U.S. father fatally shoots son mistaken for intruder

OMGImInPattaya · January 16, 2016

bit rich coming from the team of weak arguments.

It's perfectly reasonable to Slaughter children in the name of a piece of paper.

Duh !

Says a guy coming from the side that won't substantiate any of their arguments, and are now doubling down on a straw man.

No one is debating whether or not gun deaths are tragic. All untimely death is, of course.

The question remains, though, of whether current data warrants a change to the Constitution. For those who say there is, it's well past your turn to provide evidence based on more than just emotional appeals, erroneous claims to satire, or just plain old vitriol.

Blood and guts on television isn't enough for you?
Do you want all murdered infants and children delivered to your doorstep.

The Australians have shown you what to do, so be a good lad and run along.

A good example of the fact that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Stupid is, as stupid does.

The Australians have shown America what NOT to do as far as gun control. It is so bad in Australia, that the police can visit a registered gun owner unannounced, and ask to see if their guns are locked up and check if the ammunition is locked up in another place. If the home owners gun is not locked up, or heaven forbid loaded, the gun owner can expect to pay a hefty fine. If an Australian home owner were to shoot an intruder, they can expect to loose their firearm and spend time in prison.

What I find refreshing, is the countless hysterical posts made by the ThaiVisa anti-gun posters, are nothing more than hot air with absolutely no effect on gun owners in America.

Gun control in America is all about sight alignment, breathing, and trigger squeeze.

As far as the father that shot his son, not everyone is born with common sense. This incident reminds me of the saying, "life is tough but even tougher if you are stupid."

No use trying to reason with these gun confiscation types, the Force for "gun control" is strong with these ones but it's nice to know that even in the distant future, side-arms will still be an integral part of personal protection and in guarding freedom in galaxies everywhere ? Edited January 16, 2016 by OMGImInPattaya

lostboy · January 16, 2016

bit rich coming from the team of weak arguments.

It's perfectly reasonable to Slaughter children in the name of a piece of paper.

Duh !

Says a guy coming from the side that won't substantiate any of their arguments, and are now doubling down on a straw man.

No one is debating whether or not gun deaths are tragic. All untimely death is, of course.

The question remains, though, of whether current data warrants a change to the Constitution. For those who say there is, it's well past your turn to provide evidence based on more than just emotional appeals, erroneous claims to satire, or just plain old vitriol.

Blood and guts on television isn't enough for you?

Do you want all murdered infants and children delivered to your doorstep.

The Australians have shown you what to do, so be a good lad and run along.

A good example of the fact that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Stupid is, as stupid does.

The Australians have shown America what NOT to do as far as gun control. It is so bad in Australia, that the police can visit a registered gun owner unannounced, and ask to see if their guns are locked up and check if the ammunition is locked up in another place. If the home owners gun is not locked up, or heaven forbid loaded, the gun owner can expect to pay a hefty fine. If an Australian home owner were to shoot an intruder, they can expect to loose their firearm and spend time in prison.

What I find refreshing, is the countless hysterical posts made by the ThaiVisa anti-gun posters, are nothing more than hot air with absolutely no effect on gun owners in America.

Gun control in America is all about sight alignment, breathing, and trigger squeeze.

As far as the father that shot his son, not everyone is born with common sense. This incident reminds me of the saying, "life is tough but even tougher if you are stupid."

Thank you for such a clear and persuasive explanation of why you rarely read about Australian parents killing their children with guns.

I thought you were on the pro-gun side?

chuckd · January 16, 2016

Permit me to give you some information as it relates to a Constitutional Convention.

The Constitution may be Amended by a Constitutional Convention which can be called by 2/3rd of both Houses of Congress, OR, a request from 2/3rd of the various States Legislatures for a Convention to be held.

Following that, for an Amendment to be ratified would require a 3/4th vote of the States Legislatures in approval.

In other words, an Amendment would require the approvals of 34 States Legislatures to establish a convention and the approvals of 38 States Legislatures to pass an Amendment.

Sounds like an insurmountable problem, right? Perhaps not so much after all.

After the 2008 election when the Republicans lost the White House and Both Houses of Congress, a decision was taken by the RNC to try and gain some control in the various states Legislatures and both Houses of Congress.

In 2009 Republicans had control in only 14 State Legislatures.

Today Republicans control both the governor’s mansion and legislature in 24 states, 70 of the nation’s 99 state legislative chambers, both chambers in 30 states, plus Nebraska’s single chamber, and 31 governor’s mansions.

Now not quite so far away from the magic 34 and 38 totals.

Let us address your question of dealing with the "anachronisms of language" in the 2nd Amendment. To put it rather bluntly, there are no ways to address your demand. However, not to cause you and your friends on the left wing too much distress, the 2nd Amendment can be repealed entirely by a later Amendment. As an example, the 21st Amendment repealed prohibition, which has made every drunken Democrat party politician imminently happy since.

My suggestion is for you and your supporters to petition any Republican governor asking them to call a Constitutional Convention in order to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Be sure and tell them you are Australian and most of your supporters are of the same nationality. The Governor you select might be more impressed if a British citizen were to make the request however.

To recap, the Republicans currently hold majorities in 70 of the 99 Legislatures and the Nebraska single Legislature. They only need an additional 5 more to hold a super majority.

Your bull crap comment was unnecessary and rather childish in the long run.

For future reference, there is no need to ask for my permission to post on TVF. You have my blessing in perpetuity. However, it would please me greatly if you could post information that was pertinent to the point that I was making, instead of diverting off into other areas.

To wit. You announce the intention of the Texas Governor to mobilise sufficient support to call for a Constitutional Convention. You announce the Amendments proposed for that Constitutional Convention. Some advocates of removing gun controls argue that the Second Amendment does not allow for such laws to be made. I am just stating what I understand are the foundation issues at play here.

You say that the 2nd Amendment can't be amended. It has to be repealed and/or replaced. I will accept that. I do not withdraw my view that the language in the 2nd Amendment is anachronistic but I do accept that it cannot be re-written through the Constitutional Assembly process.

Now that said, what was my issue? My issue is that I do not know who controls the agenda of a Constitutional Convention. Perhaps you can tell me. it is a serious question. My assumption is that the Convener of the Convention proposes the Agenda. How then, with the Agenda that you describe so focussed on the whole State's Rights and limitation of the Federal Government's powers could any one propose an Amendment to repeal/replace the 2nd Amendment to facilitate more harmonisation and effectiveness in gun regulation. Is the scope of the Convention open to any qualified person to include a proposal. I would imagine there must be some process similar to how a ballot initiative is included in the California election process.

You spent a lot of time detailing the focus of the proposed Constitutional Convention which does not include the issue of gun control. That was the issue to which I responded.

You also play on the assumption that Republican dominance of State Legislatures would automatically translate into support for the call by the Governor of Texas for a Constitutional Convention to pass amendments to limit Federal Government's powers. I do not believe such an assumption warranted. Unless the RNC is more Machiavellian that I believed and can deliver such support on command, then there can be no automatic assumption that the required numbers can be mustered. If they can, then fine. That's what the system is there for. But I would be wary of slippery slopes with constitutional gamesmanship along the lines of Tom Delay and the gerrymandering of electoral boundaries. And I will not be churlish enough to deny that both sides play that game.

So I don't see your problem with my question. Apart from some silly chauvinism that you keep expressing in terms of non Americans having and expressing a view on American related issues. But you know as well as I do that under the TVF rules, that whole thing is a complete non starter. And I do not apologise for my dig at the politics of Right Wing Governors and their ideologically driven policies, like Kansas Governor Brownback bankrupting his State through tax cuts and former Texas Governor Perry deregulation agenda contributing to the 2013 explosion of the West Fertiliser Plant in your old home town. I am allowed these digs, including the bull crap one, because that is the nature of the ideological discourse.

So to recap, you keep telling everyone who wants to deal with the 2nd Amendment to go have a Constitutional Convention. You announce that there is an initiative to establish a Constitutional Convention. I merely ask how do gun control advocates get the issue of the 2nd Amendment on the Agenda of that Constitutional Convention. And this gets up your nose why?

You seem to have a hard time being civil in these so called discussions.

Having said that, here is the information you so desperately seek.

Let the crusade begin.

Contact the Governor of Texas with your agenda request, here:

Telephone

Information and Referral Hotline [for Texas callers] :
(800) 843-5789
Information and Referral and Opinion Hotline [for Austin, Texas and out-of-state callers] :
(512) 463-1782
Office of the Governor Main Switchboard [office hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. CST] :
(512) 463-2000
Citizen's Assistance Telecommunications Device
If you are using a telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD),

call 711 to reach Relay Texas

Mailing Address

Office of the Governor

P.O. Box 12428

Austin, Texas 78711-2428

Delivery Address

Office of the Governor

State Insurance Building

1100 San Jacinto

Austin, Texas 78701

https://gov.texas.gov/contact/

OMGImInPattaya · January 16, 2016

bit rich coming from the team of weak arguments.

It's perfectly reasonable to Slaughter children in the name of a piece of paper.

Duh !

Says a guy coming from the side that won't substantiate any of their arguments, and are now doubling down on a straw man.

No one is debating whether or not gun deaths are tragic. All untimely death is, of course.

The question remains, though, of whether current data warrants a change to the Constitution. For those who say there is, it's well past your turn to provide evidence based on more than just emotional appeals, erroneous claims to satire, or just plain old vitriol.

Blood and guts on television isn't enough for you?

Do you want all murdered infants and children delivered to your doorstep.

The Australians have shown you what to do, so be a good lad and run along.

A good example of the fact that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Stupid is, as stupid does.

The Australians have shown America what NOT to do as far as gun control. It is so bad in Australia, that the police can visit a registered gun owner unannounced, and ask to see if their guns are locked up and check if the ammunition is locked up in another place. If the home owners gun is not locked up, or heaven forbid loaded, the gun owner can expect to pay a hefty fine. If an Australian home owner were to shoot an intruder, they can expect to loose their firearm and spend time in prison.

What I find refreshing, is the countless hysterical posts made by the ThaiVisa anti-gun posters, are nothing more than hot air with absolutely no effect on gun owners in America.

Gun control in America is all about sight alignment, breathing, and trigger squeeze.

As far as the father that shot his son, not everyone is born with common sense. This incident reminds me of the saying, "life is tough but even tougher if you are stupid."

Thank you for such a clear and persuasive explanation of why you rarely read about Australian parents killing their children with guns.

I thought you were on the pro-gun side?

I bet that Aussie lady who just had her arm bitten off by a saltie wishes she was allowed to own a gun.

lostboy · January 16, 2016

bit rich coming from the team of weak arguments.

It's perfectly reasonable to Slaughter children in the name of a piece of paper.

Duh !

Says a guy coming from the side that won't substantiate any of their arguments, and are now doubling down on a straw man.

No one is debating whether or not gun deaths are tragic. All untimely death is, of course.

The question remains, though, of whether current data warrants a change to the Constitution. For those who say it does, it's well past your turn to provide evidence based on more than just emotional appeals, erroneous claims to satire, or just plain old vitriol.

DELETED guy thinks he has the answers to the gun control debate through long division. Your calculations and percentages are DELETED. They demonstrate nothing. You attack others for making assertions unsupported by empirical evidence, yet you expect the rest of us to swallow your DELETED that 11,000 deaths is not sufficient to matter. That the death of this child, an any others is merely anecdotal and not worthy of a response from a data driven mind. So tell me DELETED, how many deaths is enough for you? 1 million, 10 million? Your DELETED arguments are based on just as much bias, prejudice and emotion as all the others.

I do also recall a small aside in your dismissal of 11,000 deaths that most of these are gang members anyway. What do you mean by that? Do you mean minorities? Do you mean members of the underclass? Since you are statistically driven, why not come up with a formula to represent these deaths among the coloured people. How about assessing the value of their lives at 2/3 that of yours or?

DELETED

Edited January 16, 2016 by seedy
troll / flaming

neverdie · January 16, 2016

^ But she probably would be allowed to own a gun if that's what she desired.

I have a gun. No problem to do the right and safe things.

that post above describing all the good things about the Aaustralian gun laws is a classic, thanks for the laugh, you just showed your true colours. 5555

lostboy · January 16, 2016

You seem to have a hard time being civil in these so called discussions.

Having said that, here is the information you so desperately seek.

Let the crusade begin.

Contact the Governor of Texas with your agenda request, here:

Telephone
Information and Referral Hotline [for Texas callers] :
(800) 843-5789

Information and Referral and Opinion Hotline [for Austin, Texas and out-of-state callers] :
(512) 463-1782

Office of the Governor Main Switchboard [office hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. CST] :
(512) 463-2000

Citizen's Assistance Telecommunications Device
If you are using a telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD),

call 711 to reach Relay Texas

Mailing Address
Office of the Governor

P.O. Box 12428

Austin, Texas 78711-2428
Delivery Address
Office of the Governor

State Insurance Building

1100 San Jacinto

Austin, Texas 78701

https://gov.texas.gov/contact/

I guess I could adopt Texas manners and hide behind the facade of a drawl and false politeness. The Thais have an excellent expression for that. Since you don't answer the question, I guess you don't know. DELETED I really wonder what the announcement of a Constitutional Convention being called by the Governor of Texas has to do with the death of a child as a result of the perpetuation of a gun culture that is seriously detrimental to urban dwelling Americans in the 21st C. I could call the numbers you so DELETED provided but I doubt I would get any coherent answer. Want to have a discussion about States' Rights? Fine. I have studied the historical issue a little. I come from a Federal system which has some relevance to the issue. But since it is entirely unrelated to the subject, it will have to wait for some other forum.

DELETED

Edited January 16, 2016 by seedy
troll / flaming

aTomsLife · January 16, 2016

bit rich coming from the team of weak arguments.

It's perfectly reasonable to Slaughter children in the name of a piece of paper.

Duh !

Says a guy coming from the side that won't substantiate any of their arguments, and are now doubling down on a straw man.

No one is debating whether or not gun deaths are tragic. All untimely death is, of course.

The question remains, though, of whether current data warrants a change to the Constitution. For those who say it does, it's well past your turn to provide evidence based on more than just emotional appeals, erroneous claims to satire, or just plain old vitriol.

Still stinging eh! Mr. Data guy thinks he has the answers to the gun control debate through long division. Your calculations and percentages are infantile. They demonstrate nothing. You attack others for making assertions unsupported by empirical evidence, yet you expect the rest of us to swallow your crap that 11,000 deaths is not sufficient to matter. That the death of this child, an any others is merely anecdotal and not worthy of a response from a data driven mind. So tell me Data Guy, how many deaths is enough for you? 1 million, 10 million? Your spurious, non-existent 'empirical' based so-called arguments are based on just as much bias, prejudice and emotion as all the others.

I do also recall a small aside in your dismissal of 11,000 deaths that most of these are gang members anyway. What do you mean by that? Do you mean minorities? Do you mean members of the underclass? Since you are statistically driven, why not come up with a formula to represent these deaths among the coloured people. How about assessing the value of their lives at 2/3 that of yours or?

You really are no better than the rest of them are you.

And a good morning to you as well, lostboy.

Yes, that 11,000 deaths out of 2,500,000 is not sufficient to amend the Constitution is ultimately my opinion. I've no problem admitting as much, nor at this point am I concerned that you don't agree. As someone who wishes to effect change, the onus ultimately falls on you to convince others you're right.

My mention of gang members has nothing to do with race, but rather that gang members are almost certainly in possession of illegal firearms, and so more regulation will have no impact on the homicides they commit. I mentioned as much many times in my previous comments. Thanks for slanderous accusations, though. It's in keeping with the cultural stereotypes I've already ascribed to you, but that you argue is evidence of my lack of education.

SABloke · January 16, 2016

a house alarm system is much cheaper than the life of their son. I feel for the father. He must be devastated. And feel for the son more so.
With these pro gun people, it was probably an event that could of occurred the next day with the son shooting the father in a similar situation, it's just this time the father was the one at home with the gun.
It's one thing to own a firearm, it's another thing to be properly trained and well rehearsed with it.

This would never of happened with someone who had been correctly trained with a firearm, the problem Islamist any crackpot can obtain and carry in the USA and in a society that's wall total.firearms there is bound to be tragedy.

'' This would never of happened with someone who had been correctly trained with a firearm,..''

That's quite a bold statement. I seem to recall many instances where trained policemen have shot unarmed people

IMA_FARANG · January 16, 2016

I was a soldier in Vietnam.

But I was never in a direct combat situation

I did fire my rifle once in a self defense situation.

I missed my target.

The difference is that I had seen my target and knew what I was shooting at, and why.

Seeing your target, and to know why and who you are shooting at, is the difference between using a gun for defense and walking around with a loaded gun in your hand like a fool.

Linky · January 16, 2016

bit rich coming from the team of weak arguments.

It's perfectly reasonable to Slaughter children in the name of a piece of paper.

Duh !

Says a guy coming from the side that won't substantiate any of their arguments, and are now doubling down on a straw man.

No one is debating whether or not gun deaths are tragic. All untimely death is, of course.

The question remains, though, of whether current data warrants a change to the Constitution. For those who say there is, it's well past your turn to provide evidence based on more than just emotional appeals, erroneous claims to satire, or just plain old vitriol.

Blood and guts on television isn't enough for you?

Do you want all murdered infants and children delivered to your doorstep.

The Australians have shown you what to do, so be a good lad and run along.

A good example of the fact that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Stupid is, as stupid does.

The Australians have shown America what NOT to do as far as gun control. It is so bad in Australia, that the police can visit a registered gun owner unannounced, and ask to see if their guns are locked up and check if the ammunition is locked up in another place. If the home owners gun is not locked up, or heaven forbid loaded, the gun owner can expect to pay a hefty fine. If an Australian home owner were to shoot an intruder, they can expect to loose their firearm and spend time in prison.

What I find refreshing, is the countless hysterical posts made by the ThaiVisa anti-gun posters, are nothing more than hot air with absolutely no effect on gun owners in America.

Gun control in America is all about sight alignment, breathing, and trigger squeeze.

As far as the father that shot his son, not everyone is born with common sense. This incident reminds me of the saying, "life is tough but even tougher if you are stupid."

Thank you for such a clear and persuasive explanation of why you rarely read about Australian parents killing their children with guns.

I thought you were on the pro-gun side?

I bet that Aussie lady who just had her arm bitten off by a saltie wishes she was allowed to own a gun.

She can own a gun. But Even if she had it ready to go i doubt it would have saved her arm. Or do people with guns have them out with finger on the trigger at every corner.

MiKT · January 16, 2016

bit rich coming from the team of weak arguments.

It's perfectly reasonable to Slaughter children in the name of a piece of paper.

Duh !

Says a guy coming from the side that won't substantiate any of their arguments, and are now doubling down on a straw man.

No one is debating whether or not gun deaths are tragic. All untimely death is, of course.

The question remains, though, of whether current data warrants a change to the Constitution. For those who say it does, it's well past your turn to provide evidence based on more than just emotional appeals, erroneous claims to satire, or just plain old vitriol.

Still stinging eh! Mr. Data guy thinks he has the answers to the gun control debate through long division. Your calculations and percentages are infantile. They demonstrate nothing. You attack others for making assertions unsupported by empirical evidence, yet you expect the rest of us to swallow your crap that 11,000 deaths is not sufficient to matter. That the death of this child, an any others is merely anecdotal and not worthy of a response from a data driven mind. So tell me Data Guy, how many deaths is enough for you? 1 million, 10 million? Your spurious, non-existent 'empirical' based so-called arguments are based on just as much bias, prejudice and emotion as all the others.

I do also recall a small aside in your dismissal of 11,000 deaths that most of these are gang members anyway. What do you mean by that? Do you mean minorities? Do you mean members of the underclass? Since you are statistically driven, why not come up with a formula to represent these deaths among the coloured people. How about assessing the value of their lives at 2/3 that of yours or?

You really are no better than the rest of them are you.

I belive this quite sums it up. So much spurious logic and psudo interlectualism but total moral terbitude.

They just cant bring themselves to admit that reasonable gun controls are warrented in this day and age.

Childish rage tops all common sense.

Nobody thinks it will be easy to bring about much needed changes. But with the running nuts and vested interests we see bleeting they are "experts" dominating the politics there is no will to do whats necessary and totally feisible, so American kids will continue to die unnecessarily.

Think a poor old lady with alshiemers should be allowed to sit in a rocking chair with a nice BIG gun. Stand your ground, shoot into the dark, threaten a cop with a gun - wonder why your kid is dead?

Let them expert their way out of that with their contrived "arguments" and continue to demonstrate they are nothing but experts at being fake human beings with twisted/inverted moral values.

Good effort today boys, but got to do better or the NRA won't be slipping a couple of extra 50 cals for the good ol Barratt into your next Christmas stocking.

Inalienable rights - bs.

lostboy · January 16, 2016

bit rich coming from the team of weak arguments.

It's perfectly reasonable to Slaughter children in the name of a piece of paper.

Duh !

Says a guy coming from the side that won't substantiate any of their arguments, and are now doubling down on a straw man.

No one is debating whether or not gun deaths are tragic. All untimely death is, of course.

The question remains, though, of whether current data warrants a change to the Constitution. For those who say it does, it's well past your turn to provide evidence based on more than just emotional appeals, erroneous claims to satire, or just plain old vitriol.

Still stinging eh! Mr. Data guy thinks he has the answers to the gun control debate through long division. Your calculations and percentages are infantile. They demonstrate nothing. You attack others for making assertions unsupported by empirical evidence, yet you expect the rest of us to swallow your crap that 11,000 deaths is not sufficient to matter. That the death of this child, an any others is merely anecdotal and not worthy of a response from a data driven mind. So tell me Data Guy, how many deaths is enough for you? 1 million, 10 million? Your spurious, non-existent 'empirical' based so-called arguments are based on just as much bias, prejudice and emotion as all the others.

I do also recall a small aside in your dismissal of 11,000 deaths that most of these are gang members anyway. What do you mean by that? Do you mean minorities? Do you mean members of the underclass? Since you are statistically driven, why not come up with a formula to represent these deaths among the coloured people. How about assessing the value of their lives at 2/3 that of yours or?

You really are no better than the rest of them are you.

And a good morning to you as well, lostboy.

Yes, that 11,000 deaths out of 2,500,000 is not sufficient to amend the Constitution is ultimately my opinion. I've no problem admitting as much, nor at this point am I concerned that you don't agree. As someone who wishes to effect change, the onus ultimately falls on you to convince others you're right.

My mention of gang members has nothing to do with race, but rather that gang members are almost certainly in possession of illegal firearms, and so more regulation will have no impact on the homicides they commit. I mentioned as much many times in my previous comments. Thanks for slanderous accusations, though. It's in keeping with the cultural stereotypes I've already ascribed to you, but that you argue is evidence of my lack of education.

Superciliousness does not provide sufficient cover. You continue to hide from the issue. Just how many deaths is sufficient for you?

Affect change? You continue to have problems with your nouns and verbs. Just like posting misattributed quotes, attempts to look smarter than others often falls down flat. I do not believe I have every claimed anything about your education. That would be a cheap shot. It is your intellectually constrained perspective that I have attacked. You have made it clear that you have no interest in alternative views. You repeated as much above. I am not trying to affect anything. Just highlighting hypocrisy and intellectualised arrogance.

You don't like coloured people or other minorities? Own it. Revel in it. Double down on it. But using the disingenuous 'cultural stereotypes' argument as you do, is pretty weak. Sure 'gang bangers' are merely a datum in your empirical evidence. Like I said, it's like talking to a brick wall.

seedy · January 16, 2016

Posts Edited for Troll / Flaming. It is possible to have a debate without these kind of comments. Keep it Civil please

aTomsLife · January 16, 2016

Says a guy coming from the side that won't substantiate any of their arguments, and are now doubling down on a straw man.

No one is debating whether or not gun deaths are tragic. All untimely death is, of course.

The question remains, though, of whether current data warrants a change to the Constitution. For those who say it does, it's well past your turn to provide evidence based on more than just emotional appeals, erroneous claims to satire, or just plain old vitriol.

Still stinging eh! Mr. Data guy thinks he has the answers to the gun control debate through long division. Your calculations and percentages are infantile. They demonstrate nothing. You attack others for making assertions unsupported by empirical evidence, yet you expect the rest of us to swallow your crap that 11,000 deaths is not sufficient to matter. That the death of this child, an any others is merely anecdotal and not worthy of a response from a data driven mind. So tell me Data Guy, how many deaths is enough for you? 1 million, 10 million? Your spurious, non-existent 'empirical' based so-called arguments are based on just as much bias, prejudice and emotion as all the others.

I do also recall a small aside in your dismissal of 11,000 deaths that most of these are gang members anyway. What do you mean by that? Do you mean minorities? Do you mean members of the underclass? Since you are statistically driven, why not come up with a formula to represent these deaths among the coloured people. How about assessing the value of their lives at 2/3 that of yours or?

You really are no better than the rest of them are you.

And a good morning to you as well, lostboy.

Yes, that 11,000 deaths out of 2,500,000 is not sufficient to amend the Constitution is ultimately my opinion. I've no problem admitting as much, nor at this point am I concerned that you don't agree. As someone who wishes to effect change, the onus ultimately falls on you to convince others you're right.

My mention of gang members has nothing to do with race, but rather that gang members are almost certainly in possession of illegal firearms, and so more regulation will have no impact on the homicides they commit. I mentioned as much many times in my previous comments. Thanks for slanderous accusations, though. It's in keeping with the cultural stereotypes I've already ascribed to you, but that you argue is evidence of my lack of education.

Superciliousness does not provide sufficient cover. You continue to hide from the issue. Just how many deaths is sufficient for you?

Affect change? You continue to have problems with your nouns and verbs. Just like posting misattributed quotes, attempts to look smarter than others often falls down flat. I do not believe I have every claimed anything about your education. That would be a cheap shot. It is your intellectually constrained perspective that I have attacked. You have made it clear that you have no interest in alternative views. You repeated as much above. I am not trying to affect anything. Just highlighting hypocrisy and intellectualised arrogance.

You don't like coloured people or other minorities? Own it. Revel in it. Double down on it. But using the disingenuous 'cultural stereotypes' argument as you do, is pretty weak. Sure 'gang bangers' are merely a datum in your empirical evidence. Like I said, it's like talking to a brick wall.

Wow, you are obnoxious and wrong:

affect change: having an impact on change

effect change: bringing about change

You wish to do the second, which is why I used 'effect.'

The rest of your post I'll reply to in my next comment. This part, you clearly need to see on its own.

lostboy · January 16, 2016

Still stinging eh! Mr. Data guy thinks he has the answers to the gun control debate through long division. Your calculations and percentages are infantile. They demonstrate nothing. You attack others for making assertions unsupported by empirical evidence, yet you expect the rest of us to swallow your crap that 11,000 deaths is not sufficient to matter. That the death of this child, an any others is merely anecdotal and not worthy of a response from a data driven mind. So tell me Data Guy, how many deaths is enough for you? 1 million, 10 million? Your spurious, non-existent 'empirical' based so-called arguments are based on just as much bias, prejudice and emotion as all the others.

I do also recall a small aside in your dismissal of 11,000 deaths that most of these are gang members anyway. What do you mean by that? Do you mean minorities? Do you mean members of the underclass? Since you are statistically driven, why not come up with a formula to represent these deaths among the coloured people. How about assessing the value of their lives at 2/3 that of yours or?

You really are no better than the rest of them are you.

And a good morning to you as well, lostboy.

Yes, that 11,000 deaths out of 2,500,000 is not sufficient to amend the Constitution is ultimately my opinion. I've no problem admitting as much, nor at this point am I concerned that you don't agree. As someone who wishes to effect change, the onus ultimately falls on you to convince others you're right.

My mention of gang members has nothing to do with race, but rather that gang members are almost certainly in possession of illegal firearms, and so more regulation will have no impact on the homicides they commit. I mentioned as much many times in my previous comments. Thanks for slanderous accusations, though. It's in keeping with the cultural stereotypes I've already ascribed to you, but that you argue is evidence of my lack of education.

Superciliousness does not provide sufficient cover. You continue to hide from the issue. Just how many deaths is sufficient for you?

Affect change? You continue to have problems with your nouns and verbs. Just like posting misattributed quotes, attempts to look smarter than others often falls down flat. I do not believe I have every claimed anything about your education. That would be a cheap shot. It is your intellectually constrained perspective that I have attacked. You have made it clear that you have no interest in alternative views. You repeated as much above. I am not trying to affect anything. Just highlighting hypocrisy and intellectualised arrogance.

You don't like coloured people or other minorities? Own it. Revel in it. Double down on it. But using the disingenuous 'cultural stereotypes' argument as you do, is pretty weak. Sure 'gang bangers' are merely a datum in your empirical evidence. Like I said, it's like talking to a brick wall.

Wow, you are obnoxious and wrong:

affect change: having an impact on change

effect change: bringing about change

You wish to do the second, which is why I used 'effect.'

The rest of your post I'll reply to in my next comment. This part, you clearly need to see on its own.

You wish to make up your own language? Fine by me. The rest of us will use nouns and verbs in their correct place. Just can't stand to be corrected on anything. Any little thing and you lash out with the names. And all the self serving superiority that you have been trying to affect (with an 'a') in your previous posts is a very thin veneer to what is really underneath.

aTomsLife · January 16, 2016

And a good morning to you as well, lostboy.

Yes, that 11,000 deaths out of 2,500,000 is not sufficient to amend the Constitution is ultimately my opinion. I've no problem admitting as much, nor at this point am I concerned that you don't agree. As someone who wishes to effect change, the onus ultimately falls on you to convince others you're right.

My mention of gang members has nothing to do with race, but rather that gang members are almost certainly in possession of illegal firearms, and so more regulation will have no impact on the homicides they commit. I mentioned as much many times in my previous comments. Thanks for slanderous accusations, though. It's in keeping with the cultural stereotypes I've already ascribed to you, but that you argue is evidence of my lack of education.

Superciliousness does not provide sufficient cover. You continue to hide from the issue. Just how many deaths is sufficient for you?

Affect change? You continue to have problems with your nouns and verbs. Just like posting misattributed quotes, attempts to look smarter than others often falls down flat. I do not believe I have every claimed anything about your education. That would be a cheap shot. It is your intellectually constrained perspective that I have attacked. You have made it clear that you have no interest in alternative views. You repeated as much above. I am not trying to affect anything. Just highlighting hypocrisy and intellectualised arrogance.

You don't like coloured people or other minorities? Own it. Revel in it. Double down on it. But using the disingenuous 'cultural stereotypes' argument as you do, is pretty weak. Sure 'gang bangers' are merely a datum in your empirical evidence. Like I said, it's like talking to a brick wall.

Wow, you are obnoxious and wrong:

affect change: having an impact on change

effect change: bringing about change

You wish to do the second, which is why I used 'effect.'

The rest of your post I'll reply to in my next comment. This part, you clearly need to see on its own.

You wish to make up your own language? Fine by me. The rest of us will use nouns and verbs in their correct place. Just can't stand to be corrected on anything. Any little thing and you lash out with the names. And all the self serving superiority that you have been trying to affect (with an 'a') in your previous posts is a very thin veneer to what is really underneath.

You are crazy. You really are. You're the poster boy for Freudian projection.

But the words have other, less commonly used senses that can make them tricky. Effect does function as a verb when it bears the sense to bring about. For instance, it is the correct word in phrases such as effect change and effect solutions where these phrases mean to bring about changeand to bring about solutions. It’s possible to imagine where the phrase affect change might make sense, but it would mean to have an effect on change rather than to bring about change.

These writers, for instance, use affect where they obviously mean effect (i.e., to bring about):

http://grammarist.com/usage/affect-effect/

aTomsLife · January 16, 2016

Says a guy coming from the side that won't substantiate any of their arguments, and are now doubling down on a straw man.

No one is debating whether or not gun deaths are tragic. All untimely death is, of course.

The question remains, though, of whether current data warrants a change to the Constitution. For those who say it does, it's well past your turn to provide evidence based on more than just emotional appeals, erroneous claims to satire, or just plain old vitriol.

Still stinging eh! Mr. Data guy thinks he has the answers to the gun control debate through long division. Your calculations and percentages are infantile. They demonstrate nothing. You attack others for making assertions unsupported by empirical evidence, yet you expect the rest of us to swallow your crap that 11,000 deaths is not sufficient to matter. That the death of this child, an any others is merely anecdotal and not worthy of a response from a data driven mind. So tell me Data Guy, how many deaths is enough for you? 1 million, 10 million? Your spurious, non-existent 'empirical' based so-called arguments are based on just as much bias, prejudice and emotion as all the others.

I do also recall a small aside in your dismissal of 11,000 deaths that most of these are gang members anyway. What do you mean by that? Do you mean minorities? Do you mean members of the underclass? Since you are statistically driven, why not come up with a formula to represent these deaths among the coloured people. How about assessing the value of their lives at 2/3 that of yours or?

You really are no better than the rest of them are you.

And a good morning to you as well, lostboy.

Yes, that 11,000 deaths out of 2,500,000 is not sufficient to amend the Constitution is ultimately my opinion. I've no problem admitting as much, nor at this point am I concerned that you don't agree. As someone who wishes to effect change, the onus ultimately falls on you to convince others you're right.

My mention of gang members has nothing to do with race, but rather that gang members are almost certainly in possession of illegal firearms, and so more regulation will have no impact on the homicides they commit. I mentioned as much many times in my previous comments. Thanks for slanderous accusations, though. It's in keeping with the cultural stereotypes I've already ascribed to you, but that you argue is evidence of my lack of education.

Superciliousness does not provide sufficient cover. You continue to hide from the issue. Just how many deaths is sufficient for you?

Affect change? You continue to have problems with your nouns and verbs. Just like posting misattributed quotes, attempts to look smarter than others often falls down flat. I do not believe I have every claimed anything about your education. That would be a cheap shot. It is your intellectually constrained perspective that I have attacked. You have made it clear that you have no interest in alternative views. You repeated as much above. I am not trying to affect anything. Just highlighting hypocrisy and intellectualised arrogance.

You don't like coloured people or other minorities? Own it. Revel in it. Double down on it. But using the disingenuous 'cultural stereotypes' argument as you do, is pretty weak. Sure 'gang bangers' are merely a datum in your empirical evidence. Like I said, it's like talking to a brick wall.

"I do not believe I have every claimed anything about your education. That would be a cheap shot. It is your intellectually constrained perspective that I have attacked."

Here you go, post #198: "I am sincerely sorry that your educational grounding wasn't sufficient to go beyond literal interpretations of cultural stereo-types."

The cultural stereotype (one word, no dash needed, btw) I ascribe to you concerns the 'liberal/progressive' need to feign moral superiority through slander. As evidenced before and once again in your most recent reply:

"You don't like coloured people or other minorities? Own it. Revel in it. Double down on it. But using the disingenuous 'cultural stereotypes' argument as you do, is pretty weak. Sure 'gang bangers' are merely a datum in your empirical evidence. Like I said, it's like talking to a brick wall."

I provided you with a sound reason for why I emphasize gangbangers in my figures, yet all you can do is persist in your insinuations that I'm racist. But I'm the brick wall...sure.

As for your question about how many deaths it would take before I was in favor of amending the Constitution, I didn't answer before because I was taking my time to think it over. It's a fair question, despite the maturity level of the messenger.

It wouldn't be dependent on a total number, but trend... I was going to elaborate on this, but I just saw your reply to me regarding my correction of your attempt to correct me. You are crazy and I'm finished with you. Have a nice life.

lostboy · January 16, 2016

Superciliousness does not provide sufficient cover. You continue to hide from the issue. Just how many deaths is sufficient for you?

Affect change? You continue to have problems with your nouns and verbs. Just like posting misattributed quotes, attempts to look smarter than others often falls down flat. I do not believe I have every claimed anything about your education. That would be a cheap shot. It is your intellectually constrained perspective that I have attacked. You have made it clear that you have no interest in alternative views. You repeated as much above. I am not trying to affect anything. Just highlighting hypocrisy and intellectualised arrogance.

You don't like coloured people or other minorities? Own it. Revel in it. Double down on it. But using the disingenuous 'cultural stereotypes' argument as you do, is pretty weak. Sure 'gang bangers' are merely a datum in your empirical evidence. Like I said, it's like talking to a brick wall.

"I do not believe I have every claimed anything about your education. That would be a cheap shot. It is your intellectually constrained perspective that I have attacked."

Here you go, post #198: "I am sincerely sorry that your educational grounding wasn't sufficient to go beyond literal interpretations of cultural stereo-types."

The cultural stereotype (one word, no dash needed, btw) I ascribe to you concerns the 'liberal/progressive' need to feign moral superiority through slander. As evidenced before and once again in your most recent reply:

"You don't like coloured people or other minorities? Own it. Revel in it. Double down on it. But using the disingenuous 'cultural stereotypes' argument as you do, is pretty weak. Sure 'gang bangers' are merely a datum in your empirical evidence. Like I said, it's like talking to a brick wall."

I provided you with a sound reason for why I emphasize gangbangers in my figures, yet all you can do is persist in your insinuations that I'm racist. But I'm the brick wall...sure.

As for your question about how many deaths it would take before I was in favor of amending the Constitution, I didn't answer before because I was taking my time to think it over. It's a fair question, despite the maturity level of the messenger.

It wouldn't be dependent on a total number, but trend... I was going to elaborate on this, but I just saw your reply to me regarding my correction of your attempt to correct me. You are crazy and I'm finished with you. Have a nice life.

Still won't give a number. I was correct. No courage of your convictions. Avoid. Extemporise. Deflect. Just how many deaths are sufficient for you? You make an art of the asinine. Whether it be your use of nonsense statistics or whether it be your incorrect use of grammar. Who would have thought you would have been spending a Saturday morning learning grade school stuff like that or trawling through back posts to try and find anything to fit your purpose and trying to misrepresent what others have said in the process. Instead of conceding or ignoring, you just have to make an issue out of every little thing. And now we know why. You are threatened by Progressives. Everything falls into place. Your bigoted micro-aggressions. Your disdain of minorities. Your hallucinogenic fantasies about resisting Tyrannical Governments with your BB Gun.

Well my work is done. I have made a nonsense of your nonsense. I have garnered the obligatory 'mental health' response of the defeated antagonist. I have seen the protagonist flounce away with the standard parting shots. Not a particularly dramatic flounce, but a flounce nonetheless (unhyphenated for your pleasure). Please continue your intensive study of grammar. I suggest Fowlers. It has served me well for nearly 40 years. The OED is quite useful also. You will see there the admonishments given to those who try to use a verb as a noun in an inappropriate context. Just like your silly little Socrates meme.

Most of the flounders come back. They can't help themselves. Their own sense of self-importance prevents them from staying away. If and when you do flounce back - give us a number. Tell us who await with such abject anticipation, just how many Americans have to die by gun violence to satisfy you? Don't think I will hold my breath on that.

Go 2A. Right to the trash can of history.

neverdie · January 16, 2016

bit rich coming from the team of weak arguments.

It's perfectly reasonable to Slaughter children in the name of a piece of paper.

Duh !

Says a guy coming from the side that won't substantiate any of their arguments, and are now doubling down on a straw man.

No one is debating whether or not gun deaths are tragic. All untimely death is, of course.

The question remains, though, of whether current data warrants a change to the Constitution. For those who say there is, it's well past your turn to provide evidence based on more than just emotional appeals, erroneous claims to satire, or just plain old vitriol.

Blood and guts on television isn't enough for you?

Do you want all murdered infants and children delivered to your doorstep.

The Australians have shown you what to do, so be a good lad and run along.

A good example of the fact that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Stupid is, as stupid does.

The Australians have shown America what NOT to do as far as gun control. It is so bad in Australia, that the police can visit a registered gun owner unannounced, and ask to see if their guns are locked up and check if the ammunition is locked up in another place. If the home owners gun is not locked up, or heaven forbid loaded, the gun owner can expect to pay a hefty fine. If an Australian home owner were to shoot an intruder, they can expect to loose their firearm and spend time in prison.

What I find refreshing, is the countless hysterical posts made by the ThaiVisa anti-gun posters, are nothing more than hot air with absolutely no effect on gun owners in America.

Gun control in America is all about sight alignment, breathing, and trigger squeeze.

As far as the father that shot his son, not everyone is born with common sense. This incident reminds me of the saying, "life is tough but even tougher if you are stupid."

Thank you for such a clear and persuasive explanation of why you rarely read about Australian parents killing their children with guns.

I thought you were on the pro-gun side?

I bet that Aussie lady who just had her arm bitten off by a saltie wishes she was allowed to own a gun.

She can own a gun. But Even if she had it ready to go i doubt it would have saved her arm. Or do people with guns have them out with finger on the trigger at every corner.

They do mate, that's why there's so many shooting deaths because their itchy fingers can't wait to pull their triggers.

Loaded gun in every corner.

Must be compensating for something.

neverdie · January 16, 2016

No point arguing with the mentally challenged.

If a child grows up having an idea drummed religiously into his/her head, they've becomes 'groomed' intobelievingbsomething.

These pro amendment #2 folk are like Islamic jihadist extremist. They can't see the forest for the trees.

We can only hope that these are the folk that are murdered and mowed down by their own.

Gewdd riddance

sirineou · January 16, 2016

There are an estimated 30,000 federal, state and municipal gun laws on the books now.

Not a single one of them will keep guns out of the hands of a determined gang banger, drug dealer or any other criminal that wants one.

Guns are coming across the southern border with Mexico by the thousands and they will continue coming as long as there is a market.

Somebody brilliantly mentioned automatic weapons. Automatic weapons are strictly regulated, licensed and controlled by the Feds. Licenses are cost prohibitive and not run of the mill issues. Automatic weapons, legally obtained, are a non-issue.

The illegally obtained ones, as well as the illegally obtained handguns are the problem.

"There are an estimated 30,000 federal, state and municipal gun laws on the books now.

Not a single one of them will keep guns out of the hands of a determined gang banger, drug dealer or any other criminal that wants one."

There are numerous law concerning pedophilia, non of them would stop a determined pedophile

Is there a point in here somewhere or is it merely off topic?

I am not surprised you don't get the point,

You have made the same red herring argument concerning this subject repeatedly over the years,

"if you make guns criminal, only criminals will own guns"

First you make an incorrect assumption, then you go to town with it. No one wants to make guns illegal, only illegal for those who should not have them.

If you are one who should have them, you need not be worried, perhaps you might be inconvenienced, and have to wait s few extra days. I concede this point. An INCONVENIENCE well worth it IMO

Secondly, of course only criminals would have them in this cases, THAT'S THE POINT, so that only criminals would have them in that case.

IN THAT CASE

Would some " determined gang banger, drug dealer or any other criminal that wants one." get them? sure any determent criminal , whether he be drug dealer, gang banger, pedophile, jaywalker, etc etc, would not be stooped, it would be made more difficult for them, and more EXPENSIVE, not only in monetary terms, but also in legal terms.

This point has being made to you repeatedly. You and those on your side have no gotten it then and I am not surprised you are not getting it now. Nor do I expect you will ever get it.

Arguing is futile,it is really a waste of time, as is this reply.

I am not saying all this to be mean to you, I am sure you are a very nice guy and a good person, I have many friends who are politically polar opposites to me. My professional mentor,and very good friend, who recently passed away, was a Faux news head, but other than that he was a wonderful person, I miss him very much. I understand the fear older people experience as they see their world change, I am beginning to experience some of it my self.

I dont come to this threads to convince anyone of anything, I come to be challenged, use my brain, you know, the old adage " Use it or lose it" .

And making the same obvious point to the same member,over and over again is not challenging is frustrating.

This is an explanation of me some times getting "short" with you. It is not disrespect, it is frustration.

anyway, if some times I come across as disrespectful I apologize.

chuckd · January 16, 2016

There are an estimated 30,000 federal, state and municipal gun laws on the books now.

Not a single one of them will keep guns out of the hands of a determined gang banger, drug dealer or any other criminal that wants one.

Guns are coming across the southern border with Mexico by the thousands and they will continue coming as long as there is a market.

Somebody brilliantly mentioned automatic weapons. Automatic weapons are strictly regulated, licensed and controlled by the Feds. Licenses are cost prohibitive and not run of the mill issues. Automatic weapons, legally obtained, are a non-issue.

The illegally obtained ones, as well as the illegally obtained handguns are the problem.

"There are an estimated 30,000 federal, state and municipal gun laws on the books now.

Not a single one of them will keep guns out of the hands of a determined gang banger, drug dealer or any other criminal that wants one."

There are numerous law concerning pedophilia, non of them would stop a determined pedophile

Is there a point in here somewhere or is it merely off topic?

I am not surprised you don't get the point,

You have made the same red herring argument concerning this subject repeatedly over the years,

"if you make guns criminal, only criminals will own guns"

First you make an incorrect assumption, then you go to town with it. No one wants to make guns illegal, only illegal for those who should not have them.

If you are one who should have them, you need not be worried, perhaps you might be inconvenienced, and have to wait s few extra days. I concede this point. An INCONVENIENCE well worth it IMO

Secondly, of course only criminals would have them in this cases, THAT'S THE POINT, so that only criminals would have them in that case.

IN THAT CASE

Would some " determined gang banger, drug dealer or any other criminal that wants one." get them? sure any determent criminal , whether he be drug dealer, gang banger, pedophile, jaywalker, etc etc, would not be stooped, it would be made more difficult for them, and more EXPENSIVE, not only in monetary terms, but also in legal terms.

This point has being made to you repeatedly. You and those on your side have no gotten it then and I am not surprised you are not getting it now. Nor do I expect you will ever get it.

Arguing is futile,it is really a waste of time, as is this reply.

I am not saying all this to be mean to you, I am sure you are a very nice guy and a good person, I have many friends who are politically polar opposites to me. My professional mentor,and very good friend, who recently passed away, was a Faux news head, but other than that he was a wonderful person, I miss him very much. I understand the fear older people experience as they see their world change, I am beginning to experience some of it my self.

I dont come to this threads to convince anyone of anything, I come to be challenged, use my brain, you know, the old adage " Use it or lose it" .

And making the same obvious point to the same member,over and over again is not challenging is frustrating.

This is an explanation of me some times getting "short" with you. It is not disrespect, it is frustration.

anyway, if some times I come across as disrespectful I apologize.

" No one wants to make guns illegal, only illegal for those who should not have them."

I hate to bust your bubble, but guns are already illegal for those that should not have them. That's what many of the 30,000 laws on the books try to take care of.

Perhaps the authorities should take care to enforce the laws we currently have to take illegal guns away from those that should not have them.

Maybe that's where you should start.

sirineou · January 16, 2016

"There are an estimated 30,000 federal, state and municipal gun laws on the books now.

Not a single one of them will keep guns out of the hands of a determined gang banger, drug dealer or any other criminal that wants one."

There are numerous law concerning pedophilia, non of them would stop a determined pedophile

Is there a point in here somewhere or is it merely off topic?

I am not surprised you don't get the point,

You have made the same red herring argument concerning this subject repeatedly over the years,

"if you make guns criminal, only criminals will own guns"

First you make an incorrect assumption, then you go to town with it. No one wants to make guns illegal, only illegal for those who should not have them.

If you are one who should have them, you need not be worried, perhaps you might be inconvenienced, and have to wait s few extra days. I concede this point. An INCONVENIENCE well worth it IMO

Secondly, of course only criminals would have them in this cases, THAT'S THE POINT, so that only criminals would have them in that case.

IN THAT CASE

Would some " determined gang banger, drug dealer or any other criminal that wants one." get them? sure any determent criminal , whether he be drug dealer, gang banger, pedophile, jaywalker, etc etc, would not be stooped, it would be made more difficult for them, and more EXPENSIVE, not only in monetary terms, but also in legal terms.

This point has being made to you repeatedly. You and those on your side have no gotten it then and I am not surprised you are not getting it now. Nor do I expect you will ever get it.

Arguing is futile,it is really a waste of time, as is this reply.

I am not saying all this to be mean to you, I am sure you are a very nice guy and a good person, I have many friends who are politically polar opposites to me. My professional mentor,and very good friend, who recently passed away, was a Faux news head, but other than that he was a wonderful person, I miss him very much. I understand the fear older people experience as they see their world change, I am beginning to experience some of it my self.

I dont come to this threads to convince anyone of anything, I come to be challenged, use my brain, you know, the old adage " Use it or lose it" .

And making the same obvious point to the same member,over and over again is not challenging is frustrating.

This is an explanation of me some times getting "short" with you. It is not disrespect, it is frustration.

anyway, if some times I come across as disrespectful I apologize.

" No one wants to make guns illegal, only illegal for those who should not have them."

I hate to bust your bubble, but guns are already illegal for those that should not have them. That's what many of the 30,000 laws on the books try to take care of.

Perhaps the authorities should take care to enforce the laws we currently have to take illegal guns away from those that should not have them.

Maybe that's where you should start.

but that's not true,

The fact that there are 30,000 laws on the books only indicates that those laws are inadequate. Fragmentation of the enforcement process has created the thousand of laws you mention. This fragmentation is designed by the NRS to defeat these laws .

How about eliminating these 30,000 of laws and relapsing them with only a few common sense laws.

I am sure you as gun owner do not want 30,000 laws to have to deal with

I let you start the ball rolling. How about you make a list of all the laws you think would be appropriate and fair for everyone.everywhere

Remember, every system has a number of components, defeat any one of these components and you defeat the system

Input: what we want to acomplish

Process: how do we accomplish the input (there in contained are subsystems with similar components)

Monitoring: is the input being accomplished

Adjustment: if the input deviates, adjust the process

and of course there are unforeseen consequences that require Adjustment

You have to agree that the process is not working as evident from the results., it is too complicate , it is different everywhere,to easy to defeat.

If you feel you need to answer this post please answer the point I am trying to make, dont ignore the content and pick at a word or a sentence .

This accomplishes nothing.

MiKT · January 16, 2016

There are an estimated 30,000 federal, state and municipal gun laws on the books now.

Not a single one of them will keep guns out of the hands of a determined gang banger, drug dealer or any other criminal that wants one.

Guns are coming across the southern border with Mexico by the thousands and they will continue coming as long as there is a market.

Somebody brilliantly mentioned automatic weapons. Automatic weapons are strictly regulated, licensed and controlled by the Feds. Licenses are cost prohibitive and not run of the mill issues. Automatic weapons, legally obtained, are a non-issue.

The illegally obtained ones, as well as the illegally obtained handguns are the problem.

"There are an estimated 30,000 federal, state and municipal gun laws on the books now.

Not a single one of them will keep guns out of the hands of a determined gang banger, drug dealer or any other criminal that wants one."

There are numerous law concerning pedophilia, non of them would stop a determined pedophile

Is there a point in here somewhere or is it merely off topic?

I am not surprised you don't get the point,

You have made the same red herring argument concerning this subject repeatedly over the years,

"if you make guns criminal, only criminals will own guns"

First you make an incorrect assumption, then you go to town with it. No one wants to make guns illegal, only illegal for those who should not have them.

If you are one who should have them, you need not be worried, perhaps you might be inconvenienced, and have to wait s few extra days. I concede this point. An INCONVENIENCE well worth it IMO

Secondly, of course only criminals would have them in this cases, THAT'S THE POINT, so that only criminals would have them in that case.

IN THAT CASE

Would some " determined gang banger, drug dealer or any other criminal that wants one." get them? sure any determent criminal , whether he be drug dealer, gang banger, pedophile, jaywalker, etc etc, would not be stooped, it would be made more difficult for them, and more EXPENSIVE, not only in monetary terms, but also in legal terms.

This point has being made to you repeatedly. You and those on your side have no gotten it then and I am not surprised you are not getting it now. Nor do I expect you will ever get it.

Arguing is futile,it is really a waste of time, as is this reply.

I am not saying all this to be mean to you, I am sure you are a very nice guy and a good person, I have many friends who are politically polar opposites to me. My professional mentor,and very good friend, who recently passed away, was a Faux news head, but other than that he was a wonderful person, I miss him very much. I understand the fear older people experience as they see their world change, I am beginning to experience some of it my self.

I dont come to this threads to convince anyone of anything, I come to be challenged, use my brain, you know, the old adage " Use it or lose it" .

And making the same obvious point to the same member,over and over again is not challenging is frustrating.

This is an explanation of me some times getting "short" with you. It is not disrespect, it is frustration.

anyway, if some times I come across as disrespectful I apologize.

Cheer Up Khun Sirineou,

You aint anywhere near as old as me and their is nothing to fear about change, keep on welcoming it into your life. That really will keep the old brain ticking along nicely.

So much never ending waffle, you can't be disrespectful to people who put no value on human life and take no responsibility for the thousands of deaths they could have prevented if they wanted to. But no, they consider that a huge number of unnecessary deaths is worth it to uphold a piece of paper that did not allow black people to have guns, let alone any others. How about gay people in 1789 "gay people with guns, say what". How about wimin, "you sure are shittin me aint you".

If it makes you happy (or mad) keep on posting the good side stuff. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that these extended and never ending gun debates are started by those who want to draw attention away from the jaunta's latest bout of cronyism with certain rubber planters, etc. etc. etc.

Here's some real irony for you. I have just come from a funeral with about 500 police and army friends of a very high ranking policeman family relative who accidently shot himself whilst cleaning his 357 magnum. Nicest bloke you could ever meet, honest cop (honest) and leaving behind daughters and sons in the army and police and everyone grieving.

He needed his gun, most Americans don't. But don't give up hope.

OMGImInPattaya · January 16, 2016

I am not surprised you don't get the point,

You have made the same red herring argument concerning this subject repeatedly over the years,

"if you make guns criminal, only criminals will own guns"

First you make an incorrect assumption, then you go to town with it. No one wants to make guns illegal, only illegal for those who should not have them.

If you are one who should have them, you need not be worried, perhaps you might be inconvenienced, and have to wait s few extra days. I concede this point. An INCONVENIENCE well worth it IMO

Secondly, of course only criminals would have them in this cases, THAT'S THE POINT, so that only criminals would have them in that case.

IN THAT CASE

Would some " determined gang banger, drug dealer or any other criminal that wants one." get them? sure any determent criminal , whether he be drug dealer, gang banger, pedophile, jaywalker, etc etc, would not be stooped, it would be made more difficult for them, and more EXPENSIVE, not only in monetary terms, but also in legal terms.

This point has being made to you repeatedly. You and those on your side have no gotten it then and I am not surprised you are not getting it now. Nor do I expect you will ever get it.

Arguing is futile,it is really a waste of time, as is this reply.

I am not saying all this to be mean to you, I am sure you are a very nice guy and a good person, I have many friends who are politically polar opposites to me. My professional mentor,and very good friend, who recently passed away, was a Faux news head, but other than that he was a wonderful person, I miss him very much. I understand the fear older people experience as they see their world change, I am beginning to experience some of it my self.

I dont come to this threads to convince anyone of anything, I come to be challenged, use my brain, you know, the old adage " Use it or lose it" .

And making the same obvious point to the same member,over and over again is not challenging is frustrating.

This is an explanation of me some times getting "short" with you. It is not disrespect, it is frustration.

anyway, if some times I come across as disrespectful I apologize.

Cheer Up Khun Sirineou,

You aint anywhere near as old as me and their is nothing to fear about change, keep on welcoming it into your life. That really will keep the old brain ticking along nicely.

So much never ending waffle, you can't be disrespectful to people who put no value on human life and take no responsibility for the thousands of deaths they could have prevented if they wanted to. But no, they consider that a huge number of unnecessary deaths is worth it to uphold a piece of paper that did not allow black people to have guns, let alone any others. How about gay people in 1789 "gay people with guns, say what". How about wimin, "you sure are shittin me aint you".

If it makes you happy (or mad) keep on posting the good side stuff. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that these extended and never ending gun debates are started by those who want to draw attention away from the jaunta's latest bout of cronyism with certain rubber planters, etc. etc. etc.

Here's some real irony for you. I have just come from a funeral with about 500 police and army friends of a very high ranking policeman family relative who accidently shot himself whilst cleaning his 357 magnum. Nicest bloke you could ever meet, honest cop (honest) and leaving behind daughters and sons in the army and police and everyone grieving.

He needed his gun, most Americans don't. But don't give up hope.

You can't make this stuff up...cleans a loaded .357

MiKT · January 16, 2016

I am not surprised you don't get the point,

You have made the same red herring argument concerning this subject repeatedly over the years,

"if you make guns criminal, only criminals will own guns"

First you make an incorrect assumption, then you go to town with it. No one wants to make guns illegal, only illegal for those who should not have them.

If you are one who should have them, you need not be worried, perhaps you might be inconvenienced, and have to wait s few extra days. I concede this point. An INCONVENIENCE well worth it IMO

Secondly, of course only criminals would have them in this cases, THAT'S THE POINT, so that only criminals would have them in that case.

IN THAT CASE

Would some " determined gang banger, drug dealer or any other criminal that wants one." get them? sure any determent criminal , whether he be drug dealer, gang banger, pedophile, jaywalker, etc etc, would not be stooped, it would be made more difficult for them, and more EXPENSIVE, not only in monetary terms, but also in legal terms.

This point has being made to you repeatedly. You and those on your side have no gotten it then and I am not surprised you are not getting it now. Nor do I expect you will ever get it.

Arguing is futile,it is really a waste of time, as is this reply.

I am not saying all this to be mean to you, I am sure you are a very nice guy and a good person, I have many friends who are politically polar opposites to me. My professional mentor,and very good friend, who recently passed away, was a Faux news head, but other than that he was a wonderful person, I miss him very much. I understand the fear older people experience as they see their world change, I am beginning to experience some of it my self.

I dont come to this threads to convince anyone of anything, I come to be challenged, use my brain, you know, the old adage " Use it or lose it" .

And making the same obvious point to the same member,over and over again is not challenging is frustrating.

This is an explanation of me some times getting "short" with you. It is not disrespect, it is frustration.

anyway, if some times I come across as disrespectful I apologize.

Cheer Up Khun Sirineou,

You aint anywhere near as old as me and their is nothing to fear about change, keep on welcoming it into your life. That really will keep the old brain ticking along nicely.

So much never ending waffle, you can't be disrespectful to people who put no value on human life and take no responsibility for the thousands of deaths they could have prevented if they wanted to. But no, they consider that a huge number of unnecessary deaths is worth it to uphold a piece of paper that did not allow black people to have guns, let alone any others. How about gay people in 1789 "gay people with guns, say what". How about wimin, "you sure are shittin me aint you".

If it makes you happy (or mad) keep on posting the good side stuff. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that these extended and never ending gun debates are started by those who want to draw attention away from the jaunta's latest bout of cronyism with certain rubber planters, etc. etc. etc.

Here's some real irony for you. I have just come from a funeral with about 500 police and army friends of a very high ranking policeman family relative who accidently shot himself whilst cleaning his 357 magnum. Nicest bloke you could ever meet, honest cop (honest) and leaving behind daughters and sons in the army and police and everyone grieving.

He needed his gun, most Americans don't. But don't give up hope.

You can't make this stuff up...cleans a loaded .357

Its perfectly true, with many years of experience handling guns of all types. I recommend you and a certain Charles plus your "anti-gun control expert" friends give it a few practice tries, just to keep you amused and see how familiar you can get with your weapon. From what I have read some of them would have no problem shooting themselves with a Gatling gun.

chuckd · January 16, 2016

" No one wants to make guns illegal, only illegal for those who should not have them."

I hate to bust your bubble, but guns are already illegal for those that should not have them. That's what many of the 30,000 laws on the books try to take care of.

Perhaps the authorities should take care to enforce the laws we currently have to take illegal guns away from those that should not have them.

Maybe that's where you should start.

but that's not true,

The fact that there are 30,000 laws on the books only indicates that those laws are inadequate. Fragmentation of the enforcement process has created the thousand of laws you mention. This fragmentation is designed by the NRS to defeat these laws .

How about eliminating these 30,000 of laws and relapsing them with only a few common sense laws.

I am sure you as gun owner do not want 30,000 laws to have to deal with

I let you start the ball rolling. How about you make a list of all the laws you think would be appropriate and fair for everyone.everywhere

Remember, every system has a number of components, defeat any one of these components and you defeat the system

Input: what we want to acomplish

Process: how do we accomplish the input (there in contained are subsystems with similar components)

Monitoring: is the input being accomplished

Adjustment: if the input deviates, adjust the process

and of course there are unforeseen consequences that require Adjustment

You have to agree that the process is not working as evident from the results., it is too complicate , it is different everywhere,to easy to defeat.

If you feel you need to answer this post please answer the point I am trying to make, dont ignore the content and pick at a word or a sentence .

This accomplishes nothing.

These 30,000 laws are Federal, State and local laws combined. How can you possibly say these laws are inadequate unless you know what each and every law encompasses and whether it is enforced or not. Your argument on the effectiveness of the laws is not based on a solid footing.

Gun owners don't have to deal with 30,000 laws. They only have to deal with those laws that are in effect in their state and town or residence, along with the federal laws of course.

Now you make this very kind offer:

"I let you start the ball rolling. How about you make a list of all the laws you think would be appropriate and fair for everyone.everywhere"

Not trying to be disrespectful or argumentative but is it OK if I decline your offer?

I don't know which laws are working in Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore, Washington DC, Chicago or any of those other cities where homicides are rampant. From the looks of things not many laws are working there, yet all these cities have very strict gun control laws. Maybe the fact that most of the cities are legally gun free zones is what makes them more dangerous.

I guess my post has accomplished nothing since I didn't specifically answer all your questions. My apologies.

Let me leave you with this little graphic...

OMGImInPattaya · January 16, 2016

I am not surprised you don't get the point,

You have made the same red herring argument concerning this subject repeatedly over the years,

"if you make guns criminal, only criminals will own guns"

First you make an incorrect assumption, then you go to town with it. No one wants to make guns illegal, only illegal for those who should not have them.

If you are one who should have them, you need not be worried, perhaps you might be inconvenienced, and have to wait s few extra days. I concede this point. An INCONVENIENCE well worth it IMO

Secondly, of course only criminals would have them in this cases, THAT'S THE POINT, so that only criminals would have them in that case.

IN THAT CASE

Would some " determined gang banger, drug dealer or any other criminal that wants one." get them? sure any determent criminal , whether he be drug dealer, gang banger, pedophile, jaywalker, etc etc, would not be stooped, it would be made more difficult for them, and more EXPENSIVE, not only in monetary terms, but also in legal terms.

This point has being made to you repeatedly. You and those on your side have no gotten it then and I am not surprised you are not getting it now. Nor do I expect you will ever get it.

Arguing is futile,it is really a waste of time, as is this reply.

I am not saying all this to be mean to you, I am sure you are a very nice guy and a good person, I have many friends who are politically polar opposites to me. My professional mentor,and very good friend, who recently passed away, was a Faux news head, but other than that he was a wonderful person, I miss him very much. I understand the fear older people experience as they see their world change, I am beginning to experience some of it my self.

I dont come to this threads to convince anyone of anything, I come to be challenged, use my brain, you know, the old adage " Use it or lose it" .

And making the same obvious point to the same member,over and over again is not challenging is frustrating.

This is an explanation of me some times getting "short" with you. It is not disrespect, it is frustration.

anyway, if some times I come across as disrespectful I apologize.

Cheer Up Khun Sirineou,

You aint anywhere near as old as me and their is nothing to fear about change, keep on welcoming it into your life. That really will keep the old brain ticking along nicely.

So much never ending waffle, you can't be disrespectful to people who put no value on human life and take no responsibility for the thousands of deaths they could have prevented if they wanted to. But no, they consider that a huge number of unnecessary deaths is worth it to uphold a piece of paper that did not allow black people to have guns, let alone any others. How about gay people in 1789 "gay people with guns, say what". How about wimin, "you sure are shittin me aint you".

If it makes you happy (or mad) keep on posting the good side stuff. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that these extended and never ending gun debates are started by those who want to draw attention away from the jaunta's latest bout of cronyism with certain rubber planters, etc. etc. etc.

Here's some real irony for you. I have just come from a funeral with about 500 police and army friends of a very high ranking policeman family relative who accidently shot himself whilst cleaning his 357 magnum. Nicest bloke you could ever meet, honest cop (honest) and leaving behind daughters and sons in the army and police and everyone grieving.

He needed his gun, most Americans don't. But don't give up hope.

You can't make this stuff up...cleans a loaded .357

Its perfectly true, with many years of experience handling guns of all types. I recommend you and a certain Charles plus your "anti-gun control expert" friends give it a few practice tries, just to keep you amused and see how familiar you can get with your weapon. From what I have read some of them would have no problem shooting themselves with a Gatling gun.

I OWN a beautiful blackened Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum...the favorite in my collection. (Unfortunately it's in storage in the USA now.) And I can attest, by the fact that I'm replying to your silly posts, that I never cleaned it while it was loaded

As to your cop friend...what an idiot...wait wait don't tell me, he was also drunk while "cleaning" [more likely playing with] his gun.

So shouldn't you be starting some sorta "gun control" jihad in Thailand to protect cops from killing themselves while cleaning their loaded weapons? I mean, if this cop didn't have access to a firearm he'd be alive today, his wife wouldn't be a widow, and his kids wouldn't be fatherless.

Edited January 16, 2016 by OMGImInPattaya

sirineou · January 16, 2016

" No one wants to make guns illegal, only illegal for those who should not have them."

I hate to bust your bubble, but guns are already illegal for those that should not have them. That's what many of the 30,000 laws on the books try to take care of.

Perhaps the authorities should take care to enforce the laws we currently have to take illegal guns away from those that should not have them.

Maybe that's where you should start.

but that's not true,

The fact that there are 30,000 laws on the books only indicates that those laws are inadequate. Fragmentation of the enforcement process has created the thousand of laws you mention. This fragmentation is designed by the NRS to defeat these laws .

How about eliminating these 30,000 of laws and relapsing them with only a few common sense laws.

I am sure you as gun owner do not want 30,000 laws to have to deal with

I let you start the ball rolling. How about you make a list of all the laws you think would be appropriate and fair for everyone.everywhere

Remember, every system has a number of components, defeat any one of these components and you defeat the system

Input: what we want to acomplish

Process: how do we accomplish the input (there in contained are subsystems with similar components)

Monitoring: is the input being accomplished

Adjustment: if the input deviates, adjust the process

and of course there are unforeseen consequences that require Adjustment

You have to agree that the process is not working as evident from the results., it is too complicate , it is different everywhere,to easy to defeat.

If you feel you need to answer this post please answer the point I am trying to make, dont ignore the content and pick at a word or a sentence .

This accomplishes nothing.

These 30,000 laws are Federal, State and local laws combined. How can you possibly say these laws are inadequate unless you know what each and every law encompasses and whether it is enforced or not. Your argument on the effectiveness of the laws is not based on a solid footing.

Gun owners don't have to deal with 30,000 laws. They only have to deal with those laws that are in effect in their state and town or residence, along with the federal laws of course.

Now you make this very kind offer:

"I let you start the ball rolling. How about you make a list of all the laws you think would be appropriate and fair for everyone.everywhere"

Not trying to be disrespectful or argumentative but is it OK if I decline your offer?

I don't know which laws are working in Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore, Washington DC, Chicago or any of those other cities where homicides are rampant. From the looks of things not many laws are working there, yet all these cities have very strict gun control laws. Maybe the fact that most of the cities are legally gun free zones is what makes them more dangerous.

I guess my post has accomplished nothing since I didn't specifically answer all your questions. My apologies.

Let me leave you with this little graphic...

Stupid is as stupid does

The reason they are not working is obvious in the results, if you think the results are just fine, then they are working fine, but if you dont then the proof is in the pudding.

There is no problem with local laws to addressee local peculiarities, but if that's all there is then you do not have a baseline uniformity that can be exploited.

Sign In

U.S. father fatally shoots son mistaken for intruder

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Popular Now