billeisele

And now we have "Bidenism."One definition would be, - ignoring facts means it's not occurring.

Fraud in an election should be a felony. Wondering why his background wasn't checked well before the election. With all the political hate flying around it's surprising. Plenty of fraud, lying, arrogance and bragging in both parties. To think it's just one side of the fence is idiocy.

Police

Sailors delight

zone

To me there are two issues: Assisted Suicide = those that can't do it themselves, and Death with Dignity = those that are physically capable and have a declining condition or poor life quality. Or whatever other terms are appropriate. Sometimes it would be difficult to place a person in one category or the other. I've witnessed two miserable deaths. One was a person with pancreatic cancer that chose to not take chemo. She chose hospice at home, declined over three weeks, was kept somewhat comfortable with drugs, in the end being unable to eat or swallow dehydration occurred and death. The other was Alzheimer's. The person that he was known to be disappeared over time, physically declined, less walking, then a wheelchair, finally became bedridden. That brings on other medical issues. By this point all dignity was gone. Loss of ability to eat, dehydration and death. Both were a miserably slow process. Those two were my in laws. Also witnessed the results of Parkinsons with my father. he was a college athlete, Navy war vet and an active senior. The disease took his ability to control his body. He researched methods to die. Before that occurred he suffered a medical issue associated with Parkinson's, was ambulanced to the ER, an improper procedure was performed and he died. In the case with the first two there wasn't a discussion about ending it early. With my father he was nearing the point where, I believe, he would have done something. If legal options were available I believe that some people would make that decision, and they should have the right to. As you said, "The devil is in the details."

Woo Hoo - fun-filled video, until the hook turn at the end. Ya gotta respect the game.

This is an interesting article on the 1994 - 2003 assault weapons ban. It's 101 pages but worth the read. The article uses: AW for assault weapon, and LCM for large capacity magazine. It would be valuable to repeat the study looking at what is occurring today. So much has changed since 2004. The volume of guns and LCMs, and capacity of LCMs are just three. The number of these items in private ownership in the US varies based on the data source. Regardless of the actual number there has been a 10-13X increase since 2004. AWs - 1994 - 1.5 million, 2022 - 20 million LCMs - 1994 - 25-30 million, 2022 - 304 million https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf A few excerpts: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence,” "AWs were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%. Most of the AWs used in crime are assault pistols rather than assault rifles." "Reducing attacks with AWs and LCMs may in fact have no more than a trivial impact on gun deaths and injuries, but any such impact cannot be realized or adequately assessed until the availability and use of the banned guns and magazines decline appreciably. Additionally, it may take many years for the effects of modest, incremental policy changes to be fully felt, a reality that both researchers and policy makers should heed." "Should it be renewed, the ban might reduce gunshot victimizations. This effect is likely to be small at best and possibly too small for reliable measurement. A 5% reduction in gunshot victimizations is perhaps a reasonable upper bound estimate of the ban’s potential impact (based on the only available estimate of gunshot victimizations resulting from attacks in which more than 10 shots were fired), but the actual impact is likely to be smaller and may not be fully realized for many years into the future,.." It noted that assault weapons weren’t often “used in gun crimes even before the ban,” and it noted that while LCMs “are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes,” it was then unclear “how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.” "It is also possible, and perhaps probable, that new AWs and LCMs will eventually be used to commit mass murder. Mass murders garner much media attention, particularly when they involve AWs (Duwe, 2000). The notoriety likely to accompany mass murders if committed with AWs and LCMs, especially after these guns and magazines have been deregulated, could have a considerable negative impact on public perceptions," A recent trip to the gun store for target ammo was interesting. This particular store, Palmetto State Armory, has seven retail locations. They have a manufacturing facility making many types and designs of AWs. They sell complete guns and all the parts to build a gun. Many people like to build their own guns using parts from various manufacturers. My estimate is that the display cases at this one store hold 260+/- different handguns from numerous manufacturers. Ranging from an $180 cowboy style .22 pistol up to an engraved silver plated .50 caliber Desert Eagle for $9,998. The rear and side walls hold the long guns and AWs. There were at least 100 of them. Then there are the non-lethal items, tools, cases, optics, mounts, knives, cleaning supplies, ammo, clothes boots, archery equipment, targets, etc. one stop shopping for sure. This store has an indoor gun range. The website lists 5,209 different pistols (1,294 in stock), 1,479 AW guns (343 in stock), 2,717 traditional rifles (469 in stock), and 2,013 shotguns (661 in stock). The point being is there are a ton of options and guns available for purchase in the US. One can even purchase a PulseFire under barrel mounted flame thrower! I hope that this item goes the route of the bump stock. https://palmettostatearmory.com/guns/handguns.html https://palmettostatearmory.com/exothermic-technologies-pulsefire-ubf-underbarrel-flamethrower-black-pf-ubf.html https://exothermic.tech/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIuI_Ly-7s-wIVMRXUAR2CugKkEAAYASAAEgId8fD_BwE Direct from the manufacturer. Best for melting ice, agricultural purposes, controlled burns, weeds, bonfires, insects, films and TV, and pyrotechnic shows. Barbie doll included and they are on sale!! Get yourself a stocking stuffer. IMO - The sheer volume of guns and magazines in private ownership will make it extremely difficult to enact legislation. My hope is that a bipartisan group will identify and propose effective actions that will have a measurable impact on gun crimes without unduly restricting responsible private ownership. That's an awfully thin tightrope.

It appears that the 1.1 mill includes suicide. The historic annual stats are: 60% suicide, 500 due to mishandling of the gun (accidental discharge), and 500 self-defense. That leaves approximately 10,000 annually (recent history). In past years the # of deaths was lower. 90% occur with handguns and 10% with rifles. Clearly the 10,000 deaths per year is a crazy number. It's approximately 30% of the total gun deaths. That provides an opportunity to address the other 70%. Unfortunately criminals have guns and have no qualms with using them. Luckily for the general population many of the gun deaths are between criminals. A primary concern remains. If gun laws are passed that don't disarm criminals then the disarmed law-abiding population will be at greater risk. What then?

You two are interesting. Ms Wendy - you stated that in context of my post rate didn't matter. Then K continues to infer that I was comparing locales which I never did. On the issue of data and rate, your comments would be relevant if I had been comparing locations and deaths. On that we agree. Specifically what was said was, "Yes, having a gun is a choice and it has potential consequences. Evaluate the risks and make a choice. In this instance the lady was able to defend herself because she had a gun. Again, in a city with restrictive gun laws that clearly don't work." In responding to the post where K introduced rate I said, "The restrictive gun laws comment was directed at the fact that the criminal had a gun. Criminals do not follow the law and that's one reason why law abiding citizens want the option to have a gun." My point was simple and reframing my comment into something more complex, which it was not, is, in fact, misleading. Chicago has restrictive gun laws. The criminal had a gun and used in in committing a crime. Effective gun laws are needed but whatever is being done in Chicago is not working. Nothing in my comments has anything to do with rate. Hope everyone had a good holiday.

Good evening Jerry. Hope you are well. We're getting freezing temps at night. Unusual for SC in November to be colder than OR. I respect your opinion on guns. We just differ. In my book that's OK. Maybe it's just different life experiences. Don't stores/banks, etc. have a policy of not resisting? They don't keep much cash on hand and have those colored tapes at the doors to help ID an accurate height for the report. And I'd assume that they all have cameras. In that respect a 7-11 heist may be a sure thing but remaining free with a small amount of cash, some candy bars and smokes hopefully doesn't happen too often. Having a gun and successfully using it for self-defense are never a sure thing. Anyone that thinks that is just wrong.

Ms Wendy - I didn't say that rate didn't matter. What I said was that I did not bring it up. In the context of my statement, rate has no bearing. K tried to change the context of my statement by inserting RATE. He then made the demeaning and incorrect assumption that the term "rate" was an unknown concept, which it is not. My point was and is simple. Possibly too simple for K to grasp. The thug had a gun and used it in committing a crime. The thug had the gun despite the restrictive gun laws. The person being attacked legally possessed a gun and was able to change the outcome of the encounter. But....it's important to add the caveat, "in this case." I fully recognize that the thug may have had no intention of firing the gun. When the lady pulled her gun that could have caused the thug to fire and kill her. Owning a gun has risks. Brandishing or firing a gun has more risks. I recognize and understand the statistics. Not having a means of self-defense also has risks. It's a choice that some people want the right to make. Some or many choose to not have a gun. That's fine and I sincerely hope that they won't ever regret that decision. Others have made a different decision. That's also fine and, again, I hope that they won't ever regret that decision.

Yes, and that is a choice that the gun owner made. Apparently some would rather have the choice to be able to defend themselves against a thug while accepting the other risk. It seems that some just don't want to take the risk of being attacked with no viable means of self protection.

Too funny. I never said anything about RATE. I only stated current stats. I doubt that any of the 600+ dead would care that the death rate was lower in Chicago than other locations. The point is that certain restrictive gun laws are not effective and Chicago continues to demonstrate that. 600+ dead should not be considered success even though the RATE is lower than other places.

Chicago - 600+ gun deaths so far this year, 20 last week. Lightfoot hasn't taken any affirmative steps but she is good at whining. The restrictive gun laws comment was directed at the fact that the criminal had a gun. Criminals do not follow the law and that's one reason why law abiding citizens want the option to have a gun.

A woman in Chicago with a concealed carry permit fought back with her gun against two armed would-be carjackers who approached her while she was in her car. "Thank God I had my gun, or I’d probably be dead right now." Her identity has not been released to the public. The 42-year-old woman was getting into her car outside a bank in Chicago’s Roseland neighborhood on Monday afternoon when the suspects approached her and pulled out a handgun. She had just gotten cash from the bank, which was still in her hand. "I had just come out of the bank and was sitting in my car about to lock my door to pull off in leave, and he opened my door and put a gun in my face," the unidentified woman said of one suspect. She then pulled out her own firearm and shot at the suspects. "And when he saw me get mine, he looked surprised – and I started shooting, and he started running," she told CBS Chicago. "He ran." Yes, having a gun is a choice and it has potential consequences. Evaluate the risks and make a choice. In this instance the lady was able to defend herself because she had a gun. Again, in a city with restrictive gun laws that clearly don't work.

Seems that most underestimated the will of the Ukrainian people to protect, and now take back, their country. There will be a ton of suffering this winter. I'm wondering if they will start throwing missiles at Russian infrastructure to give Putin another reason to just stop.

Walker & Warnock have spent $241 million so far. We'll see how much they can burn thru in the next 20 days. Wonder how much has been spent nationally? These folks say it's just short of $17 billion. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/11/total-cost-of-2022-state-and-federal-elections-projected-to-exceed-16-7-billion/ I wonder what would happen if there was a cap on spending based on the type of race? Going one step further, what if the amount spent on an election had to be matched with charitable giving or public works projects. It just seems like a huge waste of money.

Just wondering, do you feel the same about Nancy? I'm not a Trump, Biden, Kamala, Pence, Nancy, Kevin, or Chuck fan. IMO If Trump runs that's a big problem. If Biden and Trump run it forces people to choose between two bad options. There are good people in both parties that could run if Trump & Biden got out of the way. Politics has gotten so nasty. It seems that bipartisanship rarely occurs. Without that everything gets polarized. Maybe I'm dreaming but it seems that there are plenty of people like me that are more middle off the road. People that want compromise and for things to get done for the good of the country.

Alcohol and guns are never a good combination. Regardless of the presence of alcohol, kids or anything else bringing a gun into someone else's home without asking is, IMO, not acceptable.

You mean a "newer quote" like the one provided when Biden said on October 25, 2022, "Nearly every COVID death is preventable?" My point was apparently not clear enough, at least for you. The 2021 statement was false and known to be false when it was stated. Just like the 2022 statement is known to be false.

Wow - loaded question with plenty of issues on both sides of the political spectrum. Based on the fact that Trump never shut up, and that was probably his downfall, he wins that question. I'm focused on the current world. Trump is gone, hopefully not to return, and now we have Pres Biden, Kamala, Nancy and Chuck. When Kamala says, "The border is secure", and everyone clearly knows that it's not, that's a problem. It seems that they expect the citizenry to believe anything they say regardless of facts. In a short time the electorate will send a signal about the current administration. We'll see.

Yep, it was not the point of the study but it seems that the data would have been there. Why not report it? Did that specific data indicate that guns were used for self-defense and thus a good thing, or not? All I'm saying is more information provides a full picture of what's occurring. The country keeps talking about legislation. It would be good if there was unbiased comprehensive data upon which to base decisions. I clearly acknowledged that the death rate is higher in a gun home vs. a non-gun home by saying, "No doubt that the presence of a gun in a house increases the risk of being shot. It appears that it's a 50-100% increase in risk, or possibly higher." That's the reason why only focusing on "mass murder" is fallacy. Violence within the home among people that know it each other is a much bigger problem. I knew Billy and we occasionally talked. Not enough for me to have any sense of how or why that could have occurred. Certainly many knew him more than I. A tragedy for sure. Jerry posted that OR has proposed a Gun Control Measure. Billy's tragedy is a concern. Would Billy have obtained the required permit under that law? If the current OR permit rules are used then most likely he would have. If so, the new law may have little impact. Hopefully the proposal will pass, and the permit requirements will be firm.

Jerry - It appears that it will take citizen activism to get things done. Good stuff. Hopefully it will pass and there will be a great test environment to see how it works. Will the current CHL or CCW requirements change? The reason I ask is that they are, IMO, way too easy/simple. I've mentioned this in prior posts. This is an item that will need to be addressed in all States. The requirements to get and keep a permit are to easy.

Hmmm....then please share your expertise. I'm aware that holes can be put in the data. One big one is that there's no other background info on age, other medical conditions, age, pre-existing medical issues, variants. etc, etc. Regardless of that, the deaths are categorized as COVID not old age, heart attack, cancer or anything else. I could only quote what their data provided. And the July 2021 statement was before we knew what we know now. But the truth is there was enough info 14 months ago for us to know it was not an accurate statement. The point was simple. The Pres has lied and continues to lie, and that undermines confidence in what's being stated.