no photo
Fri 12/28/12 07:07 AM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Fri 12/28/12 07:08 AM


Ohh what a bunch of hyperbolic drivel.

US population: 311,591,917
45% of those own firearms.

http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html

A list of the rate of ALL violent crime per 100,000.

A tiny tiny fraction of gun owners are involved in violent crime.

You will find states with gun ownership higher than the national average with lower violent crime than any of the other countries that the nonsense spewing anti-gun advocates like the OP want us to believe are our role models in this regard. In some cases the population densities of the states in question are just as large as the countries we compare with.

This conclusively proves the narrative being presented as false, inconsistent, and hyperbolic at best. Outright lies at worst.




amen to this amen
To add even more!

More than 1 million concealed carry permits have been issued in the state of Florida. Total population ~14 million. 1 in 14 people have the ability to carry a firearm, and less than 2% of the 1 million permits have been revoked.

Conclusion, the VAST majority of gun owners ARE responsible and SHOULD be the role model you look too . . .


no photo
Fri 12/28/12 07:03 AM
I thought the gun was there for protection? Doesnt being nervous about a gun possibly being on premise STOP criminals,,?
I am just curious if you can grow up for even a second?

Criminals are NOT stupid, most burglaries occur when no one is home.

I swear it is odd to constantly have to explain the obvious.

no photo
Fri 12/28/12 06:54 AM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Fri 12/28/12 06:56 AM
Ohh what a bunch of hyperbolic drivel.

US population: 311,591,917
45% of those own firearms.

http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html

A list of the rate of ALL violent crime per 100,000.

A tiny tiny fraction of gun owners are involved in violent crime.

You will find states with gun ownership higher than the national average with lower violent crime than any of the other countries that the nonsense spewing anti-gun advocates like the OP want us to believe are our role models in this regard. In some cases the population densities of the states in question are just as large as the countries we compare with.

This conclusively proves the narrative being presented as false, inconsistent, and hyperbolic at best. Outright lies at worst.

no photo
Thu 12/27/12 02:15 PM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Thu 12/27/12 02:16 PM
We should be offered an option, which may be out of group, and would cost the individual a lot, but it should not be mandated.

no photo
Thu 12/27/12 02:12 PM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Thu 12/27/12 02:13 PM
A real hero who actually did something to try to stop a heinous crime.

Mark Allen Wilson
An American Hero
1953 – 2005

Texas House Resolution No. 740

R E S O L U T I O N

WHEREAS, The tragic death of Mark Alan Wilson of Tyler on
February 24, 2005, at the age of 52, has brought a profound loss to
his many friends and loved ones; and
WHEREAS, With instinctive courage and selfless resolve, this
valorous Texan confronted a gunman on the steps of the Smith County
Courthouse; reacting to the kind of inhuman crisis that compels
ordinary men to seek cover or flee, Mark Wilson proved to be an
extraordinary man; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Wilson confronted a lethal threat in order to
protect the people of his community, and in his valiant attempt to
save the lives of others, he risked his own safety; and
WHEREAS, The magnitude of the sacrifice that ended his life
all too prematurely is in keeping with the character that was
evident to all who knew him; an active member of the Tyler
community, he used his time on earth to the fullest; and
WHEREAS, Born on January 20, 1953, in Dallas, Mr. Wilson
graduated from MacArthur High School in 1971 and went on to serve
his country with distinction in the U.S. Navy; after his discharge
from the military, this avid sportsman worked as a racquetball
instructor and embraced his entrepreneurial spirit, opening
Tyler’s On Target Shooting Range in 1997; and
WHEREAS, A dedicated volunteer, he committed his talents to
help raise money for nonprofit organizations and lent his time to
Heart of Tyler/Main Street projects, including the Texas Blues
Festival and Festival on the Square; and
WHEREAS, Mark Wilson was a true hero, and his example reminds
us that the very best elements of human nature can emerge in the
midst of the chaos and violence that threaten our society; though
this brave man will be missed, his legacy will continue to inspire
all who are privileged to know of him; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 79th Texas
Legislature hereby pay special tribute to the life of Mark Alan
Wilson of Tyler and extend deepest sympathy to the members of his
family: to his parents, Alex and Lynn Stewart; to his sisters,
Melody and Holly Wilson; to his nieces, Katie and Kristen DeFazio;
and to his other relatives and many friends; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be
prepared for his family and that when the Texas House of
Representatives adjourns this day, it do so in memory of Mark Alan
Wilson.

Berman

______________________________
Speaker of the House

I certify that H.R. No. 740 was unanimously adopted
by arising vote of the House on March 31, 2005.

______________________________
Chief Clerk of the House
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/79R/billtext/HR00740F.HTM


http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/ccw/tacoma_tyler.htm

no photo
Thu 12/27/12 11:29 AM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Thu 12/27/12 11:30 AM
I think it matters what his BAC was.

.08 is the limit, if he was only marginally over I think his statements if coupled with the actions presented would be just fine.

.08 BAC for a mature adult who regularly drinks is hardly intoxicated, overall it is a very tight tolerance of intoxication, a good thing IMHO, but leaves a continuum of negligence severity.

Additionally, what elements of his FST he failed would be interesting.

With all of that said, me personally? I never drink more than 2 drinks per hour in public tops, and then wait 1 hour minimum without drinking before driving, and only if I am alert and feel awake.

Overall if you follow the same guidelines I do you and you weigh 240 lbs you will have ~ a .01 BAC, if you weigh 100 lbs it would be ~ .04

http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm



no photo
Thu 12/27/12 11:15 AM
Unintended consequences of FOIA coupled with permits to allow a right.

no photo
Thu 12/27/12 11:14 AM
1 in 365 . . .


Not so long.

no photo
Thu 12/27/12 10:44 AM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Thu 12/27/12 10:45 AM
Do you think Walmart was in the wrong for ripping up the customer’s money?
Lets be clear, Walmart has no such policy and Walmart did nothing as Walmart is a company comprised of people who are responsible for their own actions when not prompted by policy or ordered to do so.

no photo
Thu 12/27/12 10:37 AM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Thu 12/27/12 10:41 AM
OVERVIEW
Title XI of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the Crime Control Act) took effect on September 13, 1994. Subtitle A banned the manufacture, transfer, and possession of designated semiautomatic assault weapons. It also banned “large-capacity” magazines, which were defined as ammunition feeding devices designed to hold more than 10 rounds. Finally, it required a study of the effects of these bans, with particular emphasis on violent and drug trafficking crime, to be conducted within 30 months following the effective date of the bans. To satisfy the study requirement, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) awarded a grant to The Urban Institute for an impact evaluation of Subtitle A. This report contains the study findings. In defining assault weapons, Subtitle A banned 8 named categories of rifles and handguns. It also banned exact copies of the named guns, revolving cylinder shotguns, and guns with detachable magazines that were manufactured with certain features such as flash suppressors and folding rifle stocks. The ban specifically exempted grandfathered assault weapons and magazines that had been manufactured before the ban took effect. Implicitly, the ban exempts all other guns; several of these, which we treated as legal substitutes, closely resemble the banned guns but are not classified as exact copies. Among other characteristics, ban proponents cited the capacity of these weapons, most of which had been originally designed for military use, to fire many bullets rapidly. While this capacity had been demonstrated in several highly publicized mass murders in the decade before 1994, ban supporters argued that it was largely irrelevant for hunting, competitive shooting, and self-defense. Therefore, it was argued, the ban could prevent violent crimes with only a small burden on law-abiding gun owners. Some of our own analyses added evidence that assault weapons are disproportionately involved in murders with multiple victims, multiple wounds per victim, and police officers as victims. To reduce levels of these crimes, the law must increase the scarcity of the banned weapons. Scarcity would be reflected in higher prices not only in the primary markets where licensed dealers create records of sales to legally eligible purchasers, but also in secondary markets that lack such records. Although most secondarymarket transfers are legal, minors, convicted felons, and other ineligible purchasers may purchase guns in them (usually at highly inflated prices) without creating records. In theory, higher prices in secondary markets would discourage criminal use of assault weapons, thereby reducing levels of the violent crimes in which assault weapons are disproportionately used. For these reasons, our analysis considered potential ban effects on gun markets, on assault weapon use in crime, and on lethal consequences of assault weapon use. However, the statutory schedule for this study constrained our findings to short-run effects, which are not necessarily a reliable guide to long-term effects. The timing also limited the power of our statistical analyses to detect worthwhile ban effects that may have occurred. Most fundamentally, because the banned guns and magazines were never used in more than a fraction of all gun murders, even the maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect of the ban on gun murders is almost certainly too small to detect statistically with only one year of post-ban crime data. With these cautions in mind, our analysis suggests that the primary-market prices of the banned guns and magazines rose by upwards of 50 percent during 1993 and 1994, while the ban was being debated, as gun distributors, dealers, and collectors speculated that the banned weapons would become expensive collectors’ items. However, production of the banned guns also surged, so that more than an extra year’s normal supply of assault weapons and legal substitutes was manufactured during 1994. After the ban took effect, primary-market prices of the banned guns and most large-capacity magazines fell to nearly pre-ban levels and remained there at 2 least through mid-1996, reflecting both the oversupply of grandfathered guns and the variety of legal substitutes that emerged around the time of the ban. Even though the expected quick profits failed to materialize, we found no strong evidence to date that licensed dealers have increased “off the books” sales of assault weapons in secondary markets and concealed them with false stolen gun reports. Stolen gun reports for assault weapons did increase slightly after the ban took effect, but by less than reported thefts of unbanned large-capacity semiautomatic handguns, which began rising well before the ban. The lack of an increase in stolen gun reports suggests that so far, the large stock of grandfathered assault weapons has remained largely in dealers’ and collectors’ inventories instead of leaking into the secondary markets through which criminals tend to obtain guns. In turn, this speculative stockpiling of assault weapons by lawabiding dealers and owners apparently reduced the flow of assault weapons to criminals, at least temporarily. Between 1994 and 1995, the criminal use of assault weapons, as measured by law enforcement agency requests for BATF traces of guns associated with crimes, fell by 20 percent, compared to an 11 percent decrease for all guns. BATF trace requests are an imperfect measure because they reflect only a small percentage of guns used in crime. However, we found similar trends in data on all guns recovered in crime in two cities. We also found similar decreases in trace requests concerning guns associated with violent and drug crimes. At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995, beyond what would have been expected in view of ongoing crime, demographic, and economic trends. However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban. Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously. Further, any short-run preventive effect observable at this time may ebb in the near future as the stock of grandfathered assault weapons and legal substitute guns leaks to secondary markets, then increase as the stock of large-capacity magazines gradually dwindles. We were unable to detect any reduction to date in two types of gun murders that are thought to be closely associated with assault weapons, those with multiple victims in a single incident and those producing multiple bullet wounds per victim. We did find a reduction in killings of police officers since mid-1995. However, the available data are partial and preliminary, and the trends may have been influenced by law enforcement agency policies regarding bullet-proof vests. The following pages explain these findings in more detail, and recommend future research to update and
refine our results at this early post-ban stage.

This is the best, most professional study that the anti gun crowd use to justify the ban, the study that claims a 6.7% decrease in gun crime with "assault" weapons at the time of the original ban.

I have to give them credit for being objective, and clearly stating the weakness of the study. I provided the entire overview so that no one can say I cherry picked it.

All they really know is that incidents decreased, and they explain why they have little confidence in their own studies findings, while being clear that it was not statistically significant. BTW, overall violent crime has decreased by ~17% in the last decade all the while gun control laws have become less strict.

What the bold parts should tell you, is that this study was unable to justify the AWB and its the study that best justifies the ban . . .

no photo
Thu 12/27/12 07:33 AM

That's just terrible! All over the world, there's always something going on. It sadden me to see these people lost their mind and take innocent kid's life away or harm them. I wish everyone could leave in peace and hormony...
If wishes were horses we would all ride. Reality on the other hand has most of us walking, or crawling along at best.

no photo
Thu 12/27/12 07:13 AM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Thu 12/27/12 07:14 AM


Well WTF do you expect? Not one of you pro-gunners offers up a solution... All we hear is "We need to protect ourselves" or "that will never work"
How do you solve any problem? First understanding why it happened.

For things such as this, that is not easy, it takes understanding a person who by normal standards is not understandable. Most of us would exclaim that we cannot understand such behavior. So asking what it takes to understand such behavior is the first step.

That first step has not happened, you have to engage in problem solving, that is not happening here. Right here what we have is political sound bytes being tossed around and nothing more.

It is hard to understand what caused such behavior, its much easier and politically advantageous to go after guns.



slaphead

It was suggested that more gun handling education is needed... I think the individuals knew EXACTLY how to use their weapons... So yea, let's keep talking and trying to figure out what was going on in the killers head at the time... case by case, we should have it figured out in... ummm ermmm NEVER! noway

Ok so... Registered, legal, responsible gun owner don't want to hand in their weapons? I see No prob if the weapon is handled right and out of reach of anyone else. So why are these responsible gun owners not taking a solid stand against illegal acquisition of firearms? "They" above everyone else should be fighting hard to keep em out of the wrong hands.

Your weapons are falling into the wrong hands, what you gonna do about it Bushido?
Almost unintelligible and you did nothing to address what I said.

BTW, none of my guns have been stolen, none of them has ever been used to murder anyone. So my track record is perfect, so speak for yourself, or point to specific incidents if you want out whatever you want to, but don't make **** up.

I will AGAIN ask you a question! Would a gun trigger lock have prevented YOU from doing this if you had your mind set? Place yourself in the shooters position and ask if the law in question would stop you . . .

If yes, then your an not as devious as the people who plan these shooting out, if no then why would we consider this simplistic solution to be an effective strategy to stop this complex problem?

no photo
Thu 12/27/12 07:03 AM
The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.
It seems telling other people what they have a need for is quite common.

no photo
Thu 12/27/12 07:00 AM

but considering the alternative
Please explain!

no photo
Thu 12/27/12 06:58 AM
No anti gun posts yet . . . my guess, the topic is too complex when you bring in all the causal ingredients. Not as much fun as being able to just spit out rhetorical sound bytes.


no photo
Wed 12/26/12 01:41 PM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Wed 12/26/12 01:42 PM
Well WTF do you expect? Not one of you pro-gunners offers up a solution... All we hear is "We need to protect ourselves" or "that will never work"
How do you solve any problem? First understanding why it happened.

For things such as this, that is not easy, it takes understanding a person who by normal standards is not understandable. Most of us would exclaim that we cannot understand such behavior. So asking what it takes to understand such behavior is the first step.

That first step has not happened, you have to engage in problem solving, that is not happening here. Right here what we have is political sound bytes being tossed around and nothing more.

It is hard to understand what caused such behavior, its much easier and politically advantageous to go after guns.

no photo
Wed 12/26/12 01:05 PM





Fingerprint Biometric technology for firearms has been around for 10years+... Gun lobby thinks it's too expensive, it would certainly help with all future generations of gun owners. too expensive? so what? weapons should be expensive IMO LOL
So a person who cannot afford one would be denied the ability to protect themselves?


That's not quite right... regulations on "new gun" ownership should include biometric technology... end of story.
Yea, which would mean that when that tech is mandated in all new weapons and the price of those weapons in some cases doubles, which then puts it out of the range of ownership for the poorest of Americans . . . yea, it effectively makes guns unattainable for the people who are poor.

Guns are a part of a criminals business model. It is essential to there business. The cost is a business cost, even if the cost is much much higher than what a civilian is willing to pay, they would pay it, even if it meant hacking the technology used to restrict access to the firearm.

What you are asking would have NO effect on gun violence, but would have an effect on the poorest segments of our population from being able to defend themselves.


Aw Cmon... Find solutions man not add more obstacles. There are enough saturday night specials out there to satisfy ALL of your poorest neighborhoods already.... Canada's & Mexico's poorest neighborhoods too laugh ohwell
Sure . . . that's the answer. More throw away comments.

no photo
Wed 12/26/12 12:55 PM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Wed 12/26/12 01:03 PM



Fingerprint Biometric technology for firearms has been around for 10years+... Gun lobby thinks it's too expensive, it would certainly help with all future generations of gun owners. too expensive? so what? weapons should be expensive IMO LOL
So a person who cannot afford one would be denied the ability to protect themselves?


That's not quite right... regulations on "new gun" ownership should include biometric technology... end of story.
Yea, which would mean that when that tech is mandated in all new weapons and the price of those weapons in some cases doubles, which then puts it out of the range of ownership for the poorest of Americans . . . yea, it effectively makes guns unattainable for the people who are poor.

Guns are a part of a criminals business model. It is essential to their business. The cost is a business cost, even if the cost is much much higher than what a civilian is willing to pay, they would pay it, even if it meant hacking the technology used to restrict access to the firearm. Just have your local tech geek jailbreak your Glock for a price and your back in business. 30 years of companies doing there best to prevent people from piracy, and device hacking and where are we?

See this is my point, all of these suggestions all in absence of critically examining, a) the past to see if it was tried, and what the results were, and b) just ask questions about what behaviors are actually taking place and put yourself in the persons shoes . . . WOULD IT STOP YOU!?


no photo
Wed 12/26/12 12:46 PM

Many laws and regulations are unjust, unconstitutional in the fact that they are democratic (the rule of a mob) rather than freedoms allowed under a Republic.....which our country is supposed to be!


A wise dude on here once said:

"Your right to swing your fists ends where my nose begins" laugh


So yea... cigarette Smoke falls into this category IMO
What if we considered the exhaust from cars to be just as offensive?

You can only drive your call in doors from now on!

no photo
Wed 12/26/12 12:38 PM

Fingerprint Biometric technology for firearms has been around for 10years+... Gun lobby thinks it's too expensive, it would certainly help with all future generations of gun owners. too expensive? so what? weapons should be expensive IMO LOL
So a person who cannot afford one would be denied the ability to protect themselves?

1 2 7 8 9 11 13 14 15 24 25