Return to the Hot Topics Forum

 o
Latest polls on guns

Posted by dublinbay z6 KS (My Page) on
Tue, Jan 29, 13 at 9:53

Here is the latest on U.S. gun control attitudes (Associated Press-GfK poll, Jan. 10-14, 2013).



It seems the anger over the Newtown massacre of the tiny innocents has not abated.

1. Three-quarters of Americans said they reacted to the Connecticut massacre of with deep anger, higher than the 65 percent who said they felt that way . . . after the 9/11 attacks.

2. Some 58 percent favor strengthening gun laws in the United States.

3. Majorities favored a nationwide ban on military-style, rapid-fire guns (55 percent).

4. Majorities favored limits on the amount and type of gun violence that can be portrayed in video games, movies or on television (54 percent).

5. About half (51 percent) of those surveyed back a ban on the sale of magazines holding 10 or more bullets.

6. A lopsided 84 percent of adults would like to see the establishment of a federal standard for background checks for people buying guns at gun shows.



It seems that gun attitudes are partly political and partisan also.

7. Most Democrats (76 percent) and independents (60 percent) back stricter gun laws, while a majority of Republicans (53 percent) want gun laws left alone.



It also seems that it is partly gender, but notice that a majority of both sexes think gun control is a very important issue, and nearly half of men also favor stricter gun laws.

8. Women: 68 percent saying it was very or extremely important to them. Men: 57 percent.

9. Women are more likely to back stricter gun laws: 67 percent favor them, compared with 49 percent of men.



And how do GUN-OWNER attitudes compare with NON-GUN-OWNER'S attitudes toward gun control? Predictably less enthusiastic, but more strongly in favor of it than some people might expect.

10. Among gun owners, just 40 percent back a ban on the sale of military-type, rapid-fire guns, and 37 percent favor a ban on high-capacity magazines.

66 percent of non-gun owners would ban military-style weapons and 60 percent would ban high-capacity magazines.
11. 80 percent of gun owners do support federal standards for gun-show background checks, as do 87 percent of non-gun owners.




Back to politics: guns are a partisan issue.

12. Fifty-five percent of gun-owners are Republicans, compared with 30 percent who are Democrats.



I'm interested in this partisan political aspect. So there is a connection between the right-wing paranoia about "they" are out to get us and gun-ownership/attitudes? But my question would be who are "they"? The Democrats? Do right-wingers honestly believe the Democrats are out to shoot them? Or is it just that more vulnerable feeling people are more likely to turn to the Republican party? How do we make sense out of the partisan difference to gun-ownership/control?

Kate

Here is a link that might be useful: AP-GfK poll: Anger, concern follow Conn. shooting


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

My gut instinct tells me that the difference in R v D gun ownership is primarily demographic and cultural. The NRA style "gun culture" tends to be more of a rural one overall from what I have observed, and it is different from the urban gun culture of the inner cities. The stereotype of the rural gun owner with the gun rack mounted on the rear cab wall of his pickup doesn't exist for no reason.

I would be willing to bet that gun ownership, support for gun ownership, and NRA membership, if shown on a map, would strongly mirror the red/blue distribution, by a county by county basis, that we have seen in the past four election cycles, with urban/suburban areas being far less into the stereotypical NRA type gun culture, and rural outstate areas much more in support of it.

Ah, what can I say, there are never easy answers to complex questions.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Kate, I don't intend to sidetrack your partisan poll, but I think some will find this video interesting.

"I'm Sheriff David Clarke and I want to talk to you about something personal: your safety. It's no longer a spectator sport; I need you in the game. But are you ready? With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option. You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back. But are you prepared? Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family."

Here is a link that might be useful: Don't depend on us. Arm yourself.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

I would be willing to bet that gun ownership, support for gun ownership, and NRA membership, if shown on a map, would strongly mirror the red/blue distribution, by a county by county basis, that we have seen in the past four election cycles,

I'm willing to bet that most illegal gun owners will appear in the blue section, inner city, where 99% voted for Obama. (you wanted partisan)

Cleveland, Ohio, Detroit MI and Chicago are just three examples.

Are we more concerned about illegal gun owners or Bill and Jodik?


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

the only reason NYC has lower gun crime now is not the enforcement of gun law but punishment and enforcement of other criminal prosecutions.

I say the should confiscate all illegal gun from criminals and gangs in high gun crime cities before worrying about the average Joe.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

I'm concerned about a lone gunman massacring 20 little kids in a classroom--regardless of where that happens, city or rural area. In that case, the killer was neither an illegal or legal gun owner. He took the family gun, legally bought by Mom who often shared it with Son.

Brush, I'm sorry I gave you the wrong impression. I am NOT looking for partisan answers. I am looking for thoughtful insights and analyses into the the partisan nature of gun ownership/support.

However, I must object to you placing a blatantly partisan and biased and opportunistic advertisement on this thread. If that guy truly is a public official, he ought to be ashamed of himself for encouraging people to be afraid and to distrust the government -- just so that he can make some money by frightening people into enrolling in his gun business which offers a course in gun safety--in order to encourage people to buy more guns.

More guns! more guns! more guns! Soon we'll all be "safe" cuz everybody will have guns and more guns and more guns!

Folks, there is something sick about all this obsession with more guns!

Kate


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Folks, there is something sick about all this obsession with more guns!

Opinion only.

I love how you say you are looking for thoughtful answers, and then say that someone who wants to buy a new gun is somehow "sick."


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

The rest of the world DOES think we're sick, sick, sick in wanting to arm ourselves to the teeth. It's a cultural, religious, and mostly rural thing. No one I know in my 'bubble' has guns. We don't live in paranoia -ville.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

The rest of the world DOES think we're sick

Didn't know you were personal friends with the rest of the world, my apologies.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

"A doctor was gunned down inside a Southern California examination room Monday by his own patient.

The doctor, Dr. Ronald Gilbert, a well known urologist....."

The answer here is to train and arm doctors and nurses.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Didn't know you were personal friends with the rest of the world, my apologies.

All you need to do is to be able to read. Nothing more.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

I would disagree Kate and Lily : for many people, collecting guns would be as innocent of paranoia and intent as that of my smaller collection of Boehm flowers has been - the purchases growing ever so slowly over the course of many years, the choice of purchase fitting into the restrictions of the requirements of the level of artistry ( function and fine workmanship for firearms) and/or the level of beauty ( a beautifully carved wood stock on a fine gun) of what specifics it is in the interests of someone who suddenly discovers that enough purchases have been made that it would be considered a "collection" by many.

Its another matter entirely if , instead, I spend money ( that I can't afford or have not saved for this purchase) by running out to buy more Boehm which I would NOT likely have ever purchased, which does NOT fit into the type of collection of Boehm I have been collecting ....... until the first win by Obama.

Purchased only because President Obama has stated that he does not like the Boehm company or its products and would like to see them be more selective on what types of various products they will put on the market?

Well, personally I think that is two entirely different topics, to be discussed on a " what have you liked to collect" thread in the home decor forum ( or over in conversations or here, if it evolved naturally and nobody objected)

If I buy right after the election/ swearing in/ both times in an emotional state of anger, distrust or unease, or instead, "understand" why others are rushing to Boehm stores and waiting in those long lines in order to grab what 'he" is going to grab from my hot and angry fingers ( just let him TRY to!) -- because they and I are convinced that President Obama is really trying to shut down the entire company and eventually take ALL my Boehm flowers away - unwilling or perhaps unable to rationally discuss the issue itself, or Obama's ability or intent regarding the issue.......... now THAT would make me a nutty sick collector who's opinions are nothing but fluff and need to be given no weight whatsoever.

See, to me that is the difference, and a vital one.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Kate,

The Sheriff is truly a public official. I didn't post it to be partisan, since we don't know his political affiliation, yet. I believe he is sincere and concerned for the safety of his townspeople. Also, it's important that we adhere to the president's plea to listen to the other side during this debate.

Still, I'm concerned about illegal gun ownership more than I worry about Jodik owning a gun. If I have a choice, it would be her over a Cleveland thug owning a gun.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

"I'm concerned about a lone gunman massacring 20 little kids in a classroom"

We all are Kate. What to do about the problem and how to change it is less certain.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

My comments above were not directed to "gun collectors" but clearly toward the paranoid types who are convinced "someone" is out to get them--probably the U.S. government or the greedy, hungry hordes (whomever that may be) and such types. And yes, I'm angry about a public official using his office title to hawk his business services by alarming people so that they too can become the paranoid gun-owners of the future awaiting an attack from "them" (whomever "they" might be). That is fireable offense for a public official--or at the very least, a severe slap across the wrists. It is not permissable for public officials to use their offices/titles as a means of promoting and enriching themselves in their private businesses. That "officer" is out-of-line.

Kate


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

That officer is indeed out of line, and I would bet he's a rightie ,and Obama is out to get his guns, he thinks.

MYlab, The last thing I'm talking about is gun collectors . I have been a collector of many things over the years and if some one appreciates old firearms, I can relate. I have a gun over my fireplace which was used at Gettysburg during the battle there in the Civil War. We're talking about the stockpiling of assault weapons. I saw a funny cartoon. Do you actually believe your little guns can overthrow the government? Might have been a belief back when the Constitution was drawn up but everyone's weapons were equal back then. ,


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

paranoid types who are convinced "someone" is out to get them

I would bet he's a rightie

??? only thing sounding paranoid is this type of commenting. I don't understand the mentality. Why assume such things? Yes, the officer is out of line, but why go down such paths? You are as much up in arms as those who are worried about the foothold of one step closer to removing all firearms.

Relax, I'm betting it's not quite like you're worried with no way to prove either stance, yours or mine. I would think most people are of the mind to reduce guns and stiffen controls on gun issuance, but how much and what else needs to be done, are much harder arguments to get the correct attention and reasoning. Reasoning minus the emotion. We need some logic here, which is hard to come by when the event that has sparked this firestorm is so emotionally charged.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

I fail to see why it would be hard for the opposing sides to come together on this issue since, as my OP clearly shows, the majority of folks in general AND specifically pro-gun folks AGREE on a number of things that can be done. Did anybody bother to read the figures I cited from the latest poll in the OP? It's all there to be seen by anyone who bothers to look.

I'm amazed at the pro-gun hostility this thread aroused. The point of my OP was that a majority on both sides AGREE--so why are the pro-gun people suddenly hostile here?

The additional question I was wondering about is why--ACCORDING TO THE LATEST POLL-- are Republicans about twice as likely to have a gun and support pro-gun positions? I didn't make up that info. in order to slam Republicans--so back up and calm down. That is what the POLL indicated. I'm curious as to WHY?

What is there about the Republican Party that attracts gun proponents? Or, conversely, why are people indifferent to guns drawn to the Democratic Party? Is there something inherent in their respective philosophies about life (or something like that) that draws the respective groups to one party or the other?

I was actually looking for some non-NRA answers and non-other partisan answers--because I'm wondering on a larger, more philosophical level. But if you people just want to re-hash the NRA positions and insist we HAVE to listen to you (again and again and again), then go at it--but you'll pardon me if I leave. I've heard those NRA positions so many times I'd like to barf!

Kate


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Tue, Jan 29, 13 at 14:45

"Folks, there is something sick about all this obsession with more guns!

Kate"

There is ignorance and paranoia in the fear of firearms and trying to blame an inanimate object for the actions of human beings.
-------------------------

It is amazing how these mass gun killing seem to happen in legal GUN FREE zones- BRILLIANT!

This post was edited by RpR_ on Tue, Jan 29, 13 at 14:48


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Amazing the number of new NRA posters suddenly springing to life on this forum. A different set of 2-3 every week. Part of the NRA strategy? Flood the message boards--no discussion, just keep on repeating NRA slogans and talking points.

Drown 'em out strategy? Now that is truly a "rational" approach--if you are one of the NRA types.

Kate


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Seems simple enuff. The Republican party is less likely to remove gun rights, thus, gun owners have a bit more trust in them, not a lot more. On the other hand, Democrats are the most likely to try and remove gun rights, so, the anti crowd goes their way. Of course out of control spending probably has a major influence as well.
And as you are sick of gun supporters, gun supporters are sick of the anti mantra. It works in both ditrections. We have been working to sign up members to the NRA. While doing so we ask a few questions about what should be done to help put a stop to gun crimes. Overwhelmingly, punishing criminals is the most often suggested. Background checks at gun shows is important to many. banning further sales of magazines over 20-25 rounds seem popular but a qualifier is that those who now own them are allowed to keep them. Most think the 50 and over mags should be turned in for just compensation at present retail cost.
1 person, I dont know how many weve talked to, its a lot, thinks "assault weapons" should be banned.But he would not be willing to have his Benneli Super Nova banned?


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

of course you were't Lily and Kate - I was attempting to point out to Landscaper the difference between the two, it is he whom I suspect has got everyone lumped into the same "gun" kettle.
Not all, or perhaps even not most gun owners think like Landscaperand the other FF, nor want them to speak on their behalf. Landscaper and FF would probably be surprised at the numbers of "multible gun" owners who wish they would just stop speaking altogether, as they really hurt all gun owners.
As already stated by both, these two hang around with gun owners who parrot their own thoughts, they hang around with gun owning mirror images, they are not aware that there are many who do NOT think or speak as they do, and yet still want gun ownership and gun laws to of responsibility.
Many do not want another mass killing of children, or of innocents who are the bystanders damaged by gun wielding angry/damaged/lack of impulse control, persons and want to do what it takes to prevent this, even if it requires some sacrifice on their own part in the type of gun ownership they will have.
There is a difference among the various gun owners and how they think and behave regarding this issue:

if one ran out after an Obama win (worse, both Obama wins) and bought up some new, future"collecter items" via Obama's input on responsible gun control - those that they fear will be taken off the market soon -or defends those who did, these are the ones of who we all speak.

Then there are gun owners who hunt, or even practice shot at a range, for fun - but would give up some of them and welcome new laws regarding regulations on how to store/own them - if that is what it takes for us all to live in resonable peace and calm without the abundance of deaths by firearm, either accidental or on purpose.

Only those gun owning individuals here know which grouping they belong to, but some give a pretty clear picture of how they think regarding this issue.

I agree with Rob, especially the words, "reasoning, minus the emotions" - and I underestand that this is hard no matter what side of the fence you fall on.
But, if one find him/herself understanding or defending those awful, gun owning hecklers yelling over the poor father's attempts to speak about what it is he knows *first hand* - who's child was shot to *death* in that school by a person using a fully legally owned firearm-

- then perhaps one isn't the kind of person with the kind of self awareness and self integrity it requires to participate a meaningful discussion about meaningful sacrifices required by both sides of the fence, concerning the important gun control issues that both sides can live with.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Are you just seeing this , Kate? I saw this right after the massacre. Corn, Al ,and myriads of others appeared here, flooded the forum with their pro gun propaganda, no discussion, just their opinion. Then they vanish as quickly as they appeared to go to other forums and inundate those with their propaganda.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Don't get me wrong, I'm far from progun. Guns were made to kill and hurt. I'm not on that side. I understand those who might feel as they do, both to keep the right and for those who want the right more limited. I agree. Stricter. I think my difficulty with the conversation is it has become a focus on the problem, pointing fingers, sometimes inappropriately, without much substance to the solutions beyond, no more guns, which can't be the solution any more than outlawing abortions. It's gonna happen, nothing will stop abortions or gun violence. I don't know what the solutions are, but we do need to delve beyond and get past the chasm.

We need to find the right solutions for this problem.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Tue, Jan 29, 13 at 15:38

"What is there about the Republican Party that attracts gun proponents? Or, conversely, why are people indifferent to guns drawn to the Democratic Party? Is there something inherent in their respective philosophies about life (or something like that) that draws the respective groups to one party or the other?

I've heard those NRA positions so many times I'd like to barf!

Kate"
------------------
What is there about the Democratic Party that attracts those who are totally ignorant of existing gun laws and have paranoid fears of firearms?

I've heard those positions based on complete ignorance so many times I'd like to barf!
RpR


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Corn, Al ,and myriads of others appeared here, flooded the forum with their pro gun propaganda, no discussion, just their opinion

Got it lily....since crazy right wingers like me haven't posted much on HT before, we aren't allowed to now, or at the very least be chastized, by YOUR opinions, for doing so. So, you hate the 1st amendment and abhor the 2nd....good thing you live in the USA.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

I give up. It takes some intelligence to figure out, independently of group slogans, what there is about a party philosophy that attracts certain partisans.

Some of you seem to think the Republican party was always pro-gun (even though it was NOT) and that is why pro-gun folks are attracted to it.

However, that is not what I'm asking about. I'm asking what was there about the Republican Party--BEFORE the Republican party decided to take a pro-gun stance--that attracted people who later became pro-gun? (And vice versa for Democrats.) I'm talking about Party attitudes or values in general, not their gun positions. What was there about Party attitudes/values that began to attact pro-gun people, and when there were enough pro-gun people in the Party, the Party decided to take a pro-gun position? (And the same, in reverse, with Democrats.)

Or is that too complicated? The so-called "answers" above seem to indicate that it is too complicated for this forum which can't handle anything more than slogan- and cliche-thinking--and "cute" one-up-manship in place of actual thought and reasoning.

Too bad. Maybe we all could have learned something new--rather than just repeating the old positions over again--but of course all that a number of new NRA types really WANT to do is REPEAT the same old slogans and cliches--again and again.

Too bad.

Kate


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Kate, perhaps Hofstadter's Paranoid Style in American Politics might explain the attraction.

The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms - he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization. He constantly lives at a turning point. Like religious millenialists he expresses the anxiety of those who are living through the last days and he is sometimes disposed to set a date fort the apocalypse. ("Time is running out," said Welch in 1951. "Evidence is piling up on many sides and from many sources that October 1952 is the fatal month when Stalin will attack.")

As a member of the avant-garde who is capable of perceiving the conspiracy before it is fully obvious to an as yet unaroused public, the paranoid is a militant leader. He does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated - if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention. This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid's sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Tue, Jan 29, 13 at 16:45

"Too bad. Maybe we all could have learned something new--rather than just repeating the old positions over again--but of course all that a number of new NRA types really WANT to do is REPEAT the same old slogans and cliches--again and again.

Too bad.

Kate"
--------------

Ah, "NRA", key talking point or slogan for liberals with an agenda.

Well ignorance is bliss and any who use that group as the focus of their attacks are very happy people.

This post was edited by RpR_ on Tue, Jan 29, 13 at 18:27


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

but of course all that a number of new NRA types really WANT to do is REPEAT the same old slogans and cliches--again and again.

Haha...actually I started posting on HT because I became sick and tired of seeing folks like you REPEAT the same old slogans and cliches.....

Kinda ironic....

Later gators.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

I note that gun-clutchers all of a sudden are using "ignorant" to describe people who might not know every single fact about the 2nd Amd or some obscure fact about some gun.

Why is this? Did Beck or Rush say that last week?


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

You want to know why it's split down the middle with certain black and white stances? I don't think I'm unthinking. I was attracted to conservative values because I want freedom to make my own choices. I'm not so thrilled with the current fringe who are trying to make the party be about guns and social changes that are regressive. So the answer is, I was in the party, but now I wish it was different.

But what I think you're asking is, why do conservatives see gun control as an issue. The answer to that is, because their take on the Constitution tends to be towards the elitest end (which I know you think doesn't exist in the document, but truly is there). While liberals tend towards the "people" (we see this is tyranny of the majority) end of the constitution. Remember, we are a nation of give and take. Large and small. Rights for everyone don't come easy and the balancing act is a hard thing to manage.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

fancifowl -- Your question to NRA members is skewed. You're asking about gun 'crimes', not how to stop gun deaths and maimings in a public awash in guns.

Now I don't recall who above said they thought votes for Obama came from crime-ridden cities full of illegal weapons. I don't understand. Do you think gang-bangers VOTE? (BTW, the desperate inner city area of Englewood is home to the majority of those 500+ 'Chicago' gun deaths.)


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Actually I was called ignorant several weeks ago by one of the more ardent gun supporters here because I don't know the specific details of what constitutes an assault weapon.

I do not need to know the exact details, don't need to be a gun expert to know how I feel, and I feel strongly that guns that can kill many , many people in seconds, or even minutes ,are not required in a civilized society .


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

ff - the NRA's question and answer to it, "punish the criminals" does not do squat about preventing most gun deaths, just like hanging pickpockets in London a couple hundred years ago didn't prevent pickpockets from doing their deed in the crowds gathered to watch the hanging. Most criminals do not expect to be caught. If they did, they would do something else (where they think they won't be caught).

So, this won't PREVENT gun deaths - especially the ones like Columbine, Aurora, Newtown. The perpetrators of those crimes wanted noteriety, I think. They didn't much care if they lived or died, IMO. And the perps of domestic violence/murder don't take into account being punished. Their brains are focused on something else (it's rarely premeditated) - like anger.

The criminals that are caught due to murder, are punished. So how would anything change if this was the first order of business to bring down the murder/mayhem rate due to guns being used?


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Thank you, nancy and rob, for taking my questions seriously. Nancy's excerpt on "paranoia" says more eloquently something like what I was struggling to say in my first couple posts here, and rob, I must think more about the "elite" vs the "masses" interpretations of the Constitution. I appreciate your speculation there. Perhaps there is some connection.

Anyone else have something to contribute to this specific topic? (Ranters may go start their own thread, if you please.)

Kate


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

We questioned anyone who walked by, and some just didnt want to stop, some nodded, some barely looked. maybe 4-5 who stopped were NRA members. noted were a few who kinda, stopped looked & walked away with a puzzled look??No outrageous comments either way.

I dont think the question was skewed? We asked" what measure(s)would you like to see to help end gun crimes"? Of course we consider killing to be a crime so felt that covered all crimes.
I imagine depending on the venue, answers could be different in the city at a large mall, at a small town gun shop or at a gun show.we were at a farmers market.
There was nothing scientific about the questioning.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Tue, Jan 29, 13 at 17:22

"Anyone else have something to contribute to this specific topic? (Ranters may go start their own thread, if you please.)

Kate"
----------------
Ah, yours is a mutual admiration society--BRILLIANT!


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

RpR--you don't want to talk about the specific topic this thread is about? It would seem so since so far you have contributed nothing to the thread's specific topic. That's fine. I'm serious--you're allowed to start your own thread and announce the specific topic you want to talk about. That is how these threads work.

Kate


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Actually I was called ignorant several weeks ago by one of the more ardent gun supporters here because I don't know the specific details of what constitutes an assault weapon.

How do you make it through the day??


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

I'm guessing the NRA sent it's members to various forums online to spew their talking points.. Why else would suddenly there would be a gazillion threads on guns here. Even as passionate as Bill is, he couldn't sustain that many.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

"I say the should confiscate all illegal gun from criminals and gangs in high gun crime cities before worrying about the average Joe."

Pure genius.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Tue, Jan 29, 13 at 18:25

"RpR--you don't want to talk about the specific topic this thread is about? It would seem so since so far you have contributed nothing to the thread's specific topic. That's fine. I'm serious--you're allowed to start your own thread and announce the specific topic you want to talk about. That is how these threads work.

Kate

-------------
Truth hurts especially self-righteous biased people.
You do not like the way I expose your rhetoric for what it is, truth hurts.

You want a mutual admiration society, start one.

This post was edited by RpR_ on Tue, Jan 29, 13 at 18:28


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Truth hurts especially sefl-righteous biased people such as you.
You do not like the way I expose your rhetoric for what it is, truth hurts.

I don't see you doing anything of the sort. Unless they changed the definitions of "truth", "expose", and "rhetoric" since I was in Uni, and replaced it with "dissembling and misdirection is OK for refutation and exposure".

But if some folks need to make up stuff to get through the day, more power to them!!!!!!!!!!1one!

Anyway, time to stop his feeding, folks.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

The truth appears to be that you are contributing nothing. So, I will ask questions. Why would it be a bad thing if the number of rounds a clip holds was limited to 10? Why would better background checks be bad? Do you believe that the ban of military-style assault rifles would have a negative effect on you?


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Duluth: "However, I must object to you placing a blatantly partisan and biased and opportunistic advertisement on this thread. If that guy truly is a public official, he ought to be ashamed of himself for encouraging people to be afraid and to distrust the government -- just so that he can make some money by frightening people into enrolling in his gun business which offers a course in gun safety--in order to encourage people to buy more guns."

How is he making money, Kate?


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Kate: "That is fireable offense for a public official--or at the very least, a severe slap across the wrists. It is not permissable for public officials to use their offices/titles as a means of promoting and enriching themselves in their private businesses. That "officer" is out-of-line."

There it is again. Kate, where does it say he has any kind of gun business? I'm not finding that, truly. Where did you get that information?


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

1. Three-quarters of Americans said they reacted to the Connecticut massacre of with deep anger, higher than the 65 percent who said they felt that way . . . after the 9/11 attacks.

2. Some 58 percent favor strengthening gun laws in the United States.

3. Majorities favored a nationwide ban on military-style, rapid-fire guns (55 percent).

4. Majorities favored limits on the amount and type of gun violence that can be portrayed in video games, movies or on television (54 percent).

5. About half (51 percent) of those surveyed back a ban on the sale of magazines holding 10 or more bullets.

6. A lopsided 84 percent of adults would like to see the establishment of a federal standard for background checks for people buying guns at gun shows.

Now this survey, I can believe, and with maybe one or two exceptions, I can even get behind it.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Tue, Jan 29, 13 at 19:10

Posted by frank

"The truth appears to be that you are contributing nothing. So, I will ask questions. Why would it be a bad thing if the number of rounds a clip holds was limited to 10?

Why would better background checks be bad? Do you believe that the ban of military-style assault rifles would have a negative effect on you?"
---------------

Why would-- fact not, a symbolism opinion-- limiting magazines, make any difference?
I can probably fire and reload, multiple times, a seven round M1911 pistol, faster than the time it would take the shooter to finish the ten round magazine.

How would the back-ground check have made any difference in the shooting the people here who are paranoid about fire-arms are using for their opinion base.
Here in Minn. we have to do a a State and Fed. check to buy a pistol.
Guess what, not one who cleared the first check, was exposed in the second, EVER.

Banning fire-arms because of appearance is moronic on its best day, and a fool serving his folly the rest.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Well, hallelujah--bill and I finally agree (almost) on something.

However, I must point out that the accuracy or reliability of a poll does not depend on whether you or I "agree" with it. It is within the realm of conceivability that--hold on--this is going to be hard to take--you or I might occasionally be WRONG (gasp!). In other words, we might be wrong while the poll is correct!

Elvis, you're right. I read the sheriff snippet wrong--thought it was advertising his gun course. However, I still think he was very wrong to make a public announcement intended to frighten the public into taking a course of action he recommends. That is not his job, nor should he be using his title to advance Republican/NRA agendas, especially deliberately trying to scare the public. If there is a crisis in his community, the city council or county commissioners (or whichever governing board) should meet and direct the head of the governing unit (mayor or whatever you call the head honcho) to issue a warning that the community's services are inadequate so citizens are on their own. That way the citizens can get on the backs of the governing board and pressure them to "fix" the inadequate services that brought about the crisis in the community!

It's like a tornado warning--if just any public official can go set it off, there would be mass chaos! Only the duly authorized person can set the sirens going--not just any sheriff or other employee who decided for his/her own reasons that the public needed to be alerted. The sheriff should be reprimanded for acting outside his designated duties and possibly causing needless distress and confusion in the community.

What about my original questions about philosophy? Anybody interested?
Ok-- never mind.

Kate


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Because of this guy.

He used 32 round clips, and was tackled when he tried to change them out.
And he shouldn't have passed a background check to buy his gun, ammunition, and extended magazines.

The back ground checks help with straw purchasing as well. Make it illegal to sell guns w/o one, with a 5, 10 year sentence, and the police can lock up the people who sell stolen guns and straw purchasers.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Banning fire-arms because of appearance is moronic on its best day, and a fool serving his folly the rest.

I agree. I'd rather face someone with an AR than a 30/06 hunting rifle. Atleast with the AR, I could hide behind somethin solid. That won't make a differene with a 30/06.

I can probably fire and reload, multiple times, a seven round M1911 pistol, faster than the time it would take the shooter to finish the ten round magazine.

Agreed. It'll take me maybe a tenth of a second more to pop off two 10 round mags than it would a 20 round. This is why the reduced capacity magazines don't bother me.

He used 32 round clips, and was tackled when he tried to change them out.

Thank God he wasn't familiar with the firearm.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

confiscation of illegal guns form the bad guys. That sounds good, and even tho they would not get em all, they could get a bunch. But, what ya gonna do about the ACLU? Its much easier to just ban guns the good guys have. Its much easier to go after those who generally obey the law.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

In 70 years of living, I've never had to confront any mad killers or thieves brandishing guns with intent to kill rather than steal.

Where do you people live that this is a constant problem you have to address?

In the name of truth, I should tell you that my ex-husband had a gun.

When I caught him with his girlfriend, he tried to shoot himself.

His counselor later told me that he was at the point where he might just as easily turned the gun on me as on himself.

Sure, he was one of those who used to argue guns for self-defense! Gee, makes me feel so safe thinking back on it.

Kate

This post was edited by dublinbay on Tue, Jan 29, 13 at 20:28


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

"ACLU". I never considered that. Do you suppose they would claim we are discriminating against the bad guys?

Stranger things are happening every day from what I see.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Kate, I posted sometime ago about my sister. She did end up with the barrel of a gun at her head .....held by her super responsible, gun owner husband. After a few beers he got cranky and the gun was right there.

Guess she should have made better choices in her life.....


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

I haven't heard the ACLU taking any strong position on this subject recently--red herring reference, bringing it up now.

Besides, the main interest of the ACLU in the First Amendment.

Kate


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

well i am still on forum but either way I don't spend all day here. as for guns strange how most crime ridden places have least number legal guns.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

bang bang bang drum drum drum drool drool drool


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

I've never had to confront any mad killers or thieves brandishing guns with intent to kill rather than steal.

Not only that, but whole teams of drug-crazed, hyped up to supernatural strength mad killers that require 30+ round magazines of high-powered bullets to stop!!!


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

that require 30+ round magazines of high-powered bullets to stop

If you're talking about AR-15's, you're SOL. There's no such thing as AR-15 hi powered ammo.

Where do you people live that this is a constant problem you have to address?

It's NOT constant. In 18 years I've only drawn it once, But I have to tell you-- I was real glad to have it that once. I wasn't any place where I'd expect trouble-- I tend to stay away from places like that. But just because you're not expecting it, doesn't mean it won't happen, and so I carry it, just in case. God willing, I'll never have to draw it again.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Guess ya havent noticed, why would ya have. The NRA is a big supporter of the 1st amendment. But then, they support the whoool thing about freedom for everyone.

Marshall, ya looks silly when ya does that!
Boy, how many times have we seen a woman protect herself with a gun form some estranged nut ball. Happens all the time. Some women just prefer being prepared to being dead.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

There are over 150 chamberings in the AR platform rifles and carbines from the diminutive .22 long rifle to the.50 something or other? The large percentage of these type weapons would be lousy assault weapons for sure. But whats that got to do with the argument?
I keep agenerator in case the power goes out. I keep a gun in case a bad guy come round. just make sense, hope I never need either. Havent so far!


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Blah, blah, blah. When will you get it, ff. We just don't care about all those gun details you love to fondle verbally.

Folks, did you hear. FF is going into marriage counseling. Both husband and wife should have a gun so that if one draws on the other, the other can shoot the first one first.

Great advice. Would save on divorce costs, I guess, but doesn't promise much for longevity in that marriage.

Can't believe such advice. Get a gun, women, and be prepared to shoot your husband. Got to be prepared, ya know. Happy anniversary by the way.

Geesh! I don't want to live in your world, ff.

Kate


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

get right in the gutter Kate. Ya like it there. By the way, my world is devine!
If the poor information didnt present itself, would I have cause to set it straight?


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Kate: "Folks, did you hear. FF is going into marriage counseling. Both husband and wife should have a gun so that if one draws on the other, the other can shoot the first one first."

No, I didn't hear that. I missed the post where FF said he was going into marriage counseling. Where did he say that? You speak in riddles, woman.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Here's the kicker, My wife has a degree in Psych oh, and Eng Lit, she says I'm nuts for participating at a place like this!! ehhh, she could be right! but Im bored stiff.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

zzzzz(Shhhh) don't tell your wife!


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Why would-- fact not, a symbolism opinion-- limiting magazines, make any difference?
I can probably fire and reload, multiple times, a seven round M1911 pistol, faster than the time it would take the shooter to finish the ten round magazine.

The Newton shooter had enough ammunition to kill everyone in that school. Laws are not perfect and will never stop all massacres. However, people have a legitimate concern following these massacres and most want to limit the sale of weapons and ammunition that are designed so that they can kill scores of people in a short time frame. Why do you need to have them? What would be a legitimate use of military assault weapons in or around your home? Expecting the black helicopters to land on your lawn?

How would the back-ground check have made any difference in the shooting the people here who are paranoid about fire-arms are using for their opinion base.

What is your issue with universal background checks for all gun sales? No one claims that background checks would have prevented any particular incident.

Banning fire-arms because of appearance is moronic on its best day, and a fool serving his folly the rest.

Another false characterization of the gun reforms suggested by the President.
Second Amendment Rights are not absolute and without restriction. Do you agree with that or not?
You cannot tread on my Rights and freedoms...like the freedom to be free from the growing threat posed by the proliferation of military style weapons and the unregulated sale of weapons at gun shows and other venues.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Wed, Jan 30, 13 at 0:40

"The Newton shooter had enough ammunition to kill everyone in that school. Laws are not perfect and will never stop all massacres. However, people have a legitimate concern following these massacres and most want to limit the sale of weapons and ammunition that are designed so that they can kill scores of people in a short time frame."
----------------So what?
If a shooter had wanted to do maximum damage--kill and maim-- the shooter would use a shotgun.
There is NOTHING more efficient at causing bodily damage in close-quarters than a shotgun with bird-shot.
So what is your point?
-----------------------------------

"Why do you need to have them?"-------Need?
What does need have to do with anything?
Legal shooters, or just owners,(there are hundreds of owners who own dozens of fire-arms [or an arsenal by liberal twit standards] who fire almost none of them) buy what they choose for their own reasons.
The Second Amendment gives them that right.
------------------------------------------------

"What would be a legitimate use of military assault weapons in or around your home? Expecting the black helicopters to land on your lawn?"-------If-- some one legally owned a full-auto weapon, and it is not that hard to do so-- the one could use it for self-defense just as any other weapon is used.
David Koresh could have used a few more and of larger calibers. It might have stopped the BLACK HELICOPTERS from burning-up the children there.
------------------------------------------

"What is your issue with universal background checks for all gun sales? No one claims that background checks would have prevented any particular incident."------Then it serves absolutely no purpose except for the government to keep track of people who are exerting their Constitutional right.
The government does not have that right.

If it serves no purpose what is your infatuation to have one?
---------------------------------------

"Another false characterization of the gun reforms suggested by the President."------What are you talking about?
---------------------------------------

"Second Amendment Rights are not absolute and without restriction. Do you agree with that or not?"------NO, not as far as fire-arms designed to be used by one person are concerned, and the person is does not have criminal record, or should be in a mental institute, of which most have been closed by the same liberals who are now anti-gun fanatics.

One can, if one wants to-- get an FFL permit, in a category, that allows one to own, transfer, and use bazookas, canon caliber weapons, explosive etc.
They are not too expensive that an average person cannot afford them.
So what is your point?
-----------------------------------------
"You cannot tread on my Rights and freedoms...like the freedom to be free from the growing threat posed by the proliferation of military style weapons and the unregulated sale of weapons at gun shows and other venues."-----That right does not exist, nor does the imagined proliferation of weapons you are lying about existing.
There is no such thing as a military style weapon, except in the mind of paranoid, ignorant liberals whereas; I would say many of the liberal politicians are not ignorant there is no such thing, but use the ignorance of the populace to float the idea there is.

I can take a Remington semi-auto 30-06 hunting rifle, variations of which have been in production for seventy plus years, change the stock to ones currently available and have what the Washington gun-grabbers are babbling about as a military style fire-arm.
No difference in lethality, just appearance. (and just to warm the pot, it would be over one hundred percent more lethal than anything used by the school shooter using paper figures as a standard)

Better than ninety percent of the bolt-action center-fire rifles out there are based on a military design.
SO-- technically-- if one wants to use that white-elephant as the standard, the government IS trying to ban the majority of long-guns out there.

This post was edited by RpR_ on Wed, Jan 30, 13 at 0:54


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

I wonder if RpR is the flip side of Facto.

Just a thought.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Wed, Jan 30, 13 at 1:02

You point is, if you have one, beyond being a legend in your own mind?


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Elvis, I have this gut feeling that RpR won't be around too awfully long.
His kind tend to get uninvited.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

To reply to your musing, I would say, perhaps RpR is.

Facto comes with undeniable facts with links to back up his/her statements.
RpR, on the other hand......

Yes, that would qualify as a "flip side",


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Amazing productivity: so many lines to type and so little time. The original RpRabbit, keeps on thumping and bumping and ... well, you know.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Just another NRA stooge.

Boy, FF 's wife certainly married beneath herself. Maybe she could correct his posts.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Meanwhile, another school girl died in Chicago yesterday. Gunned down by illegal gun owners.

Here is a link that might be useful: Just another day in Chicago


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Just another NRA stooge.
Boy, FF 's wife certainly married beneath herself. Maybe she could correct his posts.

Speaking of stooges, Lily-- and you talk about ME being insulting?

Brush-- speaking of illegal gun owners, here's a story from the LA Times that people might be interested in. If they can't enforce the laws on the books already, what the hell does Feinstein think she's going to do with these NEW laws?

Here is a link that might be useful: Don't have the funds to enforce the laws on the books already


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

I wonder if RpR is the flip side of Facto.

Just a thought.

Well, yes, you may be correct.

Facto - facts, nothing but the facts, no emotion, no name calling.

RpR - no facts, nothing but NRA talking points, all emotional and paranoid gun lover blabber, and lots of name calling.

So, yes, elvis, you are correct.

And I sure hope mylab is correct (not about the banning part) because it's very tiresome reading the same nonsense.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

brush did you see the incident the other day of the Chicago mother who lost her last living child, who was also shot down? Her fourth child slain in shootings. I thought of you when I read it. Your concern over Chicago gun issues. My heart just wailed for her.

"Shirley Chambers' first child, Carlos, was shot and killed by a high school classmate in 1995 after an argument. He was 18. Her daughter Latoya, then 15, and her other son Jerome were shot and killed within months of each other in 2000.

'What did I do wrong?' she asked Saturday. 'I was there for them. We didn't have everything we wanted but we had what we needed.'

Chambers said despite this latest tragic chapter in her life, she's not bitter or angry.

'They took my only child. I have nobody right now. That's my only baby,' she said."

Here is a link that might be useful: Chicago woman story


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Unfortunately it seems to take a massacre to bring attention to what thousands have suffered prior to the massacre.

If there had not been a massacre in Newtown, the dead kids in the city would never make the HT threads.

Let's discuss a way to round up the illegal and legal weapons that are in the hands of thugs and other felons.

Even a national gun ban won't prevent what's happening in Chicago neighborhoods until enforcement happens.

Anybody have a plan for this?


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Getting rid of criminals and gang activities is an Utopian ideal. They used to hang or exile criminals on a regular basis without much impact on crime activity. Before guns, criminals used saps and shivs and such to impose their wills and defend themselves from other criminal elements. Policing arose to protect the general public against criminals while the population worked to keep the criminals restricted to specific areas where policing presence was more containment than enforcement. Guns have little to do with prevention.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Wed, Jan 30, 13 at 10:32

Posted by jillinn

"I wonder if RpR is the flip side of Facto.

Just a thought.

Well, yes, you may be correct.

Facto - facts, nothing but the facts, no emotion, no name calling.

RpR - no facts, nothing but NRA talking points, all emotional and paranoid gun lover blabber, and lots of name calling.

So, yes, elvis, you are correct.

And I sure hope mylab is correct (not about the banning part) because it's very tiresome reading the same nonsense."
---------------

EWWWW-- you are saying my posts have the same style as yours.

Hot damn, that hurts!


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

I wish I could find an article written by an intern/ER surgeon who worked in one of the major Chicago hospitals. He started off with the commonly held belief that almost all the victims of gun violence were gang bangers and drug dealers, then came to realize that most of them were just bystanders, kids walking home from school, victims of random violence. In today's Denver Post:

CHICAGO: A 15-year-old majorette who performed at some of President Barack Obama's recent inauguration festivities has been shot to death in Chicago.

Police say Hadiya Pendleton was shot in the back Tuesday in a South Side park and died at a city hospital.

Authorities say Hadiya was one of about 12 teenagers sheltering from heavy rain under a canopy when a man jumped a fence, ran toward the group and opened fire. The man fled the scene in a vehicle. No arrests have been made.

Police do not believe Hadiya was the intended target of the shooting. A teenage boy was shot in the leg. Police did not release his name.

Hadiya belonged to the King College Prep High School band, which performed at several inaugural events in Washington, D.C.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

David,

Thanks for re-posting my story from above. More people need to read it.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Lily doesnt bother me, she is welcome to post whatever trips her trigger, so to say.

We all feel bad when an innocent is hurt with a gun. But its good that some bad guys go down.
Jill Stucker, 64, was at home around 2 p.m. when a 26 year old man broke in through a window. When Stucker heard the glass break she armed herself with a handgun and proceded to exit thru her back door. As she FLED HER OWN HOME , the intruder followed her. When she realized she was being persued, she turned and fired striking him in the chest. The intruder fled but later collapsed on a nearby doorstep. He was hospitalized in critical condition.
Lake City Reporter, Lake City , Fl., 10/23 12


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

RpR wrote,

Here in Minn. we have to do a a State and Fed. check to buy a pistol.
Guess what, not one who cleared the first check, was exposed in the second, EVER.

Please provide your source for this claim.

Thank you.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Wed, Jan 30, 13 at 13:38

Posted by Factotem

RpR wrote,

Here in Minn. we have to do a a State and Fed. check to buy a pistol.
Guess what, not one who cleared the first check, was exposed in the second, EVER.

Please provide your source for this claim.

Thank you.
----------------
Now pay attention, the first check cleared by the law enforcement official calling the FBI and running a check if one can legally purchase.

The second is the fire-arm seller calling the FBI and running a check if one can legally purchase.

Now just sit there and think about that one for moment and it will become clear.

There is an effort to eliminate the State's check as it costs a goodly amount of money in paper work and serves no purpose.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

RpR wrote,

There is an effort to eliminate the State's check as it costs a goodly amount of money in paper work and serves no purpose.

I don't understand. If the second (Federal) check, as you claim, never rejects anyone because they have all been caught by the first (state) check, why would you want to eliminate the state check (which, of course, also rejects applicants that would clear a Federal check due to state-level data)?

As a hypothetical to help clarify this, if 1,000 people apply for a permit, and 100 are rejected by the state check, 75 for Federal reasons (NICS check failure) and 25 for state-level reasons (e.g. mental health issues not Federally reported), why would you want to elimninate the state check and let those 25 who would pass the Federal check acquire weapons?


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

RpR wrote,

Now pay attention, the first check cleared by the law enforcement official calling the FBI and running a check if one can legally purchase.

The second is the fire-arm seller calling the FBI and running a check if one can legally purchase.

Now just sit there and think about that one for moment and it will become clear.

But a potential purchaser can clear the state check, commit a crime or other disqualifying offense, then be rejected at the point of purchase by the dealer running an instant NICS check. Are you claiming that this has never happened? That no gun dealer has ever rejected a purchaser due to a failed NICS check?


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Wed, Jan 30, 13 at 15:02

Posted by Factotem

But a potential purchaser can clear the state check, commit a crime or other disqualifying offense, then be rejected at the point of purchase by the dealer running an instant NICS check. Are you claiming that this has never happened? That no gun dealer has ever rejected a purchaser due to a failed NICS check?
--------------------------
Now there is always small chance I missed it, but it has not happened because the person would be arrested for attempting to commit a felony.

If you lived in the State of Minn. you would know that the news and Democrats in government would be all over that and it has not happened.
Even when getting rid of the State check was being debated in the capitol, NOT ONE proponent said "look at this it stopped...." which would have killed the bill instantly.

It was only not eliminated because the governor killed it on his desk.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

RpR wrote,

Now there is always small chance I missed it, but it has not happened because the person would be arrested for attempting to commit a felony.

I'm not sure I follow. Why would you know if a person failed a NICS check by a gun dealer?

If you lived in the State of Minn. you would know that the news and Democrats in government would be all over that and it has not happened.
Even when getting rid of the State check was being debated in the capitol, NOT ONE proponent said "look at this it stopped...." which would have killed the bill instantly.

Yet some gun dealers report about 3-4% of potential purchasers are stopped due to failure to pass the NICS check.

And are you saying that no Minnesota police personnel expressed opposition to the bill?

You have not addressed the fact that the state checks catch things the second check would not catch. So why would you want to eliminate the state check?

It was only not eliminated because the governor killed it on his desk.

Are you saying that the bill to eliminate the state check was passed by both houses of the Minnesota state legislature but the governor refused to sign it?


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

I am pretty sure Pennsylvania is gonna do away with the redndant check also, at least there is a bill to do so.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

That one background check better be damn-hard to get through. But it won't matter. It'll be just like all the others... the one who uses the gun isn't the one who bought the gun.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

fancifowl wrote,

I am pretty sure Pennsylvania is gonna do away with the redndant check also, at least there is a bill to do so.

What is the bill number?


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Wed, Jan 30, 13 at 16:05

Posted by Factotem

"Yet some gun dealers report about 3-4% of potential purchasers are stopped due to failure to pass the NICS check."--------So?
--------------------

"And are you saying that no Minnesota police personnel expressed opposition to the bill?"------No.
=========================

"You have not addressed the fact that the state checks catch things the second check would not catch. So why would you want to eliminate the state check?"----Does not exist, they would have been stopped by the identical check made by a fire-arms dealer.
-----------------------

"Are you saying that the bill to eliminate the state check was passed by both houses of the Minnesota state legislature but the governor refused to sign it"----Perhaps not, I thought it was part of the expanded permit bill but perhaps not.
I know for a fact some are working on getting rid of it, but while I only read excerpts not the bill, I did not see that in there.
-----------------

Over in he now dead thread where you gave figure for supposed CCW owner committing crimes.
If the owner of the permit, is carrying, and gets a DWI, that is considered a crime committed with a fire-arm under Minn. law.

Any one can go to the site he listed and see how many dozen crimes are categorized as possibly being offended, by simply having the pistol in a holster, and also see how many permits were revoked and re-issued despite the owner being charged with a crime, in a challenge to revoking of the permit.

You will not find successful use of a firearm in that section as it only lists crimes committed, not ones stopped by any method.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

rob333 wrote,

That one background check better be damn-hard to get through. But it won't matter. It'll be just like all the others... the one who uses the gun isn't the one who bought the gun.

Unfortunately, sometimes it is. In Minnesota in 2010 and 2011, there were at least 59 crimes commited with guns by the legal permit holders themselves. During the same period, there were zero lawful and justifiable uses of guns by permit holders.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

I think it is also important to point out that so-called "success" stories are usually given with no supporting evidence. Newspapers have been known to get the facts wrong--quite frequently at times. So citing an Oklahoma newspaper as a source for the successful use of a gun to ward off an attacker/intruder of some sort tells us little or nothing about the actual facts of what happened. But that is usually all the "source" that is cited for these "success" stories.

Those little success stories also fail to make clear that a gun was absolutely needed to solve the problem. There are so many other possible ways certain situations might be addressed other than with gun threats or gun violence. The story of the "successful" use of a gun to protect oneself cannot "prove" that it was the only strategy that would be successful. It is quite possible that someone else, not so ready to pull a gun in self-defense, could have also "successfully" handled the situation.

Those who "successfully" defended themselves with guns are always quick to claim there was no other option available. Those who "successfully" defend themselves without involving a gun always manage to find a way that doesn't require a gun.

Kate


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

RpR wrote,

"Yet some gun dealers report about 3-4% of potential purchasers are stopped due to failure to pass the NICS check."--------So?

So you claimed there had never been a failure to pass the second check. Are you now retracting that claim?

"And are you saying that no Minnesota police personnel expressed opposition to the bill?"------No.

Minneapolis Police Lt. Chris Hildreth opposed the bill on the grounds that the state check stopped people who would clear the NICS check. Bloomington Police Sgt. Mark Elliott testified about some classes of people who would be caught by the state check but not the NICS check.

"You have not addressed the fact that the state checks catch things the second check would not catch. So why would you want to eliminate the state check?"----Does not exist, they would have been stopped by the identical check made by a fire-arms dealer.

Flatly false. Some mentally ill individuals are known at the state level but not the Federal level, and some classes of people involved with drugs are flagged at the state level but not by the NICS. The check made by a firearms dealer is absolutely not the identical check made by local law enforcement, as they themselves have publicly stated.

"Are you saying that the bill to eliminate the state check was passed by both houses of the Minnesota state legislature but the governor refused to sign it"----Perhaps not, I thought it was part of the expanded permit bill but perhaps not.
I know for a fact some are working on getting rid of it, but while I only read excerpts not the bill, I did not see that in there.

The bill never even made it out of committee.

Over in he now dead thread where you gave figure for supposed CCW owner committing crimes.
If the owner of the permit, is carrying, and gets a DWI, that is considered a crime committed with a fire-arm under Minn. law.

First, they are not "supposed" CCW owners. The *are* CCW owners. And you are correct; those are all crimes committed with a gun by law, along with assault, burglary, stalking, violation of order of protection, etc.

You will not find successful use of a firearm in that section as it only lists crimes committed, not ones stopped by any method.

The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension reports that the total number of lawful and justified uses of a gun by a permit holder is zero for 2010 and 2011.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Wed, Jan 30, 13 at 18:03

Posted by Factotem

"Minneapolis Police Lt. Chris Hildreth opposed the bill on the grounds that the state check stopped people who would clear the NICS check. Bloomington Police Sgt. Mark Elliott testified about some classes of people who would be caught by the state check but not the NICS check."----Then he lied as I stood there when my local law enforcement did the check on me.
Minnesota health records, includes mental:
--------
Subd. 2.Patient consent to release of records.

A provider, or a person who receives health records from a provider, may not release a patient's health records to a person without:

(1) a signed and dated consent from the patient or the patient's legally authorized representative authorizing the release;

(2) specific authorization in law; or

(3) a representation from a provider that holds a signed and dated consent from the patient authorizing the release.---------------

"You have not addressed the fact that the state checks catch things the second check would not catch. So why would you want to eliminate the state check?"----Does not exist, they would have been stopped by the identical check made by a fire-arms dealer.

"Are you saying that the bill to eliminate the state check was passed by both houses of the Minnesota state legislature but the governor refused to sign it"----Perhaps not, I thought it was part of the expanded permit bill but perhaps not.
I know for a fact some are working on getting rid of it, but while I only read excerpts not the bill, I did not see that in there.

The bill never even made it out of committee.----The expanded permit bill was vetoed by the governor,so you are wrong.
Look it up.

"First, they are not "supposed" CCW owners. The *are* CCW owners. And you are correct; those are all crimes committed with a gun by law, along with assault, burglary, stalking, violation of order of protection, etc."------You are lying. They are crimes committed while possesing ones CCW and having the fire-arm in the holster.
Tell the truth, that it gives a chart of permits voided, denied and also issued despite other crimes.
You are trying to make it say what you want, not what it says.

You will not find successful use of a firearm in that section as it only lists crimes committed, not ones stopped by any method.

"The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension reports that the total number of lawful and justified uses of a gun by a permit holder is zero for 2010 and 2011." ----See above, then look up the term "criminal apprehension."
--------------------- .

Just as using a firearm in your CCW post includes simply having ones fire-arm in the holster, simply showing a fire-arm and driving off a criminal counts as using a fire-arm for self defense.
-----------
If a crime is committed with fire-arm a ccw permit is revoked.
Here are some actual numbers.

Minnesota
2002-2006

CCW permits issued- 46,636
permits revoked- 12
percentage- 0.03%

This post was edited by RpR_ on Wed, Jan 30, 13 at 18:35


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

RpR wrote,

Just as using a firearm in your CCW post includes simply having ones fire-arm in the holster, simply showing a fire-arm and driving off a criminal counts as using a fire-arm for self defense.

And the BCA in MN reports zero lawful and justified uses of a gun by a permit holder in 2010 (p. 870) and 2011 (p. 255).

I am awaiting your response to the other points I raised about the difference between the state and point-of-sale checks.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

FYI the expression is, "you can't eat your cake and have it too," meaning you can't both consume something and still be left with it.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Wed, Jan 30, 13 at 18:42

A recording of the phrase is in a letter on 14 March 1538 from Thomas, Duke of Norfolk to Thomas Cromwell, as "a man can not have his cake and eate his cake"-----So you got it backwards

Give me the page in the BCA that actually says what all we have is your opinion on.
It should be easy as pages are listed.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Hey RpR, go ahead and read the next few lines from that Wiki article where you found your info. It shows it the other way.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

RpR wrote,

A recording of the phrase is in a letter on 14 March 1538 from Thomas, Duke of Norfolk to Thomas Cromwell, as "a man can not have his cake and eate his cake"-----So you got it backwards

Nice job failing to cite your source or even to put the copied passage in quotation marks. Not to mention the cherry-picking -- here's more from the very source you used (Wikipedia):

"'you can't eat your cake and have it (too)', which is in fact closer to the original form of the proverb"....In John Heywood's "A dialogue Conteinyng the Nomber in Effect of All the Prouerbes in the Englishe Tongue" from 1546, the phrase occurs with the clauses reversed, as 'wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?'.[8] In John Davies' 'Scourge of Folly' of 1611, the same order is used, as 'A man cannot eat his cake and haue it stil.'[9] That same order is used again in Jonathan Swift's 1738 farce 'Polite Conversation', in which the character Lady Answerall says 'she cannot eat her cake and have her cake.'....Paul Brians, Professor of English at Washington State University, points out that perhaps a more logical or easier to understand version of this saying is, 'You can't eat your cake and have it too.'

As is clear, the wording you used conveys an incorrect meaning due to the implication of a temporal sequence to the two acts.

Give me the page in the BCA that actually says what all we have is your opinion on.
It should be easy as pages are listed.

Did you actually read my post? I provided the links and the pages. I provided facts, not opinions.

Still awaiting your repsonses to my other points regarding the differences between state and NICS background checks.

This post was edited by Factotem on Wed, Jan 30, 13 at 19:16


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Looks like another concerted effort to distract away from the fact that majority of Americans want a change to gun laws!


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Facto
to end Pa redundant check
could be HB 2127?? just from a quick note check. I guess you are much better on the computer than I. see what ya can find.

I believe there are others states looking at ending their redundant chescks as well.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

I think it is also important to point out that so-called "success" stories are usually given with no supporting evidence. Newspapers have been known to get the facts wrong--quite frequently at times. So citing an Oklahoma newspaper as a source for the successful use of a gun to ward off an attacker/intruder of some sort tells us little or nothing about the actual facts of what happened. But that is usually all the "source" that is cited for these "success" stories.

I see. So the only time they're accurate is when they're pointing out all the mayhem caused my miscreants with guns? Stop and think about that for a second. Ever hear the cliche if it bleeds, it leads? Don't you think, as pro gun control as the media is in general, that they'd be hesitant to print stories like that unless they were put in a position of being remiss if they DIDN'T? Kate, your point has no basis in truth.

Those who "successfully" defended themselves with guns are always quick to claim there was no other option available.

Except in cases where the Castle Doctrine is employed (in which case it doesn't HAVE to be the last resort), they damn well better not have any other choice, or they'll find themselves facing a manslaughter charge pretty quickly.

Those who "successfully" defend themselves without involving a gun always manage to find a way that doesn't require a gun.

Those that are still alive to talk about it. There are a multitude that can't argue the point with you, because they're dead. They weren't so lucky.

And for the record, Kate, I have an entire folder FULL of articles about justified civilian shootings. You can't tell me that every one of them is wrong, especially when you consider that the MSM has no desire whatsoever to publicize that this is even possible, much less legal.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Even in gun whack a doodle PA, the tide is turning in favor of gun control. Who would've thunk?


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Wed, Jan 30, 13 at 22:37

1538 predates yours by almost ten years

I assume you mean this headline:

"To the extent known or determinable, data on the lawful and
justifiable use of firearms by permit holders."---------Which means no ccw holder, called the law enforcement agency to report having used the fire-arm.
By there own carefully worded headline it does not mean they were not used.
As I said, all you had to do was give me the page address, next time I will not waste time search as to which governmetn sub-section you are speaking of.

https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/Documents/2011 Permit to Carry Year End Report Final.pdf

I like this column of what you want to try to float as fire-arm crime by a ccw holder:
The numbers of which, if you look at the title are not just for the year you picked but for 2003, 2005-2011

Carrying Under the Influence Total --66

Pistols used:
Yes--30
No-- 11
Pistol use not known/reported--25

Hmm, the person is arrested for CCW carrying while intoxicated but 11 did not have a pistol, and in 25 they did not know--BRILLIANT, whilst pretty much making the numbers strangely useless.

Well so much for your statistics.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Do you have anything to add lily??, I thought I heard a bark??


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Do you have anything to add lily??, I thought I heard a bark??


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

So Kate, please tell us how you would have thwarted all these criminals efforts to do harm.no ifs and or buts, real deterrants and other means of protwection. Please, no dogs! I think most people would prefer a non violent means of deterrant to criminal intent.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Wed, Jan 30, 13 at 22:55

"Did you actually read my post? I provided the links and the pages. I provided facts, not opinions."---No you gave opinion of what the numbers say.
I wanted a page address, not to have to find which site page had a page 870.

It is still amazing that while carrying with a CCW while intoxicated IS illegal in 25 of those "gun crimes" whether or not they had pistol was not reported and in another 11 they DID NOT have a fire-arm--BRILLIANT.

Arrest them for illegal fire-arm possession even when they are not armed.

Here is the page again so you do not have to go hunting:

https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/Documents/2011 Permit to Carry Year End Report Final.pdf


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

I wanted a page address, not to have to find which site page had a page 870.

Find the first posting of the links by factotem: Posted by Factotem none (My Page) on Wed, Jan 30, 13 at 18:19

Click on the link embedded in the year; you'll find the report, then scroll to whatever page factotem has indicated after the year. I clicked on the year 2010, scrolled to the designated page, and found the data referenced by factotem - which reflected exactly what had been earlier stated.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Delete duplicate post.

This post was edited by nancy_in_venice_ca on Wed, Jan 30, 13 at 23:11


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Wed, Jan 30, 13 at 23:23

"you'll find the report, then scroll to whatever page factotem has indicated after the year. I clicked on the year 2010, scrolled to the designated page, and found the data referenced by factotem - which reflected exactly what had been earlier stated."------No, you will find a head line that says this: "TO THE EXTENT KNOWN or DETERMINABLE, data on the lawful and justifiable use of firearms by permit holders.------which is listed on an earlier page as for years 2003k 2005-2011.

Which means, thankfully, CCW holders have not had to, or decided not to, report using their fire-arms to defend themselves.
Said same is confirmed by the rhetoric of the page title.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

RpR wrote,

1538 predates yours by almost ten years

Irrelevant, as I've explained, and the other quotations aren't "mine", as they come from *your* source. The point is settled; there's nothing to be gained by your defending it. You used a relatively modern form of the expression that mangles its meaning. Feel free to continue to do so; I'm quite comfortable that readers will draw the correct conclusion from examining the very materials that you provided on the subject.

I assume you mean this headline:

"To the extent known or determinable, data on the lawful and
justifiable use of firearms by permit holders."---------Which means no ccw holder, called the law enforcement agency to report having used the fire-arm.
By there own carefully worded headline it does not mean they were not used.

Well, by that logic, you would consider all police reports of anything to be unreliable, which is absurd. Not all crimes are reported, therefore we can't say anything about crime. That reasoning is nonsense. "To the extent known or determinable" applies to all crime and incident data on the planet.

And, of course, it does not mean that no CCW holder reported use of their firearm in a lawful and justifiable manner, despite your claim. It means no CCW holder, no law enforcement officer, no bystander or witness, no victim, and so on. No one.

As I said, all you had to do was give me the page address, next time I will not waste time search as to which governmetn sub-section you are speaking of.

https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/Documents/2011 Permit to Carry Year End Report Final.pdf

Is this your first time using the Internet? I provided a direct link to that document three posts ago (1/30/13@18:19). Any time you wasted searching is due to your own inability to comprehend a simple link.

I like this column of what you want to try to float as fire-arm crime by a ccw holder:
The numbers of which, if you look at the title are not just for the year you picked but for 2003, 2005-2011

Carrying Under the Influence Total --66

Pistols used:
Yes--30
No-- 11
Pistol use not known/reported--25

Hmm, the person is arrested for CCW carrying while intoxicated but 11 did not have a pistol, and in 25 they did not know--BRILLIANT, whilst pretty much making the numbers strangely useless.

I agree the number of crimes in which the weapon was used is very likely higher than that shown in the "YES" column; I was giving a conservative estimate. Thank you for pointing that out.

I am still waiting for your responses to the points I raised regarding the differences in the state and Federal background checks, the fact that there are rejections of the second check, and the opposition by Minnesota law enforcement personnel to the bill to eliminate the state check. It is increasingly concerning that you have evaded those issues over multiple posts.

And, by the way, it's "firearm". Not sure what's with all the hyphens; a 1538 spelling, perhaps?


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Thu, Jan 31, 13 at 0:49

"I agree the number of crimes in which the weapon was used is very likely higher than that shown in the "YES" column; I was giving a conservative estimate. Thank you for pointing that out."-------No you are making things up that are not in the site, a
s is proven by your "likely higher" quip for which there zero evidence for.

Please, please tell me how those charged with possession while under the influence, yet the site says, THERE WAS NO fire-arm, works.
----------------------------------

"I am still waiting for your responses to the points I raised regarding the differences in the state and Federal background checks, the fact that there are rejections of the second check, and the opposition by Minnesota law enforcement personnel to the bill to eliminate the state check."---------You made no point and I showed that the police chief was lying as medical records are NOT available to them, any more than they are available to the ATF.
-----------------------------

"And, by the way, it's "firearm". Not sure what's with all the hyphens; a 1538 spelling, perhaps?"-----I have little doubt that you are an educated person and should full well know that either form can be correct with the hyphened mode being more formal and proper. Especially if you ever took some English dept. graduate classes, preferred.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

RpR wrote,

"Minneapolis Police Lt. Chris Hildreth opposed the bill on the grounds that the state check stopped people who would clear the NICS check. Bloomington Police Sgt. Mark Elliott testified about some classes of people who would be caught by the state check but not the NICS check."----Then he lied as I stood there when my local law enforcement did the check on me.
Minnesota health records, includes mental:
--------
Subd. 2.Patient consent to release of records.

A provider, or a person who receives health records from a provider, may not release a patient's health records to a person without:

(1) a signed and dated consent from the patient or the patient's legally authorized representative authorizing the release;

(2) specific authorization in law; or

(3) a representation from a provider that holds a signed and dated consent from the patient authorizing the release

What are you saying those two law enforcement officers lied about? Not all mental health data is fed to the Federal Goverment, so state-level checks can catch some people who would clear a NICS check. This is widely reported. Also, some circumstances of chemical possession or abuse can fail to be recorded such that NICS checks catch such instances, but local checks do.

"You have not addressed the fact that the state checks catch things the second check would not catch. So why would you want to eliminate the state check?"----Does not exist, they would have been stopped by the identical check made by a fire-arms dealer.

As I explained, local checks catch things the Federal check does not, according to, for example, Minneapolis Police Lt. Chris Hildreth and Bloomington Police Sgt. Mark Elliott. And, you have claimed that no application at a firearms dealer has *ever* been rejected by a Federal check. That is false, according to firearms dealers. See, for example, this article on the subject (those blue underlined words are what is called a "link"; you can click on the words and your web browser will take you right to the page referred to -- no searching required).

The bill never even made it out of committee.----The expanded permit bill was vetoed by the governor,so you are wrong.
Look it up.

"Expanded permit bill"? What are you talking about? You said the bill to eliminate the state background check was killed by the governor.

What bill are you talking about? A bill number/legislative session and a link (!), please.

"First, they are not "supposed" CCW owners. The *are* CCW owners. And you are correct; those are all crimes committed with a gun by law, along with assault, burglary, stalking, violation of order of protection, etc."------You are lying. They are crimes committed while possesing ones CCW and having the fire-arm in the holster.

Are you intentionally skipping words in my posts? I am not "lying"; those are all crimes committed with a gun by law. If you don't like it, write your state legislator, don't make false accusations against me. Though why you want to argue that committing a burglary or violating an order of protection while carrying a pistol somehow doesn't count is beyond me.

"Did you actually read my post? I provided the links and the pages. I provided facts, not opinions."---No you gave opinion of what the numbers say.
I wanted a page address, not to have to find which site page had a page 870.

Once more: a "link" is a page address that you can actually "click" on and it takes you right to that page -- no cutting and pasting (or, I guess, re-typing?) required! I gave you links (blue words with underlines). And I provided no opinions; I gave facts about what those reports from the state say, as anyone can see by following those blue-word-underlined link things.

"you'll find the report, then scroll to whatever page factotem has indicated after the year. I clicked on the year 2010, scrolled to the designated page, and found the data referenced by factotem - which reflected exactly what had been earlier stated."------No, you will find a head line that says this: "TO THE EXTENT KNOWN or DETERMINABLE, data on the lawful and justifiable use of firearms by permit holders.------which is listed on an earlier page as for years 2003k 2005-2011.

False. If you click on the link (see above for information on links) and scroll to the page I provided, you will find the following statement on that page; it is *not* "listed on a earlier page as for years 2003k 2005-2011", whatever that word salad is supposd to mean:

Number of lawful and justifiable use of firearms by permit holders: 0

So, to summarize: Contrary to your claims, the state check and the Federal check do not completely duplicate each other according to both law enforcement and firearms dealers. I have provided ample evidence of this, and you have provided no evidence whatsoever for your claim.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

RpR wrote,

"I agree the number of crimes in which the weapon was used is very likely higher than that shown in the "YES" column; I was giving a conservative estimate. Thank you for pointing that out."-------No you are making things up that are not in the site, a
s is proven by your "likely higher" quip for which there zero evidence for.

The evidence is that there are a significant number of crimes by CCW holders where the involvement of their weapon is not reported or unknown. That is on the site, in the rightmost column of the crimes-by-CCW-holders tables.

"I am still waiting for your responses to the points I raised regarding the differences in the state and Federal background checks, the fact that there are rejections of the second check, and the opposition by Minnesota law enforcement personnel to the bill to eliminate the state check."---------You made no point and I showed that the police chief was lying as medical records are NOT available to them, any more than they are available to the ATF.

Just so I understand: are you saying that there are no mental health records available for background check purposes, and that no one has been or can be denied a permit due to any mental health status (such as having been committed)? I just want to be absolutely clear in what your claim is here.

"And, by the way, it's "firearm". Not sure what's with all the hyphens; a 1538 spelling, perhaps?"-----I have little doubt that you are an educated person and should full well know that either form can be correct with the hyphened mode being more formal and proper.

Really, the hyphenated form you use ("fire-arm") is more proper than "firearm"? Please provide a citation for that claim, as it is new to me, but I am always eager to learn. Absent that, a retraction would be in order.

Especially if you ever took some English dept. graduate classes, preferred.

Right.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Thu, Jan 31, 13 at 15:00

osted by Factotem

Just so I understand: are you saying that there are no mental health records available for background check purposes, and that no one has been or can be denied a permit due to any mental health status (such as having been committed)? I just want to be absolutely clear in what your claim is here".----Unless they have a previous criminal record, or some other -- LEGAL -- restraint, no, it is not available.
If you think it is readily available, come to Minn. and try to get a copy of your OWN, medical record.
It can be done, but OFTEN, is a major pain in the buttocks.
-------------------------------------
"Really, the hyphenated form you use ("fire-arm") is more proper than "firearm"?" -----You said it is firearm, and had a conniption I did not spell it that way.
IF that is the way it should be spelled the onus is on you to prove me wrong.

This post was edited by RpR_ on Thu, Jan 31, 13 at 15:03


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

RpR wrote,

Just so I understand: are you saying that there are no mental health records available for background check purposes, and that no one has been or can be denied a permit due to any mental health status (such as having been committed)? I just want to be absolutely clear in what your claim is here".----Unless they have a previous criminal record, or some other -- LEGAL -- restraint, no, it is not available.

So you are claiming that an application does *not* include an authorization for the release of relevant mental health commitment information?

And you are claiming that there is *no* mental health information (e.g. commitment) available to the state or Federal check?

"Really, the hyphenated form you use ("fire-arm") is more proper than "firearm"?" -----You said it is firearm, and had a conniption I did not spell it that way.
IF that is the way it should be spelled the onus is on you to prove me wrong.

Not a "conniption" at all. I offered some helpful information that was apparently new to you. It is apparent from this response that you have no evidence whatsoever to offer to support your contention that "fire-arm" is the proper spelling. One wonders, then, why you believe that spelling is the proper one. I would refer you, and other readers, to any dictionary they have handy. Should you fail to accept your error, it is of little specific import, but it speaks volumes about your ability to change your position when presented with facts that oppose it, and that will be quite telling.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

It is apparent from this response that you have no evidence whatsoever to offer to support your contention that "fire-arm" is the proper spelling.

WHO CARES????


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

bill_vincent wrote,

WHO CARES????

As I pointed out,

Should you fail to accept your error, it is of little specific import, but it speaks volumes about your ability to change your position when presented with facts that oppose it, and that will be quite telling.

This principle also applies to your refusal to reconsider your position regarding the correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates even after you discovered that the data said the opposite of what you thought it said.

Picking a position and then trying to find facts to fit it, and refusing to alter one's position when the facts offered turn out to be wrong, is a core behavior of many on the right, and it indicates a fundamental lack of honesty and sincerity, as I have pointed out here on several occasions. Acceptance of error is considered such a grave exposure of vulnerability that it is avoided at nearly all costs even when the subject is nearly trivial. That's exactly what we're seeing here.

So, *I* care, as this modus operandi is a red flag, if you will, that exposes a person who may appear to be engaging in a discussion, but who is really engaging in combat over an immutable position. I view it as the central reason little progress can be made between the right and those on the left who hew to honest principles of argument.

This post was edited by Factotem on Thu, Mar 28, 13 at 15:33


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Factotem , you aced it !


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

It has nothing to do with anything other than you wanting people who don't agree with you to kiss your feet, and it doesn't matter whether it has anything to do with the spirit of the discussion or when necessary, becoming a patrolman for the grammar police. Whatever it takes.

Yeah BUDDY!! You aced it, all right-- you and your cheerleader.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

bill_vincent wrote,

It has nothing to do with anything other than you wanting people who don't agree with you to kiss your feet, and it doesn't matter whether it has anything to do with the spirit of the discussion or when necessary, becoming a patrolman for the grammar police. Whatever it takes.

Yeah BUDDY!! You aced it, all right-- you and your cheerleader.

Here you deploy some verbal chaff and evade the central point. Disappointing, but by now not unexpected.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Well, I'd hate to disappoint you, as close as we've gotten.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Again, words do not convey information or ideas in some quarters.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Thu, Jan 31, 13 at 20:50

Hyphen Use

Summary: A comprehensive rundown on the proper use of the hyphen.

Contributors:Sean M. Conrey, Karl Stolley
Last Edited: 2011-12-07 03:33:25

Two words brought together as a compound may be written separately, written as one word, or connected by hyphens. For example, modern dictionaries all have the same listings for the following compounds:
hair stylist
hairsplitter
hair-raiser

Another modern dictionary, however, lists hairstylist, not hair stylist. Compounding is obviously in a state of flux, and authorities do not always agree in all cases.
--------

Not a "conniption" at all. I offered some helpful information that was apparently new to you. It is apparent from this response that you have no evidence whatsoever to offer to support your contention that "fire-arm" is the proper spelling. One wonders, then, why you believe that spelling is the proper one. I would refer you, and other readers, to any dictionary they have handy. Should you fail to accept your error, it is of little specific import, but it speaks volumes about your ability to change your position when presented with facts that oppose it, and that will be quite telling.-------------I assumed you were an educated person, perhaps I was wrong.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

RpR wrote,

Hyphen Use
Summary: A comprehensive rundown on the proper use of the hyphen.

Contributors:Sean M. Conrey, Karl Stolley
Last Edited: 2011-12-07 03:33:25

Two words brought together as a compound may be written separately, written as one word, or connected by hyphens. For example, modern dictionaries all have the same listings for the following compounds:
hair stylist
hairsplitter
hair-raiser

Another modern dictionary, however, lists hairstylist, not hair stylist. Compounding is obviously in a state of flux, and authorities do not always agree in all cases.

Now this is becoming painful to watch.

You apparently do not realize that the passage you provide (without attribution) directly contradicts your stated position.

The piece clearly states that a given compound word has an accepted form. Three examples are provided, showing the three different forms that a given compound word may take: "hair stylist" is written as two separate words, "hairsplitter" is writted as a single, unhyphenated word, and "hair-raiser" is written as a hyphenated word. That is how each of these compound words appears in all modern dictionaries. Each word does not appear in all three forms in dictionaries. Some such compound words may have multiple acceptable forms as indicated by the appearance of those other forms in dictionaries (e.g. "hairstylist").

The word "firearm" is a compound word; it is formed from "fire" and "arm". Dictionaries list it as "firearm", because that is the proper form of the word. You cannot freely invent your own alternate, hyphenated form of a compound word and proclaim both forms are acceptable with "the hyphened [sic] mode being more formal and proper".

By your apparent logic, "chair-man" is the more formal and proper form of "chairman".

I assumed you were an educated person, perhaps I was wrong.

I think your error was assuming that you were an educated person. That comma splice certainly did nothing to bolster that notion.

This post was edited by Factotem on Fri, Feb 1, 13 at 10:32


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Thu, Jan 31, 13 at 22:19

Well factotem what ever floats your boat.
If you think you are more qualified than ;

Sean M. Conrey

Assistant Professor of Writing and Rhetoric.

And

Karl M. Stolley

Chicagoan. Writer, designer/developer, professor at Illinois Institute of Technology.


I will let it be, as you are a legend in your own mind and I am not going to lessen that with the truth.
Que sea, sera,

Have a nice evening.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

RpR wrote,

Well factotem what ever floats your boat.
If you think you are more qualified than ;
Sean M. Conrey

Assistant Professor of Writing and Rhetoric.

And

Karl M. Stolley

Chicagoan. Writer, designer/developer, professor at Illinois Institute of Technology.

I will let it be, as you are a legend in your own mind and I am not going to lessen that with the truth.
Que sea, sera,

Have a nice evening.

You are terribly confused. The two authors of that piece agree with me. Each compound word has a correct form; that's what appears in dictionaries. "Firearm" appears in dictionaries.

You, on the other hand, have apparently misread the article so badly that you believe you can freely use any of the three possible forms for any compound word. That's such an absurd position it's difficult to fathom. "Police-man"? "Shot-gun"? "Pass-port"? "Basket-ball"? "Air-port"? "Grass-hopper"? "After-noon"?

What do you make of the fact that you cannot produce a single dictionary reference that shows "fire-arm" is the more proper form of "firearm"?

I don't think there's much hope of enlightenment here. The resistance to education is just too great. On the other hand, something very important has been revealed.

This post was edited by Factotem on Fri, Feb 1, 13 at 0:24


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

I don't think there's much hope of enlightenment here. The resistance to education is just too great.

Fish, meet barrel. It's like Internet Performance Art!

Don't take too many shots Factotem, there is a market out here for barrels with all our new distilleries.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

RpR's blustering proves no match for Facto's dogged adherence to Authority. I have this urge to come to RpR's defense but cannot find purchase or footing in RpR's contributions to do so.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

How kind of you to call that "blustering"!


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Dano, I spent quite a bit of time coming ups with "blustering". Some of the passed over substitutions were doozies.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

please take factotem on again RpR I could do with some more enlightenment


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Posted by Factotem

"I don't think there's much hope of enlightenment here. The resistance to education is just too great. On the other hand, something very important has been revealed."-----------YES, I think that that you have no idea of basic grammar.

As you have taken a thread on gun-polls and decided to have a grammar spasm, which means you can not defend your rhetoric on gun-polls, here for your edification.

Here in case you do not know:

If two words are inextricably linked, you can choose to hyphenate them (or you may combine the words together). Book-case, for instance, may properly be written as bookcase. Even the prefix anti- is sometimes used similarly, as in anti-discrimination (or antidiscrimination). The hyphen is necessary if the words are not combined into a single compound word. There are, of course, exceptions to the rule. Most prefixes, such as ex- and sometimes anti-, are used with hyphens instead of making the words compound. When one of the words is a proper noun, always hyphenate. Un-American never becomes unAmerican; the hyphen is necessary to avoid confusion.

Adjective
An adjective modifies a noun or a pronoun by describing, identifying.

Fire-arm
side-arm
long-arm (weapons and automobile)
short-arm (that has to do with automobiles)
strong-arm
weak-arm
idler-arm (automobiles again)
suspension-arm (cars again, I studied auto-mechanics)
tone-arm
----------------------

Factotem wrote
"hari-raiser"

I know what a raiser is but what is a hari?

This post was edited by RpR_ on Fri, Feb 1, 13 at 2:05


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

A recent poll from California about Californians from the Public Policy Institute of California:

Do you happen to have any guns, rifles, or pistols in your home?" PPIC Statewide Survey, January 2013

79% - no guns, rifles, or pistols.

Perceptions of the Role of Government in Regulating Guns
PPIC Statewide Survey, January 2013

Government does not do enough - 65%.

"Would you support or oppose a law requiring a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons?"

Support - 65%


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Wow they polled 4,206 whole people.

I wonder how the numbers opposing desegregation in the south in the sixties would have gone, if they had gone to Mississippi and polled 4,206 people.

This post was edited by RpR_ on Fri, Feb 1, 13 at 2:16


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

RpR what do you know about sampling techniques?


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Eactly, yq--he thinks a poll works the same as an majority vote--when only 1% of the public voted.

No, RpR--that is not how polls work. Go read up on google. You don't know what you are talking about.

Kate


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

RpR wrote,

As you have taken a thread on gun-polls and decided to have a grammar spasm, which means you can not defend your rhetoric on gun-polls, here for your edification.

Here in case you do not know:

If two words are inextricably linked, you can choose to hyphenate them (or you may combine the words together). Book-case, for instance, may properly be written as bookcase. Even the prefix anti- is sometimes used similarly, as in anti-discrimination (or antidiscrimination). The hyphen is necessary if the words are not combined into a single compound word. There are, of course, exceptions to the rule. Most prefixes, such as ex- and sometimes anti-, are used with hyphens instead of making the words compound. When one of the words is a proper noun, always hyphenate. Un-American never becomes unAmerican; the hyphen is necessary to avoid confusion.

Adjective
An adjective modifies a noun or a pronoun by describing, identifying.

Fire-arm
side-arm
long-arm (weapons and automobile)
short-arm (that has to do with automobiles)
strong-arm
weak-arm
idler-arm (automobiles again)
suspension-arm (cars again, I studied auto-mechanics)
tone-arm

And once again, the passage you lifted without attribution says the opposite of what you claim and supports my position. You appear to have skipped over this key statement:

"The hyphen is necessary if the words are not combined into a single compound word."
In this case, of course, the words "fire" and "arm" are combined into a single compound word -- "firearm". So your argument fails again.

And by your logic, all of these are the more formal and proper forms of their unhyphenated kin:

Police-man
Shot-gun
Pass-port
Basket-ball
Air-port
Grass-hopper
After-noon

Factotem wrote
"hari-raiser"

I know what a raiser is but what is a hari?

Thank you for pointing out my error; I have corrected it.

Now, to put the final nail in the coffin that holds your argument: You offered a set of instructions for hyphen use co-authored by Sean M. Conrey, Assistant Professor of Writing and Rhetoric, and Karl M. Stolley, professor at Illinois Institute of Technology.

Here's what Professor Conrey says about your claim regarding the correctness of "fire-arm" (emphases added):

The fact is that newer compound words tend to initially appear in the written language with hyphens and then they tend to settle into a hyphenated or non-hyphenated form over time. Thus, in 1993, I would have been sending you an "e-mail," but in 2013 I am sending an "email." Sometimes the hyphen stays, sometimes it doesn't. Some words are more "in flux" than others, but it tends to be newer words that are in flux. Something like "ex-husband," for example, has settled with the hyphen. "Email" shifted away from the hyphen over time. The amount of time that has passed seems to be directly related to the degree of stability on the final form of the compound word. As the OWL page claims: there are times when words are in flux in terms of spelling.

Regarding the word "firearm," however, this is not one of those times. While there may have been a time when the term "firearm" appeared with a hyphen (as "fire-arm"), the etymological dictionary doesn't allude to such a time. According to the Online Etymological Dictionary (and several others) it settled on its current form of "firearm" by the mid-17th century. The fact that the term "firearm" had already stabilized into a non-hyphenated form at this time and still appears in dictionaries as such, is, in many ways, enough evidence to support the claim that while some terms are in flux regarding the hyphen, this is not one of them. If the written standards hadn't even settled on how to spell "he" ("hee") but have consistently spelled "firearm" without the hyphen since the 17th century, I think it's fair to say that the term is "settled" into its current, non-hyphenated form.

The very authority you cite in support of your position disagrees with you and agrees with me; that should settle the matter. I look forward to your retraction.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

RpR wrote,

As you have taken a thread on gun-polls and decided to have a grammar spasm, which means you can not defend your rhetoric on gun-polls, ...

Perhaps you have confused me with someone else. I have issued not one word of rhetoric on "gun-polls" (another fabricated spelling; would "hyphenphilia" be correct?). Rather, I responded to this claim you made, and which you still have not backed up:

Here in Minn. we have to do a a State and Fed. check to buy a pistol.

Guess what, not one who cleared the first check, was exposed in the second, EVER.

I provided proof that dealers state that some purchasers fail the second check.

You also made the claim that there is no mental health information available to the state check, and, by extension, that no permit has ever been denied to due a mental health reason. That claim is false, and you have been unable to support it.

You have also claimed that there is no information available to the state check that is unavailable to the Federal check, but I have provided specific assertions from Minnesota law enforcement personnel that contradicts your claim, and you have failed to provide evidence to support your position.

So, it seems, it is you who have been unable to support your rhetoric, and all these claims have been exposed.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Really? Are there really people out there cannot even admit they spelled a word incorrectly? Really? Are conservatives really that close-minded that they are not willing to learn anything? Something that is not even political? It's just mind boggling to me.

Edited to add:

No wonder we cannot get anywhere on any topic of importance! Not everyone knows everything and everyone can learn something new. If they are willing, which clearly a segment of our population is not willing to do.

This post was edited by jillinnj on Fri, Feb 1, 13 at 12:38


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

  • Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on
    Fri, Feb 1, 13 at 13:37

Posted by Factotem

"So, it seems, it is you who have been unable to support your rhetoric, and all these claims have been exposed."----In your mind but if that makes you feel better, enjoy.
-------------------------------

Lilly, Lilly, Lilly- (Now that is an n dash, which technically is incorrect because it should be an m dash. As most computer boards do not have an m dash, it will be sufficient) being boggled is as important as a zit on a gnat buttocks as far as your mind problems.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

Dano, I spent quite a bit of time coming ups with "blustering". Some of the passed over substitutions were doozies.

Marshall, I think buffoon is the shoe that fits. Unreadable! No need for any more energy expenditure on this person.


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

RpR wrote,

Posted by Factotem

"So, it seems, it is you who have been unable to support your rhetoric, and all these claims have been exposed."----In your mind but if that makes you feel better, enjoy.

Here you reveal that you are focused on feelings. I am focused on facts, regardless of the feelings they may produce. That is a key difference between us.

It is a fact that you have been unable to support your positions on the matters I listed. Please feel free to show where I have missed the evidence you have posted to the contrary.

Lilly, Lilly, Lilly- (Now that is an n dash, which technically is incorrect because it should be an m dash. As most computer boards do not have an m dash, it will be sufficient) being boggled is as important as a zit on a gnat buttocks as far as your mind problems.

The poster you are addressing is named Jill, not "Lilly". An em dash is often represented by two consecutive en dashes if an em dash character is not available.

What is your response to what professor Sean M. Conrey wrote about your usage of "fire-arm"?

This post was edited by Factotem on Fri, Feb 1, 13 at 14:07


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

RpR.....Since I have not been in this discussion at all, I have not a clue what you're even alluding to. And you spelled my name wrong. Who ARE you and what's your problem?


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

RpR wrote,

Well factotem what ever floats your boat.
If you think you are more qualified than ;
Sean M. Conrey

Assistant Professor of Writing and Rhetoric.

And

Karl M. Stolley

Chicagoan. Writer, designer/developer, professor at Illinois Institute of Technology.

I've already provided to you proof of what Professor Conrey's opinion is; he disagrees with you and agrees with me. Here is Professor Stolley's opinion:

"'Firearm,' no hyphen, is the widely accepted usage. There's probably no better argument for this than the United States organization known now as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives: http://www.atf.gov/ Note, too, that if you search Google for 'fire-arm', it asks if you meant 'firearm'."

Do you think you are more qualified than Professors Conrey and Stolley -- the very authorities you offered in support of your now-discredited claim?


 o
RE: Latest polls on guns

RpR wrote,

Hyphen Use
Summary: A comprehensive rundown on the proper use of the hyphen.

Contributors:Sean M. Conrey, Karl Stolley
Last Edited: 2011-12-07 03:33:25

Two words brought together as a compound may be written separately, written as one word, or connected by hyphens. For example, modern dictionaries all have the same listings for the following compounds:
hair stylist
hairsplitter
hair-raiser

Another modern dictionary, however, lists hairstylist, not hair stylist. Compounding is obviously in a state of flux, and authorities do not always agree in all cases.

You failed to cite your source; it is from the Purdue University English department here.

This is what Purdue says about your usage:

"Firearm" - without the hyphen - is far more commonly used than "fire-arm." The NRA and Wikipedia, for instance, use firearm rather than fire-arm.... This does not mean that the hyphenated form is more formal or appropriate. Nor does it mean that a writer can arbitrarily choose one version in any given situation.

Still waiting for that retraction. Are you honest enough to post one?


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: This thread has reached the upper limit for the number follow-ups allowed (150). If you would like to continue this discussion, please begin a new thread using the form on the main forum page.


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here