Why did you change and misrepresent what I wrote?

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

So: Has anyone's mind -- pro-gun or anti-gun -- been changed as regards the issues under discussion?

Didn't think so. I'd say that'll be the case nationwide, as well -- absent a few do-gooders on either side of the equation.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

How about the CDC?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/?utm_term=.12f89d1e1319


Cliffnotes on CDC report:

• Gun statistics are highly politicized. That is to say, both sides tend to juggle the variables to get the outcome that they want.
• Defensive gun use estimates range from 100k to 3 million annually.

---

Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart

I've never understood this line of reasoning. Does anyone think that the reason a president doesn't become a dictator is because he's worried about the handguns some people own? If the military really wanted to take you out, does owning an assault weapon make a difference?

As Dan said, it made a kind of sense 250 years ago when the farmer and the army could be equally well armed, but that balance is at least a century out of date and yet somehow we haven't sprouted a dictatorship.

But I'm willing to be shown I'm wrong.

Dan raised the question, I did not. I do not believe you are reading Dan's comments properly.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

"In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof." - John Kenneth Galbraith

Then there's this, which is why I now generally try to disengage from these debates (though, clearly with limited success today):

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe

---

---

"100% of the people who confuse correlation and causation end up dying."

Regarding your "fuck you", these are your words:

You claim that I, acting as a responsible gun owner, should feel shame every time I go to the range as I should? Really? Then fuck you.

But I did not claim that. Read that obscene statement again. I claimed that strong 2A supporters (not all of whom I'm sure take their responsibility as seriously as some, like yourself, do) should absolutely have the aftermath of this shooting on their minds next time they exercise their rights. With rights come responsibilities. This one being a particularly heavy responsibility, with a heavy cost, and not something to take lightly, IMO.

I think slowman nicely distilled my thoughts when he said something akin to responsible gun owners taking ownership and coming up with solutions to some of the problems that stem from the ability to easily obtain guns.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

I like you, man. I have no beef with you and we see eye-to-eye on a lot (most, even) of things. But, you made this comment:

But, I do hope strong 2A advocates at least think of those 17 coffins in the ground next time they go target shooting, as the reality is their freedom is paid for in the blood of a lot of innocent people.

You may have been swayed by emotion. You may have made a poor choice with your words. But, you wrote what is written above and that is an obscene statement. Those 17 innocent souls did not die defending any right. Their blood was not shed in furtherance of freedom. They were mowed down by a coward. Their senseless deaths do not, in any manner, pay for the freedom to bear arms. To suggest that responsible gun owners doing what EVERY gun owner should do should think of these senseless killings by a coward every time they go to the range is asinine and obscene.

And don't even try to pretend you were not trying to shame gun owners. You were. Just own it.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

As to this comment, every time this discussion comes up, those of us who support gun ownership DO propose solutions, or at least steps that could be taken. What did this POS have in common with nearly every school shooter in the past 20 years? Mental health issues. This POS was receiving mental health treatment, but, had not attended in nearly a year. So, how the hell did he get a firearm? Because we are so concerned about patient privacy that we, for all intents and purposes, make it impossible for mental health information to be shared. Ridiculous. You want a place to start? Start there.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

1.) I've got some really good news. Your estimate is off by a factor of 10. The total non-suicide homicides by firearm were around 10,000 not 100,000.
2.) There are a million articles about the importance of the 2A online. Or you can recall countless LR posts about it. I'm not going to waste my time.
3.) If you want to write... what would the homicide level have to drop to for you to consider it worthwhile to have the 2A?

Yeah, no, you're right. That was a good catch. Actually, I really hate that crap as well, and I'm pissed that I ended up reposting it. My point was just that it was at its lowest, not that we'd had a dramatic decrease, so it got by me.

Your chart shows a rate of 3.5 homicides per 100,000 people. We have 300,000,000 million population. Divide that population by 100,000, and you get 3,000. Multiply by 3.5, and you get your 100,000 homicides. Your chart. I'll also note that one should be skeptical of a chart that includes the word "preditor".

I asked *you* to explain the importance of the Second Amendment. Too much work, I guess. See Dan/JSA's discussion of whether it is still relevant.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

1.) Can you multiply 3.5 x 3,000 for me one more time?
2.) You never did answer what the homicide rate would have to drop to in order for you to support the 2A.

My apologies for the lame math.

You need to tell me what is the value of the Second Amendment today, then I can evaluate the value/cost.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Please note that my response was to the thought that armed teachers would provide no benefit in a situation like this. I am not saying that all or most teachers should be armed and am not actively promoting the idea. I do think arming some could make a difference in SOME situations. As to who would make the decision. I think it could be a mutli-layered decision. Someone who thinks they might be worthy would apply to do so. The school/state would run a background check. If someone made it that far, the other teachers in the school could be polled to solicit their opinions on whether that person should hold the responsibility. The other teachers would have a good idea as to who would be more likely to be responsible or irresponsible.

Obviously there would be some issues regarding the storage and accessibility of the gun. It isn't a simple solution, but one that could possibly work and could possibly save lives.

So you don't have an intelligent response?

Let's be honest, all gun control laws are about feeling safer - a reasonable concern. My wife went to the University of Florida when Danny Rollings was killing innocent students - none of which were killed with a gun. She took a heavy load and would spend many hours at the school studying before driving home, one hour away.

When the killings started occurring, my father-in-law bought her a .45 pistol. Why? Because he knew that she would at least have a chance if the guy approached her. She learned gun safety from her father who also taught gun-safety courses. She was going to school on the GI bill after serving as a combat medic in the army. She also qualified to carry a .45 (marksman or expert, maybe) while she was in the army and was a good shot.

She weighed about 115 pounds at the time and having the gun increased her safety while also making her feel safer. So, yes. A firearm can be an equalizer for a woman. Don't discount it or discredit it because you can't imagine scenarios where it could save a woman's life.

Nope. https://www.nytimes.com/...s-international.html

"Whether a population plays more or fewer video games also appears to have no impact. Americans are no more likely to play video games than people in any other developed country."

Spot on, sir. :-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Good Lord, but everyone's arguing statistics now. Uh-oh!

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." (Attributed to Benjamin Disraeli, though Mark Twain deployed it a bit)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Why bother with an intelligent response to an unintelligent statement?

Jesus, you just said gun laws are about FEELING safe.

In the next paragraph you're talking about a 120lbs woman having a gun to equalize her disadvantage over a larger predatory male - a male who, unless she is highly trained, hyper vigilant, and lucky in how a struggle/assault occurs, could easily overpower that woman and use that gun against her.

Talk about feeling safer vs being safer.

There are definitely instances when a gun is the be all of self defense you are championing. No argument there. But there are also many (more?) Scenarios where the introduction of a gun results in less safety. A gun in a house hold is more likely to be used against a woman then to be used in her defense.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

I'm already regretting getting sucked into this, but the CDC report cited upthread addressed this issue:

"Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies..."

---

---

"100% of the people who confuse correlation and causation end up dying."

Nobody is that moronic!


Errr, most people aren't that moronic.

It has now been reported that the shooter has ties to a white nationalist group.

https://www.twincities.com/...-city-into-mourning/

http://www.startribune.com/...ourning/474132753/#1

http://insider.foxnews.com/...aramilitary-training

No shock there. He was also following various "resistance" group pages (Iraqi, Syrian, etc.) on Facebook. This gentleman, as I've said before, was a ticking time bomb that nobody -- but NOBODY -- tried to defuse.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."