Kansas Crimson

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 3:53 pm One of the many fallacies baked into in the "good guy with a gun" argument.

That one falls into the "poorly trained wanna-be hero with a gun" category.

TDub wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 9:19 am nobody needs a bump stock

As a gun owner, when I see stuff like this, I just see the far left building up ammunition to support an overreach in the opposite direction when the opportunity presents itself. Exactly like the far right did on abortion (and, now, many other aspects of reproductive health).

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 9:25 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 3:53 pm One of the many fallacies baked into in the "good guy with a gun" argument.

That one falls into the "poorly trained wanna-be hero with a gun" category.

I come back to the basic math problem at the heart of all of this.

The more LEGAL guns that are out there, (1) the more "lottery" tickets are out there for wrong place/wrong time, and (2) the easier and cheaper it is for the wrong people to come into possession of guns they did not purchase legally.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 9:27 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 9:25 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 3:53 pm One of the many fallacies baked into in the "good guy with a gun" argument.

That one falls into the "poorly trained wanna-be hero with a gun" category.

I come back to the basic math problem at the heart of all of this.

The more LEGAL guns that are out there, (1) the more "lottery" tickets are out there for wrong place/wrong time, and (2) the easier and cheaper it is for the wrong people to come into possession of guns they did not purchase legally.

I go so far as to feel that if someone's gun is stolen and used in a crime that the legal gun owner should have some financial and potentially criminal responsibility. If you cannot secure your weapon in a responsible manner then you should be partially responsible for the consequences of that failure to meet a bare minimum standard of safety and security.

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 9:44 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 9:27 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 9:25 am

That one falls into the "poorly trained wanna-be hero with a gun" category.

I come back to the basic math problem at the heart of all of this.

The more LEGAL guns that are out there, (1) the more "lottery" tickets are out there for wrong place/wrong time, and (2) the easier and cheaper it is for the wrong people to come into possession of guns they did not purchase legally.

I go so far as to feel that if someone's gun is stolen and used in a crime that the legal gun owner should have some financial and potentially criminal responsibility. If you cannot secure your weapon in a responsible manner then you should be partially responsible for the consequences of that failure to meet a bare minimum standard of safety and security.

Goes with something I very strongly support, which is mandatory liability insurance for owned firearms. No one throws a fit over this with cars.

And it appeals to the side of me that likes letting the market (and the quants) price the risk - the riskier the owner and the object(s) he or she chooses to own, the pricier the insurance. No one throws a fit over this with cars, either.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 9:48 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 9:44 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 9:27 am

I come back to the basic math problem at the heart of all of this.

The more LEGAL guns that are out there, (1) the more "lottery" tickets are out there for wrong place/wrong time, and (2) the easier and cheaper it is for the wrong people to come into possession of guns they did not purchase legally.

I go so far as to feel that if someone's gun is stolen and used in a crime that the legal gun owner should have some financial and potentially criminal responsibility. If you cannot secure your weapon in a responsible manner then you should be partially responsible for the consequences of that failure to meet a bare minimum standard of safety and security.

Goes with something I very strongly support, which is mandatory liability insurance for owned firearms. No one throws a fit over this with cars.

And it appeals to the side of me that likes letting the market (and the quants) price the risk - the riskier the owner and the object(s) he or she chooses to own, the pricier the insurance. No one throws a fit over this with cars, either.

Agreed.

Shirley wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 9:23 am

TDub wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 9:19 am nobody needs a bump stock

Tell that to my younger brother and his friends who have been stockpiling ammo and AR-15s and AK-47s along with freeze dried food for the inevitable war with the "deep state", for the last 30 years.

as you know I'm a proponent of reasonable gun ownership rights and not against being prepared for various scenarios (perhaps even moreso considering what looms in November)....

nobody needs a bump stock.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 9:26 am

TDub wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 9:19 am nobody needs a bump stock

As a gun owner, when I see stuff like this, I just see the far left building up ammunition to support an overreach in the opposite direction when the opportunity presents itself. Exactly like the far right did on abortion (and, now, many other aspects of reproductive health).

the growing chasm concerns me

Shirley wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 9:23 am

TDub wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 9:19 am nobody needs a bump stock

Tell that to my younger brother and his friends who have been stockpiling ammo and AR-15s and AK-47s along with freeze dried food for the inevitable war with the "deep state", for the last 30 years.

What is gratifying is that those types of dreams are already obliterated by RPV drones. There is always a technical solution to kill us all in our basements. Bump stock fantasies be damned.

5 people get shot in a "mass shooting" in an area that has a large Hispanic presence. Meanwhile, if our Mayor (Black) says anything at all about it, I am confident he will try and downplay it and/or blame the victims. Stay tuned.

https://twitter.com/JennSchanzNBC/statu ... 5154834792

This kind of puts things in perspective.

https://twitter.com/CWBChicago/status/1 ... 5634383162


P.S. Last night these two incidents occurred within a couple blocks of my home.

Police "crowd control" was needed at the beach - for a large fight - with as many as 400 people possibly being involved.
Separately, two armed men were confronting and harassing people.

I thought Gutter's post would be about the mass shooting in Michigan or the other mass shooting in Massachusetts.

My bad.

Yeah Guns.

tejas, too

cuz, ‘murica!

99 and Trad....

Yes, There were mass shootingS (plural) in Michigan, Massachusetts, and in tejas too.

Mass shootings this past weekend (between Friday evening and 12:00am this morning) in the USA - that we know about.
4 people "injured" in South Bend Indiana
3 people "injured" in Pine Bluff Arkansas
7 people "injured" in Methuen Massachusetts
5 people "injured" in Cincinnati Ohio
14 people "injured" in Round Rock Texas
6 people "injured" in Southfield Michigan
9 people "injured" in Rochester Hills Michigan
4 people "injured in Detroit Michigan
3 people "injured" in Tuskegee Alabama
4 people "injured" in Fort Lauderdale Florida
4 people "injured" in Philadelphia Pennsylvania
4 people "injured" in Chicago Illinois

free-dumb

Incredible.

Not that this is something people want to look at/see but if you want to check out a list of mass shootings here ya go....

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/repo ... s-shooting

This will remain forever “relevant”:

https://youtu.be/f8XcVc_0ykU?si=zI-YseoVeKClt_6R

Why aren't our resident gun enthusiasts up in arms about the Supreme Court denying those with domestic violence restraining orders being denied their God and Constitution-given right to own a gun?!?

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-suprem ... 024-06-21/

I have to admit, this decision surprised me a bit. Except the one guy.