The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 4881 - 4900 of total 5454 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Feb 6, 2015 - 03:42pm PT
I bagged on you for your obsessive compulsive nature, lol. You're a eyes-like-burning-coals fanatic, in case you didn't notice.

Beyer? Could NOT! care less.

DMT
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Feb 6, 2015 - 03:54pm PT
Back on topic, the recent dialectic on this thread is:

Gary relentlessly posts every new tidbit of gun idiocy he can find in the news.

I respond with a well-known study and call for a more balanced perspective, noting that the idiots are in the tiny, tiny minority of gun owners.

Brandon responds that the statistics in the well-known study are wrong (no duh), but posts an article that is itself witheringly biased and that flagrantly misrepresents the statistics and studies it trots out to rip the well-known study.

I point out that statistics (clearly meaning the INTERPRETATION) of them is always "incorrect" (per Brandon), as interpretations are always bias-laden, even among "careful" practitioners. Put interpretation in a loaded/heated context like gun-control, and Twain's comment is spot on!

I summarize that the principles at issue in this discussion are not touched by, nor will their defenders fall to, heavily-interpreted statistics. And I urge wannabe legislators to remember prohibition, where an otherwise law-abiding class of people were suddenly MADE into criminals, and that for violating NO rights of others.

To expound upon prohibition, this overnight class of "criminals" were criminalized using the exact same tactics now employed by gun-control wannabes: Trot out statistics regarding the EFFECTS of the substance it was proposed to make illegal, thereby failing to properly penalize the ABUSERS of the substance and instead going after the mere POSSESSORS (and makers) of the substance. Overnight, people who were doing nothing wrong were suddenly criminals. And overnight the stage was set for gangland America as we now know it. And the legislators, never learning anything from history, make the same mistakes regarding drugs. And the wannabes, learning nothing from history, now want to make the same mistakes regarding guns.

Remember prohibition, and give up on these endless and fruitless "wars on ___" that only create "criminals" and black markets.

I've said before, and I'll repeat: You want reasonable legislation designed to better keep guns out of the hands of already-convicted, VIOLENT felons, and you'll have no fight from me (although I continue to believe that this is a state's rights issue that the feds have no actual constitutional right to engage in). Even on the subject of letting the feds handle things like background checks (that are not stored indefinitely, but that are point-in-time "yay or nay" decisions), you'll get no fight from me.

But pointing out that sometimes idiots do idiotic things with their guns is going nowhere. Idiots do idiotic things with all sorts of things, and that has zero bearing on gun rights, anymore than idiots driving idiotically and killing people with their cars has any bearing on the right to transportation.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Feb 6, 2015 - 04:02pm PT
You're a eyes-like-burning-coals fanatic

Pot calling kettle....

From http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/2574956/Super-Score-80-million-hacked-zero-unhacked

We need a personal information bill of rights. It should be a civil rights violation to allow 80-million identities to be stolen. The C-level executives should do jail time.

LOL

Want me to continue?

When you are called on it in the next post, you respond:

Great point and thanks for blunting my hyperbole.

But then you just can't help yourself....

Hit the investors right in the face with a HUGE fine. Make it in the millions, insure (haha) Antham makes no profit in 2015. PUNISH THEM SEVERELY.

ALL CAPS???

Pot calling kettle....

Edit: More? How about we "take this outside" and devote a worthless thread to just you and I duking it out like schoolboys?

Or, perhaps you could have a touch of charity in your interpretations. Just a thought....
jonnyrig

climber
Feb 6, 2015 - 04:04pm PT
Would you support universal background checks? They are proven to stop a percentage of prohibited persons from buying firearms legally. Even Ron admits that.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Feb 6, 2015 - 04:11pm PT
Would you support universal background checks?

Yes.

I'm leery of the feds doing it, but (sigh) there is really no alternative. But the only way I'm supporting it is if it's literally point-in-time and then discarded. As in Colorado, there can be no stored records of background checks by the authorities. The checks are done, the results go to the seller, and the sale is accordingly consummated or not.

With the feds record of information management, I do worry about such a system turning into a full-blown federal gun registry. And the idea that they are going to abide by the law, even if the law precluded them from keeping such records regarding the background checks (think NSA), at least they would indeed be violating the LAW (hmmm... much like the criminals they are keeping guns out of the hands of).

Anyway, I digress, yes, in principle I'm behind universal background checks.
jonnyrig

climber
Feb 6, 2015 - 04:13pm PT
Thank you.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Feb 6, 2015 - 04:26pm PT
ALL CAPS???

Pot calling kettle....

Say.... you catch on pretty quick. Lol.

DMT
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Feb 6, 2015 - 04:28pm PT
Counselor Johnnyrig for the Defense! :D

You'd be good at it.

DMT
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Feb 6, 2015 - 04:40pm PT
Thank you, Jonnyrig. And by "support" I don't mean passive. If the right sort of legislation went before Congress, I would actively write my congresscritters urging them to support it, even though I do dislike the feds handling it. The states just are not going to engage in the sort of coordination it would take to make background checks sweeping enough.
Ksolem

Trad climber
Monrovia, California
Feb 7, 2015 - 01:02pm PT
I figure that the single vs. double question refers to the first shot. After that it's neither.
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Feb 8, 2015 - 08:29am PT
Madbolter, we agree on far more than we disagree.

I have never proposed any outright "ban" on guns of any type, nor do I have such a ban as any ultimate hidden agenda. I fully support an individual right to buy, own and carry appropriate arms for self-defense in the home or in public places. With all rights come responsibilities, and existing laws have utterly failed to hold gun owners and dealers responsible for the consequences of their actions. Many constitutional laws could be implemented that would preserve and protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners, while reducing unnecessary accidents and making it more difficult for criminals to get, carry and use guns.

There is no constitutional right to sell firearms to criminals. There is no constitutional right for firearm dealers to keep sloppy records. There is no constitutional right to leave a loaded firearm visible on the seat of an unlocked parked car. There is no constitutional right to leave loaded weapons within reach of unattended children.

You can have your philosophical right to the means of armed rebellion against perceived threats to intangible rights, but the moment someone steps into a public place with a loaded military firearm, they should be considered to have expressed the intention to subvert my (semi-)democratically elected government, and should be dealt with accordingly.

TE
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Social climber
SLO, Ca
Feb 8, 2015 - 08:34am PT
Thoughts on 30-.06 for an elk rifle? I am looking at the Winchester model 70 Super Grade.
jonnyrig

climber
Feb 8, 2015 - 08:56am PT
I just took my third elk with a 30-06. It is my grandfather's old rifle, a Remington 760 pump action. I run 180 grain handloads, with a 180 grain boattail by Hornady. I can reliably take down an elk at 300 yards with it, 3-9 power Walmart scope, in most conditions.
The 30-06 is capable, but if you have the option you may want to go with a 300 mag or 7mm mag, either of which is flatter shooting and retains more energy than the tried and true 06. There are other, newer calibers as well; but it all depends on what's available to you I suppose.
I have passed on shots near 500 yds, which are common in the open conditions often encountered in the local high desert elk country. The 06 can do it, but the newer magnums just do it a little better. Either way, most important is to get comfortable with the specific gun and specific load you will be using, under the conditions you expect to encounter. This year we had a 30mph crosswind which i was not prepared for, and had to track a wounded animal two miles uphill in the freezing snow. It sucked. And I've seen people miss shots at 500 and at 150 yds with the flat shooting 7mm mag. More important than the specific caliber is knowing what you can do with it.
The 30-06 is plenty capable, but if you think you may shoot past 300 yds at elk, you might take a look at something with a bit more reach. The model 70 is a fine choice regardless of caliber, and the best thing you can do is equip it with high quality optics and learn how to use them, in whatever caliber you purchase.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Feb 8, 2015 - 12:21pm PT
TE, I agree that we probably agree about more than we disagree. This one, however, I'm not sure about.

the moment someone steps into a public place with a loaded military firearm, they should be considered to have expressed the intention to subvert my (semi-)democratically elected government, and should be dealt with accordingly.

I think I tend to agree, but only because the isolated guy brandishing a gun (your context was not clear, and it also wasn't clear if he was brandishing) doesn't tend to be some principled guy attempting to start a legitimate revolution.

Armed revolution, if it ever arises in the US again, will not be started by this or that isolated guy brandishing a gun. And if wide-scale, armed revolution does arise on these soils, lines will quickly be drawn in the sand, and everybody will be dealing with everybody "accordingly."
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Feb 8, 2015 - 04:13pm PT
and a little zen with yur gun

Understatement, Ron. That's some good shootin'.

My eyes wouldn't be good enough these days to make 300 yards open-sights. LOL
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Feb 8, 2015 - 04:45pm PT
I simply don't see any legitimate lawful reason for almost any civilian to be carrying any loaded long rifle (military style or otherwise) in most public places, yet many gun owners seem to assert that this act is the very essence of the second amendment. How would those Bundy supporters feel about the second amendment rights of fifty armed, masked US citizens walking down the street in Bunkerville under an ISIS flag?

I could even accept that the right to own and train with such weapons is protected by the original intent (however obsolete now with a standing army), but I cannot accept that "we the people" or our police force have to wait until triggers are pulled to protect ourselves against one or fifty, or fifty thousand armed men walking down our streets with ill intent.

TE

TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Feb 8, 2015 - 05:06pm PT
..doesn't tend to be some principled guy attempting to start a legitimate revolution.

I don't care if he's a lone nut or fifty thousand principled rebels, the second amendment wasn't intended to require "we the people" to stand idly by until triggers are pulled. Loaded long rifles no longer have any lawful purpose in a public place therefore should be considered an implicit threat to "we the people".

TE

madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Feb 8, 2015 - 05:07pm PT
I simply don't see any legitimate lawful reason for almost any civilian to be carrying any loaded long rifle (military style or otherwise) in most public places, yet many gun owners seem to assert that this act is the very essence of the second amendment.

Oh, I see your point now.

Yeah, it's very hard to "carry" a loaded long gun without it seeming like "brandishing." And most people I know (myself included) think that the Texas "protests" with open-carrying of long-guns are doing more harm than good.

The one thing that can be said in their defense is that the Texas law regarding open carry is pretty nuts. The cause of the protest is to point out the sheer nuttiness of a law that precludes open-carry of handguns (holstered) but does nothing to preclude the open CARRY (a virtual necessity) of loaded long guns, which, as you rightly note, strike most people as far more threatening!

Most of those people don't want to open carry long guns around. They want to open carry holstered handguns around. But the (inane) law precludes sensible, (to most people) non-threatening holstered handgun carry.

At least here in Colorado, quite a few people open-carry holstered handguns, and nobody seems to even notice. So, there's a cultural aspect as well. But even in Colorado, I don't think the public wants to see loaded long guns (which are necessarily unholstered) open-carried!

I am sympathetic to the principle behind the Texas protest but also think that these people are actually harming the big-picture public perception! There are other means by which to get the law changed, including mass-scale civil disobedience by open-carrying holstered handguns, which IS what they want the law to allow.

Anyway, yeah, I agree that open-carrying loaded long guns legitimately feels threatening to most people, and the cause of the sane gun-carrying public is not helped by this form of "protest."
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Feb 8, 2015 - 05:09pm PT
I don't care if he's a lone nut or fifty thousand principled rebels, the second amendment wasn't intended to require "we the people" to stand idly by until triggers are pulled. Loaded long rifles no longer have any lawful purpose in a public place therefore should be considered an implicit threat to "we the people".

Agreed also. And fifty-thousand wouldn't even start to get the job done.

Furthermore, if it comes to that, the whole question will be WHO "we the people" consists of!

So, yeah, there is something non-self-defense feeling about open-carrying loaded long guns in public.
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Feb 8, 2015 - 08:31pm PT
I understand the point of the Texas protests, even if I don't sympathize, but I'm referring to the apparent legal inability to deal with the Bundy confrontation, and to the almost inevitable terrorist act which will take advantage of this absurdity in many state laws.

The practicalities of unloading a flintlock firearm and the relatively minor public danger of a lunatic or fanatic armed with one shaped the checks and balances arguments of the 1780's. That equation has changed beyond recognition, and our laws should too. There is no constitutional reason that can't happen except that the gun lobby knows the ultimate result would be lower gun sales, and therefore they oppose any efforts to reduce gun deaths and injuries, whether it be by criminals, lunatics or by the currently lawful negligence of gun owners.

If being a relativist means that I'm willing to sacrifice a narrow self-serving interpretation of an abstract philosophical principle for laws that save more innocent lives than they cost, then I'm a relativist.

TE
Messages 4881 - 4900 of total 5454 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews