HB961

[amsuco]

1 hour ago, Manche757 said:

Good solutions evade us but will only come with cool headed negotiations.

 

Some things are non-negotiable.  And if you're really and truly prepared to fight for what you believe in, you had better hang on to something to fight with.

[derf]

5 hours ago, amsuco said:

 

Some things are non-negotiable.  And if you're really and truly prepared to fight for what you believe in, you had better hang on to something to fight with.

Trouble with that attitude is that you may win battles but in the end those battles could cost you the war.  An all-or-nothing approach can push the middle-of-the-road voters towards you getting nothing.

 

Reagan knew how to compromise.  He knew how to reach across the aisle as a way to get things done.  He was willing to sacrifice some things as a way to negotiate on the more important things.  What happened to that?

[FrankTheDog]

The founders put the 2nd amendment in to protect against tyranny. Shall not be infringed means just that. It is an individual right, not a collective right.

There are more than enough infringements on it already. In my neighborhood there is gun fire at least on a weekly basis if not more often. Also there is no crime in our neighborhood.

We had a new neighbor move in a year or so ago, heard quite a bit of shooting, went up to say hi and check out his back stop.

All good! Carry on! 

[Eagle]

17 hours ago, Manche757 said:

Not enough people are dying. I live have lived in Virginia most of my life. Lee Boyd Malvo randomly shot up several people in the Washington, DC  area. Not enough people died. My undergraduate years were spent at VA Tech. At the time of that shooting, it was largest mass shooting. Not enough people died. My longterm city of residence, Virginia Beach, suffered a mass shooting at a city government building. Not enough people died. I have had only one family member shot (who did not die) Not enough people have died. I have had only one business associate shot (he did not die). Not enough people have died. All innocent victims. Not enough people died.

 

There is a collective problem.  No one wants to own the problem. It is NOT the fault of responsible gun owners who will be the likely losers in this particlar pissing contest, if a solution is not reached soon. Stonewalling and denial will only hasten restrictions for those of us that want to own more than our grandfather's shotgun.  Good solutions evade us but will only come with cool headed negotiations. But first, many, many more people need to die and then something will be done about it.

 

The problem, however, is not "evil" guns. The problem is evil, crazy people. But the political impetus remains focused on attacking the inanimate objects (guns) that are used as tools by the evil, crazy people who commit evil, crazy acts. Look around the world. What happens in Europe, where guns are not as prevalent as in the U.S. -- people who want to kill other people continue to do so, but they do it with bombs, or cars, or trucks. A number of years ago there was an attack by a lunatic on a school in Germany. It wasn't a mass shooting, however, because the weapon of choice was ... a home-made flamethrower.

 

Closer to home, one of the earliest school massacres in the U.S. was Bath Consolidated School in Bath Township, Michigan. The date was May 18, 1927. The toll was 44 killed and 58 injured. This was NOT a mass shooting. The weapon of choice? Dynamite. The assailant (who had the decency to also kill himself) mined the school with dynamite. The number of deaths and injuries would have been much higher except that he wasn't especially adept with dynamite. The school had two wings. He mined both wings, but only the charges on one side went off.

 

Fast forward to Columbine, the first and best-known of the "modern" school shootings. April 20, 1999. 15 people killed, 21 people injured. Pretty bad, wasn't it. Guess what, folks: the guns were Plan B. The two losers at Columbine had planted propane tank bombs around the school, and their initial plan was to blow up as many people as possible, then sit on a hill overlooking the school and shoot as many bomb survivors as possible. Fortunately they, too, were lousy bomb makers and their bombs didn't go off, so they resorted to just shooting people. Experts who examined the bombs estimated that, if they had gone off, the death toll would have been in the hundreds.

 

So let's ban the guns.

 

Banning the guns is not the answer, because evil, crazy people who want to kill other people will find ways to do it. The issue is that evil, crazy people are the problem, and our politicians don't have the courage and the conviction to address that. I'm old enough to remember that in the 1960s and 1970s the federal and state governments went on a big push to de-institutionalize a lot of people who had been confined to mental facilities. I served for a number of years on the board of directors of a mental health halfway house. Our facility existed purely because the state was closing down two major mental hospitals and pushing the residents out into the world -- and they weren't prepared to exist in the world. Those two mental health hospitals have never, as far as I know, been repurposed. The buildings are still there, mostly empty and deteriorating.

 

The problem isn't the guns. You can argue all you want that the solution is to keep guns away from crazy people. I submit that the solution is to keep crazy people away from guns. And you DON'T do that by taking guns away from people who aren't crazy.

 

[Eagle]

4 hours ago, derf said:

Trouble with that attitude is that you may win battles but in the end those battles could cost you the war.  An all-or-nothing approach can push the middle-of-the-road voters towards you getting nothing.

 

Reagan knew how to compromise.  He knew how to reach across the aisle as a way to get things done.  He was willing to sacrifice some things as a way to negotiate on the more important things.  What happened to that?

 

Once again, read Lawdog's blog (to which I posted a link). Gun owners have been whacked with one "compromise" after another since 1934. The anti-gun side hasn't given up anything. Each and every time they impose "just this one" anti-gun law, as soon as it makes it into law they're on television saying "It's a good first step." And next year they're back, looking for the next incremental restriction on a Constitutional right that says in its own test that it's not supposed to be restricted. (What did you think "Shall not be infringed" means?)

[75sv1]

6 hours ago, derf said:

Trouble with that attitude is that you may win battles but in the end those battles could cost you the war.  An all-or-nothing approach can push the middle-of-the-road voters towards you getting nothing.

 

Reagan knew how to compromise.  He knew how to reach across the aisle as a way to get things done.  He was willing to sacrifice some things as a way to negotiate on the more important things.  What happened to that?

Like Czechoslovakia, 1938 was it.  Gave Hitler the means to produce better tanks. Then onto France. Every time we give, they want more. Then more. But don't want to fix the real problems. 

     As for the 'need' for semi-autos. Some hunting is better with semi autos. 'Need' possibly not. But a semi auto may recoil less and keep you on a follow up shot. I used to repair guns. There were a lot of semi-auto sold in the lower South East. Their style of hunting 'needed' a quick follow up shot. 

     Wartime bolt action came with stripper clip bumps.  I thought that would be passé . Seems there is a certain type of  hunting in Alaska, that this is still used. 

[Pete M]

wild hogs.  definitely need a magazine for them.  maybe belt fed if you can get one. 

 

 

 

has everyone said their fill?  I'd prefer this to not get circular or repetitive.  

[Smokeyyank]

AR means assault rifle and it should be banned.....gotcha! I love my guns. Not a gun nerd or really know a ton about them but I like them. Don't hunt or have them for "protection". I have them because well I can and I don't trust the government at all. While I can understand the argument of the 2nd and it's our "right", also see the other argument of "Was it our forefathers intent to allow semi automatic rifles." Personally I feel a civilian should be able to have the same arms as the police. We have a militarized the police force so yes civilians should have the same option. If you are going to strip the rights of citizens than cops need to follow suit. My fear in public is not the public it's the badge. 

[watchamakalit]

     As for the 'need' for semi-autos. Some hunting is better with semi autos. 'Need' possibly not. But a semi auto may recoil less and keep you on a follow up shot. I used to repair guns. There were a lot of semi-auto sold in the lower South East. Their style of hunting 'needed' a quick follow up shot. 
     Wartime bolt action came with stripper clip bumps.  I thought that would be passé . Seems there is a certain type of  hunting in Alaska, that this is still used. 

2nd amendment doesnt say anything about needs. Just infringement or the lack there of.


That is all.

My build: https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?url=https://comancheclub.com/topic/8033-finally-found-onenow-it-has-a-new-floor/&share_tid=8033&share_fid=53169&share_type=t

[Eagle]

2 hours ago, Smokeyyank said:

AR means assault rifle ...

 

I can't figure out whether you're joking or you're serious, so I have to point out that this is incorrect.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle

 

Quote

In 1956, ArmaLite designed a lightweight selective fire rifle for military use and designated it the ArmaLite Rifle model 15, or AR-15.

 

https://www.ammoland.com/2016/04/ar-15-rifle-historical-time-line/

 

Quote

Before we dive into the history of the modern AR 15 Rifle, we need to look the “AR” part. AR does not stand for Assault Rifle. Or Automatic Rearming. Or even Apoplectic Ruin. It is a product naming convention from the company that invented it, ArmaLite. In fact, there were a number of rifles with “AR” names, like the AR-1, AR-5, AR-7, AR-10, AR-16 and AR-17.

 

https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-complete-history-of-the-ar-15-rifle

 

Quote

A common misconception about the AR-15 is that "AR" stands for "assault rifle," a phrase that stems from the German "Sturmgewehr" ("Storm" or "assault" rifle) used in World War II propaganda posters and later applied to military-style weapons. This shouldn't be confused with the term "Assault Weapon," a legal term for a specific class of illegal firearm during the years 1994 to 2004.

Ironically enough, the AR-15 fits both of these descriptions: it's a military style rifle that was illegal during the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. The "AR" in the name, however, stands for the name of the manufacturer: ArmaLite.

 

[Smokeyyank]

100% joking eagle. Just pointing on the sheer lack of uneducation by the masses and media propaganda.  

 

 I'd eventually like to get one just need to save some pennies. 

[rokinn]

My statistics were correct.  From 2014 to 2019 there were 2,089 mass shootings (and that's with the tighter definition).  417 in 2019 alone.  Divided by 6 equals 348 per year on average for those years.  Like I said, nearly one per day.  Look it up.   https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

 

There are a great many ideas on how to deter mass shootings and gun violence (google it).  Will they all work, who knows, but clearly the status quo isn't working and one can rationalize their position all they like, it only seems to get worse as time goes by.  It's clearly a societal problem and more guns do not create safer streets and neighborhoods.  No other developed country has the level of gun related deaths as we do.  Deduce anyone?  If your philosophy and politics are for the status quo and/or looser gun laws then you bear responsibility for not acting (say voting) to create ways to deter a societal ill (think school children).  To drive a car you have to have proficiency test, liability insurance, registration, ya know, for example!  If you don't give a schit, or your fear ideology dictates your unwillingness to be a part of the solution, then so be it!  That's between you and your God, oh! and by the way, me, my neighbors, and my loved ones.  Peace out!

[Jeep Driver]

20 minutes ago, rokinn said:

My statistics were correct.  From 2014 to 2019 there were 2,089 mass shootings (and that's with the tighter definition).  417 in 2019 alone.  Divided by 6 equals 348 per year on average for those years.  Like I said, nearly one per day.  Look it up.   https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

 

There are a great many ideas on how to deter mass shootings and gun violence (google it).  Will they all work, who knows, but clearly the status quo isn't working and one can rationalize their position all they like, it only seems to get worse as time goes by.  It's clearly a societal problem and more guns do not create safer streets and neighborhoods.  No other developed country has the level of gun related deaths as we do.  Deduce anyone?  If your philosophy and politics are for the status quo and/or looser gun laws then you bear responsibility for not acting (say voting) to create ways to deter a societal ill (think school children).  To drive a car you have to have proficiency test, liability insurance, registration, ya know, for example!  If you don't give a schit, or your fear ideology dictates your unwillingness to be a part of the solution, then so be it!  That's between you and your God, oh! and by the way, me, my neighbors, and my loved ones.  Peace out!

 

No, my Rights are not up for negotiation. 

[Pete M]

37 minutes ago, rokinn said:

Look it up.   https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

 

that is a fascinating website!  you can click on each type of event, then the specific events and get some basic data on each event. 

 

though I don't see a spot for whether the shooter was legally armed or not. 

[JeepcoMJ]

It’s very simple.

 

every American deserves the ability to defend themselves from an unjust government.  A fully automatic weapon barely scratches the surface of what would be needed to accomplish this.

 

thankfully, our military defenders would turn on the government before we’d ever need to.  

[mjeff87]

Like I said....Si Vis Pacem, para bellum.

 

Since HB961 was tabled, I was fortunate enough to find the guy I sold all my stuff to and was able to buy it all back.

 

We'll see where it all goes from here.

[Eagle]

2 hours ago, rokinn said:

My statistics were correct.  From 2014 to 2019 there were 2,089 mass shootings (and that's with the tighter definition).  417 in 2019 alone.  Divided by 6 equals 348 per year on average for those years.  Like I said, nearly one per day.  Look it up.   https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

 

 

I don't have to look it up. I'm very familiar with the group, and with their "statistics." The Gun Violence Archive is one of the groups that dramatically inflates the statistics by claiming all sorts of things as "mass shootings" that aren't really mass shooting. They and Moms Demand Action have no credibility with anyone who has actually investigated their claims.

 

Let's take just one as an example. At random, I chose as my first pick a "mass shooting" on Feb 20, 2020, in Caldwell, Idaho. Look up the details, and you find that it was a police officer-involved shooting, in which at least one of the dead was a criminal perpetrator who was shot by the police. One of the injured was a police officer. You can argue all you want that, by the numbers, it qualifies as a "mass shooting," but when the average person on the street hears "mass shooting" they aren't thinking police shooting bad guys, they immediately envision a mall shooter or a school shooter.

[Jeep Driver]

26 minutes ago, Eagle said:

 

I don't have to look it up. I'm very familiar with the group, and with their "statistics." The Gun Violence Archive is one of the groups that dramatically inflates the statistics by claiming all sorts of things as "mass shootings" that aren't really mass shooting. They and Moms Demand Action have no credibility with anyone who has actually investigated their claims.

 

Let's take just one as an example. At random, I chose as my first pick a "mass shooting" on Feb 20, 2020, in Caldwell, Idaho. Look up the details, and you find that it was a police officer-involved shooting, in which at least one of the dead was a criminal perpetrator who was shot by the police. One of the injured was a police officer. You can argue all you want that, by the numbers, it qualifies as a "mass shooting," but when the average person on the street hears "mass shooting" they aren't thinking police shooting bad guys, they immediately envision a mall shooter or a school shooter.

[Manche757]

There was a book written in 1954 that comes to mind: "How To Lie With Statistics". The author's point was to look for statistics that support the position that you want. In the 1970's and 1980's, there were many studies done on marijuana that fell along three lines, those that wanted to prove it was bad for you, those that wanted to prove it was good for you and those that wanted to find out what the actual results are. With progression across time, votes and changing public sentiments have brought widespread acceptance that there are positive benefits and negative ones exist at an acceptible level. A bit of trivia is that there was a problem with soldiers smoking it in the American Civil War. They called it"refer".

 

I gleen from the comments here that the level of mass shootings is currently at a tolerable level and the the 2nd amendment should continue as written 231 years ago. That is for society at large to decide. Abortion, school busing and gun laws will always be hot button issues. But regarding firepower big things are yet to come.  A two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate could repeal the Second Amendment, not unforeseeable in less partisian times. I hope that does not happen. If the number of deaths of innocent people increases significantly it may happen. A solution to mass shootings would be hugely protective to the second amendment providing us with the right to bear arms.

[dante2]

Very good post above Eagle thank you. Not sure if this would be good example but here goes anyway. Stop all hunting for 1 year. I know this would a hardship for a lot of families that depend on the meat but stay with me. When all the people that whine about hunters killing poor Bambi are then hitting one with their car 3 times a week and watching them drop dead on the lawn from starvation,  they would then be screaming for us to kill them again. If you remove guns from the common people there aren't enough police and military to protect us all from the evil that will be brought upon us.

[NHMJXJ]

3 hours ago, Manche757 said:

"How To Lie With Statistics"

 

Truth.  Happens all the time to manipulate the target audience.

 

About as accurate as election polls.  

[Pete M]

3 hours ago, dante2 said:

Very good post above Eagle thank you. Not sure if this would be good example but here goes anyway. Stop all hunting for 1 year. I know this would a hardship for a lot of families that depend on the meat but stay with me. When all the people that whine about hunters killing poor Bambi are then hitting one with their car 3 times a week and watching them drop dead on the lawn from starvation,  they would then be screaming for us to kill them again. If you remove guns from the common people there aren't enough police and military to protect us all from the evil that will be brought upon us.

 

probably won't work the way you think unfortunately.   this debate comes up every time a city in south/east Michigan feels like the deer population needs to be culled because the accidents are sky high.  There will always be a part of the population that feels hunting the deer is bad and they tend to be very vocal.  They don't seem to be oblivious to the accidents, they just seem to blame the humans for them.

[Manche757]

On a lighter note, thanks to Jeep Driver for the video. 

 

Pumpkin Chunkin in Delaware is an interesting way to spend a couple of days.  Some very capable pumpkin artillery mechanics, and some not so capable, compete to see how far they can shoot a pumpkin.  Air cannons shoot them farther than 11 football fields and so fast, you can not see them. Just a big puff of vapor at the end of the cannon.  Others that are more fun to watch are the catapults that are low tech and medieval. They don't throw nearly as far but you can see the contraption fire and watch the pumpkin being launched.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmSyrGsqmg8

 

Notice Second Amendment written on one of the cannons.

Wear boots if you go.  It is held in a farmer's field and usually muddy. Motels fill fast but there are places to camp nearby.  If you like enthusiastic craziness, this qualifies.  

 

 

[Eagle]

15 hours ago, rokinn said:

My statistics were correct.  From 2014 to 2019 there were 2,089 mass shootings (and that's with the tighter definition).  417 in 2019 alone.  Divided by 6 equals 348 per year on average for those years.  Like I said, nearly one per day.  Look it up.   https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

 

 

If you want some slightly less biased statistics, how about the FBI? https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter-incidents-graphics

 

According to official FBI statistics, there were 277 active shooter incidents in the United States from 2000 through 2018. Your Gun Violence Archive source claims 2,089 "mass shootings" from 2014 through 2019, and the 417 they claim for 2019 alone is 50 percent more than the FBI shows for the entire period of 2000 through 2018. That should tell you that the Gun Violence Archive is cooking the books.

 

The FBI numbers are still larger than my numbers, and I acknowledge that. The FBI statistics include types of "active shooter" shootings that I don't include. My numbers track the types of incidents that we typically think of when we hear "mass shooting": mall shootings, school shootings, and church shootings. I don't track incidents such as gang shootouts or officer-involved shootings. By tracking "active shooter" incidents, the FBI statistics cover the types of incidents we worry about, but their numbers aren't limited to those incidents in which four or more people were killed or injured.

 

Mark Twain once said (or wrote), "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

 

Another look at the issue of statistics and their misuse: https://gunsources.com/mass-shooting-statistics-list/

 

Then there's this: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/mass-shootings.html

 

Quote

What Is a Mass Shooting?

In the 1980s, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defined mass murderer as someone who “kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location” (Krouse and Richardson, 2015). However, the government has never defined mass shooting as a separate category, and there is not yet a universally accepted definition of the term. Thus, media outlets, academic researchers, and law enforcement agencies frequently use different definitions when discussing mass shootings, which can complicate our understanding of mass shooting trends and their relationship to gun policy.

 

 

[rokinn]

@Eagle...  I agree with you about what is typically understood about a mass shooting.  Had I looked at how GVA categorized and defined such incidents my number would have been different (at least for what we were referring to).  That's on me.  It pays to not jump the gun, so to speak   On the other hand, officer involved shootings in that category (4 or more injured not including the shooter) I think we can safely assume that the vast majority of such incidents involves someone other than the officer wielding a firearm.  I don't see anything on the site that would lead me to think they are lying or intending to deceive.  From my point of view the level of gun deaths and injuries and how to bring them down is the bigger point.  Nothing that we do will eliminate all of them, granted.  Responsible people and societies at least make the effort.  IMHO.