JoeWeber

I'll see your domestic homicide and raise you two happy birthdays.

Joe, Those things don't matter to the deniers. When I looked at the Indian Corn Production Graph I knew it wasn't the whole story so I thought to myself, Self, time to read up on Indian Corn Production so I started with the attached file. Then I thought to myself, Self, fuck Corn in India and, for that matter, Yams in Yemen, too. The reality is that nothing will sway some deniers. It could be so hot the wax in their ears was melting and they'd say: "See, it helps your hearing, too." Complete no win. India-Maize-2014_v2.pdf

Shouldn't Sunday school questions that only make sense to believers be in The Bonfire?

Bill, I don't care if you are a moderator, if you want answers to questions Brent ignores you need to take a number and stand in line.

I am very sincere. Without reservation I favor universal background checks, shall issue carry permits approved at the local level and prohibiting violent offenders from owning or possessing weapons. Those are the identified items the study concluded lower the homicide rate 36%. Mix, match or modify those and a different result should be expected so I just say good enough. There will be crappy and biased local sheriffs, sure. But we already have crappy and biased local school boards, County Commissioners and so on. The background checks will no doubt cause some people unnecessary grief. But at some point we need to put certain reservations aside and move ahead. I also favor closing the gun show loophole and would address your concern about angry asshole ex husbands grabbing a gun at Walmart on the way home by requiring every gun transfer to have a one week waiting period, public and private. Will you join me in agreeing to these restrictions if that's what it takes to get the 36% Homicide rate reduction?

We no longer have the second amendment. We have Heller.

Hi Tin, It's sort of a cool idea from back in the day. Unless you also have gear, airlift and a place to land you'll need your local DZ. These day's most places are beyond just selling slots to college club trained jumpers. If they are serious they'll want all of their students trained to the same standard. So first, go to your local DZ and pitch the idea. Once they're on board you'll be able to structure the other bits.

El Paso thread pg 7, post 24: "I do have some reservations with universal background checks, but closing the gun show loophole seems reasonable enough. Also, "may issue states" have an additional level of protection but I don't think the decision should be left to the sole discretion of some sheriff, but I'm not sure how it really works in those states." From the Boston University Study: "The three most effective state laws in reducing homicide rates were universal background checks, prohibiting people who have committed a violent offense from owning a handgun and "may-issue" as opposed to "shall-issue" concealed-carry permits. A may-issue permit is granted at the discretion of the police, while a shall-issue one allows no discretionary judgment provided the permit seeker is not disqualified on some other ground. Of the 10 state laws reviewed, prohibiting handgun purchases for violent offenders reduced the homicide rate by 18%. Universal background checks, by themselves, reduced the rate by 15%, and may-issue concealed-carry laws reduced the rate by 10%. States where all three laws were enforced had a 36% lower homicide rate. States in which two of the three were enforced had a 13% lower rate, and in states where any one of the three was enforced the rate was 6% lower." So you are touting a solution you don't agree with. Maybe, just maybe, it's that sort of thing that has John busy scratching a hole into the side of his head.

When you refer to the examples of gun restrictions you've provided I take that to mean those discussed in the Boston University study you linked, specifically the three state laws that when combined have proven effective: prohibiting hand gun purchases by violent offenders, universal background checks and may issue vs. shall issue concealed carry permits. Are there more?

So should ballistic forensics be inadmissible in court? Fruit of the poisoned tree, I guess.

Indeed. And it was called District of Columbia v. Heller.

By writing "Cop Killer" I gave you that opportunity, I'll be more careful. I just looked and .243/6MM Solid Copper Boat tails and Sabots are available for reloading. But I'm sure we need them for something, as intended by the founders.

Right, but because the sabot is shed out the spout there aren't rifling marks on the round, or so I thought. If that's true that's not good.

On the ammo thing, I want to remember that 15-20 years ago it was possible to buy Remington 7MM sabot rounds firing a 6MM bullet. I don't know if they were banned as potential cop killers or not but for sure that sort of thing should be low hanging fruit for restriction that all can agree on.

In no way do I advocate for a ban on all firearms. I have several that I would not be keen on giving up. I agree ammo is a place to look if some semblance of a solution is desired. And you are absolutely right about a bolt action rifle being a good sniping weapon. I have a Ruger M77 in 7MM with a 3X9 Leopold that would be excellent for the purpose. But then, it would also make an excellent club, if need be. This is just one of those areas of disagreement gun owners have: I just don't believe in the slippery slope thing. I think sensible regulations will leave guns in the hands of hunters, enthusiasts and those of us who believe in protecting their homes with a Beretta shotgun.

Coreece, you are serious. I get that. But this is not only about symptoms or statistics. This is about leadership. The only rates that mean anything here are rates of fire. It's about the wrong guns in the hands of the wrong people not only guns in the wrong location. Less wrong guns equals less of both. Sure, programs will work and must be a part of the solution. But gun restriction must also be a part of the solution.

Right. But they did change gun laws in Australia. We, unfortunately, have Heller. It's too easy to swirl down the never ending analysis worm hole with these things. If we want less gun violence then we need less of the guns that are associated with that violence. At the same time we need to get into those communities that suffer disproportionately from gun violence and do what ever we can to help. How is that wrong?

I doubt John is against any evidence based program that reduces gun violence anywhere. I'll also hazard that he is happy being taxed for the purpose. Same for me. Even if I was uncertain that the results would align with my hopes I would still support the programs. But that is also how I feel about assault weapon and high capacity magazine restrictions. The thing is that neither approach is likely to increase gun violence in America so, if we are being completely rational, why not both? And now.

I've always admired how the Danes can turn a phrase.

And if they're from Oregon I can guarantee you'll get an excellent dog walker and won't need to take out the recycling the entire time.

That's fantastic. Would you be willing to host a few surplus Oregon Patriots for a month? MoveThere.org?

So then really, what we need are 250,000 brave American couch surfers to move to a few key states, take up residency, register to vote, vote a straight D ticket and be the hero's who saved American democracy. If your tax obligations are zero wherever you file you are golden. Just 31 day's of vacation and then come home to the hero's welcome you'll so richly deserve. In fact, you can probably pull it off weekends only and never miss a class at college. It'll be just like going door to door except you've got your sleeping bag. Maybe Tom Steyer will foot a $2000 per hero stipend to ease the pain, help out the hosts, pay for some gas and make it a fun trip. Half a Billion US Dollars later and our national nightmare will be over. Problem solved. Really, Florida is probably icing on the cake at this stage, so only 100,000 hero's should be enough to do the job. That's only $200 Million, quite likely less than the Russians paid. Florida No durational residency requirement. 29-day registration requirement before national election; 29-day registration requirement before first and second state primary. (Trump won by 144,445 votes. Electoral votes 29) Michigan 30-day residency requirement. (Trump won by 13,080 Votes. Electoral votes 16) Pennsylvania 30-day residency requirement. 30-day registration requirement. (Trump won by 68236 votes. Electoral votes 20) Wisconsin 10-day residency requirement. Individual may also register on election day at polling place. (Trump won by 22257 votes. Electoral votes 10)

What about your country do you love? It must be the real estate because you definitely don't love the people. I think you love the narrative of your Moses like march away from sin and oppression to the land of your people in the mountains of north Georgia. Hallelujah! Free at last, free at last you are finally free at last from the company of soup kitchen supporters and other Luciferians. But that's all BS, too. You have never disengaged from the outside world. You glean the Internet for the right news, engage in online forums, interact with socialist/communist/liberal evil doers, and communicate and stay involved with the greater world in the exact same way as those of us in purgatory do. So woop-de-doodle, you moved into a low security prison with unlimited work release opportunities, TV, Internet and concealed carry privileges. Seriously, are you here because your community and religion are really that boring to you now?

Why stop there? Now guess my age, weight and height. All you can lose is another cheap kewpie doll.

The larger idea is that barriers come in many forms; Trump walls are just one kind. Distance, language, nationality, culture, education, religion, sexuality, skin color and circumstance can also be formidable barriers. By interacting with others in the heterogeneous cyber world of ideas on SC you are actually working to break down those barriers. That's a good thing. You should want your correspondents to better understand you and, I hope, for you to better understand them. Win or lose, that's the beauty of the thing. The prize, of course, is context and the possibility to see into the thoughts of others. And then, if you are willing, into your own. But if you insist on seeing the world around you through a narrative you ascribe to and not through the eyes of your neighbors then how can you learn? You told me your story, your narrative, and asked for mine. Well, I don't have one that can be offered as an explanation of my truth. Mine changes as what I believe to be true changes. That's the way of life. You seem to believe that you need to explain yourself with a telling. Neighbor, that's not true for you or me. Every time we post we expose our narratives so the job is done. "These mist covered mountains Are a home now for me But my home is the lowlands And always will be Someday you'll return to Your valleys and your farms And you'll no longer burn to be Brothers in arms"