rhaig

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/out-and-about-dc/2013/may/8/adam-kokesh-organizes-open-carry-gun-protest-march/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRwGAt6dSps Well... it'll make good news at least when they all get arrested. -- Rob

so when a state legislature believes that those laws may not be constitutional, they legislate to nullify and it plays out in court. That's what I'm waiting to see. -- Rob

some around here also call him "pointy boots" but I don't listen to that radio show often. -- Rob

we're also proud of our citizens who immediately (and continue to) volunteer to do cleanup, SAR and care work in the area as well as individuals and companies who donate food and building materials to help with the reconstruction effort. Governor Hair is a figurehead. The TX government limits the power of the Governor quite nicely. The safety and inspections part... yeah, that's pretty fucked up. I don't know about insurance regulations... I do know that the risk-avoidance part of my brain wouldn't let me live or build close to an existing fertilizer plant. -- Rob

he's a local guy and tends to use the same gun ranges I do. The week he produced and tested the printed AR lower I was leaving the private range he tested it at while he was showing up. I saw him testing the Feinstein AK magazine at a different range a couple of weeks ago. Totally unrelated, I also ran into the TrackingPoint guys at the range last week. They were obviously testing something so I didn't bother them, but they've got some pretty cool looking tech. -- Rob

yup... they were trending down already, so there's no telling the impact it had on homicides. But your firearm suicides did go down sharply. yup... I've always said, we don't have a gun problem, we have a violent crime problem. I expect cultural differences play the biggest part in that. And yes, a tattoo registry is rather absurd. I see their point, trying to identify a small segment of people who are using the tattoo shops as a money laundering front, but it treats all of them as criminals. Even for the Maori who live there and have a well established tradition of tribal/religious applications for tattoos. (granted though that's not a large population segment in AU) Though a listing of tramp stamps might make the nights at the bar go a little quicker :) -- Rob

The numbers I see in studies (based on numbers from the Australian bureau of statistics) say your violent crime skyrocketed. Not the ones your government fed to you. I don't know what those say. The homicide rates dropped almost as much in the US between 1995 and 2007 as they did in AU. 31.7% vs 31.9% Good thing you had that stringent gun control (with outright bans of certain types of weapons). And while we in the US with our crazy lack of gun control experienced a 31.8% drop in violent crime at that time, down under your countrymen were weathering a 42.2% increase in violent crime. so was the winking tongue out smiley a "trust me... don't look up the numbers" or a "ha ha!! I believe what our media told me. you stupid 'merkins and your guns" ?? -- Rob

a killa watt? -- Rob

Where there has been an increase in the carry of guns by law abiding citizens, it has occurred that there has been a decrease in violent crime rate during that same period of time. (correlation only) This has happened in multiple places. Personally I think we would see an increase in crimes like robbery, rape, non firearm murders and assault, but it would countered by a decrease in the murder rate. I think over-all "violent crime" would go up. Not astoundingly, but some. The question becomes then, IF you had that magic button to "POOF!" make all the guns go away, which would be better, a few thousand more dead people (not hitting the button), or 55,000-2,500,000 more victims of violent crime (hitting the button). Those numbers are the range of defensive gun use estimates depending on whose numbers you pay attention to. Assuming 55K, and using the 2011 UCR data, that would come out to about 669 more murders, 3800 more rapes, 16K robberies, and 34K more aggravated assaults. Compare that to 8,583 firearms murders in 2011. which is better? edit to add: and if we don't go with the low ball estimates of defensive gun uses, but still cut the mid-range estimates in half, then it's 8583 less firearm murders vs 6690 more non-firearm murders plus 38000 rapes, 160000 robberies, and 340000 aggravated assaults. -- Rob

then you'll stop parading around the "90%" number after claiming others are lying? The article I read that included those results indicated it was slightly over 1000 sample size (1050 I think) and that 84% (+- 4%) of the respondants favored additional background checks. So of course someone somewhere rounded that up to 90% But don't worry. I wouldn't call you a liar. -- Rob

well, the second sentence of the linked article has a prediction then.... And for that matter, it could happen next week! -- Rob

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/02/massive-solar-flare/ -- Rob

Did they teach you how to put in earbuds and "channel" the scene as in Boondock Saints? -- Rob

That number came from a summary of a summary of a poll. The original poll question was about supporting more background checks. 84% of the respondents (a little over 1000 people) said yes. Someone summarized that to about 85% and someone else summarized that to 90%. So when you say 90% of those polled support more stringent controls, you're using a bad number and the wrong poll question. 84% of those polled supported more background checks. There is also a gallup poll that shows that only 4% of those polled (again, a little over 1000) felt that gun control was the most important issue facing the country. That's a very specifically written question. So while the two numbers may appear to be diametrically opposed, they really can not be compared. The poll question authors are the best liars. -- Rob

Most of the tactical shooters I know shoot 9mm or .45ACP. When looking at penetration, the .40 round doesn't have the penetration that the other 2 rounds have (based on research they did and shared with me). I believe it had only 9" of gel penetration where the other two were over 12" (where 12" is considered "lethal impact energy" by some folks). The .45ACP (depending on the numbers you look at) has between a one and five percent higher occurrence of "one shot stops" than a 9mm round (meaning the assailant stopped attacking after the first shot). Based on this, they choose 9mm based on it's penetration, capacity and recoil management. All that said, shot placement is still very important, and the gun you carry is better than the one you don't. (not to start the which caliber is better war) and I think the problem with small game and a .17HMR is the speed at impact. A supersonic impact will make a much larger wound channel than a sub sonic impact. A typical .22 round will leave the barrel just over 1000fps and at impact will have slowed. A .17HMR leave the barrel at about 2500fps and have a supersonic impact. -- Rob

so what you're saying is that the article didn't draw the conclusion that it was right wing extremists, it pointed out it was a possibility, and YOU drew the conclusion that it was a right wing extremist? -- Rob

give up. when it fits their opinion, it's climate. when it doesn't, it's just weather. -- Rob

dollarocracy. either whoever spends the most money wins, or whoever pays the most money gets the vote swung their direction. -- Rob

In the USA we have a dollarocracy. holy shit! we agree on something! And depending on which constitutional scholar you talk to and which day of the week, I've heard our government described as a democratic republic and also a representative republic. We can all agree, regardless of terminology that it is a republic with representatives elected through a democratic (dollarocratic?) process. -- Rob

The US is a Republic. Not a democracy. -- Rob

You keep talking about some democratic country. Where do you live? -- Rob

we don't live in a democracy. you hereby fail social studies. That's right, you have to work in an elected or appointed position in our current government structure to be able to pick and choose which laws you abide by. True it would essentially be murder. How is it seen historically? It all depends on who wins. The victors write the history. Were the insurgents executed for treason, or did the freedom fighters overthrow the oppressive regime... It all depends on the author's point of view. -- Rob

did you read my post that you quoted, or are you just using those words to make your point. Because I said nothing about background checks. I have very little problem with background checks. They are an unfunded mandate and they control how a private citizen can sell personal property. That's the only problem I have with background checks. If it's for the good of all, then tax everyone to pay for it. But let's not pretend that background checks (being pushed in response to a criminal act) would stop any criminal act. Cars kill more people than guns. You don't need a license or a background check to purchase and use a car on private property. Gun control isn't about guns any more than the 2nd amendment is about hunting. -- Rob

The process for modification is well defined. If you want to get rid of the 2nd, then start a movement to do so. Until then, we are a nation of laws, and can't pick and choose which laws to ignore (unless you work in the whitehouse or the capitol building in DC). *** 2) Nothing you can do will fix it all, instantly. So we should do nothing instead... We should do nothing that will make it worse. And nothing that will infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. -- Rob

Uh. Thanks! I just added that to my facepalm images collection. that would be closer to a headdesk. Done lots of headdesk moves in my IT career. -- Rob