http://www.examiner.com/article/senator-feinstein-looking-to-introduce-new-assault-weapons-ban

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/tu...-grips_11072012

The agenda no longer needs to be hidden from public view. With President Obama winning another term and democrats taking control of the Senate, the move to fundamentally change America from within has begun – with a vengeance.

We’re all aware of the restrictive gun laws in the State of California which require low capacity magazines for handguns, fixed magazines for “assault” rifles, and a whole lot of running around just to be granted the right to carry a concealed firearm.

Now, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who has championed gun control in her state for decades and co-wrote the original assault weapons ban enacted by the federal government in the 1990′s, wishes to bring even more stringent federal mandates to the land of the free.

What is being proposed by Feinstein is the most significant attack on the second amendment in history.

It would essentially ban thousands of firearms and require gun owners to turn them over to the Federal government.


I don’t have the minutes of the meeting (yet), but sources tell me California Senator and longtime gun-hater Dianne Feinstein’s legal staff held meetings on Friday with FTB/ATF legal staff to discuss a new “Assault Weapons Ban” Madame Feinstein would be looking to push through Congress if President Obama wins reelection.

This same “pretty good intelligence” says the items that would lead to a ban would ban pistol grips and “high-capacity” magazines, eliminate any grandfathering and ban sales of “weapons in possession”.


In fact, the lack of interest in the idea surprised the California liberal’s legal staffers. Apparently, they believe no logical person could possible disagree with them.

…

I began receiving the first reports of increases in gun buying by people concerned about tomorrow’s election. Dealers in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama and Indiana all tell me there hasn’t been a huge number of buyers expressing those concerns, but the numbers were noticeable.

Among that group -and the majority of “regular” purchasers- the core driving most of the purchasing seem to be in their mid-to-late 30s. Again, home and personal defense are the most frequently cited reasons for buying.

Source: Shooting Wire

At a Congressional budget meeting in September of this year, Feinstein alluded to her desire to reintroduce federal assault weapons ban regulations similar to those she helped cosponsor and pass in 1994 during the Presidency of Bill Clinton:


“Ladies and gentlemen, it is time to say, once again, in legislation, weapons of war do not belong on our streets…”
September 5, 2012

Is it any wonder that shares of stocks like Smith & Wesson and Ruger surged this morning in response to President Obama winning a second term? While the majority of stocks across the world are in the midst of a sell-off and economic conditions indicate the country is in a recession, America’s gun owners aren’t waiting to see what happens next.

Senator Feinstein is serious, and despite this most recent report appearing only as a rumor, her comments earlier this year and her actions two decades ago, should leave no question as to where this is headed.



With democrats now having a super majority here in California, get ready for a serious phukkin.....

ZOMG!

Better hide them -- The guvmint is coming!

I heard there's a run on Tin Foil too.

Here come the gun nuts.

Firearms manufacturers should send thank you cards and flowers to Feinstein for her contribution to a thriving firearms industry. I've heard over and over that CA has more dingbats per capita than any other state, so it probably extends to its gov't. representatives as well.

(fill in the blank) Exstremist vs (fill in the blank) Exstremist, they exist AND make money based on the ignorance/fear of the masses.

Whew, I thought for a minute it was true, you know the whole California democrat anti gun/hunting myth.

Thanks for clearing that up, how foolish of me....

I dunno... I'm a guy who believes that there *IS* in fact a line (or a couple) worth drawing... I have no problem with right to bear arms, but just because I agree with that, doesn't mean ANY gun is IMO okay.

While I'm not deep on this, bolt-action rifles seem pretty different from gatling guns. Having some clip/assault limits seem reasonable.

Why?

bolt action rifles were, and in most cases still are the prefered rifle for sniper applications in both Military and Police, and the object is to kill people with them...

shotguns were used in trench warfare as well... to kill people...

any gun could be considered a "weapon of war", if you wanted to label it as such...

limiting the amount of rounds a clip/mag can hold is redundant and absurd... ever heard of multiple clips/mags?, cant have 30 rounders, so these 3 10s will do the same job...

guns dont kill people, stupid motherfvckers with guns kill people, plain and simple... putting a ban on them wont do a damn thing, as if they didnt learn that the first time around...

RH---Most folks that use logic, reason and non-emotional thought processes would agree with you. I seriously doubt Irish'rouge' is any of those.

I'm still looking forward to her 'splainin her resaoning.

IMO, Banning weapons that are statistically proven as being used in .2% of gun-related crime nation wide is not sensible. this is unjustifyably a ban on "scary looking weapons" because the fact is they arent being frequently used to hurt other people, LEO's, or otherwise.

No chance of any ban with a Dem. senate and a Rep. house.

Approx 18,000 people die each year in drunk driving related vehicles accidents--- are we going to ban alcohol or autos?

This stuff is emotion driven, that's how they con people in to sending a check to protect their _______________________. Fact is, these activist groups who need support ($) will damn sure not solve anything...they're charging you to fight the battle, they can't afford to let it end !

And the mad dash to give your money to the NRA and the firearms industry has begun...again...both of which are laughing their asses off, again, just like they did four years ago.

Fish on...

Todd

Are there not also citizens on the other side of the issue sending money to someone promising to get those evil firearms off the streets and make America safe once again ?

So Dianne Feinstein and her streetgang of Californian democrat thugs are really a friend to hunters and gun owners?



Jeeze, I just can't belive it, must be that conservative media bias that's so prevelent in California.

I'll try to remember Todd's defense of them as I go on my last ever bear hunt with hounds next week.

Fukkin idiots......



http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/californ...california.html




.

Don't eat the bears. They are your friends.


















so flog me

I've heard that very same notion before somewhere....

Aw yes, The BearFood Bride.

Just resurrect the old "who's had their guns grabbed" thread to let us all know when they are grabbed.

They won't be, of course, and if you want to think it's because you have blown thousands of bucks for a lifetime membership with the NRA, then more power to ya.

Fish on...

Todd

Glad I paid for my life membership before it became that expensive!

They have asked me to donate for the cause and I told them they were really pissing me off with their constant right wing nut job rhetoric.

I told them do not call me again and I have not heard a word from them.

Fishy

So Salmonella can legally buy rifles with 30rd mags and pistols that hold more than 10rds? Tell him that there was never a confiscation of 'evil black guns' in California. Tell him that 'California compliant' is just a right wing media bias term thrown around to create fear. Or that law-abiding citizens in California can obtain CWPs in order to protect themselves and their family. Tell him.....with a straight face, and preferably face to face. I'll buy a ticket to watch you lie your as.s off. Tell him that .50cal rifles are legal and available for law abiding citizens to purchase.

Or tell him the truth.

Either way we all know you were either...

A) Lying (likely)
or
B) Fullosh.it (as usual)

I'm sure he's got pics of the guns he's had grabbed.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Just kidding...of course he doesn't, because it's never, ever, happened. Ever.

LOLOL...

You are one dumb, clueless motherfu.cker.

Answer my questions, quit dodging with hyperbole and quit with your PMSNBC talking points and Pelosi di.ck sniffing propaganda.

I don't think him showing a dipsh.it like you a picture of that which is ILLEGAl would be a good idea. Besides, even if he did you'd still keep throwing red-herrings and talking outta' your as.s.

So...make it easy for a simpleminded fella like me...

Which guns have you had grabbed? Sal can post up pics of the ones he's had grabbed, too.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Don't bother, you can't do that, of course, because it hasn't happened, most likely due to your drain on your bank account thanks to the NRA.

Keep dodging my questions and keep looking like a ph.ucking idiot.

I don't live in California, but you knew that. Consequently you know that Sal does live in California and perhaps that's why you continue to dodge the point he raised.

Answer or STFU Nancy.

Can he or can't he buy detachable mag firearms that 'can' hold more than 10rds? Have firearms that hold more than 10rds been confiscated? Can .50cal BMG firearms be owned by law abiding citizens? Are CWPs issued on a "shall issue" basis? Can firearms that have not been 'registered' subject to confiscation?

I know you have to answer YES to all my questions and I know that's why you keep trying to dance around them.

PS...Salmonellas post referenced California. But you knew that and still continue acting like a dumb bit.ch, stomping her feet and screeching for my photo album. LAME!

Bear bait?


Fishy

Twisted words again eh Hank!


Fishy

Grabbing a gun is when you have a gun, and someone grabs it from you.

It's a pretty simple concept...one that just isn't very likely to happen.

Fish on...

Todd

Because I believe "in for a penny, in for a pound" is flawed logic. Nearly all governing results in taking what is inevitably a spectrum, and coding it into discrete groups. Do I believe people should be allowed to own weapons? Yes. Do I believe people should be allowed to own any weapon imaginable? Nope.

Let's take explosives as a counter example -- Somewhere between a firecracker and a 50 megaton hydrogen bomb is a line. We can debate its location, but there's a line.

Why is it so difficult to understand that a similar line is reasonable on guns?

What's so difficult to understand is why you hate 'Merica so much, IR.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Reason and logic have nothing whatsoever to do with this conversation, ever...just fear and loathing (on both sides).

I'm having a hard time understanding who hates America. Is it those that want change or those that resist change?

Fuckifino. You should ask them...or try it.

Fish on...

Todd

Then you should go to Nevada and buy one, then bring it back to SF, then call LE, and have them come grab it...then you can be the one who actually had a gun grabbed, unlike the rest of the entire country and NRA membership who has not.

Fish on...

Todd

Do it Hank, we got yer back! yeah...really!

You could also have Alex Jones film crew follow you and videotape the whole encounter. Instant internet celebrity status guaranteed!

But since a bolt action is just as accurate, hits just as hard and shoots just as far as a semi or 'clip'/'assault' rifle (whatever the f.uck that is) I suppose just renaming a 50 megaton hydrogen bomb and calling it a firecracker would make you sleep better.

Nice try Nancy but it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. Stick with graphs, ad hoc arguments and other meaningless banter, inow things you excell at.

For discussion, if things like accuracy and distance are part of the equation then wouldn't potential damage per unit of time also factor in?

As far as taking out an individual, the most simplistic gun would most likely work.

RvW should stick with the things he excels at, too - buying and selling stolen property, sucking dick, and bringing absolutely nothing of value to this bulletin board.

He's a sh!tty skidmark in the underwear of Piscatorial Pursuits if you ask me.

IR is always pretty civil in his discussions on the Dark Side, and here RvW is acting like a bitch in return - he asked for an answer, IR gave him one without insults, and then RvW responded like the f'n twat he is.

I would likely deserve a response like that because that's how I roll over here. I can't see that there was any reason for that crap in the discussion with IR, though, other than RvW's vag is all packed with sand because Todd is pulling his chain.

The .22 caliber rifle has probably killed more people and poached more game than all others combined. Going by numbers, that would seem to be a logical place to start a banning campaign right?

Guns aren't the problem and never will be. We always try and address the symptoms without treating the cause. I am "lucky" to live in a state with very liberal gun laws. It really simplifies things, I just assume that everyone is armed and conduct myself accordingly. Victory through superior firepower and/or proficiency.

Todd is right in that the real life examples of what so many are scared of are few and far between. That having been said, you can't legally own certain guns in certain places. Is big brother looking over your shoulder, hell no.

Coley...

I'm not sure which gun killed more people, it's an interesting point/question... But to me, I have no interest in banning simple 22 rifles, because weapon has too many important civilian uses... Many people (including myself ages ago) learned to shoot targets with one. Plenty of hunters young and old use them all the time. And yes, people misuse them as you suggest.

But "important civilian uses" seems to me to be a less apt description of assault weapons. To me the threat they pose to the safety of law-enforcement and the public at large outweighs their value for civilian uses. Which to me is the crux of the issue... For example, I believe a guy with a 6-shot revolver is 99.9% as likely to defend his home successfully as a guy with an assault weapon. So the marginal value there is much lower.

Successful policy shifts -- at least in my view -- should not be judged by ensuring "xxx never happens again". "Never" is an alarmist/politicians word used too much in today's world. So you're right that gun's aren't intrinsically the problem, but I can't agree they "never will be". SOME guns are SOME of the problem, I believe. And if we can address that, in my view we should.

I am not sure why you would be asking if LE would confiscate your pistol in this question, since the pistol itself is/would not be illegal (unless you know of a revolver that holds more than 10 rounds) only the clip that holds more than 10 rounds would be illegal. So you eject the magazine and the LE takes your magazine and you keep the pistol if you have all the proper documents.
I guess I could be wrong since I was only applying logic to your question.

Because rifles with thumbholes in the stock look stupid?

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Get back to me when one of your guns has been grabbed...and that goes for all the rest of you, too.

While I agree California gun laws may be stupid. Almost all hand guns made can take a 10 round or 15 round magazine. A lot of the magazines are pretty much the same, 10 rounds are set up in a single stack, where the 15 round magazines are double stacked or there is a plastic/metal base plate that limits the number of rounds but the magazine is the same. Pretty much like a plug in a shot gun.

I was being a bit facetious in offering up the .22 caliber example. It is an example of misuse of course and illustrates the point that "data" accurate or otherwise can be used to argue a point that may very well be contrary to the greater good. Take a look at homocide statistics, use of deadly force statistics, and LE deaths by gun fire statistics starters. That should help you more clearly define the problems. From there, working towards constructive solutions that don't unreasonably limit the freedom of law abiding citizens is the task at hand.

Personnally, I think we should all be free to carry and own whatever we want and solutions should be aimed at the root cause of the problem, not the tools that the problems choose to employ.

The problem is that the politicians and folks who snivel the most about the first care the least about the second.

Fish on...

Todd

BTW, You're right Coley, I should read up on the stats you suggest, and I"ll make time to do that before I post any followups to this...

But I must point out that the "unreasonably limit the freedom of Law Abiding Citizens" is just a test that doesn't pass muster here. I would hold guns to the same standard I would hold explosives and drugs to.. Which is to say I believe there are some explosives, and some drugs which present a greater danger to our society than the benefits they offer--and therefore are outlawed/strictly controlled. Assault weapons seem to me to be similar.

Of course I realize that none of these laws are magical solutions. You and I both agree that we must *also* address root causes of gun violence, drug addiction, and the kinds of extremism that makes people want to build truck-bombs with diesel and fertilizer.

And one more thought experiment for you: If you are for ZERO gun control for Law Abiding Citizens, are you also for ZERO drug prohibition? ZERO control on any explosives up-to-and-including WMDs? What's the distinction for one but not the other in your mind? Why are the freedoms you're arguing for not applicable in drugs/explosives cases?

No, I'm certainly not interested in a general banning of guns. I guess I'm looking at it more like IR where I think there should be a line that gets drawn that potentially limits how much damage one person can do in a certain amount of time. Going back to the firecracker vs. nuclear weapon analogy, a firecracker could be used by someone to blind another and remove digits one at a time. In theory, someone could take out the vision and digits of whole city by systematic, individual firecracker attacks. The problem is accomplishing that is the amount of time it would take along with the willingness of future victims to not stop it. In reality, the perpetrator would never be able to blind a whole city because the "weapon" they've chosen can really only do a certain amount of damage per time. A nuclear weapon could do all that damage (and more) in a fraction of the time. I guess that is why I'm OK with people having firecrackers but not giving them a nuke.

To me, it isn't about stopping people from having guns or even stopping someone from killing another individual. The problems start with mass killings of people where certain weapons are clearly more easily used to kill large groups of people in a hurry.

As kind of an aside, I do find it odd that some of the biggest gun proponents in this country would be some of the people first to bomb Iran because they want a certain weapon.

The reason suggest that IR, and it may go without saying, but a lot of folks are scared of things that just aren't happening and aren't part of statistical reality such as Todd's gun grabbing analogy. Are many types of automatic and semi-automatic (I shy away from the term "assault") rifle and sub-machine guns exceptionally dangerous. Of course they are, in the wrong hands.

The key phrase here is "law abiding" and therein lies the rub. None of these guns are a bad things unless they are used to do bad things. E.g. criminal behavior When used for good, they are just that, an advantage that I would hope those protecting themselves and others would have access to.

So to me the issue is less about what guns we should and shouldn't allow and more about how do we control who is allowed to own such weapons. Of course it is compounded by the fact that the more of these types of weapons that are in circulation, the easier and more likely it will be that they fall into the wrong hands. That is inevitable.

While these are great concepts to discuss, they don't necessarily bring us closer to a solution. The only ideas that pop readily to my simple and relatively uninformed mind would be improving the vetting system for gun owners across the board and providing stiffer penalties/stronger deterrents for those that would break or seek to break laws governing the ownership and use of certain classes of weapon.

I put drugs and explosives in a different category entirely. Although in each case (for the most part) they were developed with the greater good in mind, they pose unreasonable risks to society as a whole simply by existing and whether or not they are they are in the right hands or the wrong hands.

I love .22's and think every decent person in the country should own one I did a poor job of trying to make my point there I guess.

First on the drugs. The drug war is B.S. A joke when we think of the money and time spent in LE and prisons. As a good lib(libertarian that is) I think we can make our own choices and live with the results. if your drug use does not hurt me then use away. All these should be legal and big brother has no right or need to protect me from myself. If I screw up and steal/drive/fight/whatever then we should have nasty stiff penalties.

Explosives-There is plenty of danger in just the storage of explosives. Huge danger in handling as well. Not the same with firearms. They should be tightly watched and only avaliable for work needs. And then applied for and used under supervision with someone trained in their use. The last thing I hope to have is my neighbors house blowing up taking out mine because something got wet or he screwed up. That is of concern and the distinction.

Doc,

I can't agree with you on all drugs... I fancy myself close to libertarian in my beliefs, but I can't go all that way... The idea that heroin, crack, oxy, etc. that those should all be legal without restrictions (even age?)-- there's just not even one good example where that works out well. Age restrictions seem certainly the minimum (if you don't have kids, the idea that dealers could simply give your kids trials to get them addicted, without repercussions is pretty chilling).

Explosives -- you seem pretty fixed on storage and handling dangers. Like you worry about accidents. Well, why not worry about gun accidents? It's not the explosives killing people, it's the dumb person who dropped it on the floor killing people. Many forms of explosives are extremely stable, and have excellent handling properties....

I appreciate your response though -- the discussions here are important and I know how many people here disagree with me on this. At least you took the Pepsi challenge.

IR,

Glad to agree to disagree. I understand my view of drugs is in the minority by far. We have it pounded into our pumpkins that drugs are bad. They are in many cases but our fine govern has gone so far over the top. They wasted so much time and money on this "war on drugs". It does nothing but line pockets and the results are crap. Endless law enforcement and court time spent on it. I would say more than any other in our criminal justice system. I agree that under age should be illegal but as an adult I can make my own choices. They are everywhere legal or not. Their war on drugs as done nothing to stop that but it has filled the prisons and wasted billions with little to no results.

Educate people and let them make their own choices. I think the problem would be no worse if that was the law of the land than it is now. I do know we would have a lot less people in prison for victimless crimes. We would also take much of the money out of the drug trade. Mexico would thank us for that. Places where things are legal have less problems than us. In fact I would say the vast majority of victimless crimes are a joke.

Explosives-Now gun accidents happen but no more with the weapons you wish to ban that any other so banning certain types will do nothing with that unless you wish to ban them all. You could get hit by the dropped 22 just as easy as the dropped 50 cal. And when the neighbor drops his riffle and the shell goes off the bullet is much less likely to do someone harm than when the neighbor sets off the mini mushroom cloud and takes out the entire block and half the next one.

Explosives are much different than firearms but of course you know that but I appreciate the taking of it to the next level. You will find some that can not see the difference and thus will agree there is not one. Thereby allowing regulation of one we must allow regulation of all. Pretty big stretch though and just does not work in this case. Thanks for the discussion though.

Here is an interesting statistic for you guys regarding gun safety in the home.

It is 7 times more likely that firearms kept in the home will be used against the occupants and/or accidentally discharged by the occupants than it is that they will be used by the occupants to protect themselves. That statistic comes from a comprehensive study done by the National Institute of Justice that looked at incidents involving firearms in the home for a 10-12 year period here in the US I believe. Sobering eh.

Accidental discharge by "dropping" a firearm is a highly, highly unlikely event.

There is always a mass emergency when it comes to drumming up money with the NRA...Especially election time. I'm at the top of their list, and they can count on a contribution almost always. I doubt they are laughing tho. These are serious times.

Seriously good fundraising times, that's for sure.

Fish on...

Todd

Per year? Of course not.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Karl Rove should take over fundraising for the NRA...there'd be no guns or money left in about three years

Yeah, 'cuz the NRA needs to burn more than just money.

Fish on...

Todd

Since I paid for my life membership with the NRA I have not and will not give them any more money because they lean way to much to the right and seem to have taken the point as RWNJ's!


FIshy

I love stats. Depending on what the agenda is highly affects the outcome of the presentation.
Did the stats provide you with what the chance is of being involved in such an event (percentage of incidents vs. number of gun owners)? How about if I own 3 guns? are my chances three times as great? How much effect does the owners criminal record play into the stats (people more likely to be involved with questionable choices)?
.007 is seven times greater than .001 Know what I mean?

I would like to think that the majority of us that are life members of the NRA have spent that money because we want to help make a difference. I don't believe in everything they do, but they, and CCRKBA are the 2 best things we have going fighting for our gun rights. Spending the money on a life membership is just the beginning.

I don't blame those who send their money to the NRA...I blame the NRA for being lying sacks'o'[Bleeeeep!] who sell fear more than anything else.

There's a two year old gun grabbing thread on here full of all the fear, and none has yet chimed in on it to tell us about all the guns they've had grabbed.

I be the NRA and gun/ammo manufacturers popped the corks hard about five minutes after Obama was re-elected...they knew the money would start rolling in an hour later.

Fish on...

Todd

which is worse....asking for money to do something

or asking to borrow money to do something and then not paying it back?

You get that school loan thing paid off yet, Todd?

Nice waste of space, as usual, Slabby.

The money they're asking for is to keep their cottage industry alive, and their bank accounts padded. I'm sure they send you a yearly "thank you note" for it.

Fish on...

Todd

no answers?

Answers to what? Your irrelevant questions? My monthly loan payment is probably as big as your mortgage, not that it matters at all about anything at all to do with this subject.

How about you tell me how much you owe on your house, and what your payment is? Credit score?

Fish on...

Todd

LOL.....good....glad you're paying me back.
My questions were quite relevant.....you expounding on how individuals donate their dollars, when in fact they had no choice in whether to loan you their money.....just call it checking on an investment.

I've made overpayments for a long time on my mortgage and it is down to the point where I can pay it off at any time I choose. I'll decide when to stop making monthly payments and simply do away with the mortgage, but it likely won't be happening until I decide to walk away from working. Credit score? I have no idea.....do I need a loan?

Like a good democrat are you current or waitin' fer obama bucks? Have you called'em on your obama phone and axed for a deferment or are you waitin' for 'loan fergivness'. Can you save up enuff obama bucks on an EBT card and use that towards payin' off skool debt...?

In this instance, the NIJ's agenda was to look at these events, analyze them, and come up with recommendations for safely managing firearms in the home to try and cut down on the number of kids that find their parents guns and accidentally kill themselves and or others with them. That happens on average about 3,000 times a year here in the US.

Their agenda was/is not anti gun, quite the opposite in fact. It was/is pro gun and pro responsible gun ownership and management.

Coley, I'm not in agreement, although I want to be. Any government agency is not, repeat not interested as a priority in freedoms of the individual. They are interested in control. In some, perhaps most, instances where some degree of control is desired, the laws written no doubt affect the law-abiding folks as well, and there is the rub.

From the home page of NIJ.gov........"Each year, too many law enforcement officers die in the line of duty. Last year, 177 lost their lives — a 16 percent increase from 2010."

And you want me to believe that NIJ is interested in my gun "freedoms"? I suggest that such is not the case. In the long run, the problem(s) will always be those who have no respect for others....I wish us all luck with that.

Just to show that my heart is with you in the realization of the difficulty in such control........Us old farts are retiring at a rate of 10,000/day. (Compare that stat to the one concerning home gun accidents) Do you suppose a bunch of old fogies who probably shouldn't even own guns will affect the home accident rate?........like never before?

10,000/day

don't quit your day job.

cut down on the number of kids that find their parents guns and accidentally kill themselves and or others with them. That happens on average about 3,000 times a year here in the US.


Then on "average" it happens in Washington State once every 6 days?

3000 per year does sound a bit high. I assume we are taking the term "accidently" strait from the family's story...at face value ?

Even if these statistics were in the realm of reality, just because these "parents" don't handle their freedom/responsibility well, is not a valid reason to take away the freedoms of an entire population. Do I need to post a statistic of the kids who don't "find" the family firearm collection and "accidently" kill themselves or their friend ? Can we agree that the overwhelming majority of kids don't accidently kill themselves...even if they do stumble upon an improperly stored firearm ? How many kids are killed every year riding a skateboard or bicycle ?

The point of sharing the home gun storage issue was that responsible gun owners need to keep kids and crooks from having access to their guns. Find home storage solutions that acheive that because based on the facts, if we don't, chances are you will know someone or be someone who has a kid or a crook misuse a firearm in their home.

Of course there are too many LE death due to firearms, just like there are too many kids that shoot their faces off every year, if you don't agree with that you are a fool. In each case, the only acceptable number is zero. Will we ever achieve that? Of course not. Through promoting better awareness and training can we help cut down on some of those deaths. You bet.

People or organizations using these realities and statistics to advance unreasonable agendas is not what anyone is promoting here.

ANY kid deaths are to many, LE deaths shouldn't even be an issue. Don't get me wrong, I admire and appreciate what they do but they volunteered to do that job knowing the risks.
All laws are to control the law abiding public, the crooks don't care, otherwise they wouldn't be crooks. You will never be able to keep any type of gun out of their hands, whether they steal them from homes, police depts., military bases or just buy them.
Education about gun safety will stop accidental deaths, and no I am not an NRA member.

I agree that one death is too many. I disagree with manipulation of stats.

I will refine the statement yet again for clarity. Using stats for manipulation is not what I am promoting here.



Really? Shouldn't even be an issue? No one should care and/or take proactive steps to try and reduce the number of cops killed in the line of duty? I hope you don't really mean that. Of course their chosen profession comes with a much higher element of risk than most, even more reason to try and mitigate those for the preservation of life.

The reason the gun nuts look like nuts, including the NRA, is because they lump anything that might improve gun safety in with the "guns should all be banned forever" crowd.

Fish on...

Todd

Are you [Bleeeeep!] crazy? You are trying to tell me there are only 3000 gun deaths per year total in the U.S.?

There are to many 'protect us from ourselves' laws now....

Good point Timber, [Bleeeeep!] em, let em die.

Yes, 19 and younger as a direct result of improperly stored firearms in homes.

So whats the solution?

Force people to buy a safe for their guns?

Take safety classes to be able to purchase a gun?


Come on thats not even close to reality......

Right, broadly categorized as deaths.

It's a parents responsibility to teach their children gun safety not the gov.

I have taught my kids how to handle firearms since they were old enough to pick up a toy gun.... They have been taught to handle gun's safely even if it was a toy gun... That includes pointing a gun be it a toy or the real deal at or even close to anyone....
I have a .17 HMR that sits next to the front door for killing critter's with the loaded mags in the coat closet on the shelf... NEVER once has one of my kid's touched it without my or their mothers permission....

Woman pulls gun on flasher: 'I'm going to blow your brains out'

A Ruger .380.

By Jason White, NBC News

A flasher allegedly got more than he bargained for when he approached a woman at a lake in Washington state this week: a Ruger .380 pointing back at him.

“I put the magazine in my gun. I cocked it,” the woman told The Daily News online. “I said, ‘You need to leave or I’ll shoot you. I’m going to blow your brains out.’”

The gun reportedly had the intended effect.

“Oh, [expletive]!” the man declared, according to the paper, before running away.

The 35-year-old woman was at Lake Sacajawea in Longview, Wash., with her 6-year-old son and a dog Wednesday evening when the man approached, police confirmed to NBC News.

He allegedly sat down and began performing a sex act and said she should watch.

It was at that point that she pulled out her gun.

After the man ran away, she sent her dog, a Norwegian Buhund Hound, after him, police said. The dog cornered him, and when she called the dog back, the man disappeared into the darkness.

The alleged flasher is described as a “white male in his early 20s with short dark-blond hair and wearing a gray hoody and dark blue jeans,” the paper reported.

Detective Kyle Sahim said police are actively investigating the incident, including whether it is connected to another reported flashing in the area.

"Not a common event in Longview," Sahim said.

Just fill that blank in with nearly everything else in the world and we could all agree with it...but a lot of parents suck, a lot of kids don't listen, and there are entire libraries full of laws because people purposely do the wrong thing even when they know it is wrong.

Fish on...

Todd

Agreed... but stupid people do stupid shiit and we all know you can't fix stupid.....

We have laws and those that do not abide by those laws need to be punished!!

Therein lies the problem..... A big percentage are not punished severely enough!!!

While I'm glad the woman was able to run off the flasher, she wasn't exactly in physcal danger. I suspect she may have found that "blowing his brains out" (giggity), might not have been the best solution. You can't simple going around blasting people for every crime they are committing.

A 14-year-old Henderson boy calmly described in a 911 call how he shot an intruder in a home invasion last week.

"I just shot the man. He came around the corner. I shot him. He broke the whole glass out (of the back door)," the teen told the 911 dispatcher.

Authorities said Anthony Henderson Jr. 19, broke into the home at 586 S. Lynnbank Road on Thursday while the teen and his 17-year-old sister were home.

The boy told the dispatcher that Henderson pointed a handgun at him, but Vance County Sheriff Peter White said deputies found no weapon on Henderson.

Henderson stumbled outside after being shot and was found dead on the lawn.

Deputies have charged Andrew Terry, 23, of 113 N. Woods Drive, with felony breaking and entering, conspiracy to commit breaking and entering and injury to real property in the case. They also are searching for two other men – Seneca Henderson, 20, of 907 S. Beckford Drive, No. 134, and Jatwaun Davis, 21, of 199 Belle Russell Road.

The boy's sister called 911 to report that someone was banging on the door trying to get in. She said she was hiding in her bedroom closet but told the dispatcher that her brother had a gun.

After the brother got on the phone, the dispatcher ordered him to put down his shotgun.

"I don't know how many it was (who broke in). Just one came around the corner. I got one more in the chamber. I'm going to shoot again," the boy said.

"Do not, while I’m on the phone, do not fire that firearm, OK?" the dispatcher said.

"What if another one comes in the house, ma'am?" he asked.


"Let me know, OK, if you see anybody. I will let you know (when a deputy gets to the house)," the dispatcher responded.

As the boy and his sister waited for deputies to arrive, he told the dispatcher that he was "perfectly fine," but his sister was "really shaken up."

The boy even asks about the condition of the intruder.

"He's still outside. He's unconscious. I'm not sure if he's still living or not," the dispatcher said. "They only found one outside. Are you not sure how many it was?"

"I'm not sure how many it was, but when I shot, I didn't hear anybody running," he said.

No charges are expected against the teen for firing on Henderson. North Carolina's Castle Doctrine law, updated on Dec. 1, allows homeowners to assume intruders mean them ill whether they have a weapon on not.

What about the ongoing case right now of the cop that left his handgun in his car for his 3 year old to shoot someone? Punish him to the max?

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019648989_copshooting10m.html

And, if that last post was somehow directed at me because you think I equate flashers with home invaders, then you have a misunderstanding of my views. Anyone breaking into someone else's house should EXPECT to be shot without warning.

And how do you know this?

If he was not a police officer I bet he would have been.....

No... It was not directed at you but more so directed at the fact that if the parents had the gun in the safe to save 'Johnny' from himself what might have happened once the intruder was in?

I'm no expert but I'd suspect that an attacker wouldn't "sit down" to launch his attack.

Fine. That is no skin off my nuts...


How 'bout blasting some jaywalkers in the ankle?

LOL... so "offensiveness" determines when someone should get shot?

The onus is on the woman to articulate her need to defend herself, in this instance by using threat of deadly force. Without knowing the facts of the case and only what is described above, she could very likely face civil and/or criminal charges, especially in the 9th circuit.

"Offensive" is highly subjective and for the most part not a standard used by the courts. "Reasonable" is a standard defined by the courts.

Jaywalkin sumbitches need their ankles blasted...

How about "most of this has nothing at all to do with the topic at all"?

Fish on...

Todd

Wanna ride bikes?

Would but it's brokedown...... Sent a PO to Obooby so's he can buy me new parts......

You must be talking to Salmonella, the one who started this thread about the "gun grabbers".

Fish on...

Todd

I can't beat "gun grabbers" to death...because unlike what you and a bunch of other fools (who are easily parted from their money) seem to think, there aren't gun grabbers lurking behind every tree.

The only ones I beat are the ones who are constantly whining and sending the liars at the NRA their hard earned money to solve a problem that doesn't even really exist.

Fish on...

Todd

Myself I think the cop has been punished enough. He's already received a life sentence of regret and you can't do anything worse to him. The prosecuter is trying to make an example of him but I think the message has already been made clear of the potential tragic outcome of leaving a loaded weapon around children.

Had his child been in someone else's car and the same scenario happened would he feel that person should be punished for their negligence?

I know it's not your style, Hank...but try and find a fact to back that statement up.

Considering all the handwringing, whining, and crying by the gun nuts here, I think I've shown admirable restraint in pointing out what a bunch of pussies and whiners they are...and at pointing out that no one...

NO ONE

...has had a gun grabbed.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. No, I haven't actually shown as much restraint as I should...but they probably need to be called pussies and whiners a lot more than how much I call them that, too.

Here's a vid just for you Todd:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=MjoMQJf5vKI

Has that mother and boyfriend in Tacoma been sentenced yet for the similar case that happened right after the one in Marysville? I believe the cop should have a similar penalty as they get/got. Being a cop should not allow him to be given a pass, if anything he of all people should have known better.

I agree. Being a cop should get him exactly the same treatment as someone who is not a cop...with an even more severe diatribe from the judge before sending him to the pokey.

Fish on...

Todd

-

And here's the folks who think the government is coming to grab their guns.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/58073/

just give em the chance.
Banzai for the NRA.

LOL

Fish on...

Todd