When did you use your gun defensively?

Oh… about the OP…
I was 22 and just out of the Army. A girlfriend and I were at the river having a picnic with a line in the water.
A couple of Vato’s and one young Vatlet were sauntering my way.
I smelled possible trouble, so I moved the blanket back exposing my .38 special revolver. They could see the hollow points in the chambers.
They mumbled among themselves and veered away. We packed up and left.
Another was in the 90’s, I did something in traffic to PO this big POC dude and his girlfriend. He started following me in his car. So we kept this up for a bit, so I made like was rummaging around under my seat like, the made the horizontal motion you might make racking a round in a automatic pistol. He took the first right and I never saw him again.
I had no gun, but from then on I carried de-icer. Better than Mace and you can use it on your windshield!

 

I, too, don't understand why the incident to which you were referring is not a valid use of a gun for self defense.

The ideal outcome of using a firearm in self defense is one in which the threat or potential threat is not shot. No sane and rational person wants to kill another individual.

One of the responsibilities that comes with the right to keep and bear arms is to be certain that your target is a genuine and immediate threat.

Thanks,

 

Because anti-gunners cannot accept and use of a gun as valid, that is unless the gun was used by a thug.

 

No, I don’t call myself a socialist. I am a socialist because my actions are described by the actual universally accepted definitions of socialism. From my own work to those I purchase from to those I have financial dealings with—almost all are worker/patron owned and/or controlled through democratic process. You can run from the definition of socialism if you want, but it doesn’t change facts.

There is nothing “fantasy” about the socialism I live. It’s very real and it’s open for anyone who wants to participate. There is no need for government mandates or control. It’s just a personal choice. What you call socialism is not socialism. It’s redistribution of capitalism’s largess. That’s just a fact.

No, modern progressives are the ones into eugenics and authoritarianism and extreme wealth inequality. Compare wealth and income inequality in progressive geographical areas to non progressive areas. I’m opposed to all the above. I have nothing to do with social Darwinism.

Your original citation is an essay (someone’s opinion) written in 2019. You have also cited a 2011 publication that was referenced in that essay. The 2011 publication is re-analyses of data collected by a non profit group in 1994. These are facts. Nowhere in the data is fear referenced except in the origin 1996 publication of the data and it’s a reference to people like you fearing firearms. I posted the pull quotes and links. You need to read your sources, it would save you some embarrassment.

If you actually look at the data from the 1994 survey your cites are based on, there are some interesting FACTS that conflict with your opinions. It’s not men that own guns for protection—it’s substantially more women. From the data source of your cites:

And this:

And:

And:

Kind of destroys the white man gun owner overestimating risk narrative doesn’t it? As usual, the data does not support your opinions.

No. Your source claimed firearm deaths would be the leading cause of injury death by 2003. Motor vehicle deaths are injury deaths so are in direct competition with the claim FROM YOUR SOURCE. Showing your source made a bogus claim by presenting injury death causes higher than the claim by your source is NOT non sequitur. It’s correcting false information.

Eugenics isn’t “nothing”. It’s the foundation of progressive views on abortion.

Marriage (actually not marriage but stable two adult households) is the solution to poverty. Always has been, always will be. It’s just math. Unfortunately the US government did not adhere to the separation of church and state and is involved in marriage which it shouldn’t be. But since it is, marriage is the metric we must use. There is no chicken or egg dilemma. Supporting a family is a choice. Anyone who graduates high school, gets a job, and develops a mature relationship with a partner before having children will not have a poverty problem.

Again, progressive policies of subsidizing unmarried child rearing more than married child rearing incentivizes single motherhood. It isn’t that men can’t support a family, it’s that there is no reason to if the state provides more help in the absence of the father. It’s a lose/lose for everyone.

 

You left logic behind and now living in ideology land. So, if we prevent straw purchases, that will do no good because the criminal can get a gun elsewhere. Background checks, stopping straw buys are pointless because a criminal can still get a gun That makes prescriptions for opioids pointless. That makes driver licenses pointless. That makes all laws pointless because a criminal will break the rules by your logic. Simple minded. Illegal guns are a multi level problem that will take more than one solution to plug the illegal gun access points, but the right will have none of it.

I must have missed them being threatened.

"Most of the 20th century"? Maybe gun homicides during the crack epidemic, so what is your point? The fact that we have more guns? That there are more homicides during social upheaval?

 

Re:

I'm glad that ruse worked out for you.

I did something similar that managed to scare off three thugs in Manhattan NY in the mid 1980s with just a folded up playbill that I got from going to a play with my shapely ex girlfriend.

The play let out late one Saturday night and all the taxis were taken so we decided to take the subway.

I was wearing a coat and tie and just for the heck of it remembered to roll up the playbill and stuck it in the inside pocket of my coat so that it made an obvious bulge as if I had a handgun in a shoulder holster.

Surely enough, one of the 3 surly individuals yelled something from the other end of the subway car. I ignored them until one of them pulled out a knife and all three started walking toward us.

That's when I smiled and began to reach for what they apparently thought was a pistol and they immediately stopped, turned around and got off at the next subway stop.

I've still got that playbill stashed in one of my bookshelves and will never throw it out.

Thanks,

 

That's what the DOJ says.
"In the 2010 report "Summary of Select Firearms Violence Prevention Strategies" the DOJ noted that “universal” background checks can’t be effective without a reduction in the illegal sources of guns to criminals and can’t be enforced without comprehensive firearm registration."

You aren't stopping straw purchases.

Pretty much. If we'd enforce the penalties we'd get some benefit, but we don't.

In 2010, 72,000 applicants were denied permission to purchase a firearm via the NICS and state systems. 34,000 of these were denied for previous felony convictions. Another 20,000 were denied for state and local prohibited status. Only 10 (10!) were convicted. We still have tens of thousands of people who committed a felony by lying on the Form 4473 and have a violent past free to find guns through illegal means. Given that a violent felon is looking for a gun, how many violent crimes could be prevented by arresting and incarcerating these felons? https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf

Where have you been for the last decade?

Laws are only useful if they are enforceable. "Universal" background checks are not. Laws don't prevent crime; they allow prosecution after the fact. Has a "gun free zone" sign ever kept a shooter out of a school or business?

Not if the "solutions" are unconstitutional, ineffective and unenforceable. Here's someone else that thinks that UBCs don't work:

"A requirement that all gun sales include a background check on the prospective purchaser and comprehensive state-level regulation of firearm retailers are among the well-supported opportunities for action by state-level policymakers."
Garen Wintemute, 2011.
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3154243/"

"The simultaneous implementation of CBC (comprehensive background checks, aka UBC) and MVP (misdemeanor violence policy) policies was not associated with a net change in the firearm homicide rate over the ensuing 10 years in California. The decrease in firearm suicides in California was similar to the decrease in nonfirearm suicides in that state. Results were robust across multiple model specifications and methods."
Garen Wintemute, 2019
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1047279718306161?via=ihub#

[/QUOTE]

 

Your avatar is appropriate. Is there only one way to interpret "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech"?
Here's some "abridgments"..... laws against obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, commercial speech such as advertising and defamation. Does your ideology tell you these laws infringing on free speech are wrong too?

There are many "free" societies where citizens walk around unarmed without the paranoid belief that without arms they would live in a hell filled with criminals. All I proposed is that we have a gun problem and it is composed of dumbasses and bad people having easy access to guns. I am not the one in denial....speaking of that, God didn't make America free, Enlightenment philosophy did.

So you're saying the UK has a lot of criminals, but they just commit a fourth of our per capita homicides and access to guns has nothing to do with it, because the criminals are different over there. They are nicer.

See #342

 

No one has the right to cause harm. When excercising your rights causes harm, it's no longer a right. Just like making a death threat against someone isn't protected by the 1st Amendment, murdering someone isn't protected by the 2nd Amendment.

 

I wrote:
"I, too, don't understand why the incident to which you were referring is not a valid use of a gun for self defense.

The ideal outcome of using a firearm in self defense is one in which the threat or potential threat is not shot. No sane and rational person wants to kill another individual.

One of the responsibilities that comes with the right to keep and bear arms is to be certain that your target is a genuine and immediate threat.

Thanks,"
------------------------

You responded with "See #342 which was:

#342 "There is a subtle difference between defensive use and offensive use. You were not using firearms because you were afraid for your safety. You were using them offensively to get the mojados moving. I have long noticed the inflexibility, the rigidity of the hyper-conservative mind"
-------------------------

I don't see how your Post #342 applies to what I wrote.

Please clarify,

 

"I don’t call myself a socialist"? Here's a quote from you: "I'm a socialist". And speaking of running away from the definition of socialism, your denial of any definition of socialism that doesn't fit your definition is exactly like fundamentalist Christians who deny other forms of Christianity are a true versions of Christianity. Ideologic rigidity is common in the ultraconservative.

I don't know if you live on a hippie goat ranch and grow your own but you must deal with capitalism, because it is the way of the world outside the ranch. Good luck living without "capitalism's largess" if you want to live in the world.

Progressives are not the ones into eugenics and extreme wealth inequality. That is plainly false. The most progressive countries have the least inequality. Defining abortion as eugenics is a reach. The aim of the right to choose is not to improve the genetic quality of the human race. It is to give a woman a choice of what happens to her body and how it effects her life.

I'm sure you are going to define "authoritarianism" as government mandates that you think are "oppressive", but they are chosen by the people in a democracy. An individual (like you) having to pay taxes or getting background checks may find them oppressive but it is the will of society and judged to be the greater good.

The simple logic behind why you want to be armed you continue to deny. If you felt safe you wouldn't feel the need to be armed unless you had a gun fetish. Which is it?

It's just math? You can slap two people together all day but that them won't get them out of poverty. It ain't that simple. Causes include the lack of jobs, low wages, addictions, mental illness, poorly educated, systemic racism, culture of poverty.... It can be multiples of these issues and they do not promote stable relationships. Your superficial solution I've heard many times from the right...hmmm

So what programs would you suggest getting people out of poverty and there will always be people falling into poverty. I bet it has something to do with social Darwinism.

 

[/QUOTE]
Yes dig in your ideological heals. Laws don't work? Not if they very widely from state to state, are not enforced and have gaping holes in them. As I said illegal guns are a multi level problem that will take more than one solution to plug the illegal gun access points, but the right will have none of it. They can't be bothered because of self interest and have little concern for society at large. Their rights are more important than the rights of fellow citizens to live in a safe society.

Free speech can be abused, likewise guns. There are rules and parameters for both. You seem to disagree with any rule regarding the misuse of guns but not speech. Seems hypocritical.

I don't know how I could put it simpler. Two armed men ran off some trespassers. The guns were used offensively.

 

It's not my ideological heals (sic). It's the findings of the Department of Justice and noted gun control researcher Garen Wintemute. Unless every gun in the country is registered "universal" background checks aren't enforceable.

2/3 of the guns trace in California originate in California; this tells us that CA's UBC program doesn't stop criminals from getting guns in California despite California's strict laws and without needed to cross state lines.

Gun rights advocates can't be bothered by gun control advocate's unconstitutional, unenforceable and ineffective proposals. It's been pointed out numerous times that despite your faith in the subject UBCs are neither enforceable or effective. Should we allow the Government to ignore the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and SCOTUS?

Regarding enforceability:


Scenario: I’m traveling to the range on Sunday morning, which I do once or twice a month. It’s a 45 minute drive into country. In my car I have four rifles: one I bought new six years ago, with a background check (legal); one I bought used in a private sale, with a background check (legal); one I bought used in a private sale, without a background check, prior to HR.8 (the current national level " being passed (legal); one I bought used, after HR.8 was passed, without a background check (illegal)
Suppose I get stopped for speeding by the police. How does the LEO know that one of the guns in my car was illegally obtained?

No, I disagree with all unconstitutional, ineffective and/or unenforceable gun control proposals. If you want to discuss the Constitutionality, efficacy and enforceability of proposed gun control laws I'll be your huckleberry.

At what point would that offensive use have become a defensive use?

 

Yes. By all accepted definitions of socialism I am a socialist. As opposed to posers who call themselves socialist when in fact they are only wealth redistributionists. They call themselves socialists. I am a socialist by definition. Anyone including yourself can call yourself a socialist, but you do not fit the definition. You (nor the self described democratic socialists) do not participate in democratic worker owned or controlled production (government involvement or not). See the difference?

You seem obsessed with Christianity. Any particular reason you keep bringing it up?

Of course I deal with capitalism. I live in a capitalistic country. Can you provide a quote where I’ve claimed I can completely avoid capitalism? No you can’t. But I can avoid as much as possible.

I own around 75 goats and hundreds of other animals of over a dozen species. Can you please expound on the relevance of goat ownership? Is it a lame attempt at ad hominem attack? Recently I’ve been contacted by numerous people wishing to purchase a dairy goat because of the failure of our economy to provide adequate infant formula to society. Sad state of affairs really. More on animals and guns later…

As far as growing your own I’m not sure how that is relevant either. Quite a bit of wild cannabis (ditch weed) grows around here but it has almost zero THC so isn’t good for much but occasionally improvising a cattle sorting stick from a surprising durable last season stalk. I currently have no condition for which cannabis use is advantageous so have never used any in any form (except for a sorting stick).

Really? When is the last time you heard a conservative advocate for abortion based on genetic defects? Have you not seen the progressive argument for abortion based on inability to provide for a child resulting in delinquency? Not all abortion is eugenics, but many of the progressive arguments for abortion are founded in principles of eugenics.

Yes, progressivism leads to far more wealth inequality in the US. Would you agree Seattle and San Francisco are progressive strongholds? Both are near the top for wealth inequality in the US and getting worse.

As long as such laws do not violate the principles of our republic they are not authoritarian per se. Have I advocated against background checks? Have I said background checks are authoritarian? Please quote me….LOL.

I’ve quoted statistics from YOUR cite showing people with less concern about being victims own firearms at higher rates than those with more concern.

YOUR source also concludes only 46% of firearm owners have them for protection. Why would you assume I own firearms for protection. For males, which I am, it’s even lower, 41%. Why do you assume without evidence I’m in that 41% demographic? You crack me up. Here is a pull quote from your source.

I primarily own firearms so you don’t have to. I’m essentially a hit man you hire to do your killing. I use a firearm on average around twice a week, in most cases to take a non human life. I’ve used a firearm for PASSIVE defense of myself from humans ONCE in my life. That experience is recounted on page one of this thread. I’ve used firearms in defense of myself from animals multiple times. I’ve used firearms to protect my working dogs a few times. I’ve used firearms to protect livestock hundreds of times. I’ve used firearms to euthanize suffering animals hundreds of times. I’ve used firearms to protect the public from road hazards a couple times, once at the request of law enforcement. I can tell you none of this is fun so no it’s not a fetish. Again, I do it so you can have food, clothing, leather upholstery, cosmetics, deodorant, spark plugs, and hundreds if not thousands of other products without you having to kill things yourself to acquire them.

I suggest you start by looking into your own cites, and then educating yourself on the real world before telling people like me why I do what I do. Most of my firearm usage is heartbreaking. It’s not a fetish for me to have to shoot a doe eyed jersey cow I’ve milked twice a day for 10 years in the head because she broke a hip. Have you ever seen a beef cow have her rectum and vulva eaten by coyotes while she’s incapacitated during the calving process? Have you ever had to put such a cow down? Do you think it’s a fun “fetish” to have to patrol that pasture until you put a stop to that coyote behavior when you have other things that need done? It’s not fun for me to shoot a majestic male red fox even after it killed thousands of dollars worth of livestock. Would those things be a fetish of yours? If not, why would you accuse me of having such fetishes?

You hire your killing done. I do the killing. And you have the nerve to criticize my firearm usage? You aren’t even aware you hire your killing done but you want to tell others what’s best for them. You are again demonstrating your elitism.

Yes, it’s that simple. No, two adult households don’t guarantee success or always avert poverty. But they outperform single adult households on average. This is not right wing or my solution. It’s just a fact.

Education.

Does education have something to do with social Darwinism? LOL

 

I don't know how I could put it simpler. Two armed men ran off some trespassers. The guns were used offensively.[/QUOTE]


I'm afraid that I must disagree.

If the armed individuals had chased off someone over a public parking spot or from a public park, that would have been offensive use of a firearm.
However, because the trespassers were illegally on private land and could have had criminal intent, chasing them off of private property should be classified as "defensive use".

I know that chasing off trespassers with firearms is not as dramatic as shooting someone who is trespassing inside your home at 3AM but it is still defensive use.

Do you see the distinction?

 

Used one of my .22 rifles just yesterday to kill a coyote that, over the last two weeks, had killed 4 of my domestic geese, a pair of my ducks, and a baby goat on my property. He probably was responsible for the disappearance of several of my guinea fowl and my neighbor's cat too. Shot him from about 40 yards, first shot took him down, following two or three shots finished him off.

I used a Remington 550-1 .22 that my dad bought new in 1956, and passed down to me. It is still in pristine, like new, condition. It has no serial number, and I believe he bought it out of the Sears Roebuck catalog. Interesting tidbit about this rifle; it will fire .22 short, long, or long rifle without any modification. You can even load a random mix of them in the (tube) magazine and it will fire them in any order you load them without hesitation. Holds 15 LR rounds, and I think 21 short rounds (I never shoot them). Fantastic little rifle, and my go-to for varmint control.

Does this count as "using my gun defensively"?

 

They were required by law in 1968.
I have a handful of 100-yr old guns with serial numbers.

 

The FACT is, defunding happened and violent crime exploded where it occurred. And it’s a fact it’s a progressive idea. As usual, I’ve presented facts and citations confirming those facts and you offer unsubstantiated opinions.

We agree the police should not be militarized.

I used LA as an example to show your unsubstantiated opinions are not correct. I’ve offered evidence you’ve offered nothing but opinion.

Firearm crime/homicide dropped precipitously (50%) during a period where access to firearms was basically unchanged. Firearm crime began to increase slightly as more restrictions on ownership have been implemented. That’s just the facts.



How things work out on the streets is very different than how it works out where firearms are much more prevalent. From the source you’ve posted numerous times we know firearm ownership by my demographic is over 60% but firearms crime committed by that demographic is very low. “On the streets”, firearm ownership rates are over three times less but firearm crime rates are astronomically higher. Not my opinion. From YOUR cite. Now tell me why it isn’t working out for you in the streets? It isn’t access to firearms that is the problem.

There is equal access. Everyone has access to public education. Anyone can get a job. There are employers begging for employees. The poverty rate has remained stable as I’ve shown regardless of increased spending on all these things. Many places that spend the most on education and “access” have the highest wealth inequality and poverty. California is one example. Highest poverty rate in the nation. Progressive policies for decades.

Again, if increased spending on safety nets doesn’t move the needle on poverty, why would decreased spending lead to much more poverty as you claimed?

I posted FACTS to counter your argument reducing welfare spending would cause rampant poverty. I showed increased spending has not reduced poverty. If increased spending doesn’t reduce poverty you need to explain why decreasing spending would increase poverty. Of course you can’t so you complain about the FACTS I’ve presented to counter your again unsubstantiated opinions.

The “safety net” we have now punishes those who try and get out of the net. It’s designed to net people and keep them netted as long as possible.

I’ve presented FACTS on police protection. You are welcome to show my cites are incorrect.

I’m very happy with the level of law enforcement protection where I live. Crime rates are very low. The sheriff deputy might drive through town once a day. It’s plenty of “protection” if that’s what you want to call it. I’m not armed to protect myself from crime and I don’t carry pliers to protect myself from crime. But I have both pliers and at least one firearm at hand at all times because they are tools I use very often.

How would you stop people from obtaining firearms illegally? Law just makes more things illegal. Do you think the dudes shooting people in Chicago have FOID cards? LOL

My position is many places where firearm ownership is greatest, crime is lowest. So your opinion that trying (fruitlessly) to restrict firearm numbers is illogical.

Modern progressives crack me up. They go on about how terrible ID to vote is and then ask me how a FOID card violates rights? Holy cow. I like to point out from time to time that progressives are the least self-aware demographic in the US. You just made that point for me. Thanks.

It’s none of your business if I own firearms or not. Is it my business to know how much booze you have in the cupboard? Is it my business how much television you watch that makes you obese and more likely to crash your car into me? No. No. And no.

Progressives DO NOT WANT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. They want every team or individual to have the same score at the end of the game. Wealth equality is a progressive tenet. That’s not level playing field, it’s equal results at the end of the game. Same for minimum wage, etc. etc.

Progressives of all economic classes hate personal responsibility. Progressivism can’t exist where there is widespread personal responsibility. It’s predicated on forcing behaviors. When there is personal responsibility there is no need for forced behaviors.

Of course universal healthcare is societal control. The ancient Egyptians figured that out thousands of years ago. You certainly realize universal healthcare can not supply the volume of healthcare the US enjoys today? Our current for profit system drives global drug development and markets. Our health care system provides 70% of pharmaceutical profits even though our population earns only 27% of global income. The only reason other countries can sustain universal healthcare is because of US spending on healthcare and defense. If European nations had to fund their own defense and medical innovation they would not have healthcare programs they have today.

I would opt out of universal healthcare because I expect a higher quality of care. My health is too valuable to me to trust to a commodity healthcare system. Yes, I believe it’s my responsibility to pay for my healthcare.

Absolutely not. Somalia is the result of decades of authoritarian rule by despots. A line of dudes who want to tell others what to do and that whack people who don’t get in line. The exact opposite of anarcho-anything. LOL

Anarchy in the context of government is the absence of rulers, not unruliness. There has never been anarchist government in Somalia. It’s always been totalitarian authoritarian government.

Opportunity and initiative are two completely different things. Opportunity plus initiative can result in success. Opportunity without initiative most often results in failure. Progressives want equal outcomes even for those with no initiative who won’t take advantage of opportunity.

Individuals without enough smarts or talent to succeed are exceedingly rare. Everyone agrees this VERY small group should be taken care of by society. Preferably by family who cares about their well-being.

Thanks for confirming you are not in favor of equal opportunity but of equal outcomes instead. I’ve been pointing out that’s your position but you’ve been protesting and saying you are for equal opportunity. It would be good if progressives all admitted they are after equal outcomes and stop trying to convince people they are for equal opportunity.

LOL. Would you like to take a stab at explaining how the social security administration is involved in ownership and administration of production of goods? Go ahead. Give it a shot. You aren’t even reading and comprehending YOUR OWN definition. Socialism is about PRODUCTION of GOODS. There is nothing in ANY definition of socialism about taking monetary assets (monetary assets ARE NOT GOODS) from one person and giving those monetary assets to another. If such a definition existed you would have provided it. You need to brush up on your economics knowledge before trying to debate the subject.

LOL. What happened to the rat poop argument? Now that you’ve learned your government happily feeds you rat poop you move on to poison. Your government has KILLED hundreds of thousands by recommending low fat low protein diets for decades. Carbohydrate poisoning ensued. That same government tells you to take an annual vaccination that destroys your body’s ability to benefit from that vaccine in your old age when you need it most. Your government has pushed production of thousands of products offshore to places like China that send you poisons in all kinds of products. And you are worried about lack of government “protection”?

No. Somalia is the result of decades of totalitarianism. You think totalitarianism is anarchy? Sigh.

I don’t care if there is opportunity for treatment offered. But it shouldn’t be coerced. Where are you going to draw the line? Alcohol kills 40% more annually than illicit drugs. Food addiction kills 300% more. How are you picking what addictions you wish to coerce people into treating? Where does bodily autonomy fit in here? Is bodily autonomy forfeit any time forfeiture benefits society? Children who attend religious services do better in school. You going to coerce religious service attendance to benefit society? Why or why not? Isn’t it better to let people choose?

What imagined society? Just because people you hang around are irresponsible doesn’t mean everyone is. You should get out more—broaden your horizons.

For example, in my real world universal healthcare isn’t necessary. If a member of my society can’t afford medical bills the rest of society donates and raises money to close the gap. What’s cruel about that? Often the fund raising is social events that add to the social cohesion of the community. It’s a win/win. How is that more cruel than forcing someone you don’t know to pay your bills? What isn’t “real” about it?

In my society almost everyone owns many firearms. Yet crime by these people is almost nonexistent. Because people with other values shoot each other up doesn’t mean some other people can’t control themselves. Both demographics are real. It’s you who denies the existence of the responsible demographic and wishes to project your irresponsibility. Remember we are doing your killing for you. You should be expressing gratitude instead of telling us we aren’t “real”.

Why do you think your elitist life is the only real world? Only an elitist would make such a claim. Things you don’t have knowledge of aren’t fake or unreal because you don’t understand them. I don’t have the knowledge to create nuclear power but that doesn’t mean it isn’t real.

 

So the right's answer to illegal guns on the street is laws preventing obtaining illegal guns are unconstitutional, ineffective and/or unenforceable (despite their effectiveness in many other countries). The only way to control illegal gun use is arrests after they are used illegally and long prison sentences? It sounds like a gun friendly dystopia don't you think?

So you belong to a social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. You are not a small business owner or a farmer, you are a member of a self contained self regulated group of people? Interesting, good for you, but I only brought up Christian fundamentalism by way of analogy, in reference to your narrow definition and your ideological rigidity on the subject.

You say you own a lot of goats (shouldn't that be we?), but I was joking about the "hippie goat ranch", and I wasn't too far off and by "grow your own", I meant vegetables. I hadn't thought of weed. I did not say you claimed to completely avoid capitalism. I said you can't avoid it and you maybe profit from it.

You've some strange conspiracy laden ideas as to what progressives have on their minds about abortion. You give some reasons why women choose abortions. Those are individual women's value judgements. Progressives support their right to control what happens to their body and life. If a woman wants to give birth to an acephalic baby, one she can't afford to feed or give it up to adoption progressives say that is her choice.

I said the most progressive countries have the least inequality. I was referring to the Scandinavian countries (democratic socialist) and you bring up US cities? The US has growing inequality.

You then go on a rant about my statement: "The simple logic behind why you want to be armed you continue to deny. If you felt safe you wouldn't feel the need to be armed unless you had a gun fetish. Which is it?" The subject of the OP was the use of a firearm for self defense not what is the best way to put an animal down, but I hope you feel better. I did not say there weren't other uses for firearms. A person can have more than one reason, but the subject is self defense and the current rage for citizens to be armed for self protection only adds to the problem of guns in society. It is circular logic. For a perceived threat, one that I have pointed out for white middle and upper class people is near nil, they buy a weapon that will statistically increase the danger to themselves and family, it will also increase the number of guns that will make it to the street, which will in turn increase the perceived threat. Most people overestimate the threat to themselves thanks to the media and those pushing guns as the only means of self protection.

Your simplistic view of curing poverty is a stable adult relationship and education. Easy to say, hard to do. Couples counseling? Maybe a livable wage and affordable housing would promote a stable family situation. Maybe addiction treatment would keep a family together. Maybe removing post incarceration restrictions imposed by society (refusing to rent to, hire, give a loan to ex felons) would allow families to stay together and move on up.

And education? We already do that. How would you change that to cure poverty? High quality preschool? More work/study programs? Free vocational education that actually works (see the German model)?

Social Darwinism is no social safety net, no protections for its citizens from hazards created by others, personal rights taking precedence over public interest.....and funding schools through property taxes leaving the poorest districts with the least money and worst schools and promoting school vouchers to enroll students in private schools which takes the cream out of public schools and leaves the special needs, the disruptive and unmotivated to the public schools. The ones the private schools don't want.

 

I don't about the Right, since I'm not a Rightest and don't claim to speak for them, but I can't support unconstitutional, ineffective and unenforceable laws.

I've given you expert opinion from both the DOJ and a noted gun control researcher that shows how and why universal background checks aren't effective or enforceable in the US. I can only explain them to you. I can't understand them for you.

You didn't answer this:

Scenario: I’m traveling to the range on Sunday morning, which I do once or twice a month. It’s a 45 minute drive into country. In my car I have four rifles: one I bought new six years ago, with a background check (legal); one I bought used in a private sale, with a background check (legal); one I bought used in a private sale, without a background check, prior to HR.8 (the current national level " being passed (legal); one I bought used, after HR.8 was passed, without a background check (illegal)
Suppose I get stopped for speeding by the police. How does the LEO know that one of the guns in my car was illegally obtained?

 

I’m a member of several such social organizations.

The IRS defines my farm as a sole proprietorship. Unfortunately in that regard I’m at their mercy.

I participate in every worker owned and/or controlled enterprise available.

I simply am described by the universally accepted definition of socialist. If the pioneers of the concept had defined it differently then maybe I wouldn’t be one. But it’s just a fact economically I’m a socialist. Your incorrect opinions that conflict with universally accepted definitions can’t change that.

Everyone profits from capitalism. Even authoritarian centrally controlled societies do. A large percentage of food in the USSR was grown outside of state socialist controls.

I am conversing with you on a personal level so “I” seems appropriate. Yes, everyone involved in this operation “owns” the animals used for production. You know of course that socialism only applies to production because I’ve pointed that out. You seem to be talking now about communes and communal ownership of all property which is not socialism.

No. I’ve seen numerous progressives advocate for abortion of Downs babies etc. It’s not a conspiracy theory it’s just a fact.

The country with the least inequality is Slovenia. Here is a recent headline (April 2022) after progressives took control of the government after 30 years of what you call conservative government.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/el...after-historic-victory-against-conservatives/

The next counties on the list of least inequality are Czech Republic, Belarus, Moldova, and UAE. The UAE is an authoritarian state (tribal autocracy) under Sharia law. The Czech Republic has democratic elections but has moved it’s healthcare from state run at time of separation from communism to privatized healthcare. Belarus is a dictatorship who’s dictator is guilty of human rights abuses. Moldova has quite a lot of social welfare programs but is the third most impoverished nation in Europe. Finally after these examples of progressivism Iceland shows up…

Did you know the standard of living of poor demographics in the US is on par with middle class Europeans? A couple interesting reads.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...estern-europes-middle-classes-appear-smaller/

https://mises.org/wire/poor-us-are-richer-middle-class-much-europe

Inequality is not bad when the demographics with the least wealth have higher standards of living than even middle class in more “equal” countries. Wealth equality almost always ends up with everyone worse off. I’ve never understood how what someone else has can hurt me. We see from the above examples the more someone above my wealth level has the more I’m going to have. Envy is counterproductive.

You told me I either had guns because I was in fear or I had a fetish. It’s neither. I’m sorry learning the fact you hire your killing done bothers you. At any time you are welcome to start doing your own dirty work.

The FACT remains the demographic with the most guns commits the least gun crime. That invalidates all your claims about more guns in the street. The actions of your street people are the problem. Address that, not the irrelevant “number of guns”.

Please define livable wage. Define affordable housing and show me statistics on how families in subsidized housing are stable. You still want to force addiction treatment? Which ones? Just ones you don’t like, or all behaviors that harm the individual and society at large?

So now you want to force people to hire felons? You going to force schools to hire pedophiles? Armored car companies to hire 3 time convicted armed robbers? I’m all for giving people who have done their time a chance, but you have clearly not thought this through. LOL

You are aware most lending isn’t impacted by criminal history, right?

You are aware it’s illegal under federal law to refuse to rent to a felon, right?

I said education. Not school attendance. Two different things. Vocational training should be part of the “education” we have today. It’s already “free”. Preschool isn’t necessary. It’s just substitute parenting.

I would focus on teaching kids how to read and write and do basic math. Then I would focus on things such as how to spend less than you make. How to invest. How to make yourself attractive to employers. How to run your own business. The difference between cost and value, the difference between being frugal and being cheap. How to avoid consumer debt on depreciating assets. How to cook. How to be a healthy weight and why exercise is important. Show them the data on how nutrition substantially affects lifetime earnings You know, tell them the truth—we evolved as a species running and jumping and walking most of our waking hours—we can’t change what we are now and sit around on our fat a**e*. Teach kids how to build a spreadsheet to determine which college degree they have interest in will financially benefit them the most over their lifetime. Show them the statistics on how family planning affects lifetime earnings. Tell them they can succeed instead of telling them the 1%ers are keeping them down. Show them income inequality is correlated with more wealth in the lowest asset demographics. Teach them how being out in nature positively impacts mental, physical and immune system health. That’s a start.

I clearly stated there should be support for ALL THAT NEED IT. I clearly stated in my world it’s provided by community members. Can we stop with references to me being a social Darwinist now?

Public education fails because partly there is no competition—no incentive to supply a better product. Vouchers are an excellent way to create competition and better quality product from public education. You apparently don’t know much about private education. All private schools I’ve attended had quite a few students who had been expelled from or were flunking out of public schools.

Here is some information on educational outcomes based on percentage enrollment in private schools since you like country comparisons.

https://www.educationnext.org/whystudentsinsomecountriesdobetter/

Another reason public education fails is lack of parental involvement in the educational process You can’t tax and spend that problem away. Parents have to be responsible. And yes, poor parents can take an active role in their children’s education.

 

Who are you kidding? On this subject you have the ideological rigidity of the rightest right-winger with their mantra "I can't support unconstitutional, ineffective and unenforceable laws".

Focusing on one method, like UBCs, as a method of keeping guns off the street, which is a many layered problem, and calling it unenforceable is nonsense. Many more thieves get away with theft than are caught, so are theft laws "unenforceable"?

The answer to your scenario was obvious from the start. Our laws are inadequate and you didn't answer my question because you have no answer for how to prevent illegal gun use. It seems the right's only answer is, authorities need to clean up the mess after the illegal use and the public needs to be ready to duck and cover, because our imagined rights (self interests) are more important.

 

Do you support unconstitutional, ineffective and unenforceable laws?

I'm just quoting the Department of Justice when they say that UBCs are unenforceable.

Let's not divert. Tell us, how can UBCs be enforced? You support them. I presume that means you think that they can be enforced. I (and the DOJ) would love to know how.

So you acknowledge that UBCs can't be enforced.

How would you stop a criminal with a gun from committing a crime with that gun? Our rights are more important. That's why the government can't simply ignore the 4th to shut down drug dealers and child porn. It's why SCOTUS affirmed that the government has no Constitutional obligation to defend anyone in Warren v DC or Castle Rock v Gonzales. If you think that rights are imaginary, can you share your view on Roe v Wade?

My ideas to reduce violence:

⦁ Allow individual access to NICS so that private sales can utilize the background check process. Sen Coburn sponsored a bill that would be very effective for this.
⦁ Exempt CCW and LEO from background checks.
⦁ Arrest those who commit felonies while attempting to get guns. In 2010, 72,000 applicants were denied permission to purchase a firearm via the NICS and state systems. 34,000 of these were denied for previous felony convictions. Another 20,000 were denied for state and local prohibited status. Only 10 (10!) were convicted. We still have tens of thousands of people who committed a felony by lying on the Form 4473 and have a violent past free to find guns through illegal means. Given that a violent felon is looking for a gun, how many violent crimes could be prevented by arresting and incarcerating these felons? https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf
⦁ Focus on the gun dealers and sellers who sell large amounts of guns to ineligible buyers. If the Brady Campaign knows who they are, then ATF knows who the major sellers are.
⦁ Mandatory sentences for those who use guns in acts of criminal violence. Stop plea bargaining away gun crimes. http://chicagoreporter.com/thousand...-being-dismissed-cook-county-criminal-courts/
⦁ Extend the legal possession geographies for CCW holders.
⦁ Go arrest the criminals who have guns illegally now - don't wait for them to commit a crime.
⦁ Fully prosecute and punish straw purchasers. http://www.omaha.com/news/crime/pol...cle_dcd60ace-8716-5651-9125-cb297998694e.html
My suggestion to reduce mass shootings like active shooter and domestic violence looks at three actions: prevention, isolation, intervention.
Prevention is the process to reduce the chance that a shooter will have a firearm in the first place. It's easier for DV than for active shooters, as the Lautenberg Amendment can be used to disarm anyone convicted of domestic violence or with a personal protective order sworn against them preemptively or actively. For Lautenberg to be effective, we need to educate potential victims, their legal support and local law enforcement. Potential active shooters don't have that history and with HIPAA restrictions find it easier to pass background checks. Prevention against rampage shooters is much less effective.
Isolation is the action of keeping a shooter separated from his victims. For DV, removal of the family to a safe house is the primary tool, unless the DV offender commits another crime or is caught violating a PPO before any homicide attempts occur, when he can be arrested. For active shooters, limiting access to schools or other targeted areas via channelized entry, metal detectors and similar passive measures are the first step. Being able to effectively lock down classrooms and other sub-geographies is also necessary.
Sometimes none of these work, or the area under attack isn't conducive to isolation, and that's where intervention is important. The FBI teaches Run, Hide, Fight when thrust into an active shooter situation, and data shows that the best way to fight is with a firearm. The current strategy of limiting ammunition magazine capacity to force reloads where the shooter can be physically restrained is untenable and hasn't been shown to be effective as an active response with a firearm. It suffers from fatal flaws: that the pool of potential victims includes someone that is brave enough to physically attack the shooter, that the brave person isn't among the first shot, that he or she is lucky enough to be in a close enough position during a reload and that he or she is physically capable of restraining a shooter. The biggest flaw, however, is that this tactic requires at least 10 shots to be fired with up to ten dead victims before there is a chance to stop the shooter. We've seen with both the Uber driver and Philly barbershop that CCW holders are not so restrained and can act quickly and effectively enough to stop a shooter with no innocent lives lost.

 

Why should -anyone- support unconstitutional, unnecessary, and ineffective laws?