honest debate I ever saw. *shrug*

In point of fact, we don't have any idea how many assault-type weapons are out there,

Nobody knows exactly how many assault rifles exist in the U.S. – by design

but I think it's a safe bet to say there are many more today than there were 20 years ago.

It's previously been debated here several times. The outcome was that Trump got elected. This latest iteration is more for entertainment.

Don't put any of your hard earned money on that bet... you'd lose it.
Assault rifles and any other automatic weapons (read machine guns), have been illegal since the '30s, without a government license that involves a background check and costs hundreds of dollars a year.

I'm totally on board with regulation, total ban on automatics and background checks at gun shows. But berating the AR-15 or any other rifle that looks scary is tilting at windmills. Even if successful would do no good.

Oh, I strongly doubt that.

From my link:

I've not berated the AR-15 or any other rifle that "looks scary." :eyebrow:

You know, I'm no gun hater. I've got a loaded Mossberg next to my front door (purchased specifically and solely to protect my chickens). But there are VERY effective solutions to the rampant gun problem we have here in the US (eg. UK, Australia). We just don't want to go there. We're little more than pussies that need our big bad weapons to keep our peckers up, to the tune of 33,000 dead people (and another 75,000 non-fatal gun injuries) per year.

Is it worth it? Is it really? Speaking just for myself, I say no. :neutral:

Gun debates on this website resulted in Trump being elected? What?

Call me crazy, but I don't think being a jerk in the aftermath of yet another mass shooting is much of a solution.

You find the citizenry's distress over another pile of bodies filled with bullets "entertaining?"

Wow.

The wacky antics of sheeple are always entertaining. You're sounding like the boy who cried wolf and Chicken Little all rolled into one. That is indeed entertaining.

You're wrong, assault rifles are illegal.

As soon as you call guns that look scary "assault rifles", that's exactly what you're doing.
Care to break those numbers down? How many were hand guns? Don't they look scary enough to do something about?

All these reports exclude suicides.

I think we should consider why the military switched from the M-1 and M-14 to the M-16. They wanted something light that anybody can easily carry and doesn't beat up the shooter when firing a bunch of rounds. The AR 15 is a weapon which any dope can shoot a lot of rounds out of and now they apparently do. The small .223 round is not a deer hunter because it's an organ shredder rather than a knock down round. The heavy bolt action sporterized rifles circa WWI are good shooters for hunting with enough kick that you know you're doing damage.

I'd like to see the end of semi-auto civilian weapons and high capacity magazines. I really think the 2nd Amendment fantasy needs to meet the reality. Who do you intend to shoot with your AR? At this point we've seen a lot of innocents die for what looks like a fantasy about shooting American soldiers and American cops.

Don't need semi-autos, the rifleman did quite well without it. This whole dog&pony show is drawing attention away from the bigger problem, hand guns, because they don't make big enough headlines.
What's another drug user here and a nigger there, I live in the safe 'burbs. :facepalm:

OTOH a lot of people think your panacea fantasy needs to meet the 2nd Amendment reality that civilians want the personal issue firearms military and police use in self defense, for the same advantages, believing they have the same right to life. Compromises have already been reached. Fully automatic firearms are not generally available to the public and they don't get to attach silencers, bayonets; or, grenade launchers to them either. The line between offensive and defensive capability of the firearms has been drawn.

But there are those who want to blur the line based on whether the firearm is used legally; or, illegally. It's usually those who have no need or interest in them. But these same people would never consider giving up the kinds of things THEY need or want, like privately owned vehicles, that may be used illegally (or accidently) to take innocent lives. Oh no, that's different.

Then it becomes a numbers game: Well what you need or want costs more in innocent lives than what I need or want so you have to give yours up; but, I don't have to give up mine ... and there's more people who want what I want so the cost in lives is acceptable ... and anyone who says only professional drivers should have vehicles; or, no one should have a vehicle that goes over 15 mph to save innocent lives is nuts. If they refer to us responsible vehicle owners as crazed child killers and boycott car manufacturers because of the actions of a few bad drivers, we'll join the National Drivers Association and lobby for our hypocrisy!

We've seen a lot of innocents die for what looks like an American fantasy about the freedom of the road and driving on vacations. How about all those drivers who have cars that are too big and too fast for their needs. All that power affects their minds and turns them into reckless pedal to the metal killers. Yet, these people who won't give up the excessive privilege of driving privately owned vehicles in order to save innocent lives want others to give up the basic right to firearms that can save their owners' lives. Who you going to save with your privately owned motor vehicle? People have gotten along just fine with horses for hundreds of years. I'd like to see the end of sheeple hypocrisy.

^Heh, heh. I did a tw with a twist with Griff.^

When you pry my cold dead fingers from the steering wheel. :mad2:

Anything that fires NATO rounds and with high velocity is an assault weapon. Anything that can fire bullets through cars to shoot police officers is an assault weapon. Anything that drives off arm guards while massacring students is an assault weapon. Anything with large clips is only for mass murder of people. Those things are not illegal - despite denials. In Florida, a kid, who cannot drink alcohol and not buy a 9 mm pistol, can also legally buy an assault weapon. And he did - legally.

Worse, so many adults knew and considered it acceptable. How extremist are so many adults?

What has massively increased in numbers in the past 20 years? Assault weapons. Why are school, malls, roads, and movie theaters more dangerous? What changed? A massive and recent increase in assault weapons in civilian hands.

That (and not illegal immigrants) are the problem. Who suffers because wackos love the 'big dic' power provided by a gun with large clips and high velocity ammunition? Moderates. People who were once safe before all this hardware was made freely available.

Just up the street, a church usher shot in the head a parishioner who was causing a disturbance. He felt that shooting was justified even after convicted in court. Others noted the problem. He was entitled so he needed a gun. Another example of how a mind is changed by a gun. How more entitled would he have been with an assault rifle? So we need him to protect us all - even from noisy parishioners.

The assault weapons ban in 1994 expired ten years later. The day after Sandy Hook, the gun show selling assault weapons (without any background check required) had its largest even attendance. Despite denials, assault weapons are selling in record numbers in the country that apparently loves to use their student for target practice.

The death rate due to gun shooting in schools is about every three days. Attempted massacres in 2018 has been one per week. But this is because schools, that were safe 30 years ago, are the reason for all these mass shootings - according a president and other extremists.

Clearly more assault weapons do not explain this:

Not now tw, the grown-ups are talking. Go play with your Write MY Own Dictionary word game.

Honestly, the world seen through his imagination must be quite entertaining.

Go yank your dic like a good wacko extremist. Or is that sentence require intelligence you never had.

The Donald loves you tw. He loves all his developmentally impaired constituents. He's sad your condition precludes his putting you on his list.

The last two shoot faster than the rest, if you measure over, say, 100 rounds, and have your magazines preloaded. And bump stocks would only fit the last one.

Now we're talking self defense rather than a well regulated militia. If your concern is Al Q swinging by the house because of an anti-special ops vendetta maybe your military background gives you a desire to turn offensive. From a civilian perspective, an armed intruder is best handled with a shotgun. If I want a fire fight with the Sheriff's department then I want an AR. I don't want to get into it with the cops or the national guard etc... I like my chances in court and I think conservatism is agreeable to a functional rule of law.
Inspections, drivers tests, seat-belts, airbags, speed limits, my freedom ends where your nose begins.

*sigh*

So tiresome.

Just ban all goddamned guns and confiscate *'em (if folks don't turn 'em in).

Then we can get back to building that communitarian utopia.









*good luck gettin mine, motherfuckers

How many 2000 and 5000 horsepower cars are on your road? Your reasoning constantly ignores perspective - which is what extremists do. You have again invented a fear that does not exist.

Love of big guns (an emotion) is why deaths in schools, on roads, and in malls are increasing. Only emotions define your needs and fears. Clearly logic has not. Nobody here needs an assault weapon. Highways do not have 5000 horsepower cars.

If properly trained, the bad guy will be well inside an effective radius before you realize he is a bad guy. Research says that weapon is three times more likely to be used on you than on a bad guy. That is from adult whose brains think rationally. And denied by brains that make conclusions from emotions - and irrational fears.

Same irrational fear are causing increasing massacres - now about one a week. No civilian needs an assault rifle and big clips. But some are so emotional today that their kid can no longer walk from a school bus, one quarter mile, to home. Because it is too dangerous. More examples of adults who are still children.

"You have again invented a fear that does not exist."

As have you and all your commie friends at CNN, MSNBC, HLN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and on and on.

I'd have a helluva lot more respect for the lot of you if you all just admitted what you want.

Joe or Stan or Nick commits a crime, but should I be punished?

Sam rapes multiples of women, children, and even men, but I should be forced to eat saltpeter?

Louis drives his Ford Focus through a crowd, injuring and killing a whack of folks, but I should be denied my Focus, or submit to have a governor installed so I can't go faster than ten miles an hour?

Nick kills a buncha teens with a gun, but I should be hobbled?

You buncha silly bastids... :angry:

'nuff said
 

Even perfect drivers need a license and insurance, and cars must meet safety standards.

*Only reason for licensing is so a buck can slide into the public coffers.

*Only reason for insurance (mandatory) is so a buck can slde into the provider's bank account.

*Only reason for gov-mandated safety standards (instead of market-mandated standards) is that pesky buck again.

But, it's apples and oranges: there is no group lookin' to 'de-car' folks.









*there's another reason: plain, old-fashioned, control...makin' it apples and apples after all.

And to share the risk.

Then there's that little thing where you are making sure a person can drive before they get on the road. It doesn't come naturally, and insurance charts are very clear that new drivers suck, for the most part.

You know the reasons. It would be redundant to list them when everyone already knows them.
I'm certainly happy that people who do not qualify, or do not comply, with the regulation of cars are de-carred. You don't need to find a "group lookin' to" do something that is routinely done already.

But if you need to have such a group, I'm sure you could find some ecological group advocating the elimination of cars.

Their existence wouldn't justify the elimination of licenses, insurance, or safety standards on cars.

And the existence of groups that want to ban all guns doesn't justify the elimination of gun control laws.

gun control laws
 

Oh, I'm all for 'em...seriously...hell, ban guns completely! Can't be more control-y than that.

Won't make a damn bit of difference, but it'll make a whole whack of peopke 'feel better' and 'feel safe' (for a while, anyway).

So -- yeah -- control the hell out of those guns.

#

"risk"

If there was some way to eliminate it...hmmm.

There's a fellow -- Alastair Young -- who writes nano and meta- nano at 'The Eldraeverse'. One of his entries is about the major powers of his setting. One particular passage stands out...

Equality Concord
The Equality Concord and its dozen worlds share the dubious distinction of being the galaxy’s only genuinely functional, non-corrupt, decent-standard-of-living-enabled, etc., communist state.

(As opposed to genuinely non-functional communist states, like the former People’s State of Bantral.)

That’s because the Concord’s founders recognized the fundamental problem of Real True Communism requiring a whole set of instincts and drives and incentives and desires that are not commonly found among sophonts as nature made them. So they studied the gentle art of sophotechnology, and they built themselves some nice bionic implants to fix that problem, and create the perfect collectivist people for their perfect collectivist utopia. And then, and this is the important bit, they avoided the classic trap by applying the implants to themselves before applying them to anyone else.

It works. It may not be the most innovative of regimes, or the wealthiest, or up there on whatever other metric you choose to apply, but it does work, and self-perpetuates quite nicely.

Pity about that whole “free will” thing, but you can’t make an omelette, right?

You first.

Note that the previous mention of "risk" was about "sharing" it, which is the purpose of insurance. To "eliminate" risk would remove the need for insurance.

But the fact that it is impossible to eliminate risk is no reason not to decrease it.

This type person justifies assault weapons. We all need protection from such people who are so easily manipulated by Joseph McCarthy and other enemies of America. We might as well include the State Department and US Army in that commie list since that is what such logic *proved*.

Too many adults are still children. These are brown shirts so easily manipulated using soundbyte reasoning, fictional fears, and other emotions.

He demonstrates why assault weapons in the hands of civilians are so dangerous. And why killing increases with more such weapons. Thank you henry quick for making obvious the actual threat.

This is fun.

“Note that the previous mention of "risk" was about "sharing" it, which is the purpose of insurance.”

Yeah, that’s one interpretation.

#

“To "eliminate" risk would remove the need for insurance.”

Implants, baby.

#

“But the fact that it is impossible to eliminate risk is no reason not to decrease it.”

I’m thinkin’ you have a lower tolerance for risk than me.

##

“This type person justifies assault weapons”

Nope. I advocate for self-direction and -responsibility. You’d rob folks of that just to ‘feel safe’.

#

“enemies of America”

Me? Quite the opposite. I want a ‘free’ America where elected folks are seen as employees, where individuals can take on risk (reaping the benefits or suffering the consequences), and where where the majority understands that the pursuit of ‘safety’ is an exercise in diminishing returns.

You, you’re the enemy, not of America but of the individual. You’d see us all outfitted with one of Young’s fictional implants if you could.

Admit it, you big communitarian.

#

“Too many adults are still children”

Agreed. Such folks will gladly trade off their (and others) real autonomy for the ghost whispers of *‘safety’. Folks like you, tw.









*’course, that not really what it’s about... :neutral:

No, it's the actual context.

If you view any reduction of risk as meaningless until it can reduce the risk to 0%, that's a pretty low tolerance.

If you're just using talk of the impossibility of "eliminating" risk as a distraction from any talk of reducing it, then, yay for you, I guess.

"No, it's the actual context."

No, that's Dana's conventional interpretation, fostered by official statements from providers, and the elected. It may actually spread the risk or allow it to be shared, but that's not the reason for it, just the coincidental byproduct.

But, it's an interpretation.

"If you view any reduction of risk as meaningless until it can reduce the risk to 0%, that's a pretty low tolerance."

Never said or implied any of this nonsense.

Just the opposite: was damn clear, ban the fuckin' guns, confiscate what you can...won't make a damn bit of difference (and I sure won't cooperate) but you'll 'feel better' (which is what all this about, yes?).

#

"If you're just using talk of the impossibility of "eliminating" risk as a distraction from any talk of reducing it, then, yay for you, I guess."

Yay for me, always. That's beside the pont which got ain't nuthin' to do with distractions. Seems to me I'm lookin' the issue ('gun' and 'gun user') square in the face.

Just waitin' on the rest of you to do the same (but not tw...he ain't capable of facin' anything not approved by the politburo).

henry quick couldn't identify a communist even it one stabbed him in the back. Because that would be other members of his platoon.

tw = rabid, agency-killing, communitarian.

Identified. Easy-peasy.

Do you know the history of insurance? I do - and sharing the risk was the original purpose of insurance. The big bucks are the byproduct of that development.

You talk about your tolerance for risk. That's fine - it's up to you if you want to insure your risk. The mandatory nature of motor insurance is because of the third party element.

She’s right you know. I studied the history of insurance, too. Lloyd’s coffee shop, the sharing of risk and the sharing of gain from the actual (seafaring) adventures ....




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah, Loyd's is the granddaddy of insurance, but not the premise.
It started when primitive people started banding into groups/villages, one for all, all for one.

Those dirty commies...

I remember when Ivana took the Donald back to court for more alimony. She said I can't live on $75,000 a month. Seems to me like he took care of her.

That crack about confiscating firearms without due process should give us all pause. Sen Flake may have him pegged though, whoever talked to him last...

He's an idiot. Truly an idiot.

"Do you know the history of insurance?"

Sadly, no...the extent of my knowledge (and interest) is that Ben Franklin started an insurance company.

#

"sharing the risk was the original purpose of insurance. The big bucks are the byproduct of that development."

I must disagree. The original (and current) purpose of insurance (in a free, or somewhat free, market) is to make money for the company owner(s). Providing a mechanism for 'sharing the risk' is the means by which that money is made.

'Big bucks' is not a byproduct but is the sought after goal.

"He's an idiot. Truly an idiot."
 

Why?

Companies that operate on that principle are some of the most unproductive companies in this country. They believe the entire purpose of that company is to enrich the central committee - top management.

How ironic. That is also called communism. When socialism breaks down, the Central Committee of the Communist Party is only interested in their wealth and power.

henry quirk has just endorsed communism. Go figure.

The purpose of every company is its product. Profits are only a reward for successfully doing its purpose. That has always been fundamental to this America economy.

"The purpose of every company is its product."
 

Nope. The purpose of every company is profit. Product or service is the means to profit. This is the basis of free enterprise (which I endorse and you despise).