rhaig

because as much as we'd like to believe otherwise, legislation is written by lobbyists who are paid money to do so. This money comes from??? Corporations and the super rich. -- Rob

as I've posted before. the gun grabbers want guns out of the hands of citizens in order to reduce "gun crime". While gun enthusiasts (we prefer that term over "nuts") want guns in the hands of willing citizens to reduce violent crime. -- Rob

just kill the thread. there hasn't been civil discussion here for a couple of pages. -- Rob

Judging the success of things based on how they turn out is called "outcomes assessment" and is an effective tool. I would agree that outcomes assessments are useful tools. But when deciding to vote for something, it's not timely to wait to see how something turns out. -- Rob

so with context, I read that as "we'll have to pass it and experience it's outcome before we can pass judgement on it" -- Rob

nation-wide average, I'm probably right around average driving skill (for whatever random measure of skill that I'm not even considering right now). But the Austin area?? I'll claim above-average. Mainly on driver attentiveness. Too many people just have their brains on auto-pilot on the roads. -- Rob

you're right.... a system that could instantly turn off a car on the highway might be dangerous. It's a good thing no other cars out there have something like a key on the steering column that might do that. You're assuming I meant the button to be an instant off button. Not my intention. I want a hardware switch to turn off my car. Not a software one. -- Rob

I was thinking about this last night. An inexperienced driver might have concerns about steering with one hand for 5 seconds while going 90mph down the highway. What safety person at Toyota thought this was a good idea?? That's fucked up! -- Rob

much better to plow into whatever is in front of you at high speed. No, turning off the vehicle is the best idea in that case. -- Rob

someone I know very well read about the toyota accelerator problem, and looked at me and said "you mean accelerators can stick? what do you do if that happens??" I was floored. -- Rob

Uh, you do realize that 46% of gun show investigations has absolutely no relation to 0.7% of guns used in crimes? Umm - purchase of a gun by a felon IS a crime, chief. umm... purchase of a gun by a felon does not constitute use of a gun in a crime, son. (I couldn't pull off "chief") -- Rob

I've never denied there is a loophole. I've denied that that loophole has anything to do with gun shows. -- Rob

are you saying his name should be reamdancer? interesting.... -- Rob

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/loophole is there a specific way of escaping a difficulty that refers to gunshows? No. The "loophole" you continue to refer to is that a private citizen can sell personal property without a NICS check. (in many states) When asked, you replied that gunshows are where many of those transactions take place. The "loophole" is only tangentially related to gunshows, and directly related to the fact that the person selling the weapon does not do so frequently (different states define "dealer" differently, but it's common to consider frequency) and is not a "dealer" who must be registered through BATF. so without having proposed a solution, you leave us to assume you want all firearm transactions registered at a federal level. (gun registration) Or as you've said that the WA law regarding gun show purchases is a good one, we must also assume you would like gun owners to be federally licensed. -- Rob

I'm curious to see what happens with the Alaska and Montana bills similar to TX HB 1863 (aka the "made in Texas" guns bill) It's out of house committee, but hasn't been voted on yet. http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=81R&Bill=HB1863 The Montana bill is discussed here http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-05-10/news/17200004_1_gun-control-montana-big-sky-state The Alaska law here: http://www.housemajority.org/item.php?id=item20090416-255 -- Rob

that's all well and good if everyone has the upfront cash to upgrade their appliances. For instance, I have two central AC units for my home. Both manufactured and installed in 1993. in the hot months of the year (in TX, that's late April through early October. Call it 5 months) my electric bill is between $200 and $350. I expect that were I to update both units, my bills would drop to between $150 and $250 per month instead. I'll be generous and guesstimate $100/month during those months ($500) and an additional $200 total for the other months that I run the AC. So $700/year in savings for an outlay (after incentives) of around $3000 for both units. If I had the $3K, I'd do it. But I don't. So I can't and end up spending more in the long run. And I'd bet my situation is less like the exception, and more like the general case. (mostly pulled all those numbers out of my ass except for my electrical bill numbers. been 3 years since I replaced a central air unit, and that was as I was selling the house.) -- Rob

I did watch "The Messenger" last night... I enjoyed it. I expect I'll get around to Hurt Locker this week sometime. If not, I'm on vacation next week. Can watch it then -- Rob

have heard good things about his show. never seen it, but it's on my short list for next time I'm in vegas. (though I don't typically see many shows when I go ... maybe one) -- Rob

seriously? That clear about it's position? cool... I haven't seen it yet. But I watched (don't recall if it was in an acceptance speech or after-show) someof the actors in an interview say it wasn't meant to make a statement about whether the war is right or wrong, but to be the viewpoint of these soldiers (or something to that effect). it was probably this morning as I was running around getting ready for work. well I've yet to go see it. But it's on my list. In any case, even before last night, I'd heard it was an excellent show. -- Rob

Incorrect. You're attempting to put words in my mouth and exaggerating by huge amount. It's not a binary world. that's the impression I got from the thread about the teacher being shot where you didn't think she should have carried even though it would have given her a chance at survival. -- Rob

that's exactly what I was talking about. our instructor said something like, "So if deadly force is justified in the first place, don't just show your weapon, intend to use it to stop the threat". -- Rob

brandishing is considered use of force. Or that's what I was taught in my CHL class. Specifically in reference to sec 9 and sec 46. -- Rob

Incorrect, sir. Brandishing (in Texas) is a Class B misdemeanor. PC 42.01 Disorderly conduct (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly: (8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm. There is no defense to prosecution for section a8. this is what I was referring to: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm -- Rob

Sort of. The intent of the language written in that law was to prevent someone from being charged for displaying a weapon with out firing. It was not to give someone the ability to simply brandish the weapon. The point is that when you break leather, you should be in "I must defend myself" mode and drawing your weapon with the intent to use it. If during this process the threat ends, then you are not liable for having drawn your weapon. The difference is significant. true... and brandishing is what I do while I evaluate my target (as to whether or not they're still a threat). I won't ever intentionally brandish. It's just part of my presentation process. connect/retrieve/grip/aim ... then evaluate. My first CHL instructor went over the brandishing laws. His advice was not to wait once you've presented and aimed, evaluate threats and fire as needed to stop the threat. Don't ever think that presenting the firearm will stop the threat by itself. He was a 26yr veteran of APD. Last time I took a renewal it was a gun-store instructor. I got zero from the class. I'll make the drive next time for the good instructor. -- Rob

While I agree with the deadly-force aspect (hard to shoot w/o showing a weapon), the "belief of imminent danger" part reads "when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary." The "reasonable" part might get to be decided by a jury. While I don't believe there should be any legal responsibility to leave the area, the fact that the person had an opportunity to do so and instead chose to brandish a weapon might open the door for civil liability, if not a lengthy and expensive criminal trial as well. no might. In a shooting, there's always a grand jury hearing. In Texas you can't bring civil suit for something that happened as a result of you committing a crime. -- Rob