JoeWeber

All true. And one important life option they also have is better access to the financial system that men take for granted. Everyone wins.

That's it. And with education comes the realization that reproductive choices can be true science based decisions not the 6 week "it's a fetal heartbeat" horse shit. The resistance will be, as it always is, religion. Sure there will always be secular groups opposed to a womens right to choose just as some people of faith will be pro choice. And, sorry Kieth, the man needs to shut up and not have a vote. It's her body, her life and her decision. Period. For Christs sake, they're our team mates, right?

And, therefore, all sins are equal individually and in quantity. Be your crime baking wedding cakes by the dozens for your LGBTQ brothers and sisters or tearing the do not remove tag off your pillow you are the same sinner in the eyes of the currently popular deity and by extension his chosen representative on Speakers Corner, Ron. You are so cute with your therefore's and stuff. Tell the truth, your friends up in the hollow just bore you to tears, don't they?

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?