WWTBAM Bored

It won't matter because obviously, military experts like BiT and Rush Limbaugh know so much more about firearms than he does:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /30764255/

Honore said he doesn't know what steps government should take tighten controls on carrying guns — "I'm not smart enough for that," he said — but he said mass shootings "are scarring our country."

silverscreenselect wrote:It won't matter because obviously, military experts like BiT and Rush Limbaugh know so much more about firearms than he does:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /30764255/

What does military expertise have to do with knowledge of the Constitution or civilian ownership and use of firearms. Other than "if I'm trying to take military control over a civilian populace I'd prefer they are unarmed"? I think even you could figure that one out.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:It won't matter because obviously, military experts like BiT and Rush Limbaugh know so much more about firearms than he does:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /30764255/

What does military expertise have to do with knowledge of the Constitution or civilian ownership and use of firearms. Other than "if I'm trying to take military control over a civilian populace I'd prefer they are unarmed"? I think even you could figure that one out.

Thus speaketh a prime example of the gun culture in a state of denial that Gen. Honore mentioned, proving his point far better than I could.

Some numbers:

The number of motor vehicles in the U.S. is approximately 260,000,000 -- almost one for every person.
The number of guns in the U.S. has been estimated to be between 270 and 310 million -- one for every person.
The number of motor vehicle deaths per year is decreasing, but has been at just over 30,000 per year for several years -- about one per 10000 cars
The number of deaths by gunshot wound appears to be increasing, but is currently just over 30,000 per year -- about one per 10000 guns.

Guns carry far less kinetic energy than cars, but are much more often used to commit purposeful violence on other humans.

Would it not be reasonable, then, to put at least the same types of restrictions and licensing requirements on guns as we have on motor vehicles? In order to possess and operate a gun of any type, one would:

1. pass a written test on proper operation and use.
2. Show that he/she could operate a gun safely -- not a marksmanship test, but a basic gun safety test.
3. Show that one is physically and mentally capable of operating a gun safely. My son, who has epilepsy, had to wait for a neurologist to sign off that his seizures were controlled by medication, and he must carry a copy of this signature form in any motor vehicle that he operates.

Yes, criminals would still get and use guns illegally. But let me give you an example from a local level. We in Evansville were having a horrible problem with what used to be called mopeds, and now are called scooters. People were riding them everywhere, stealing them back and forth, not operating them safely, etc. Unless a police officer witnessed an egregious violation, there was very little they could do, because there were no licensing or title regulations in place. In the state legislature, a bill was introduced to place a minimal licensing and title restriction on these vehicles. When you bought one, you had to register it and plate it, at a very minimal fee (about $20 total, I believe.) You still don't have to have a driver's license, so the people who have lost their license for one reason or another can still use them for work transportation. You can still ride them on most streets legally (not interstates or state highways). There were huge arguments in the legislature, before the bill was finally passed, and it struck me how much the language was like the gun debates I hear. But the bill, in the weakened, amended version I describe above, finally passed.

Result? Anecdotally, I see about one-tenth the number of scooters on the road that I used to see. There have been very few, if any, reported accidents involving scooters. No "drive-by scooter shootings" this year or last (don't laugh, we had 3 in 2013 alone.). The paper trail allows police to connect stolen scooters back to their owners much more easily than before.

I understand and relate to the fear of the police state government. But if anyone really thinks they're hiding how many guns and ammo they possess from the government, he is deluded. If the NSA really wants to know what you've got, they'll find out. The only way to avoid that is to go completely off-grid, including buying your weapons illegally. Not an option for most.

Mr Kelley>>>I understand and relate to the fear of the police state government. But if anyone really thinks they're hiding how many guns and ammo they possess from the government, he is deluded. If the NSA really wants to know what you've got, they'll find out. The only way to avoid that is to go completely off-grid, including buying your weapons illegally. Not an option for most.<<<


Kind of a related thought to this-First of all, I am not convinced that the agents of said government would mostly be on the side of the government when/if the shite hits the fan.

I also noted with interest the recent search for the escaped convicts in New York. This was presumably the perfect setting for the police powers to try out lots of new toys to find them-IE infrared etc.

This was a relatively remote and unpopulated area where the convicts could expect no help-and it still took weeks to find them.

Also, on the area of government efficacy-it is my understanding that both the Charleston and Lafayette shooters should not have passed a background check-but the relevant data was not passed up the chain-I think we might be giving the gov't too much credit in managing and using their vast databases (at this point, anyway).

mrkelley23 wrote: Would it not be reasonable, then, to put at least the same types of restrictions and licensing requirements on guns as we have on motor vehicles? In order to possess and operate a gun of any type, one would:

1. pass a written test on proper operation and use.
2. Show that he/she could operate a gun safely -- not a marksmanship test, but a basic gun safety test.
3. Show that one is physically and mentally capable of operating a gun safely. My son, who has epilepsy, had to wait for a neurologist to sign off that his seizures were controlled by medication, and he must carry a copy of this signature form in any motor vehicle that he operates.

Same or similar requirement/restrictions for guns and autos? We have that now, so are we good?

You do not have to have any license or permit to own a vehicle.
You do not have to have any license or permit to keep a vehicle on your property.
You do not have to have any license or permit to operate a vehicle on your property.

You do have to have a license to operate a vehicle on public property. To obtain that license you have to take a test and prove capable.

To carry a concealed weapon in Texas you have to have a license and to obtain that license you have to take a test and prove capable.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:It won't matter because obviously, military experts like BiT and Rush Limbaugh know so much more about firearms than he does:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /30764255/

What does military expertise have to do with knowledge of the Constitution or civilian ownership and use of firearms. Other than "if I'm trying to take military control over a civilian populace I'd prefer they are unarmed"? I think even you could figure that one out.

Thus speaketh a prime example of the gun culture in a state of denial that Gen. Honore mentioned, proving his point far better than I could.

So you can't answer my question? Thus speaketh your ignorance or more likely head-in-the-sand attitude.

BackInTex wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote: Would it not be reasonable, then, to put at least the same types of restrictions and licensing requirements on guns as we have on motor vehicles? In order to possess and operate a gun of any type, one would:

1. pass a written test on proper operation and use.
2. Show that he/she could operate a gun safely -- not a marksmanship test, but a basic gun safety test.
3. Show that one is physically and mentally capable of operating a gun safely. My son, who has epilepsy, had to wait for a neurologist to sign off that his seizures were controlled by medication, and he must carry a copy of this signature form in any motor vehicle that he operates.

Same or similar requirement/restrictions for guns and autos? We have that now, so are we good?

You do not have to have any license or permit to own a vehicle.
You do not have to have any license or permit to keep a vehicle on your property.
You do not have to have any license or permit to operate a vehicle on your property.

You do have to have a license to operate a vehicle on public property. To obtain that license you have to take a test and prove capable.

To carry a concealed weapon in Texas you have to have a license and to obtain that license you have to take a test and prove capable.

In some states you do have to have a license to operate a vehicle on your own property.

Texas is one if the few states that require qualifying at a firing-range to get a CHL, but in Texas you can open carry without any license (or test).

silverscreenselect wrote:It won't matter because obviously, military experts like BiT and Rush Limbaugh know so much more about firearms than he does:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /30764255/

Does SSS citing this general mean that any generals who are against gun control have a credibility that SSS will automatically accept?

General Chuck Yeager was very active in NRA circles, but "It won't matter because obviously, military experts like SSS know so much more about firearms than he does:"

In Houston, and I suspect in other places, we have an epidemic of "smash and grab" burglaries where the perps will drive a vehicle through the front windows of a store (i.e. smash), run into the store and take a number of high value items (i.e. grab), then leave in a waiting undamaged vehicle. In all cases the vehicle used for the "smash" is stolen. And in most cases, the getaway vehicle is also found to be stolen.

Why is this relevant to this thread? These crimes are planned. Maybe not well planned, but they are not crimes of opportunity. There are many laws on the books regarding the acquisition and operation of vehicles that are pretty much ignored in these crimes. I doubt the perps are concerned about titles, registration, licenses, insurance requirements, tests for proficiency in driving, etc.

Charleston, Chatanooga, Lafayette, Boulder, VA Tech, Sandy Hook, Columbine, and pretty much any other mass shooting were planned. The perps wanted to and intended to do harm to many people.

As with the Smash and Grab perps, laws around cars, driving, guns, and shooting, be damned. They will complete their desired outcome.

One big difference though. Most Smash & Grab perps want to get away and live another day. So they will tend to be a little more careful in the initial breaking of laws to prepare for their crimes so they can live and keep their freedom.

The perps at Charleston, Chatanooga, Lafayette, Boulder, VA Tech, Sandy Hook, Columbine, and pretty much any other mass shooting for the most part don't really care about surviving or keeping their freedom. So they will go to more extreme measures to acquire the tools needed.

The bottom line is, unless guns are pretty much completely banned and confiscated, these types of crimes will continue to happen. The only thing increased gun restrictions will have is making it easier for these types to increase the mayhem by guaranteeing defenseless victims.

Spock wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:It won't matter because obviously, military experts like BiT and Rush Limbaugh know so much more about firearms than he does:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /30764255/

Does SSS citing this general mean that any generals who are against gun control have a credibility that SSS will automatically accept?

General Chuck Yeager was very active in NRA circles, but "It won't matter because obviously, military experts like SSS know so much more about firearms than he does:"

Flying faster than a bullet doesn't make him an expert. (That doesn't mean I agree with SSS.)

BackInTex wrote:In Houston, and I suspect in other places, we have an epidemic of "smash and grab" burglaries where the perps will drive a vehicle through the front windows of a store (i.e. smash), run into the store and take a number of high value items (i.e. grab), then leave in a waiting undamaged vehicle. In all cases the vehicle used for the "smash" is stolen. And in most cases, the getaway vehicle is also found to be stolen.

I get news feeds from all over the country. Those are not common in other parts of the country. There may be a gang in Houston doing most of them. The last I heard of outside of the Houston area was a couple of weeks ago where they backed a truck through the front of a store and stole an ATM. Haven't the stores in Houston wised-up and installed barriers?

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote: Haven't the stores in Houston wised-up and installed barriers?

Most newer stores and larger stores have barriers. But for the smaller mom and pop stores, there are many unprotected. With the availability of F250+ sized trucks, some smash and grabs have gone through the side brick walls.

BackInTex wrote:
The perps at Charleston, Chatanooga, Lafayette, Boulder, VA Tech, Sandy Hook, Columbine, and pretty much any other mass shooting for the most part don't really care about surviving or keeping their freedom. So they will go to more extreme measures to acquire the tools needed.

The bottom line is, unless guns are pretty much completely banned and confiscated, these types of crimes will continue to happen. The only thing increased gun restrictions will have is making it easier for these types to increase the mayhem by guaranteeing defenseless victims.

So your assumption is that these mass killers who admittedly have the desire to commit these types of crimes will also have the expertise to do so, no matter what legal obstacles are placed in their way. That's like assuming that placing locks on doors doesn't do any good because criminals still want to get in and will figure out how to pick the lock.

By the way, theater owners are already implementing heightened security procedures. One college-age kid with a backpack was detained over the weekend until security looked through his backpack to see there weren't any weapons in there. By your logic, theaters should be asking more people with guns to come in the theater so they can stop the one mass shooter each year in the entire country who might be there. Of course, then you get more situations like this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/us/fl ... .html?_r=0

BackInTex wrote:
What does military expertise have to do with knowledge of the Constitution or civilian ownership and use of firearms. Other than "if I'm trying to take military control over a civilian populace I'd prefer they are unarmed"? I think even you could figure that one out.

Here's a quote:

The retired army general, best known for his role leading the Hurricane Katrina recovery in New Orleans, said during his time in the military soldiers "were required to clear their weapons and turn them in as soon as they came in from the field."

"The best place for weapons when you're not in the field is to be locked up in the garrison," Honore' said. "Our biggest problem before Desert Storm was (soldiers) accidentally firing their weapons, and they're trained.

I would guess that the man who has been responsible for the training of over 500,000 soldiers during his career knows a bit more about firearms than you or your fellow weekend warriors. And it's his view that soldiers should turn their weapons in when they come in from the field. So, either he didn't care about the safety of his troops when they left the base, or he thought they posed more of a danger to themselves and others if they were armed than if they weren't. And we're talking about trained military personnel, not someone who's spent a few bucks shooting at paper targets of Osama bin Laden at the firing range.

silverscreenselect wrote:I would guess that the man who has been responsible for the training of over 500,000 soldiers during his career knows a bit more about firearms than you or your fellow weekend warriors.

By that logic Bush is even more qualified.

SSS>>> And it's his view that soldiers should turn their weapons in when they come in from the field. <<<

Worked real well at Fort Hood.

Bob Juch wrote:

Spock wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:It won't matter because obviously, military experts like BiT and Rush Limbaugh know so much more about firearms than he does:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /30764255/

Does SSS citing this general mean that any generals who are against gun control have a credibility that SSS will automatically accept?

General Chuck Yeager was very active in NRA circles, but "It won't matter because obviously, military experts like SSS know so much more about firearms than he does:"

Flying faster than a bullet doesn't make him an expert. (That doesn't mean I agree with SSS.)

I guarantee you that Chuck Yeager has devoted much more thought and analysis to civilian firearms issues than Honore has.

SSS>>>So your assumption is that these mass killers who admittedly have the desire to commit these types of crimes will also have the expertise to do so, no matter what legal obstacles are placed in their way. That's like assuming that placing locks on doors doesn't do any good because criminals still want to get in and will figure out how to pick the lock.<<<

Any 15 Year old can get drugs if he want to. Is it reasonable to believe that firearms would be any harder to get than drugs?

Spock wrote:SSS>>>So your assumption is that these mass killers who admittedly have the desire to commit these types of crimes will also have the expertise to do so, no matter what legal obstacles are placed in their way. That's like assuming that placing locks on doors doesn't do any good because criminals still want to get in and will figure out how to pick the lock.<<<

Any 15 Year old can get drugs if he want to. Is it reasonable to believe that firearms would be any harder to get than drugs?

Yes, for one simple reason. Anyone manufacturing and selling drugs currently is already a criminal. So they are willing to accept the risks of capture and incarceration in exchange for the monetary rewards involved. Most of those people manufacturing and selling guns are doing so legally, and they are not going to jeopardize their legal business by engaging in a relatively small number of extralegal transactions. And those who are willing to deal guns illegally will find their supplies drying up as well, which will drive the price up beyond what a number of people can afford. And they won't be able to use credit and debit cards and the internet quite as easily.

WIll this stop illegal gun traffic? Of course not. Will it limit it? Of course. Just as harsher DUI laws have led to fewer accidents. These laws both deter people from breaking the law and help get those who do off the streets.

If the test of a criminal law was whether it could stop the activity it's designed to prevent, we wouldn't have a single criminal law in this country, because some people are willing to break every single law, from jaywalking to murder.

Spock wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Spock wrote:Does SSS citing this general mean that any generals who are against gun control have a credibility that SSS will automatically accept?

General Chuck Yeager was very active in NRA circles, but "It won't matter because obviously, military experts like SSS know so much more about firearms than he does:"

Flying faster than a bullet doesn't make him an expert. (That doesn't mean I agree with SSS.)

I guarantee you that Chuck Yeager has devoted much more thought and analysis to civilian firearms issues than Honore has.

Probably, he's 92.

Spock wrote:SSS>>> And it's his view that soldiers should turn their weapons in when they come in from the field. <<<

Worked real well at Fort Hood.

And how many more accidental shootings of soldiers and civilians would we have had in the interim if Honore hadn't given his troops those instructions?

And by the way, how many men under Yeager's command was he responsible for their safety in regard to firearms?

Honore had that responsibility, and I think he has far more credibility than the host of John Wayne wannabees who think he and Obama are coming to get him (Honore is a Republican by the way).

BackInTex wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote: Would it not be reasonable, then, to put at least the same types of restrictions and licensing requirements on guns as we have on motor vehicles? In order to possess and operate a gun of any type, one would:

1. pass a written test on proper operation and use.
2. Show that he/she could operate a gun safely -- not a marksmanship test, but a basic gun safety test.
3. Show that one is physically and mentally capable of operating a gun safely. My son, who has epilepsy, had to wait for a neurologist to sign off that his seizures were controlled by medication, and he must carry a copy of this signature form in any motor vehicle that he operates.

Same or similar requirement/restrictions for guns and autos? We have that now, so are we good?

You do not have to have any license or permit to own a vehicle.
You do not have to have any license or permit to keep a vehicle on your property.
You do not have to have any license or permit to operate a vehicle on your property.

You do have to have a license to operate a vehicle on public property. To obtain that license you have to take a test and prove capable.

To carry a concealed weapon in Texas you have to have a license and to obtain that license you have to take a test and prove capable.

I wish other states would follow Texas's lead on this, then. All I had to do was wait five minutes in a gun shop while the owner carried on a one-sided conversation with a bored civil servant.

And if open-carry is legal without a test, that bothers me a bit. Because the idiots who want to show off are the ones who open carry, and I would think they are much more likely to cause trouble. No data for that, though -- just a feeling.

mrkelley23 wrote: I wish other states would follow Texas's lead on this, then. All I had to do was wait five minutes in a gun shop while the owner carried on a one-sided conversation with a bored civil servant.

And if open-carry is legal without a test, that bothers me a bit. Because the idiots who want to show off are the ones who open carry, and I would think they are much more likely to cause trouble. No data for that, though -- just a feeling.

I'm on the fence with Open Carry. Specifically for the reason you state above, "idiots who want to show off". But then we should also outlaw Mustang Cobras, Corvettes, Kawasaki Ninjas, etc. because while some or most of those drivers are responsible, many show off and end up killing themselves and others.