DescentBB

woodchip wrote:Don't hold your breath waiting for another ban.

That's not how the world works. All it takes is a few key events to get the momentum going. People always make the mistake of saying "it can't happen" right up until the moment it does. Just look at airline security and gay marriage as examples of how things can change seemingly overnight.

I think taking away guns from the American populace would be a far more difficult job than even getting gay marriage passed. For one thing, the most diehard gun fans are armed to the teeth and are perfectly willing to use those guns against a government they think has infringed on their "rights", Constitutionally of course. These militias are already standing their ground in taking public lands for their private use, public land that they have yet to get evicted from by the government. The BLM has already backed down in the past in order to avoid a gunfight.

https://news.vice.com/article/one-of-th ... old-miners

callmeslick wrote:the exchanges above illustrate the empty intellectualism seen in this debate. A method, proven to greatly reduce a negative outcome(in this case murders) is somehow dismissed because it doesn't ABSOLUTELY solve the problem. You cannot debate with that kind of logic (or lack thereof) at work.

The method in question was offered as proof of reducing a very specific negative outcome -- mass killings -- but that turns out to have been a LIE. Mass killings continued at the same rate. Mass killings continued with similar numbers of casualties. It's not that the gun ban only partly solved the problem; it's that it didn't solve the specific problem being talked about AT ALL. The article told an outright lie about mass shootings, and nobody who has spoken positively about gun bans even flinched. None of you acknowledged that the article LIED about mass shootings and that vision was wrong about mass killings as a whole in Australia.

Would it hurt you to say "huh, you're right, it looks like they've had a similar rate of mass killings with a similar total number of casualties since the gun ban"? Would it hurt you to recognize that I took time out of my day to research a serious claim, and show me the respect to give me a serious answer? Would it hurt to say "you're right about mass killings, but I think the other outcomes are still worth investigating" instead of using dismissive terminology like "empty intellectualism" and "logic (or lack thereof)" and dodging the point?

As I said before, there's a lot that can be done in terms of gun control, that has proven positive outcomes. Solid background checks, enforcement of existing gun laws, requirements for safe storage, tactical training for those who carry. We can find some common ground. Somebody might even be convinced to change their mind on some of these points (like adequately funding the ATF). But I've found that one of the easiest ways to lose people is to be dismissive of the other side when they've made a strong point, because it makes you come across as unwilling to consider the whole picture, and therefore untrustworthy. You mentioned "irresponsible gun transfers" to a guy who was already not legally allowed to own a gun, and I suspect you could convince people to support sensible regulation on that front. But instead you've spent most of this thread insulting people (ctrl-f "stupid", "handlers", "lemmings", "sheep") and ignoring the strongest arguments (have you even tried to respond to TC?) while nit-picking the weakest ones.

We all know you're capable of better. Step up your game. Focus on the strength of your argument about "sensible laws" instead of being distracted, and being a distraction, with all the insults and memes and dismissiveness.

vision wrote:all you gun people need to get used to: The US will eventually have massive, sweeping gun bans

About a third of Americans actually own guns, and there are plenty of people in the remaining 2/3 who are sympathetic, and they're not going to be convinced to give up a Constitutional right by weak rhetoric. They're not going to be convinced as long as gun-ban supporters keep presenting easily-exposed LIES, or weak evidence that crumbles under scrutiny. They're not going to be convinced as long as the majority of mass shootings keep happening in "gun-free zones". They're not going to be convinced as long as they keep hearing stories about women and seniors fending off attackers by using (not necessarily firing) firearms. They're not going to be convinced to leave guns to the police as long as racial minorities don't trust the police.

Gun bans and gun-free zones aren't a solution. What's needed is policies that work to reduce gun violence, while not simultaneously putting women and seniors and minorities at higher risk of other types of violence.

Lothar wrote:...they're not going to be convinced to give up a Constitutional right by weak rhetoric.

You must be new to the USA, or young and naive. The Constitution is a malleable document. When society finally gets tired of the machismo, fear, and hubris of the gun crowd things will rapidly shift in the opposite direction. It's happened everywhere else in the developed world and the US is only exceptional when it comes to the level of stupidity and ignorance of it's populace, as history has repeatedly shown.

see, that's funny, because I keep seeing people -- from liberal strongholds like Seattle -- who are getting tired of the lies and ineffectiveness of the anti-gun crowd and their policies. They see articles that claim "Australia hasn't had another mass shooting" and then they find out that Australia actually has had more mass shootings, and they think "these people aren't trustworthy" (you still haven't addressed how the article you posted was based on a lie!) They hear people clamoring for more gun-free zones and then they hear about another shooting in a gun-free zone. They learn about a grandma protecting herself during a robbery using a gun, and then they hear the gun-banners talk about "machisimo" and "stupidity". They listen to your arguments about leaving guns to only the military and police, and then they wake up to the Sam Dubose body cam video. And they think, even if they personally have no interest in guns, maybe other people have good reasons to carry and they shouldn't interfere.

You can keep consoling yourself by pretending that America is going to eventually do what you want, and ignore the dangers that gun bans pose to individuals. Or you can try advocating for actually-sensible policies that actually work.

there is precious little evidence that gun bans lead to less safe societies for individuals, frankly, Lothar. As noted, are such bans COMPLETELY effective? Of course not, but the rates per capita of violence are lower everywhere. Visions back and forth with you is evidence of what I've urged gun rights supporters to consider: that inaction, roadblocks and denial are going to lead to a critical mass of voters who will streamroll the issue.

So what you are saying is…the majority will band together to strip the rights of the minority.

Sounds different when you put it that way…huh.

vision wrote:

Lothar wrote:...they're not going to be convinced to give up a Constitutional right by weak rhetoric.

You must be new to the USA, or young and naive. The Constitution is a malleable document. When society finally gets tired of the machismo, fear, and hubris of the gun crowd things will rapidly shift in the opposite direction. It's happened everywhere else in the developed world and the US is only exceptional when it comes to the level of stupidity and ignorance of it's populace, as history has repeatedly shown.

You are forgetting at one time we had a ban on alcohol. How well did that work. We had a ban on marijuana. Hows that working out. We had a ban on abortions. How well did that hold. We had a ban on assault weapons. What happened there. The only one young and naive is you vision.

Spidey wrote:So what you are saying is…the majority will band together to strip the rights of the minority.

Sounds different when you put it that way…huh.

well, as it stands you only have the right in order to form a militia, which the nation doesn't need anymore.

SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right, are we going to cling onto marriage as a privilege forever too?

well, marriage never killed anyone......um, ok, fair point.

callmeslick wrote:there is precious little evidence that gun bans lead to less safe societies for individuals, frankly, Lothar. As noted, are such bans COMPLETELY effective? Of course not, but the rates per capita of violence are lower everywhere. Visions back and forth with you is evidence of what I've urged gun rights supporters to consider: that inaction, roadblocks and denial are going to lead to a critical mass of voters who will streamroll the issue.

Canada, and myself are living proof that gun control isn't as bad as it's made out to be.

I enjoy as much of the freedoms as you guys, and then some. Our government hasn't suddenly become tyrannical because of gun control. For all the screwups government is known for, they'd soon screw up becoming tyrannical just as quick. Too much credit is given to them in that scenario. Our, and your, military wouldn't dream of letting that happen. They'd be the first to lose their ★■◆● and put a stop to it faster than you can say 'obama came from kenya'

As for mass shootings, well... they're going to happen no matter how much control is exercised. why? because people, being people, will find a way. The only thing we can try to do is reduce the amount and severity of them.

Lothar wrote:vision offered the ban as proof that you can end mass killings that way. The fact is that mass killings happened at the same frequency in the 20 years before as the 20 years after.

Even adding up the death tolls, the 8 "prior" mass killings led to 80 total dead (with 35 from a single killing and 45 from the other 7), while the 8 "after" mass killings led to 56 to 67 dead (the Quakers Hill nursing home fire has only an estimated death toll.) Go ahead and use your favorite statistical methodology on those numbers; what you'll find is that the data doesn't prove a statistically significant difference in expected number of deaths per event (the Port Arthur massacre is a statistical outlier; the other events cluster around 7 fatalities each), nor in the frequency of events. The gun ban didn't end mass killings, nor make them particularly less deadly.

If you want to offer a country as "proof" of a gun ban working to prevent mass killings, you need a statistically sound case. Australia pre- and post-1996 doesn't provide it. (Offering it as proof is kind of like saying "since we haven't had another 9/11 size event, the TSA must be doing a great job!" No, just because we didn't get a repeat of the biggest outlier in history in the last 20 years doesn't mean we've actually fixed the problem or even made progress.)

Bear in mind, you're comparing one mass shooting to a bunch of mass shootings. Yes, his claim was about control ending mass shootings; full stop. We see that's not the case. What is noticeable is the reduction of deaths after the ban was enacted, so maybe there is something to it?

I find your analogy interesting though. mass shootings are to gun laws as terrorist attacks are to government organizations? Maybe we can create another government agency dedicated to fighting mass shootings. o_0

Ferno wrote:Canada, and myself are living proof that gun control isn't as bad as it's made out to be

I don't recall arguing against gun control. I've argued against gun bans, but for sensible gun control -- background checks, enforcement of existing laws (particularly relating to lying on background checks), safe storage requirements, and training requirements. Canada has most of those things (and a handful of things I'd disagree with, but self-government means you guys can make your own laws.)

Lothar wrote:what you'll find is that the data doesn't prove a statistically significant difference in expected number of deaths per event

Bear in mind, you're comparing one mass shooting to a bunch of mass shootings. Yes, his claim was about control ending mass shootings; full stop. We see that's not the case. What is noticeable is the reduction of deaths after the ban was enacted

I think you misread, and misapplied statistics.

I'm comparing 8 mass killings (pre-ban) to 8 mass killings (post-ban). The type of weapons changed, but there were still the same number of mass killings over ~20 years, and there were still a similar number of victims. If we were looking at pre-ban killings that averaged 20+ victims and post-ban killings averaging 7 victims, that would be clear evidence that the ban was reducing the severity of the attacks. Instead, we see a bunch of killings with an average of 7 deaths, a single outlier with 35 deaths (if we add those together we get an average of 10 deaths per pre-ban killing), and then a bunch more killings with an average of 8 deaths. So that leaves the question, did anything really change? Or are we giving the TSA too much credit for there not having been another 9/11-scale attack?

Given that there are women and seniors and minorities who rely on firearms for protection against rapists, robbers, and racists, I'd need to see something really convincing to make the argument that we needed to take away or seriously restrict their ability to protect themselves. "Proof" along the lines of "there haven't been any more mass shootings, except the ones I'm lying about, and let's ignore the knife and hammer and arson attacks" is the opposite of convincing.

callmeslick wrote:there is precious little evidence that gun bans lead to less safe societies for individuals .... the rates per capita of violence are lower

Since we've been talking about Australia, which instituted a partial gun ban and a wide-scale government buyback in early 1996, let's look at their violent crime statistics -- which I haven't looked at before, so I don't know what I'm going to find. Let's go where the facts take us, shall we?

Here's what I see in the data
- immediately after the ban was instituted, there was a spike in robbery that lasted for several years before returning to prior levels, and eventually slightly below prior levels
- the homicide rate has dropped slowly, to about 2/3 of the prior level
- the rate of sexual assault increased, and then dropped, but is still well above the pre-ban numbers (note that the ban happened early in 1996.)
- the net increase of sexual assault over all of the post-ban years is more than tenfold the net decrease in homicide over the same years

and of course there are probably any number of confounding factors. But at least the data, on its face, seems to indicate that the gun ban has made murder less likely in exchange for making sexual assault more likely. Which ties back in to what I've been saying for quite a while now -- there are people who rely on firearms for self defense, who will be put at risk by gun bans. Is it worth it? (I'm not particularly interested in actually arguing over whether allowing ten rapes and preventing one murder is a good trade, FWIW -- just in making the point that that's the trade that might be forced on people who would choose the other way.)

Visions back and forth with you is evidence of what I've urged gun rights supporters to consider: that inaction, roadblocks and denial are going to lead to a critical mass of voters who will streamroll the issue.

I don't see it that way at all.

The vibe I get from vision is that he's always been on the "ban guns" side. He's dug in. He's not a part of a "critical mass" who are going to steamroll the issue; he's part of the group that's always been there. And the "proof" he's offered supporting his position was fairly unconvincing. Likewise, woodchip is not a part of a "critical mass" that's going to lead to more lax firearm laws. He's part of the already-dug-in group that's always been there. And his arguments are similarly unconvincing.

You and I seem to be much more in the middle. I've never owned a gun (but I've been shooting 3 times in my life), while you currently own some. We've both spoken in favor of sensible gun laws, and though we might not mean exactly the same thing by that, a lot of what we've said is similar. But you're convinced that there's a steamroller coming, while I'm convinced that the gun-ban movement is actually losing steam. You see the "inaction, roadblocks, and denial" as causing a buildup on one side, while I see lies, ineffectiveness of gun-free zones, police violence, and accounts of self-defense as causing a buildup on the other side. I think the reality is that things will stay more or less the same, with hopefully a few of the more proven ideas becoming law, with better enforcement keeping guns out of known-crazies hands, and the result of some reduction in murder without a corresponding uptick in other forms of violent crime.

You're pretty funny Lothar, as in "I'm laughing at you." I don't have time to get into the details of Australian crime statistics, but you are not looking at the data comprehensively. It paints a much different picture than you are arguing.

Yes, the United States will eventually give up it's guns willfully and I say this with an almost scientific confidence based on world-wide trends. As I reiterate one more time, the USA is only special in the overwhelming percentage of stupid, ignorant members of it's population (those stereotypes exist for a reason ya know), but even with this disadvantage we will eventually catch up to the civilized world. Who knows, we might even have a woman president in the next 20-30 years!

vision wrote:I don't have time to get into the details of Australian crime statistics, but you are not looking at the data comprehensively

Yet another non-response response. I seem to be getting those a lot in this thread. "You're wrong, but I can't explain why". Given that you still haven't owned up to "no mass shootings" from your previous article being a total lie, I hope you'll excuse me for being skeptical of your unsubstantiated claims. (Also given that I have an advanced degree in applied mathematics, I hope you'll excuse my being extra skeptical of claims that my impression of this data set would be less accurate than yours, without further explanation.)

So how about this: instead of telling me I'm wrong without backing it up, don't post until you have the time to actually walk me through what you think I'm missing in the data.

vision wrote: .

Yes, the United States will eventually give up it's guns willfully and I say this with an almost scientific confidence based on world-wide trends.

Tell me something, how many of those "civilized" countries in your trend have a 2nd amendment clause in their constitution? And if those countries that are giving up their guns, are their police forces doing the same?

vision wrote: As I reiterate one more time, the USA is only special in the overwhelming percentage of stupid, ignorant members of it's population (those stereotypes exist for a reason ya know), but even with this disadvantage we will eventually catch up to the civilized world.

So people who don't agree with you are "stupid" and "ignorant"?

quick aside to Lothar: I agree that vision represents those in our society who are more completely in favor of banning outright, while you and I are more fluid. However, my point was that if the 'fluid' gun owners and the voices of common sense regulations don't get a move on, the more rigid position of banning will end up carrying the day by a combination of default and overall disgust of the citizenry.

If the disgust level was not at a ban level after Sandy Hook, it never will be.

woodchip wrote:If the disgust level was not at a ban level after Sandy Hook, it never will be.

Sandy Hook started the process. Lack of response beyond 'more guns' will finish the process. This is America. Wholesale change takes time, but it does happen often enough.

Lothar wrote:Yet another non-response response.

I seriously don't have time right now to properly cite my comments (I'm just dropping in to stir the pot while I'm on break). Even the article I posted above is not meant to be a proper citation, because that's not an appropriate source, but yes, gun control is working in Australia and other places. You can't hedge your argument as "won't stop mass-killing" because that's not the sole reason for gun control laws. They have more comprehensive effects that include reductions in various crimes and suicide rates. Plus there is a time element involved that needs to be separated from global trends and weighted against statistical significance, but you know this already. And as others have mentioned, just because there is no perfect gun control solution doesn't mean we can't have good or adequate progress, which is being demonstrated successfully around the globe.

vision wrote:You can't hedge your argument as "won't stop mass-killing" because that's not the sole reason

Ahh -- but it WAS the specific issue I was talking about (tracing back to slick's comment about Sandy Hook). You can't hedge YOUR argument with "there are other reasons" when you claim to be disproving the specific statement I made about mass killings, when the article you posted actually outright lies about mass killings. (Will you at least show that you're arguing in good faith by admitting that the article was wrong about there not being another mass shooting since?)

more comprehensive effects ... reductions in various crimes and suicide rates ... weighted against statistical significance .... just because there is no perfect gun control solution doesn't mean we can't have good or adequate progress

I get all of that. Including that we can make progress -- something I've argued for in this thread.

What I also see in the data is that gun control carries with it certain tradeoffs, and when I've looked at statistics as comprehensively as I know how, those tradeoffs don't go away. Some forms of gun control still allow the vulnerable to be protected; other forms of gun control make them more vulnerable (consider the Carol Bowne case -- murdered by an ex-boyfriend while she waited on the permit to clear so she could buy a gun.) My read of the data -- both the Australia data and data from other countries -- is that outright bans tend to lead to higher rates of sexual assault and attacks on seniors, in particular. Other forms of gun control, like sensible (but fast) background checks, sensible laws on gun storage, training for those who carry, and strong enforcement of existing laws that are meant to keep guns out of the hands of criminals (though there's something to be said for judicial safety valves) still allow the vulnerable to protect themselves.

This expectation that, eventually, the public will get "fed up" and "vote" for gun bans is, I think, misguided. The second amendment makes it very difficult to simply win a majority vote; you need a huge majority to pass a constitutional amendment, and anything short of that is at risk of being shot down (heh) by the courts, who don't answer to voters. And I think attempted votes for gun bans tend to make others "fed up" -- specifically, the vulnerable who rely on firearms for protection. I think this line you guys keep coming back to, that we'd better hurry up and compromise before the steamroller hits, is an idle threat. If you want to sell compromise, threats are a bull★■◆● approach. If you want to sell compromise, explain to the pro-gun side what they get out of it. Push for "compromise" that actually keeps guns away from criminals and therefore protects the vulnerable (while not endangering them in other ways), with real data that actually proves what you claim it proves.

Show forms of gun control that are undeniably "progress" and you get everyone on board that it's possible to get onboard; show forms of gun control that are "progress oh wait pay no attention to the data I conveniently left out of this analysis which shows a down side" and you instead lose credibility and thereby lose out on the ability to compromise.

Lothar, given what I've read of Scalia's feelings on the interpretation of the 2nd, and the fact that Thomas tends to track with him in lockstep, it would only take the replacement of one or two SCOTUS justices to revisit the 2nd, and return to the interpretation used for 100 years prior to the 1980s

Yea, nobody owned guns before 1980.

callmeslick wrote:Lothar, given what I've read of Scalia's feelings on the interpretation of the 2nd, and the fact that Thomas tends to track with him in lockstep, it would only take the replacement of one or two SCOTUS justices to revisit the 2nd, and return to the interpretation used for 100 years prior to the 1980s

Dream on. the court will not reverse itself.

Spidey wrote:Yea, nobody owned guns before 1980.

but, their possession and carry could be QUITE restricted.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:Lothar, given what I've read of Scalia's feelings on the interpretation of the 2nd, and the fact that Thomas tends to track with him in lockstep, it would only take the replacement of one or two SCOTUS justices to revisit the 2nd, and return to the interpretation used for 100 years prior to the 1980s

Dream on. the court will not reverse itself.

that's probably what people said in the 1970s, too.

And just how did the court reverse itself?

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Yea, nobody owned guns before 1980.

but, their possession and carry could be QUITE restricted.

Stop with the smoke screen. Possession was not restricted. Carrying of pistols was harder to to get a license for but then legal holders of CCW's were never then nor now the problem. BTW a license required to carry was a result of your southern racist history to prevent black Americans from carrying concealed.

Lothar wrote:I don't recall arguing against gun control. I've argued against gun bans, but for sensible gun control -- background checks, enforcement of existing laws (particularly relating to lying on background checks), safe storage requirements, and training requirements. Canada has most of those things (and a handful of things I'd disagree with, but self-government means you guys can make your own laws.)

yeah I agree with the sensible approach. My premise is that gun control isn't the doomsday signal some are making it out to be. I liken guns to high-performance vehicles. Both, in the wrong hands are a clear and present danger to everyone around the wielder; and sometimes the wielder themselves. But one you need a license, theory, and practical experience to own and operate, and some the factory will keep and maintain for you until you go to a designated area. (cue segue!) Since guns are being pulled from everyone (who respects the law of course), knives would be the go-to self-defense weapon. you can do a lot more damage with a knife than with a gun.

I think you misread, and misapplied statistics.

I'm comparing 8 mass killings (pre-ban) to 8 mass killings (post-ban). The type of weapons changed, but there were still the same number of mass killings over ~20 years, and there were still a similar number of victims. If we were looking at pre-ban killings that averaged 20+ victims and post-ban killings averaging 7 victims, that would be clear evidence that the ban was reducing the severity of the attacks. Instead, we see a bunch of killings with an average of 7 deaths, a single outlier with 35 deaths (if we add those together we get an average of 10 deaths per pre-ban killing), and then a bunch more killings with an average of 8 deaths. So that leaves the question, did anything really change? Or are we giving the TSA too much credit for there not having been another 9/11-scale attack?

Given that there are women and seniors and minorities who rely on firearms for protection against rapists, robbers, and racists, I'd need to see something really convincing to make the argument that we needed to take away or seriously restrict their ability to protect themselves. "Proof" along the lines of "there haven't been any more mass shootings, except the ones I'm lying about, and let's ignore the knife and hammer and arson attacks" is the opposite of convincing.

So was I. I took the amount of deaths before and after the ban (equal numbers). There is a drop, no arguing that. But like you, I'm hesitant to use the claim of "see? gun control works!". To keep running with the TSA bit, it's possible that overuse of credit is being applied.

The more I think of it, the more I think we (generally speaking here) have worked ourselves into a corner with what we've accepted. We want the ability and the freedom for self-defense, yet we want to control what we USE for that self-defense.

It all seems Schrodinger's cat-esque and I personally have the reaction of: o_0 whenever someone claims they have the answer.

Or maybe it's rooted in america's love of violence; with all the shows like Cops, Wildest Police Chases, etc.

I don't have time to get into the details of Australian crime statistics, but you are not looking at the data comprehensively

Vision, if you can't "be bothered" to look at the statistics, how can you claim that Lothar isn't looking at the data comprehensively? You can't read his mind, nor claim his behaviour is errant based on no supporting data. In my view, that is a personal shot.

Lothar, this is the kind of response from 'responsible' gun owners that will move us into outright bans:

https://nationalgunrights.org/gun-right ... 571-cornyn

callmeslick wrote:Lothar, this is the kind of response from 'responsible' gun owners that will move us into outright bans:

https://nationalgunrights.org/gun-right ... 571-cornyn

... but the NRA is supporting the bill. I thought they were the ones who were going to move us into outright bans. Now they're the ones taking the responsible action, but some dude on a random website who disagrees with them is going to move us into outright bans? Because some dude on a random website is representative?

Lothar wrote:

callmeslick wrote:Lothar, this is the kind of response from 'responsible' gun owners that will move us into outright bans:

https://nationalgunrights.org/gun-right ... 571-cornyn

... but the NRA is supporting the bill. I thought they were the ones who were going to move us into outright bans. Now they're the ones taking the responsible action, but some dude on a random website who disagrees with them is going to move us into outright bans? Because some dude on a random website is representative?

no, it IS heartening to see the NRA on-board with it, but look at the responses there. We've gotten the faithful so worked up that they reject even commonsense. I hope your view prevails, but I found this worrisome when it came in to my news feed.

callmeslick wrote:look at the responses there

I don't see any responses other than the guy who wrote the snippet at the top.

Lothar wrote:

callmeslick wrote:look at the responses there

I don't see any responses other than the guy who wrote the snippet at the top.

you wouldn't in what I linked. On FB where I got fed the article, there are like 1000 comments, mostly about how the GOP are traitors just like the Dems, and 'prying from my cold dead hands' stupidity and the like. When I heard about Cornyn's bill, I was VERY elated,as this is just what I've called for here. I just hope this is a fringe element that the overall population of gun owners will reject. Let's see, as we go through the Congress.

callmeslick wrote:

Lothar wrote:

callmeslick wrote:look at the responses there

I don't see any responses other than the guy who wrote the snippet at the top.

you wouldn't in what I linked. On FB where I got fed the article, there are like 1000 comments, mostly about how the GOP are traitors just like the Dems, and 'prying from my cold dead hands' stupidity and the like. When I heard about Cornyn's bill, I was VERY elated,as this is just what I've called for here. I just hope this is a fringe element that the overall population of gun owners will reject. Let's see, as we go through the Congress.

You see Lothar, these are the twisting track covering type replies that drove people like Cuda and Will from the boards.

callmeslick wrote:On FB where I got fed the article, there are like 1000 comments, mostly about how the GOP are traitors just like the Dems

George Takei posts a picture of Grumpy Cat and it gets 50,000 likes and 16,000 shares. FB gathers together like-minded individuals of all stripes, and they comment in their own little misinformed echo chambers, and the only thing finding one tells you is that one of your friends kind-of agrees with that particular little echo chamber on that topic.

gee, Woody, Lothar seems to have figured out my answer just fine, without the snark.
...."drove CUDA and Will from the boards". Freaking hilarious. One posts racist stuff, gets called on it and hightails it. The other posts an extremely out of character obscene link, gets called on it, and hightails it. Nobody drove anyone anywhere, unless they drove theirownselves. I suspect CUDA still reads, and truly hope he returns. Having encountered him for over a decade, this isn't the first time he self-imposed a cooling off period.


And, Lothar, I do hope you are correct.

talks a bit about stolen guns, the "black lives matter" protests, and people being stupid and throwing away their lives. (NSFW language.)

came across that one on FB myself. Thanks for the post, here.