jbscout2002

Nope - he cut and pasted a long article from ACRU without giving any credit. The link in his first sentence was to something else altogether and was actually part of the article he plagiarized. He didn't put the cut/paste job in quotation marks. He didn't put it in a Quote box. He didn't put it in italics, another way to suggest it wasn't his own writing. He made NO reference to its source. He didn't even say it was from somewhere else. He just posted it as if it was his own writing. Apparently YOU didn't bother to read what was posted OR to check your facts either. As you said, the link in the first sentence was all from the same copy/paste. I'm not debating your made up facts with APA formatted essays. I'm using an IPad so I won't be using any quote boxes or italics. In my haste I though the source was referenced in the first link where it said according to blah blah blah smart college researchers (not Joshy poo) No one on this thread is crediting any sources at all other than me, so they are all pull out of the rectum or plagiarized. I'm not citing sources and then trying to sneak in credit for myself on one. Since crediting sources simply wasn't happening until you said my numbers were false, I wasn't bothering. I had then, later in the thread, started attaching links to show that my numbers were not something I was just making up as I went along.

I never see anyone else with them, but the only helmet I have owned is the Bonehead Revolve. I love it. It's nice having the whole face piece up out of the way until you are moving to the door, and then right back up under canopy. Get the Viso 2+. You don't need the analog at all. I got an AltiTrack as they were really popular at my home DZ, but now that I'm getting more into canopy piloting, I wish I had a digital. Suit, ask your instructor. It kind of depends on your size. I'd say something that you can do basic RW in and get in on a couple 2 ways and 4 ways while you are learning to fly your body. Your looking for something to match you to the average fall rate and a reinforced butt and knees so you can slide in a few landings.

The problem is, as I found out by pitching this to my city wife, gun control advocates see a little light at the end of the tunnel and get a twinkle in their eye, hen they try to grab it and run it into the ground. As the train comes by they want to throw as much shit at it as possible and see what sticks. My reaction was immediate defensive mode. It turns into haggling where I lowball you with lax laws and then let you talk me up to the amount of restriction I'm ok with. There are ways to close up loopholes and provide better accountability, while at the same time actually making the gun people happy. -for the legal stuff that is. A lot of crime goes down with illegal stuff and only targeted policing and task forces aimed at the illegal arms trade and gangs and such are going to fix that side of it

I am not responsible for your comprehension skills. And not your bud. Just curious, What the fuck is wrong with you and mpohl? Germans. Even German Shepards have trouble getting along with other breeds.

OK offers a 5 year and 10 year. I think you have to start with the 5, the you can renew with the 10 year. No clue how often, or if they run a check to see if there is a reason to revoke them. I'm trying to conjur up an idea of a gun permit, just not has difficult to get as a CCW (so people don't fight it and it passes in congress), where you can take a Saturday and pick up a free application at your favorite gun shop. Fill in all your info, stop by Walmart and get a $10 passport photo, then take that to the Sherrifs office and give them $15 to finger print you. Leave them you app, photo, prints, and something like a hunter safety course certificate (but just a gun safety class) and a nominal processing fee. They send it in to your state investigative branch (OSBI, or TBI or whatever) and a couple weeks later you get your card. Either a separate card or an authorization on your drivers license. The idea is to do this at a state level, but all held to the same federal standard. Some states will have to give a little (NY) and some will have to take a little (TX). When you buy a gun, rather than a paper application and phone in NICS check, scan your card. Just like your drivers license, any disqualifier will automatically put an electronic hold or revocation on your card. Also at random, Fish and Game officer can see you out hunting and spot check you by calling in your card and seeing if it comes back clear, or if you just spent the weekend in the loony bin and they didn't realize you had a legally obtain gun when you were released.

A federally standardize right to buy card would provided a more comprehensive system of background checks, which is good, and can simultaneously streamline the background check process so the NRAers would stand to gain from it. Why would they oppose it?

I would bend on this one. We have always done the NICS check. It gives you and extra 15 minutes to look at possible accessories for your new gun. There is the possibility of having a CCW for a year, then beating up your spouse, and then using your year old permit to bypass that domestic violence issue on the application. And the "free to buy" card and CCW ideas....personally I think they should be two separate items. An easy to obtain free to buy card, on a system similar to a drivers license or something, but the CCW being something requiring additional vetting and certification. That provides for the crowd that desires the CCW verses the crowd that wants a couple sporting Ruffles in the safe. NY does the CCW as a right to buy hand guns and it is all or nothing. I have a CCW from OK honored by 38 states, but NY, i can't have a pistol in my home without the NY CCW. You can't even touch a pistol at the gun store without a NY CCW.

Sounds like you are starting a sales show .... I'm not selling ANYTHING. Tomorrow it might be illegal to buy new ones. Best to hold what you got.

Ban the so called "black riffles"? Some suggest specifically naming brands and models like the AR and AK series, as they are commonly used by militaries. Ok. Ruger ranch riffle. Semi auto, detachable magazine, shoots the same .223 cal or 5.56 mm round as the AR, and does it just as well and just as fast. Well, accuracy isn't as good on the ranch riffle, but many police departments use hem as a cheaper alternative to the AR.

I mean, seriously. NY was so proud of how restrictive their gun laws were. They and an assault weapons ban in effect. So with that, you must legally define the word "assault" weapon. Thus, a semi automatic riffle able to accept a detachable magazine with 2 or more of the following cosmetic features: pistol grip, bayonet lug, flash suppressor, collapsible but stock, grenade launcher mount (wtf? whatever) So I don't even know what a grenade launcher mount is. The M203 grenade launchers the military uses require no type of mounting lug or bracket. I'm not familiar with the AK variants that have a grenade launcher tho, so maybe. So anyways, minute the grenade launcher mount, I have a couple AR 15s with all that scary stuff on it. I move to NY, so I take a few minutes to remove a few pieces and swap out but stocks, and bazinga, my scary military assault rifle is now a compliant sporting riffle. Still shoots the same bullets at the same speed, but now it is safer.

Maybe I don't have the right understanding of plagiarism. I read that article, copied it to show what I was reading....maybe because I forgot the link? But your rebuttal is that YOU claim the people who wrote it are idiots? I can state that as well, gun control advocates are idiots. They demand more laws, but don't know what the existing laws are. They spend however many thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours working up laws that ban items that don't exist, such as Hooknswoops case in CO. They are concerned about having bayonet lugs on ARs? Who cares. Take them. I haven't even seen a bayonet in a military arms room in the last 10 years, let alone anyone paying the $150 for the M9 Dollar General quality bayonet for personal use. You want common sense gun laws? First find some common sense. Then find an actual plan that is a means to an end. You can strip cosmetic features off of an AK 47 so it doesn't look as cool, but is now "compliant", but guess what genius, it still fires 7.62x39 as fast as you can squeeze the trigger. So what was common sense about that?

I think you're being deliberately obtuse. I can't believe you don't see a difference between guns and smoking. How about this. An adult has a pack of cigarettes which they use legally. Their son steals a pack, takes it to school and uses it. Net effect? Zero. Now replace the cigarettes with a pistol. Net effect - people shot. The problem with guns is how good they are at their job. It doesn't take years of exposure to have an effect. Just a split second. I'm not too worried about criminals with guns - as Dan stated earlier they do tend to shoot each other more than civilians, and I can teach my kids ways to stay safer. We don't mix in the same social circles by choice. How do I teach my kid to stay safe in school when anyone else could easily bring a gun in? They HAVE to mix in the same circles. This is a skewed view point. Flip side is, kid has no access to parents guns because they are properly secured in a safe. Infant is in a car seat every day while mom and dad smoke in the car with the windows up. Mom and dad choose to smoke. They've been doing it forever. Who cares. Infant has no choice. Frail lungs, lots of carcinogens going into a tiny body with an undeveloped immune system. 5 years later, at the cancer treatment center for children, mom and dad are watching the news in the waiting room when a report of a shooting comes on. The go out for a smoke break to talk about how disturbing it is that we don't make shooting people illegal.

The article you cited was Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694). The cut and paste PLAGIARISM job came from another article altogether. Did you even bother to read the original? And even the original article is bogus. The authors, who are NOT related in any way to Harvard, were subsequently found to have used made-up data. Rather like John Lott/Mary Rosh did. Your fact checking is lousy. Here. Forgot the link. http://www.theacru.org/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

To your credit, I will slow myself down and pay closer attention to the publishing dates on whate I'm reading. I think it would actually be beneficial to my argument, as research over the last two decades has shown a steady decrease in crime trends, with violent crime currently being the lowest since 1981. Odd that crime has been decreasing while gun sales have sky rocketed and our media makes schools look like war zones.

Another UNTRUTH from jbscout. 1. The article was published in 2007, it has NOT "just appeared". 2. The analysis of it that you posted was plagiarized from a 2007 ACRU article, and doesn't accurately describe the findings anyway. 3. It's not a Harvard study, it's just available for download from Harvard's servers. It's a spin piece written by two right wing pro-gun activists, neither of which ever went to or worked for Harvard. Your cut-and-paste-fu is clearly not working too well. If you need to plagiarize inaccurate articles in order to further your argument, then your argument clearly is not a very good one. I'm citing my work just for you because you like to make accusations to discredit people, but absolutely everything you have said is completely without merrit and just pulled out of your ass. Here's the proof. Scroll down to the third paragraph. www.theacru.org/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ You PLAGIARIZED the article which is from 2007. or did you PLAGIARIZE it from here? www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=267085 Or maybe from here: www.quora.com/Can-the-weak-gun-laws-in-the-US-be-a-reason-for-the-recent-spate-of-mindless-shootings-Or-has-it-got-more-to-do-with-the-nature-of-society-and-its-failure-as-a-whole-to-deal-with-issues-of-mental-health-proactively The only person discrediting a plagiarist is the plagiarist, not the one who outs him. Not plagiarism, quoting published info (yes, copy and paste) and showing exactly where I got it from. Not making it up, pulling it out of thin air, passing it off as my research, or like you, offering nothing but but saying nuh uh at every fact presented

Another UNTRUTH from jbscout. 1. The article was published in 2007, it has NOT "just appeared". 2. The analysis of it that you posted was plagiarized from a 2007 ACRU article, and doesn't accurately describe the findings anyway. 3. It's not a Harvard study, it's just available for download from Harvard's servers. It's a spin piece written by two right wing pro-gun activists, neither of which ever went to or worked for Harvard. Your cut-and-paste-fu is clearly not working too well. If you need to plagiarize inaccurate articles in order to further your argument, then your argument clearly is not a very good one. I'm citing my work just for you because you like to make accusations to discredit people, but absolutely everything you have said is completely without merrit and just pulled out of your ass.

That is because drinking and driving laws are toothless and unenforceable, right? Also murder laws are toothless and unenforceable because murder is illegal in all 50 states, but the law is not preventing murder from happening. FARs are toothless and unenforceable because jump pilots continue to attempt aerobatics in planes full of skydivers leading to injuries and death.

This is why gun control advocates just make asses of themselves. You prove every one of their claims to be false, present them with real numbers, I. E. 480,000 preventable deaths per year verse 4700 that may have happened by a different means anyways if the gun wasn't there, and the rebuttal is, "So?" Obviously nothing to do with public safety or health concerns, only guns. No different than the bitch trying to outlaw skydiving planes because they wake her up in the house she bought next to an airport

So? Comes down to personal responsibility. In our countries every tobacco user is aware of the risks and consequences. The right of the smoker to smoke wherever s/he wants has been curtailed hwever, to protect the non-smoker who didn't choose to accept those risks. (As an aside though, given how they behave in other countries without such legal protections tobacco companies are still agents of pure evil.) And the 42,000 Americans per year who would rather not die from your second hand smoke compared to 4,700 per year who die from being shot? Personal responsibility. I CHOOSE not to smoke and CHOOSE to own guns. I won't stand next to you while you smoke and you don't have to go to the range with me. Problem solved

Slide the bottom plate open, cut a #2 pencil to the right size and put it in the spring to stop it from compressing enough to accept more than 15 rounds. Like buying a shotgun that only holds 3 shells. Pull a cheap wooden dowel rod out of the magazine tube and it holds 7. If your state only allows a shotgun to hold 3 rounds and you take the rod out, you are committing a class C felony. Put it back in when you are done shooting and you are legal again.

Come to think of it. A utopian socialist society, free of crime and inequality, where the people represent the ideals of their chosen leader rather than their leader representing them? This sounds amazing, but familiar. Oh, yeah. Jonestown.

Smoking is the leading cause of preventable deaths. Worldwide, tobacco use causes nearly 6 million deaths per year, and current trends show that tobacco use will cause more than 8 million deaths annually by 2030.2 Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including nearly 42,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.1 -cdc.gov Homicide: The killing of one human being by another. - dictionary.com 2015 gun related homicides: 10,016 30% officer involved shootings 14% accidental shootings 9% justifiable or defense related shootings - fbi.gov This leaves 47% of gun related homicides as murders (4707.52, or 12.9 per day for 1 year) 1300 preventable deaths every day - legal. guilt campaign. taxes 13 ?preventable? Deaths per day - public outcry. political pressure. constitutional restrictions. elected president shaming the people he represents for not supporting his ideals. PIORITIES

Background checks are already in place. When I started buying guns 20 years ago, even in gun friendly states like GA, LA, TX, OK, TN, KY, I had to pass a background check. There were places where you could sell a gun private sale, but you are responsible for it. If you knowingly sell to someone who can't legally own, you committed a felony. I wouldn't take that chance for someone. If you "thought" they were "cool" and they did something with a gun you sold they, again, your ass on the line. I wouldn't take that chance with some of my own family members. If I haven't known you my whole life, go to a store and buy your gun. I think this is what gun control people don't realize. These laws exist. There is accountability. Wording gets twisted and misunderstanding of laws are used to create fear. Most people in favor of stricter laws, don't know what the base line is, therefor wouldn't even know if a new law was more, or less, strict.

How many people have been killed this year by the crazy guy who got ahold of daddy's gun and shot people because he didn't get enough hugs as a kid? 9 at the college, 9 at a church, and 1 reporter? Any others? You guys keep saying shit like 10,000 gun murders a year. What percentage is the antisocial whack job verse common street crime? Not to mention those 10,000 "murders", are actually homicides, which means justifiable homicides (self defense), and police shooting criminals in he line of duty. (Edit: and murder)

If you want to affect gun crime, focus on the illegal gun problem hat exists before trying to "make all guns illegal". Gangs aren't running out to Bass Pro Shops and passing background checks and buying AR15s with scopes and heavy varmit barrels for their drive-by shootings. They are buying brown paper bags full of Mac 10s fabricated in a Mexican machine shop out of someone's trunk in NCY, where guns are illegal to sell purchase or possess. Mac 10s are illegal anywhere in the U.S. actually without a Class 3 firearms license and a BATFE certificate and federal tax stamp for each registered gun. Secondly, while complaining that existing gun laws are toothless, or unenforceable, maybe we should work on fixing those existing laws before trying to add new ones. If by toothless you mean they don't prevent criminals from getting firearms, you are correct (see first paragraph). They are effective at stopping anyone who obeys the law from getting a firearm, if they are in fact prohibited by law from owning one. Isn't that how laws work. They prevent you from doing something that society feels you shouldn't be allowed to do, and if you decide to break that law and do it anyways, you get punished for it? Hence traffic tickets, DUIs, drug possession, theft of property, assault, child abuse, rape, kicking puppies, and so on?