More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[winsor 186]

3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

I'll bet many of those practice shots were at a range with human shaped targets.

My targets are pretty much limited to various bullseye style and clay frisbees. 

[jakee 1,257]

On 3/25/2024 at 9:42 PM, winsor said:

If you remove a few key demographics to which the "binary men" you mention are included, the statistics change drastically.

Try blowing that dog whistle a bit harder next time, I don’t know if I quite got the point you were trying to make.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Try blowing that dog whistle a bit harder next time, I don’t know if I quite got the point you were trying to make.

Plus, non-binary don't shoot people, they slash them.

[billeisele 122]

On 4/4/2024 at 12:50 PM, normiss said:

I think personal transfers of weapons should take place at an FFL or the local Cop Shop.

Background checks on every weapon movement of ownership.

Well regulated should actually mean something, and be enforced.

Yep. That's another big problem that should be easy to fully or partially resolve. With the few firearms I've sold, an ID and a copy of the CWP was required. That stopped one guy from obtaining a gun, at least from me.

In SC the gun shows used to be "anything goes", including private sales in the parking lots.  A couple years ago they changed that. No more parking lot sales and background checks are done on all transactions.

[JoeWeber 2,302]

15 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Yep. That's another big problem that should be easy to fully or partially resolve. With the few firearms I've sold, an ID and a copy of the CWP was required. That stopped one guy from obtaining a gun, at least from me.

In SC the gun shows used to be "anything goes", including private sales in the parking lots.  A couple years ago they changed that. No more parking lot sales and background checks are done on all transactions.

Of course that would be a regulatory action unless you are imagining a one off state law. If you are thinking about something broader, what regulatory framework would be acceptable to achieve that much; that is to ask would it be state federal, or local for example. Then also, what additional gun and ammunition regulations would be acceptable as a part of that regulatory framework? 

[billeisele 122]

On 4/4/2024 at 8:54 AM, gowlerk said:

As long as the USA is filled with people like you who think that wanting gun control laws makes someone a nut the problem is only going to get worse. You seem to believe that not have a good working knowledge of weapons somehow means you should have no right to want them controlled. The fact is they are simply machines that spit bullets designed to kill things. Mostly to kill people. You don't need to know anything more than that to understand guns.

Sheesh. OK fine. Let's make it easy to follow so that you don't continue to misconstrue what I said.

For me ... an anti-gun nut is someone ranting and raving about guns without having any facts or understanding of what they are talking about. They sound like idiots when they talk about "all those automatic" guns, "shooting hundreds of bullets a second" and all the other misstatements they make. Cue the famous clip of Joe arguing with the Chrysler auto worker about guns, talking about an "AR-14" and telling the guy he was full of ++it, while denying what he said during his campaign about gun control. Uh, Joe, you said it, nothing goes away anymore.  

Yes, they can kill things. I'll disagree that's the sole purpose. Many use them simply as a form of recreation. Be that shooting flying clay targets, putting holes in paper, or chasing cans across field. 

If that's your idea of all the knowledge that's needed that's an awfully low standard. Anytime one tries to from a credible statement it becomes meaningless due to the inaccurate content.

But, yes, anyone is free to say whatever they want.

[gowlerk 1,914]

33 minutes ago, billeisele said:

For me ... an anti-gun nut is someone ranting and raving about guns without having any facts or understanding of what they are talking about.

I don't know a single person who matches that description. And I bet you can not actually name one. The fact is "anti-gun nut" is simply the name calling you choose to use. But go ahead, name one. these people are not nuts. There is nothing nutty about wanting gun control.

Edited April 5 by gowlerk

[billeisele 122]

3 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Of course that would be a regulatory action unless you are imagining a one off state law. If you are thinking about something broader, what regulatory framework would be acceptable to achieve that much; that is to ask would it be state federal, or local for example. Then also, what additional gun and ammunition regulations would be acceptable as a part of that regulatory framework? 

Good afternoon Joe, or maybe lunch time for you.

Since gun purchase laws are federal (except the extra ones passed in certain states) I'd like to see the federal law expanded to include private party sales. Some states require private sales to go thru an FFL or at least to have the background check done thru a licensed dealer or some other designated entity. That practice is more widespread than I thought. This article has a list of required actions for private party sales. Private Gun Sale Laws by State - FindLaw

These are the two laws in SC, some states go further, some less. Note that most of these laws use the term "transfer." I'm assuming that means change of ownership to prevent someone from "gifting" a gun to another. Seems that would also cover transfers to a family member.

S.C. Code Ann. § 16-23-30(A): May not transfer firearms to anyone who is prohibited from possessing them under state law. S.C. Code Ann. § 16-23-530(B): May not knowingly transfer firearms to anyone unlawfully in the United States. As to what guns and ammo to cover. The laws above cover all firearms but not ammo, and don't cover private party transfers to peeps than can legally have one. I'd like to see background checks done on all firearm transfers. For a few reasons, IMO, trying to manage ammo would be quite difficult if not impossible. 1) there's so much out there, 2) it's easy to find, 3) reloading isn't difficult, 4) no serial numbers, and 5) it would create another huge underground economy. Of course, that excludes ammo that most regular people aren't supposed to have. Armor piercing, etc. It's concerning that there are particular rounds like Flechette bullets, "exploding" ammo, bolo rounds, and Dragon's breath that are legal in many states. I don't see any real purpose for those. But, the common hollow nose is illegal in NJ.

[billeisele 122]

4 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I don't know a single person who matches that description. And I bet you can not actually name one. The fact is "anti-gun nut" is simply the name calling you choose to use. But go ahead, name one. these people are not nuts. There is nothing nutty about wanting gun control.

I guess you don't watch or hear things from TV or other media outlets. You can put AOC (and some other politicos) and the stars of The View on the list. There are plenty others. I freely admit that the problem has become much smaller than it was just 5 years ago.

Nothing nutty about wanting gun control. It's the behaviors that can be nutty. To avoid a reply - I said "can be" not "are." They are nutty when the person doing it uses all kinds of incorrect terminology and facts. To add another factor, to me it's nutty to just go after military style rifles when they are only a tiny part of the problem.

Reverting to what I've said many times ... wanting laws that are enforceable, legal and reasonable is great. I'm all for that and have listed many that IMO are enforceable, legal and could be passed. Gun confiscation and destruction isn't a workable solution and that's a position that some advocate.

We've seen plenty of laws passed that the Supreme Court has knocked down. There are a recent cases in NY, CA. MD and OR. Why pass laws that will be reversed? Elections are a thing - some will do anything to create the appearance of gun restriction. To me it's a waste of time, time that could be spent working on acceptable laws.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

"Nutty" is in the eye of the beholder.  I consider limiting what is possible in the legal realm to laws closely similar to laws that were in effect in 1791 (when the 2nd was passed), to be completely "nutty", or more to the point insane.  We will see how far Thomas and Alito want to take us in a couple of months when the court rules on US vs Rahimi, but the indication so far is that because domestic abuse was legal three hundred years ago, domestic partners today are ineligible for protection from "gun nut" boyfriends and spouses.  I find it nutty, or even insane, that any "originalists" could think that that is a good idea.

[billeisele 122]

On 4/4/2024 at 10:58 AM, JoeWeber said:

I'm not following your logic. What do you mean "clinging to it?

I mean clinging to it as a justification for what they consider to be an irreparable situation; for the creation of more guns for sale to anyone tall enough to put money on the counter or a pocket big enough to put it in; for the inability to deprive anyone of their made out of whole cloth constitutional right. I could go on for pages. 

 

They regularly use the term "automatic" as if all the black military looking guns operate in that manner. All they know is that it looks like a military gun therefore it's desirable.

 

FIFY.  That is the point in a nutshell and that is why that dumb turd Kyle Rittenhouse was out at night playing vigilante.

 

You seem to keep wanting to demonize me. At this point you should realize that I'm middle of the road on all this stuff. You state, ",,,, until folks like you get on board with the idea we have a problem with guns...." 

 

Middle of the road? Maybe on the road you live on but not on my road. All positions that include arguing nothing can be done owing to the immutability of the second  amendment, the cost of collection and smelting, the happiness of law abiding citizens, or the thrills of a local culture that deludes itself into believing that shooting wild pigs from a "rotary platform" with "scary black" semi-automatic guns as if they were "mercs" was a sport for citizens not a job for government. And let's not kid ourselves, were fully automatic scary black guns legal to buy and use for that or any other purpose more than a few of your friends would own them. 

 

I'd argue that my position is much more middle of most folks road. I own guns and did a lot of different sorts hunting over the years. I quit because slob hunters who couldn't shoot were wounding and killing animals they mis-identified, or were too lazy to find, not the guns. Now that I don't hunt I am giving my guns to responsible hunters not selling them to anyone. All will go except an HMR-17, a Beretta semi-auto 12 gauge my dad gave me (the only semi auto I've even owned for hunting)  and a Beretta 1301 tactical I have for home defense. I think at one time here, I offered some nice ones in trade for an AR-15  that I would turn in and got no takers.  So I do know my guns and calibers and the difference between semi and full auto. I am comfortable with regulation that might result in overreach, the absolute banning of concealed carry without hard to achieve reasons, and open carry. As I see zero need for hunting North American game with a semi-automatic rifle I see no need for that as a justification for owning AR-15 style weapons. To me those are middle of the road positions that aren't going to materially harm society or individuals.

 

In general we agree on much more than we disagree on. I guess, for you and I, the middle is fairly wide, at least we're not in the extremes. 

I know you know guns. We've, pleasantly, discussed that. We've discussed the semi vs. bolt action hunting topic and I said I prefer bolt.

As for the helicopter pig guys. I doubt the government would ever do anything on private land, and yes there are options to pig control other than helicopters. Seems that the private land owners found a way to do pig control and have customers pay for it. Good marketing, companies called HeliBacon and Aerial Assault. Last week I saw an ad for it in GA.

Don't think we've talked directly about the 2nd, if not we've certainly talked all around it. It may simply be too big to change but that doesn't mean that laws can't be enacted. I'm no constitution scholar and have no clue about how hard that would be but maybe it does need changing. 

Yes, I have friends with all kinds of AR style guns, none of them hunt with them. One guy is ex-special forces and owns numerous automatic weapons. He does the Bonnie and Clyde re-enactment week in Louisiana as Clyde and has a couple operational "Tommy" guns. The other 3-4 I'm thinking about just enjoy shooting them. Fun to shoot but not my thing. Yes, some of them might not turn them in if that became a law. One guy in particular is especially paranoid and will not buy a gun from a dealer, he thinks there's a secret database. Most others I know with guns, at most, own a shotgun, a .22 and a couple handguns. The only semi I've owned was a shotgun, Remington 1100, sold it 25+ years ago. 

[tkhayes 126]

On 4/3/2024 at 10:03 PM, wolfriverjoe said:

Not really, Professor.

A gun dealer in Indiana is NOT allowed to sell to a resident from another state.

That doesn't mean an Illinois resident couldn't find an Indiana resident to do a 'straw purchase' for him, but it's not legal.

assuming you buy from a gun dealer.  private sales are pretty much exempt from any or all such things in almost every state.  In many cases that includes gun shows where I can 'privately' sell you my gun in the parking lot.

The idea that 'gun dealers' have any affect whatsoever on the illegal gun trade is more gun lobby fantasy and used for this kind of talking points.

ALL gun sales need to be escrowed, whether that is through LEO, gun dealer, whatever..... making private sales illegal unless via a tracking and background check system is the first step at stemming the illegal trade of weapons.

[kallend 1,628]

I watched a musket demo at The Alamo yesterday.

Maybe those "originalist" members of SCOTUS should do the same.

[Rickendiver 6]

On 4/2/2023 at 4:18 AM, wolfriverjoe said:

Masking & lockdowns are a lot different.

They work. 

There's an argument that if the mask mandates had been actually enforced, the deaths would have been a lot lower.

The 'anti' idiots like to cite the stats that lifting mandates had little effect on infections or deaths (which is true). They ignore the fact that the mandates were not enforced very well, and when lifted, the people who had been following them kept on wearing them. Actual usage rates were very similar, mandated or not.

In my professional training and experience working with aerosolized pathogens both in both research laboratories & in the field for national bio defense, (DOE, DOD, DHS), cloth masks are ineffective at preventing virus transmission. This has been in the knowledge base for about 100 years. 

[billvon 2,400]

11 minutes ago, Rickendiver said:

In my professional training and experience working with aerosolized pathogens both in both research laboratories & in the field for national bio defense, (DOE, DOD, DHS), cloth masks are ineffective at preventing virus transmission.

They are, however, quite effective at reducing virus transmission.  N95s are even better.  But nothing is 100%.

[wmw999 2,123]

32 minutes ago, Rickendiver said:

In my professional training and experience working with aerosolized pathogens both in both research laboratories & in the field for national bio defense, (DOE, DOD, DHS), cloth masks are ineffective at preventing virus transmission. This has been in the knowledge base for about 100 years. 

They are better than nothing, and they're not too bad at stopping someone who's breathing out from having their every breath (possibly contagious) enter the fray. Not as good against coughs and sneezes, but most people breathe a little more than they cough or sneeze.

Once N95 masks and foreign equivalents appeared, plenty of people started wearing them. The others can still screen out some allergens as well.

Wendy P.

[kallend 1,628]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

They are, however, quite effective at reducing virus transmission.  N95s are even better.  But nothing is 100%.

Here's a guy who wouldn't wear a mask.  

[ryoder 1,388]

13 minutes ago, kallend said:

Here's a guy who wouldn't wear a mask.  

He was holding out for a mask that was "Nine-Nine-point-Nine" percent effective, but none met his requirements. :-(

Edited April 15 by ryoder

[JoeWeber 2,302]

22 minutes ago, ryoder said:

He was holding out for a mask that was "Nine-Nine-point-Nine" percent effective, but none met his requirements. :-(

Such a terrible thing, especially because he was so very much certain. Does anyone know if he's still dead?

[BIGUN 1,055]

9 hours ago, billvon said:

They are, however, quite effective at reducing virus transmission.  N95s are even better.  But nothing is 100%.

Effectiveness of N95 Mask in Preventing COVID-19 Transmission

Plus if both parties are wearing masks; the transmitter and the receiver protection is doubled?

Edited April 15 by BIGUN

[wolfriverjoe 1,343]

10 hours ago, Rickendiver said:

In my professional training and experience working with aerosolized pathogens both in both research laboratories & in the field for national bio defense, (DOE, DOD, DHS), cloth masks are ineffective at preventing virus transmission. This has been in the knowledge base for about 100 years. 

Right. That's why doctors wear them.

And dentists.

And tattoo artists.

And cancer patients.

Your 'training and experience' is...

Bullshit.

What's next?

CO2 poisoning from wearing them?

[Stumpy 256]

Absolutely mind blown by some of the coverage around the stabbing in Australia recently with online commenters from the US trying to turn this into a reason why Australia should relax its gun laws when it's the exact opposite.

(Man with knife attacked a bunch of people, killing 6. Australian police woman shot and killed him)

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/15/australia/australia-sydney-mall-attacker-targeted-women-victims-intl-hnk/index.html

[Rickendiver 6]

5 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Right. That's why doctors wear them.

And dentists.

And tattoo artists.

And cancer patients.

Your 'training and experience' is...

Bullshit.

What's next?

CO2 poisoning from wearing them?

Doctors and dentists wear them to mitigate bacterial transmission. They are not PPE. Humans are constantly shedding skin cells and hair follicles that often contain bacteria. Ever work in a Class 100 clean room? Ever do any SEM or AFM imaging? It’s clearly visible. N95’s are designed to mitigate inhalation of particulates greater than 0.3 microns in size when fit tested and worn on a clean shaven face. They do not block mist. Both offer zero protection for the eyes.

Virus was first postulated in the late 1800’s & directly observed in the 1930’s. So… nobody ever found out if masks worked until just now? Absurd.

My training and experience was about 40 years at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Sandia Livermore National Laboratory, Dugway Proving Grounds, Ft Detrick.

i am coauthor on 16 scientific journal papers, have several patents, an R&D 100 Award, was a principle developer on BioWatch Gen 2&3, a principal operative for field deployment, testing and incident response, and worked as a member of the NEST/ARG community. I also worked as a consultant for DHS & Northrop Grumman. I was responsible for personnel safety which included PPE selection and use appropriate to the hazards.

if you still stand by your assessment, that’s fine with me, but you might look up Dunning-Kruger effect.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

17 hours ago, Rickendiver said:

cloth masks are ineffective at preventing virus transmission.

What about reducing virus transmission?

[gowlerk 1,914]

10 minutes ago, Rickendiver said:

if you still stand by your assessment, that’s fine with me, but you might look up https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/2021/11/face-masks-covid-19.

That is an impressive enough resume I suppose. What is your opinion on the direction given to the public by the NIH? are they some sort of scammers? Is your posistion influenced by the politics around the pandemic, or is the rest of the scientific community just plain wrong and only you are correct?

https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/2021/11/face-masks-covid-19

You may think that we don't already know about the Dunning-Kruger effect but you are wrong in making that assumption. The bottom like is that face masks can and do play a role in reducing the spread of droplets containing viral particles therefore reducing but not eliminating the spread of viral infection. At a time when the health system was overwhelmed with cases of covid leading to sever overtaxing of the system anything reducing the infection rate was very much welcomed and needed.