Mass shootings on the radar again.

[Muda69]

 

5 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

This is a lie. I did not support the ban on Lawn Darts, nor have I ever stated I support a ban on guns. 

Why not Gonzo? After all according to you no more children have died due to a Lawn Dart accident since the federal ban, therefore the ends of justified the means.  Right?

 

[gonzoron]

2 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

After all according to you no more children have died due to a Lawn Dart accident since the federal ban, therefore the ends of justified the means

Another lie. I didn't say that at all. I asked a freaking question. Either answer it, or don't respond, I really don't care either way. And sign up for a reading comprehension course, yours is sorely lacking today.

[Muda69]

5 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Another lie. I didn't say that at all. I asked a freaking question. Either answer it, or don't respond, I really don't care either way. And sign up for a reading comprehension course, yours is sorely lacking today.

And I answered it.  Just be cause you don't like the response is now reason to get your panties in a wad.  

And you friend are the individual once again with the reading comprehension problem, not I.      It would really help if you would actually think before knee-jerk posting a response to something that threatens your liberal/socialist world view that government is always right.

 

 

[gonzoron]

13 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

And I answered it. 

 

 

Another lie

[Impartial_Observer]

Jarts were not banned by law, the sale was banned by the Consumer Product Safety Agency. From what I can see there have been three deaths from Jarts. Originally the ban, merely banned them as being labeled as children's toys. In 1988 they were not allowed to be sold. Manufacturers have skirted the law since, but selling components separately. I did find one incident in Elkhart, IN in 1997 where a 7 year old had his skull pierced by a Lawn Dart. No word on whether he survived or not. 

This ban, merely bans the retail sale of Lawn Darts. If I have Jarts in my possession, men with guns are not going to come to my house and steal my legally purchased possession. 

 

[Muda69]

5 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Another lie

No, I did not lie Gonzo, no matter how much your twisted thinking wants to believe it.

 

5 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Jarts were not banned by law, the sale was banned by the Consumer Product Safety Agency. From what I can see there have been three deaths from Jarts. Originally the ban, merely banned them as being labeled as children's toys. In 1988 they were not allowed to be sold. Manufacturers have skirted the law since, but selling components separately. I did find one incident in Elkhart, IN in 1997 where a 7 year old had his skull pierced by a Lawn Dart. No word on whether he survived or not. 

This ban, merely bans the retail sale of Lawn Darts. If I have Jarts in my possession, men with guns are not going to come to my house and steal my legally purchased possession. 

 

If I take my Jarts to the city park and start a game can they be confiscated by LEO's?

[Impartial_Observer]

20 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

No, I did not lie Gonzo, no matter how much your twisted thinking wants to believe it.

 

If I take my Jarts to the city park and start a game can they be confiscated by LEO's?

Depends.

[swordfish]

20 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

No, I did not lie Gonzo, no matter how much your twisted thinking wants to believe it.

 

If I take my Jarts to the city park and start a game can they be confiscated by LEO's?

Doubt it.....Here's a tournament page.....

https://www.facebook.com/jartstournament/

 

[swordfish]

From the Chicago Mayor......“60 percent of illegal firearms recovered in Chicago come from outside IL—mostly from states dominated by coward Republicans like you who refuse to enact commonsense gun legislation,” she tweeted.

OK, then.......Why isn't there the same level of shootings or more in those Republican areas outside of Chicago where the guns are coming from??

[gonzoron]

51 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

Gonzo....you seem irritable today.

Nope, not irritable.Its the first of the month, I’m happy as a lark! Can’t say that about the guy telling lies above on this thread.

I think you and @Muda69 need to get your money back on that ESP course you took. It didn’t work!

Edited September 3, 2019 by gonzoron

[Bobref]

3 hours ago, gonzoron said:

Another lie

Gonzo, I confess that I misinterpreted your post. I thought when you asked if any kids had been fatally injured since lawn jarts were taken off the market, it was a rhetorical question. My bad.

[Muda69]

Of course @gonzoron is happy as a lark.  That nice, juicy SS check must have been deposited on or around the first day of the month. 

And why are you telling lies about me telling lies, gonzo?

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

Gonzo, I confess that I misinterpreted your post. I thought when you asked if any kids had been fatally injured since lawn jarts were taken off the market, it was a rhetorical question. My bad.

It was, Bobref.   This is just gonzo playing the victim/stupid card.  Again.  

[gonzoron]

3 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

And why are you telling lies about me telling lies, gonzo?

I'm not. You are allowing your dislike for me to consume you. Please get some help. These are all lies you told: 

5 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Such a knee-jerk reaction by the U.S. federal government after one, albeit horrible, accident is something liberals like Gonzo wholeheartedly support.

5 hours ago, Muda69 said:

After all according to you no more children have died due to a Lawn Dart accident since the federal ban,

 

5 hours ago, Muda69 said:

And I answered it.

 

[DanteEstonia]

2 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

Hope the CPSC doesn't learn about this trend.......

https://dailybonnet.com/horseshoes-related-injuries-soar-2017/

Horseshoes are next!!!

We banned lawn darts...

[Impartial_Observer]

3 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

We banned lawn darts...

We? 😂

[Muda69]

13 hours ago, gonzoron said:

I'm not. You are allowing your dislike for me to consume you. Please get some help. These are all lies you told: 

 

 

Nope, no lies in any of those statements.   Why you keep telling a lie about me supposedly telling lies tells me all I need to know about your character, though.

 

[Muda69]

Colorado Teen Banned From School for Going Shooting With His Mother: https://reason.com/2019/09/03/colorado-teen-banned-from-school-for-going-shooting-with-his-mother/

Quote

To Justine Myers and her 16-year-old son, Nathan, their casual Tuesday afternoon of shooting guns out in the woods of northern Colorado was just a fun-filled mother-son outing. To local law enforcement and school administration, this event was considered a threat.

On August 27, Justine picked up Nathan from Loveland High School to drive outside of town for an afternoon of shooting practice. Nathan posted a video to Snapchat, documenting the five pistols and a rifle he was preparing to shoot. (The rifle, an AR-15, cannot be made out in the video, because it was stored in a case.) Evans also typed out the message, "Finna be lit." (For anybody under 30, this roughly translates to "About to have a fun time.")

Upon reentering cellphone range, the two discovered several missed calls, voicemails, and text messages. One of the callers, Justine's ex-husband, had been approached by police about the video. According to the police, a message was received through "Safe2Tell," a Colorado-based reporting platform that allows individuals to submit anonymous tips to alert law enforcement of potential threats or risks. Once received, the reporting mechanism automatically triggers an immediate review by local law enforcement to assess the validity of the threat. 

Loveland Police reviewed the video, interviewed the parents, and quickly determined that Nathan was not a threat. 

"We thought it was done," Justine tells Reason. 

The following morning, Justine received a voicemail from the Thompson Valley School District, stating that, until further notice, her son was not allowed to return to school. Justine contacted the school to try to make the same case that she did to the police, but the school proved to be more difficult. Both mother and son attempted to request the homework that Nathan was missing in his absence, but to no avail.

When school officials returned the phone calls, they informed Justine that she needed to attend a "threat assessment hearing" on August 29 where she would defend her son in front of a seven-person panel, comprised of school administration, counselors, teachers, and law enforcement.

...

Upon completion of the hearing, Nathan was allowed to return to school, which he did. According to Justine, her son endured significant taunting upon his return, with students calling him a "school shooter." The mockery was bad enough that Nathan begged his parents to be homeschooled. 

This incident sheds light on how local authorities respond to tips of potential threats or risks, especially through anonymous platforms like Safe2Tell. "It is definitely a flawed system," says Justine. 

"Why we're upset is this should have been squashed on Tuesday night," says Justine. "It should have never gotten to this point." 

School officials claimed that they did not receive the official clearance from police, which occurred on the evening of August 27, until the following day, August 28—18 hours after the fact. (Thompson Valley School District did not respond to requests for comment.) If true, law enforcement failed to communicate the existence of a potential threat to the town square that was already abuzz with gossip. If false, the school fumbled the communication handoff, suggesting some institutional blindspots that need to be addressed—especially if an actual threat were to occur.

Neither should make parents and students feel safe.

...

Bringing law enforcement into the picture also increases the risk of "swatting," or intentionally filing false reports with law enforcement as a means of harassing people. Of the total number of tips received last year, Safe2Tell estimates that 2.4 percent, or roughly 470 incidents, were intentionally false reports. (Sadly, Safe2Tell has earned the pejorative nickname "Safe2Swat" among Colorado students.)

In this age of ever-present fears of school shootings, efforts to prevent such tragedies run the risk of undermining the civil liberties of the falsely accused or, worse, dropping the ball when responding to an actual threat.

Whatever happened to the good old days where a kid drove to school with a shotgun mounted in the back window of his pickup truck, and nobody batted any eye?  

[swordfish]

14 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Colorado Teen Banned From School for Going Shooting With His Mother: https://reason.com/2019/09/03/colorado-teen-banned-from-school-for-going-shooting-with-his-mother/

Whatever happened to the good old days where a kid drove to school with a shotgun mounted in the back window of his pickup truck, and nobody batted any eye?  

Snowflakes......

Just another chapter in the "Degradation of society" book.........

Edited September 4, 2019 by swordfish

[swordfish]

[Muda69]

Tighter Gun Laws Will Leave Libertarians Better-Armed Than Everybody Else: https://reason.com/2017/11/14/tighter-gun-laws-will-leave-libertarians/#comments

Quote

Has it occurred to anybody that when restrictive laws are imposed, they're likely to have the greatest impact on the people most willing to obey them?

The past week saw yet another invocation by the usual suspects of the supposed need for tighter gun controls. This time, we had a special emphasis from lawmakers on such "innovations" as banning people convicted of domestic abuse from owning firearms—which is to say, restrictions that are already on the books and have been in place for years, but which haven't had the wished-for effect. Honestly, so many of gun-controllers' preferred laws have been implemented that they can't be expected to know that their dreams have already come true. But laws aren't magic spells that ward off evil; they're threats of consequences against violators, enforced by imperfect and often incompetent people, and noted or ignored by frequently resistant targets.

Gun controls then, like other restrictions and prohibitions, have their biggest effect on those who agree with them and on the unlucky few scofflaws caught by the powers-that-be, and are otherwise mostly honored in the breach. As a result, gun laws intended to reduce the availability of firearms are likely to leave those who most vigorously disagree with them disproportionately well-armed relative to the rest of society. That raises some interesting prospects in a country as politically polarized and factionalized as the United States.

That gun restrictions are widely disobeyed is a well-documented fact. I've written before that Connecticut's recent "assault weapons" registration law achieved an underwhelming 15 percent compliance rate, and New York's similar requirement resulted in 5 percent compliance. When California imposed restrictions on such weapons in 1990, at the end of the registration period "only about 7,000 weapons of an estimated 300,000 in private hands in the state have been registered," The New York Times reported. When New Jersey went a step further that same year and banned the sale and possession of "assault weapons," disobedience was so widespread that the Times concluded, "More than a year after New Jersey imposed the toughest assault-weapons law in the country, the law is proving difficult if not impossible to enforce." That's in states with comparatively strong public support for restrictions on gun ownership.

Across the Atlantic, despite varying but generally tight laws on gun ownership, "Contrary to widely-accepted national myths, public gun ownership is commonplace in most European states," according to the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey. How can that be? "Public officials readily admit that unlicensed owners and unregistered guns greatly outnumber legal ones," possibly because of "a pervasive culture of non-cooperation with public authorities" in many places.

Just a thought, but existing examples of defiance of gun laws in the United States might be an indication that "a pervasive culture of non-cooperation with public authorities" is exactly what we should expect in response to any future successes gun controllers might achieve legislation-wise.

And restrictions don't affect everybody the same way. Some people embrace them, while others reject them. And no issue is as politically divisive as the gun debate.

In the United States, gun ownership and opinions on gun laws tend to divide rather starkly along tribal political lines. In last year's presidential election, gun-owning households voted overwhelmingly for Trump, while non-gun households went for Clinton. When polled, Republicans tend to be much more supportive of concealed carry, and Democrats much more supportive of restrictions, even in polling conducted after highly publicized and emotionally wrenching shootings. Unsurprisingly, surveys find that Republicans are more than twice as likely to own firearms as Democrats (49 percent vs. 22 percent), and conservatives almost twice as likely as liberals to own guns (41 percent vs. 23 percent). Less data is available for libertarians, but as you might expect the available results put us among the most overwhelmingly supportive political factions for the right to bear arms, and the most opposed to restrictions—to the point that the Public Religion Research Institute uses such opposition as part of its definitionof libertarianism (along with opposition to domestic spying, support for noninterventionism overseas, low-tax and free-market views, advocacy for marijuana and pornography legalization, and more). As Harry Enten of FiveThirtyEight puts it, "The U.S. Has Never Been So Polarized on Guns."

That has strong implications for a country in which political factions now view each other with undisguised contempt. "Democratic and Republican voters… despise each other, and to a degree that political scientists and pollsters say has gotten significantly worse over the last 50 years," fret Emily Badger and Niraj Chokshi at the New York Times. "Democrats and Republicans hate each other more than they hate the Russians," marvels Reihan Salam at Slate. "More than half of Democrats (55%) say the Republican Party makes them 'afraid,' while 49 percent of Republicans say the same about the Democratic Party," according to Pew Research.

So, in an America that has an established history of widely defied firearms restrictions, how likely is it that people will voluntarily comply with laws that are intended to disarm them, and that are primarily sponsored by politicians they fear and despise?

It's worth noting here that, of all the political factions in the country, libertarians would seem to be the most naturally disinclined to knuckle under to gun laws—or any others, for that matter. In examining the moral foundations of the world views of conservatives, liberals, and libertarians, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues found that the first two groups view liberty as a means to an end. By contrast, "libertarians may not see liberty as a means, but rather as an end, in and of itself." Libertarians also tend to be dispassionate—except when faced with constraints on the liberty they hold as the highest moral value. "The only emotional reaction on which libertarians were not lowest was reactance—the angry reaction to infringements upon one's autonomy—for which libertarians scored higher than both liberals and conservatives."

Notably, it's not unusual in libertarian circles to call for disobedience in response to authoritarian laws. Charles Murray wrote an entire book to that effect, saying, "I want to put sugar in the government's gas tank." Philosopher Jason Brennan explicitly endorses civil disobedience as well as refusing to submit to punishment for defiance. Cody Wilson famously developed the first 3D-printed pistol and now sells the Ghost Gunner CNC mill—sort of an arsenal in a box—with the specific goal of making gun laws unenforceable. And I've explained why I'm passing disdain for the law on to the next generation, arguing that "making the world freer is always right, especially when the law is wrong."

It's not a huge step to assume that people who experience an "angry reaction to infringements upon one's autonomy" and who frequently endorse breaking the law aren't going to offer up a high compliance rate with policies that restrict liberty and that, polling shows, they oppose in large numbers. Would compliance be even lower among libertarians than it has already been in California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and elsewhere among the general population of gun owners? We can't know for sure, but if any group is poised to take that as a challenge, it's libertarians.

It should go without saying that a regime of restrictive laws that ensnare only the willing and the unlucky and are otherwise widely ignored is a less than ideal situation. It sets the stage for confrontation and, like Prohibition and the War on Drugs before it, could potentially fuel forms of illegality besides civil disobedience. But there's little room for doubt that millions of Americans will continue to exercise their liberty no matter what the law says. That will leave supporters of gun controls increasingly disarmed relative to their opponents in a politically factionalized country, with libertarians probably sitting on the biggest armories.

Gun control advocates might want to give this whole matter a little more thought.

 

[Impartial_Observer]

New Zealand was praised for their swift legislative action on guns following a mass shooting, and Australia has been held up as a success in firearm restrictions, but how successful have they really been?

https://reason.com/2019/07/08/noncompliance-kneecaps-new-zealands-gun-control-scheme/

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/07/new-zealand-encounters-problems-enforcing-gun-ban-without-registration/

[gonzoron]

16 hours ago, swordfish said:

As if ANYONE needs another reason not to shop at Wal-Mart.

Main reason I don’t shop there is too many people at the first of the month when I go to spend my hard earned Muda dollars.

[Muda69]

55 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

As if ANYONE needs another reason not to shop at Wal-Mart.

Main reason I don’t shop there is too many people at the first of the month when I go to spend my hard earned Muda dollars.

Use their handy dandy pickup service.  Order your items via their phone app, schedule a pickup date/time and voila!  the items are loaded into your vehicle by a Wal-Mart employee shortly after you arrive.  There is no extra charge for this service but there is a $30 minimum order, at least at the Frankfort store.    

[gonzoron]

26 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Use their handy dandy pickup service.  Order your items via their phone app, schedule a pickup date/time and voila!  the items are loaded into your vehicle by a Wal-Mart employee shortly after you arrive.  There is no extra charge for this service but there is a $30 minimum order, at least at the Frankfort store.    

That still requires a trip to the store. I can get everything I need without leaving the house. And not from Wal-Mart.

[Muda69]

3 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

That still requires a trip to the store. I can get everything I need without leaving the house. And not from Wal-Mart.

Yeah, we wouldn't want you walking to your pickup truck and back.     And Amazon delivers fresh eggs and milk to your Arcadia compound?