╌>

Wisconsin company giving every employee a handgun for Christmas

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  buzz-of-the-orient  •  6 years ago  •  237 comments

Wisconsin company giving every employee a handgun for Christmas

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Wisconsin company giving every employee a handgun for Christmas

By Own Daugherty, The Hill (Reported by MSN), November 14 2018

512

© The Hill  Wisconsin company giving every employee a handgun for Christmas

A Wisconsin company is giving every employee a handgun for Christmas.

The company, BenShot, sells novelty glassware with bullets embedded,  according to the Appleton Post-Crescent .

The gift idea is part of an effort to promote personal safety and team building, owner Ben Wolfgram told the newspaper.

"For us, now, we have an entire armed staff," he said. "I think that's pretty good."

All 16 full-time employees will be able to pick their choice of revolver. Wolfgram said most employees, including some who had never shot a gun, were excited about the company's announcement.

Wolfgram said at least two employees initially declined the gift but are reconsidering after taking a gun-safety course that the company required before giving out the guns.

The report comes amid national debate over firearms as mass shootings occur in America with more frequency. A dozen people were recently killed at a bar in California as a result of a mass shooting.


Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
[]
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1  seeder  Buzz of the Orient    6 years ago

Welcome to America, the land of the gun, and room for your grave
(With apologies to Bob Dylan)

Well, they'll shoot ya when you're trying to be so good
They'll shoot ya just a-like they said they would
They'll shoot ya when you're tryin' to go home
Then they'll shoot ya when you're there all alone

But they would not feel very thrilled
Unless everybody did get killed

Well, they'll shoot ya when you're in a synagogue
They'll shoot ya when you're walking your pet dog
They'll shoot ya when you're studying in school
They'll shoot ya even when you're being cool

But they would not feel very thrilled
Unless everybody did get killed

They'll shoot ya when you're outside celebrating
They'll shoot ya even when you're masturbating
They'll shoot ya when you're in a crowded bar
They'll shoot ya whether you're a bum or star

But they would not feel very thrilled
Unless everybody did get killed

Well, they'll shoot if you wear a uniform
And they'll shoot you if you're sleeping in your dorm
They'll shoot you when you're riding in your car
They'll shoot you when you're playing your guitar

But they would not feel very thrilled
Unless everybody did get killed

Well, they'll shoot you if your face is different shade
They'll shoot you even while you're gettin' laid
They'll shoot you and think that they're so brave
They'll shoot you 'till you're set down in your grave

But they would not feel very thrilled
Unless everybody did get killed

 
 
 
KDMichigan
Junior Participates
1.1  KDMichigan  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1    6 years ago

That's awesome.

I read that like it was a Cheech and Chong song and it really made sense.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
1.2  pat wilson  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1    6 years ago

Everybody must get stoned.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
2  Cerenkov    6 years ago

Nice!

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Cerenkov @2    6 years ago

 I almost pity the fool that tries to rob this company!jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4  charger 383    6 years ago

I would like that!

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
5  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu     6 years ago

The post office should do this.

It'd bring a whole new meaning to "Going postal"

sarc

Somehow I'm not much in favor of having armed guards at every store, church, theater, bank, gas station, restaurant and and anywhere else I go constantly like it seems our president is in favor of in his america.

No thanks   

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
6  pat wilson    6 years ago

Wisconsin Company Giving Every Employee A Handgun For Christmas

What could possibly go wrong ?

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
6.1  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  pat wilson @6    6 years ago
What could possibly go wrong ?

Hard telling But if it does we'll read about it in the news one day.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  pat wilson @6    6 years ago

Whatever happened to cash bonuses?

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
6.2.3  cjcold  replied to    6 years ago

One of the few things that keeps my arms cache from being complete is a model 29 44mag with a six inch barrel complete with a scope and Hogue grips. This liberal centrist has pretty much filled most other holes in my collection.

Still waiting to win the lottery before buying a .50 Barrett. Guess the .338 Lapua will have to do for extreme long range for now.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
6.2.4  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to    6 years ago

LOL

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
6.3  Cerenkov  replied to  pat wilson @6    6 years ago

People exercising their civil rights! How terrible! 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.3.1  Ender  replied to  Cerenkov @6.3    6 years ago

It is a civil right to give guns to anybody I want? Who knew....

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.3.3  Ender  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.2    6 years ago

Like a private owner is going to ask someone if they had a background check.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.3.5  Ender  replied to    6 years ago

I would say some private owners don't either.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
6.3.6  cjcold  replied to    6 years ago

Many gun owners accidentally shoot their own family members. Sure wish that I was the only person on the planet who owned one.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.3.7  JBB  replied to  cjcold @6.3.6    6 years ago

Chances family members die by gunfire go way up if a gun is in the home.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
Junior Participates
6.3.8  KDMichigan  replied to  JBB @6.3.7    6 years ago
Chances family members die by gunfire go way up if a gun is in the home.

Did you know chances go way up of dying in a car accident if you are driving?

I also heard that chances go way up of choking to death on food if you are eating.

Freakiing shocking.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
6.3.9  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  KDMichigan @6.3.8    6 years ago

Love those ridiculous comparison arguments - try comparing country statistics on gun deaths where you'll find the USA rated among the wildest third world primitive countries.  

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
6.3.10  Cerenkov  replied to  Ender @6.3.1    6 years ago

Gun ownership is a civil right. I direct you to the Second amendment of the US constitution...

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
6.3.11  Cerenkov  replied to  KDMichigan @6.3.8    6 years ago

Shocking!

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
6.3.12  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Cerenkov @6.3.10    6 years ago
Gun ownership is a civil right.

Education time. Gun ownership is not a civil right, it is a constitutional guarantee under the Second Amendment, there is difference.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
6.3.13  Cerenkov  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @6.3.12    6 years ago

Nope.

Is gun ownership a civil right?

World Net, from Princeton University, defines a “Civil Right” as a right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of congress including the right to legal, social and economic equality. This makes gun ownership as much of a civil right as freedom of speech, religion and freedom of the press.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
6.3.14  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Cerenkov @6.3.13    6 years ago
World Net, from Princeton University, defines a “Civil Right” as a right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of congress including the right to legal, social and economic equality. This makes gun ownership as much of a civil right as freedom of speech, religion and freedom of the press.

Here's the pdf of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, show me were it says in there "the right to own or, possess a gun",

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
6.3.15  Cerenkov  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @6.3.14    6 years ago

Bzzzzz. Wrong.

Go to another country if you don't like the fundamental human rights we fought for in America. Perhaps Cuba?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.3.16  Ender  replied to  Cerenkov @6.3.10    6 years ago

Guess what. people may own guns yet according to the Supreme Court, rules and regulations can be.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
6.3.17  Cerenkov  replied to  Ender @6.3.16    6 years ago

Yes. Rules and regulations can be. (?)

So what?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.3.18  Ender  replied to  Cerenkov @6.3.17    6 years ago

You are the one that brought it up and I say, nothing is absolute.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
6.3.19  livefreeordie  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @6.3.14    6 years ago

I disagree with Cherenkov. The right to keep and bear arms like other rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are inalienable or natural rights that government cannot infringe.  Their are independent of and not reliant upon legislation or courts as noted by SCOTUS

United States v. Cruikshank , 92 U.S. 542 1876

The Justices stated "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government"

"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. Papers, 1:134 ME 1:209.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
6.3.20  Cerenkov  replied to  Ender @6.3.18    6 years ago

True. So what?

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
6.3.21  Cerenkov  replied to  livefreeordie @6.3.19    6 years ago

I agree with you.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
6.3.22  Nowhere Man  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.3.9    6 years ago
try comparing country statistics on gun deaths where you'll find the USA rated among the wildest third world primitive countries.

One of the problems pointed out in the last CDC study ordered by president Obama was that until we establish an accurate reporting system that is both comprehensive and collects all the needed information, all those charts are meaningless as an aid for setting gun policy....

You can read into them anything you want to. I can post a chart showing the USA as the second worst for gun deaths in the world and on the same page post one that shows the USA the 90th worst...... there is another where they balance the totals to population and fine that Europe is twice as bad as the USA as a geographical area...

Based upon the last study done in this country, President Obama said that gun control is dead as a political issue. But that doesn't stop the individual states having billions of dollars spent in their states to pass unconstitutional laws designed to confiscate guns and turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals...

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.3.23  Ender  replied to  Cerenkov @6.3.20    6 years ago
True. So what?

Not everyone has a so called right to own a gun. Restrictions and limitations plays a part in that.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
6.3.24  Nowhere Man  replied to  Ender @6.3.23    6 years ago

Yes absolutely, the government can and should put restrictions on guns, Scalia was adamant about that and cited no less that the absolutely legal prohibitions on automatic weapons.

But, that being said, the provisions in Heller that made that a very specific right also was limited in McDonald two years later. the Federal governments right to restrict and regulate cannot be used to regulate the right to the use of firearms out of existence. And that is a ruling in totality meaning that any law that effectively restricts an individuals ability to use a firearm in self defense is specifically barred by the holding in Heller

Especially for personal and home defense. Regulations that do such fly in the face of the courts holding in Heller and the plain language of the Second Amendment....

Here in Washington we just had a law that effectively does eliminate a residents ability to use a firearm in defense of his home by requiring all firearms to either be unloaded and gun locked or put in a safe. making it a criminal act to have an unlocked firearm. and a felony if someone were to take any such unlocked weapon say in a burglary and use it to commit another felony. You the victim of the burglary, are automatically a criminal defendant. once you are charged with said crime, they order that you turn over your weapons to the authorities. if convicted you will never get them back cause citizens convicted of a gun crime cannot legally possess firearms.

Make your gun useless for it's intended purpose or risk becoming a criminal and having your weapons confiscated....

Legal experts do not expect it to stand after the first court challenge. But it may stand here in the state cause the courts are decidedly liberal. (hard core liberal) and it will take a number of years for said issue to reach the level of the federal courts and then several years for it to reach the supreme court. (we are subject to the socialist 9th circuit out here)

So as it stands, liberals have the second level of gun control enacted here in WA State, criminality and under certain conditions, direct  confiscation....

I don't think anyone can now argue that they do not want to take the guns, we have the laws on the books that absolutely prove otherwise...

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.3.25  Ender  replied to  Nowhere Man @6.3.24    6 years ago

The SC case about DC said as much. They actually ruled that people had a right to own a weapon and that said weapon could not be made inoperable as it would be useless.

If it does go before the SC, I am sure it would rule the same way.

IMO it should be up to local municipalities to decide though, as different places have different wants and needs.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
6.3.26  Nowhere Man  replied to  Ender @6.3.25    6 years ago

Well, there are loopholes, This is an open carry state, which means you can openly carry your firearm around with you. Loaded and not locked.

Just yesterday I saw two neighbors with guns on their hips, as of tomorrow I will be joining them.

Unintentional consequences, now those that don't like guns will be seeing a LOT more of them as people maintain their ability to use them in the only manner left open to them..... (and that makes sense)

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
6.3.27  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  livefreeordie @6.3.19    6 years ago
The Justices stated "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government"

I agree with this statement but, I also go with what was said in a movie and, attributed to Virgil Earp, when we ask for gun regulation we are not saying you can't own a gun all we are saying is that there are some firearms that the public shouldn't have access to and, their are some members of the public that should be allowed to own a gun.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
7  seeder  Buzz of the Orient    6 years ago

An interesting legal question.  If anyone uses one of those guns to shoot an innocent person, and is sued for doing so, would joining the company as a defendant in the lawsuit be considered too remote?

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
7.1  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Buzz of the Orient @7    6 years ago

Good question, I wonder if the company ever even considered something like that. Or an employe accidentally killing one of their own children or something. To me owning a gun should be a totally personal decision not "forced" on an employee in any way. 

Even peer pressure. 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
7.1.1  cjcold  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @7.1    6 years ago

Working for Taser International could reduce lethal employee risks.  

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
7.2  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @7    6 years ago

Gifting a gun to an adult, who then commits an intentional tort. I don't know. What if the company gave the employees cars instead, and one of the employees kills a family in a drunk driving accident? Suing the company? Viable claim? I doubt it. What if the employee intentionally ran the car into a crowd? Is anyone naming the company in a wrongful death suit? Perhaps if the employee has a known history of trying to run people over. 

You may say, "well guns are more dangerous." Are they? There were around 40,000 traffic related fatalities last year. Statistically, you are more likely to be killed in a traffic accident. Therefore, isn't it more foreseeable that making a gift of a car is more likely to lead to injury or death? You would certainly be giving the car with the intention that the person put themselves onto the public way, knowing the risks that go along with it. 

My car's HUD let's me know when I am traveling faster than the posted speed limit. Why doesn't it also govern my speed? Should we hold the manufacturers liable for fatality accidents caused by a driver's speeding? The technology is clearly there. Are they not negligent for not implementing such a system? Do they have a duty to do so? Why don't cars come with interlock devices as a standard feature? We have back-up cams, warning sensors, seat belts, all sorts of safety features. But, nothing that requires the driver to be sober, when, again, the technology is there. Should the manufacturers be held liable for drunk driving accidents because they do not make interlock devices a standard feature? The manufacturer is in the best position to make that happen, no?

No doubt, the company may be opening itself up to suit. Liability is another issue. If we are going to say that it is reasonably foreseeable that a person will kill someone else, simply because they had access to a firearm, then the can of worms is not simply opened, it has been dumped out onto the ground. 

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
7.2.1  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Transyferous Rex @7.2    6 years ago
Gifting a gun to an adult, who then commits an intentional tort. I don't know. What if the company gave the employees cars instead, and one of the employees kills a family in a drunk driving accident? Suing the company? Viable claim? I doubt it. What if the employee intentionally ran the car into a crowd? Is anyone naming the company in a wrongful death suit? Perhaps if the employee has a known history of trying to run people over. 

Two questions here. What is the intended purpose of a car? What is the intended purpose of a gun?

I won't wait for you to answer, I'll answer for you. A cars intended purpose is transportation. A guns intended purpose is to kill and, only to kill.

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
7.2.2  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.1    6 years ago

The question posed was whether or not the company being added as defendant would be too remote. The answer to that question, IMO, is no. The more interesting question is should the company be held liable. If we are going to say that a gun's purpose is to kill; therefore, the company knew, or should have known, that the employee would shoot someone with the gun, then you would also have to say that, a car's purpose is transportation upon the public way, and that the company knew, or should have known, that the car would be used for that purpose upon the public way, and that the company made a gift of the car for the specific purpose that it be used on the public way, thereby not only knowingly increasing the risk of liability, but encouraging the employee to go and create liability. 

The problem is, with the gun, the gift is not made with the intent that the employee go shoot someone. Is there a chance. I suppose there is a chance for all things. However, the likelihood that the employee does go and shoot someone is way more remote than the likelihood that an employee, who was gifted a car, creates liability while traveling upon the public way, which was the very reason the car was gifted in the first place. 

If you don't like the car example, make it a knife set. A knife is designed to cut. If your employee uses a gifted knife to cut someone's throat, are you going to walk into court, after being named in a suit, and claim liability? Hell no you are not. Someone making the same argument you are making here is going to be pleading with the jury that a knife's purpose is to cut, and that you knew, or should have known, that the employee would use the knife for it intended purpose of cutting, and that it was reasonably foreseeable that the cutting would be done on someone's throat based solely on the fact that the knife's purpose is to cut.  

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
7.2.3  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Transyferous Rex @7.2.2    6 years ago

A lot of word salad with no meaning, that is all you wrote. A gun was created to kill and, to only kill, it can't be used as a hammer, a screwdriver or, any other thing, it is only made to kill, whether it is a human or, an animal that is the only purpose for a gun so, to compare it to a car or, any other thing that has a different primary purpose is disingenuous at best.

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
7.2.4  TTGA  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.1    6 years ago
I won't wait for you to answer, I'll answer for you. A cars intended purpose is transportation. A guns intended purpose is to kill and, only to kill.

Here's your answer Galen, although you may not like it.  Most non gun owners don't like to think in these terms but they must do so if they are to think like adults.  Sometimes, it's necessary to kill.  If it does become necessary to do so and you don't have the needed tool, then it's only necessary to die. 

A few years back, our mutual friend, Neale Osborn, said the following, with which I wholeheartedly agree, "I have no problem at all with the death penalty as long as it's carried out on the spot by the intended victim".  Short of forming a despotic, totalitarian police state, which itself would then become the enemy of the people, it is impossible to keep arms out of the hands of criminals.  Since the police cannot be protecting us everywhere (and we wouldn't like it much if they were), the intended victims themselves must be armed.

By the way, guns do not have some kind of mythological, psychological power to make people commit crimes with them.  Just owning and holding a firearm does not make you crazy.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
7.2.5  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  TTGA @7.2.4    6 years ago
Here's your answer Galen, although you may not like it.  Most non gun owners don't like to think in these terms but they must do so if they are to think like adults.  Sometimes, it's necessary to kill.  If it does become necessary to do so and you don't have the needed tool, then it's only necessary to die. 

Soooo, it's ok to just hand out guns to anybody and, everybody without knowing their mental condition. Got it.

A few years back, our mutual friend, Neale Osborn, said the following, with which I wholeheartedly agree, "I have no problem at all with the death penalty as long as it's carried out on the spot by the intended victim".

Neale and, I had a few rounds on NV back in the day, there were times we agreed and, I think in this case he would agree with me, it is wrong just to hand guns to anyone and, hope they don't have a mental condition. I think he would also agree that comparing cars to guns is a deflection.

  Short of forming a despotic, totalitarian police state, which itself would then become the enemy of the people, it is impossible to keep arms out of the hands of criminals.  Since the police cannot be protecting us everywhere (and we wouldn't like it much if they were), the intended victims themselves must be armed.

Ahhh, the Old West defense, give guns to everyone and, we will all be protected, guess what, that doesn't work.

By the way, guns do not have some kind of mythological, psychological power to make people commit crimes with them.  Just owning and holding a firearm does not make you crazy.

No, they don't and, that in and, of itself is a deflection, that is not what has been stated, HANDING a gun to someone who might have a mental problem is stupid, irresponsible and, dangerous to the public.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
7.2.7  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  XDm9mm @7.2.6    6 years ago
Who is just "HANDING" a gun to someone?

In the case of the company that wants to give them as Christmas gifts, THE RECIPIENT STILL NEEDS TO HAVE A NICS background check accomplished.

The company can PAY for the gun, but the transfer from the dealer to the individual still must be done according to law. 

Soooo, Trump makes it easier for mentally ill people to get a gun by revoking Obama's EO and, this company makes it even easier by telling their employees, "Hey, we'll pay for you to get a gun, just pass the easy background check",

 
 
 
Iamak47
Freshman Silent
7.2.8  Iamak47  replied to  XDm9mm @7.2.6    6 years ago
Who is just "HANDING" a gun to someone?

Well there’s that.  The anti-gunners need to zoom out a bit to get the proper perspective.  All 16 of these guns will be transferred according to the law.  Meanwhile, it is likely the employer knows a thing or 2 about their employees.  For most jobs these days it is necessary to submit a background check, pass a drug test and have a clean driving record.  Then the employer went the extra step and required everyone to attend a gun safety course.

Universal background checks, drug screens and mandatory safety training.......sounds like gun safety protocols the anti-gunners should be happy about.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  XDm9mm @7.2.9    6 years ago

Why argue facts when they can just make up bullshit?

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
7.2.11  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.3    6 years ago
Word salad. . .disingenuous at best.

Ha. What is disingenuous is your ability to wantonly put liability on a company for the intentional acts of a third person, simply because of your distaste for guns. Answer the question regarding knives. Would you, as the employer, admit liability in a wrongful death claim, if your employee killed someone with the chef's knife you gifted at a Christmas party? 

How would that scenario differ from the gun? It can't be because a knife can be used by some idiot as a screwdriver. It's sole intended purpose is to cut, be it animal flesh, human flesh, boxes, whatever. 

Explain how it is not as reasonably foreseeable that a person would stab someone with a gifted knife, as opposed to shooting someone with a gifted gun. After that, explain how either the knife or gun scenario is more reasonably foreseeable than someone creating liability with a gifted car. Unlike you, I will wait. 

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
7.2.12  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  XDm9mm @7.2.9    6 years ago
The EO Obama tried was directed at people, NOT adjudicated in court as having serious mental issues, but simply some who needed assistance with financial affairs for whatever reason, like those receiving Social Security and some Veterans.

Incorrect, here is what the EO did,

As we explained in a 17 February 2017 post, this rule — which never went into effect before being rescinded — did not change any existing laws regulating who is allowed to purchase guns. It merely would have provided a new way to enforce existing restrictions on gun sales by allowing a transfer of information from one agency to another. There are now, and have been for some time, laws that seek to limit gun sales to anyone “who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution” per Title 18 section 922(g) of the United States Code. However, according to the Associated Press:
The Obama rule would have prevented an estimated 75,000 people with mental disorders from being able to purchase a firearm. It was crafted as part of Obama’s efforts to strengthen the federal background check system in the wake of the 2012 massacre of 20 young students and six staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
The rule was rescinded using a legal procedure called the the Congressional Review Act, which, prior to the Trump Administration, was obscure and little-used. It allows regulations passed in the final days of one administration to be rescinded with a simple majority vote in both chambers of Congress during the first 60 days of a new administration. The Senate sent their repeal of the Obama-era measure for Trump’s signature on 15 February 2017 — almost a year before the Parkland shooting to the day — and Trump signed it into law the next week, on 28 February 2017.
While the law did not change who is required to be the subject of background checks, it is true that Trump signed into law the repeal of a measure that would have plausibly prevented certain classes of mentally ill people from purchasing firearms by allowing a new data source to be included the system that runs those background checks. As such we rank the claim mostly true.

Now, show me where it says that it prevented only those receiving Social Security or, Veterans benefits from buying guns.

Now, if you don't like the current background check, get it changed.  

Well, now, if we didn't have a Congress and, a president who had their heads stuck up the gun lobby's ass we might be able to do just that.

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
7.2.13  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.3    6 years ago

If the knife or car scenario are both too difficult, maybe you could explain how gifting someone a samurai sword is different. I assume you'd accept liability there, based on your position that a gun is a weapon meant for killing?

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
7.2.15  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Transyferous Rex @7.2.11    6 years ago
Would you, as the employer, admit liability in a wrongful death claim, if your employee killed someone with the chef's knife you gifted at a Christmas party? 

False analogy, a chiefs knife is used in the kitchen to cut food for preparation, it's primary purpose is not to kill, however, a guns primary purpose is to kill.

How would that scenario differ from the gun? It can't be because a knife can be used by some idiot as a screwdriver. It's sole intended purpose is to cut, be it animal flesh, human flesh, boxes, whatever. 

It's a kitchen tool, used in a kitchen to cut food for preparation to be eaten, it is not meant to kill, it wasn't created for that, tell me, what kitchen requires a firearm as part of its main equipment?

Explain how it is not as reasonably foreseeable that a person would stab someone with a gifted knife, as opposed to shooting someone with a gifted gun. After that, explain how either the knife or gun scenario is more reasonably foreseeable than someone creating liability with a gifted car. Unlike you, I will wait. 

Once again, and, I know you won't want to believe this but, the only purpose, the soul purpose for a gun is to kill, a cars purpose is for transportation, a kitchen knifes purpose is as a cutting tool in a kitchen so, again these are distractions from the truth. The only purpose to gift someone a gun is so that they can go out and, kill something.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
7.2.16  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  XDm9mm @7.2.14    6 years ago
Ok...   who is "WE"?   You've posted a bullshit story from wherever as your "fact"?  Seriously?

Sorry, I forgot to post the link,

The EO REQUIRED the VA and Social Security Administration SPECIFICALLY.....

Until you post something other than your opinion on this, it is BULL SHIT.

Now, if you don't like the current background check, get it changed.   Well, now, if we didn't have a Congress and, a president who had their heads stuck up the gun lobby's ass we might be able to do just that.
Actually, you're quite wrong.  But don't allow facts to get in your way.

What background checks were strengthened after the Parkland shooting or, after the Los Vegas shooting or, after the church shooting in South Carolina or, after the shooting in Pennsylvania or, any of the over 300 mass shootings that happened just in the past year? Tell me.

The NRA has no problem with background checks. 

Really??? jrSmiley_40_smiley_image.gif

As to reporting issues, that has to do with the states.   Oh, and HIPAA laws about revealing personal medical information. Get THOSE changed, but you'll be fighting the AMA (American Medical Association) along the way.

Deflect much??????

Have fun.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
7.2.19  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  XDm9mm @7.2.17    6 years ago
One must surmise you've never heard of self defense?   Using a gun in self defense does not necessarily result in death to the adversary.  I can attest to that as I've had the misfortune of needing to draw mine sidearm twice in defense.   Further, have you never heard of target shooting?   Are those sporting participants guilty of killing a target?

So tell me, can you fix a car, a sink, a motorcycle, a plumbing issue, build a house, repair a window, build a porch or, cook a dinner with a gun? Tell me, what was the gun created for? What was and, is its primary purpose?

Knowing what you know now, if you met Charles Manson on the street or, at work, would you give him a gun?

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
7.2.20  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.15    6 years ago

Thanks for the offer, but I'll wait on your explanation regarding foreseeability. 

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
7.2.21  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  XDm9mm @7.2.18    6 years ago
That rule would have given the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is used for gun sales, access to Social Security Administration data 

And, that proves what?

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
7.2.22  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Transyferous Rex @7.2.20    6 years ago
Thanks for the offer, but I'll wait on your explanation regarding foreseeability. 

This has nothing to do with what I posted so, are you conceding defeat in the debate?

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
7.2.24  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.22    6 years ago

No, I'm still waiting on your explanation concerning the foreseeability, which you made no attempt to address.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
7.2.25  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  XDm9mm @7.2.23    6 years ago
You'll need to ask that question of others.  For me, it's predicated on the gun. Some are defensive, some are for target shooting, some are for hunting.   Not ANY of my guns are specifically for killing with the exception of my hunting guns.  But that'a a legal use for them.

Still, what was the gun created for? Was it for building or, killing?

Knowing what you know now, if you met Charles Manson on the street or, at work, would you give him a gun?
I have to simply say that is an absurd ridiculous question....   even by your standards.

So, you would or, wouldn't give Manson a gun?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.2.27  Trout Giggles  replied to  XDm9mm @7.2.26    6 years ago

No, really, it's not idiotic. Do you advocate that every body have a gun?

Let's flesh this out. I'm not against guns, I own one myself. But I certainly don't think every body should be packing heat everywhere they go 24/7. And some people have no business owning a gun, period.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.2.28  Texan1211  replied to  XDm9mm @7.2.26    6 years ago

Did you know you were advocating that everyone have a gun?

I always thought you wouldn't want criminals to have them!

/S

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.29  sandy-2021492  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.2.27    6 years ago

Ditto.

I'm a gun owner.  I grew up around guns, in a hunting family.

But I also know people who shouldn't own guns, but do.  My parents kept a neighbor's guns locked away after he'd attacked his wife, breaking her arm, and her 11-year-old son, nearly strangling him.  The boy saved his own life by kicking his stepdad in the groin, forcing him to release his throat.  The police didn't address the issue of guns in the home of a violent, mentally unstable man at all.  His doctor called the wife, who still had her arm in a cast, and told her she was cruel for making him leave their home, even though he refused to get back on his meds.  Somehow, I don't think that doctor was going to tell anyone the guy should have his guns taken away, or shouldn't have been allowed to buy more, if anyone had asked.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.2.33  Trout Giggles  replied to  XDm9mm @7.2.31    6 years ago

You're getting a little worked up. Why don't you calm down?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.34  sandy-2021492  replied to  XDm9mm @7.2.32    6 years ago
Was the "doctor" a mental health professional? 

I have no idea.  General practitioners can treat mental illness, as well.  So whether or not he specialized in mental health is irrelevant.

I would say that a man whose mental state declines to the point that he becomes violent when off his meds, but who also refuses to take those meds, is plenty of basis for saying said man shouldn't be armed, wouldn't you?

This was before HIPAA.  Do you support reports being made by health care professionals to government authorities naming patients whose mental state should preclude them from being armed?

I don't know that the wife ever pressed charges.  I do know that after he moved out, but continued to make threats, the cops refused to drive by her house occasionally to ensure that he wasn't there.  I imagine that such a situation is more common than either of us would like to believe.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.2.35  Sparty On  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.29    6 years ago
But I also know people who shouldn't own guns, but do.

That is not your decision to make.   Do you know people who perhaps shouldn't own knives?  After all as an example, far more people are killed in the US with knives than rifles.

I love it when "gun owners" come on here and tell us who should and shouldn't own guns.  

"I own a gun but these people should not be able to own a gun."   Yeah right and again, that is not your decision to make.

We have a lot of LAWS on the books already for who can and can't own a gun.   Case in point and to answer the question from above ..... Charlie Manson can not legally own a gun because he is a convicted felon.

End of story.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.2.37  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sparty On @7.2.35    6 years ago

Charlie Manson can't own a gun because he's dead

I have no problem with normal people owning guns. I don't want them in the hands of mentally unstable people

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.2.39  Trout Giggles  replied to  Release The Kraken @7.2.38    6 years ago

I don't have the answer. There are people with bigger brains than me who can figure this stuff out.

But many states have already decided that cannabis patients must give up their guns. I don't find that fair at all

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
7.2.40  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Release The Kraken @7.2.38    6 years ago

It seems like it's going to be very difficult to determine who would qualify.

It is and under reporting is a major problem as well. Better to do nothing has been the plan so far.   

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.2.42  Trout Giggles  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @7.2.40    6 years ago

But ya know....there are some really angry people out there who are carrying a weapon. Those are the people that scare me. Some people want to carry a loaded weapon in a bar. Guns and alcohol just don't mix. Could a good guy with a gun stop an angry, drunk guy with a gun? I dunno

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.2.44  Trout Giggles  replied to    6 years ago

I shouldn't laugh....

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.45  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sparty On @7.2.35    6 years ago
That is not your decision to make.

I'm stating an opinion.  Are you ok with violent, mentally ill people owning guns?

as an example, far more people are killed in the US with knives than rifles.

Oh, gee, why did you have to limit your stats to one particular type of gun?  Lies, damn lies, and statistics, huh?

Yeah right and again, that is not your decision to make.

Are you allowed to state your opinion?  Then so am I.

Charlie Manson can not legally own a gun because he is a convicted felon.

Are you sure that's the only reason?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.2.47  Sparty On  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.2.37    6 years ago
Charlie Manson can't own a gun because he's dead

Really?   I didn't know that ...../s

I have no problem with normal people owning guns. I don't want them in the hands of mentally unstable people

Anyone agrees with that in concept, including (regardless of anyone trying to BS differently) the NRA.   The problem becomes how to fairly administrate and maintain such a list.   Also who makes the list.    How its obtained and made.   You run into troublesome little privacy rights like what is correctly enforced the HIPAA act.

It's not as simple as many try to make it.   Not if one is honestly interested in maintaining EVERYONES privacy and constitutional rights.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.48  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sparty On @7.2.47    6 years ago
It's not as simple as many try to make it.

I don't believe anyone has said it's a problem with a simple solution.

But I'm willing to bet that there are many participating in this very conversation who know at least one person who shouldn't own a gun, but could legally obtain one.  Some people just have a problem with anybody saying so.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.2.49  Sparty On  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.2.39    6 years ago
But many states have already decided that cannabis patients must give up their guns.

There it is.  

Don't tread on something i enjoy but go ahead and tread on something i don't enjoy.   Why not right?   After all its no skin off your nose if its not your thing right?   The skin only comes off if it is.

And by the way, i agree with you on the above on pot and guns.   That said, just like booze, you break the law when stoned and in possession of a gun, the hammer falls harder on you.   Just like it does with booze.   Impairment is impairment.   Doesn't matter what causes it.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.2.51  Sparty On  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.45    6 years ago
Oh, gee, why did you have to limit your stats to one particular type of gun?  Lies, damn lies, and statistics, huh?

Why not?   You're probably for banning AR rifles right?   So are you for banning knives as well?   After all, they kill more people that AR's.   That was the point being made that you're trying to avoid.

Are you allowed to state your opinion?  Then so am i

I never said you weren't

Are you sure that's the only reason?

Did i say it was the only reason?      Nope but regardless, it is a reason he could not have legally owned a gun.   Question asked and answered.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.2.53  Sparty On  replied to  XDm9mm @7.2.52    6 years ago

A CPL holder in Michigan is not allowed to be legally impaired while carrying.   Something goes tits up and you are impaired, you're screwed no matter how it turns out.

Loss of CPL license at minimum and likely a conviction depending on what you did.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.54  sandy-2021492  replied to  XDm9mm @7.2.50    6 years ago
A GENERAL PRACTITIONER cannot make a diagnosis of a mental health condition.

That's odd.  I could swear that a lot of my patients are on meds for anxiety and depression, which are mental health conditions, prescribed by their GPs.  Yes, they can diagnose and treat mental health conditions.

The National Institute of Mental Health estimates that about 12% of patients seen in primary care practices have major depression. Yet, a large proportion of these are undiagnosed, according to Ruth Shim, MD, MPH, Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, and Associate Director of Behavioral Health, National Center for Primary Care, Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.

"Primary care doctors can and do effectively treat mild to moderate depression," says Shim...

Many psychiatrists also prefer that primary care physicians oversee treatment of mild-to-moderate depression -- and anxiety, for that matter. "We need primary care physicians to treat people with less severe illness so we can focus on people who have more complex conditions," Shim remarks. "That improves access for everybody, because right now, you have to wait a long time to see a psychiatrist, particularly in public settings."

When HIPAA was signed into law is irrelevant.  If it was a problem then, and it's still a problem now, it's a problem.

You are aware that the AMA has no regulatory authority, yes?

Only after the courts have made a final decision.

About one patient in particular, or the permissibility of health care professionals making such reports.

Why would the police refuse?

Ask the WV state police.  They're the same ones who refused to investigate when my brother's house was broken into, and his firearms (among other things) were stolen.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
7.2.55  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Trout Giggles @7.2.42    6 years ago
Some people want to carry a loaded weapon in a bar.

Some people want a "Good guy with a gun" in every store, school, restaurant, hotel, statum, theater, church , synagogue, temple, smoke shop, library, gas station, liquor store, office, hotel lobby, doctors office, park, car wash, and yep probably every bar, tavern and even every public toilet in the country. 

Just do not take a gun into any government building without the proper authorization. 

That's not the America I want. ... Ever !

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.56  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sparty On @7.2.51    6 years ago
Why not?

Oh, I didn't expect you'd post the stats for all guns.  It wouldn't support your point.  I just think you hoped I wouldn't notice or point it out. 

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
7.2.57  TTGA  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.25    6 years ago
what was the gun created for? Was it for building or, killing?

Galen, you still don't get it.   I'll repeat it so you can get it firmly into your head.  KILLING IS NOT FORBIDDEN.  Only UNLAWFUL killing is forbidden.  One of the first things you are taught, either at the Police Academy or in CCW classes, is when the use of deadly force is permitted.  These people are being required to take a class which explains exactly when you are permitted to use deadly force (Only in order to prevent death or serious injury to yourself or another innocent person).

So, you would or, wouldn't give Manson a gun?

At the time the Tate/LaBianca murders were committed, Manson had not been convicted of any criminal act and had no restrictions on purchasing any firearm he wanted.  If he had been stupid enough to use one to threaten an armed citizen, he would have been dead.  As it was, he wasn't even on the scene of the killings.  He used his voice and personality to get others to do his killing for him.  If his victims been armed and alert to the world around them, his followers would have been dead.

That's the way it is in the real world as opposed to the Kumbaya world where nothing ever dies.

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
7.2.58  TTGA  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.5    6 years ago
No, they don't and, that in and, of itself is a deflection,

Not a deflection at all. Just a pretty good read on how the Liberal mind works (or doesn't work).

HANDING a gun to someone who might have a mental problem is stupid, irresponsible and, dangerous to the public.

"MIGHT HAVE A MENTAL PROBLEM".  Who gets to make that decision?  That's an easy question to answer.  A Judge gets to make that decision after a hearing where the accused and/or his attorney get to put on a defense.  If a Judge (usually a Probate or Circuit Judge) does not rule that a person's mental condition makes that person "a danger to himself or others", then that person has no restrictions since they have been shown to be of sound mind.  Sometimes I disagree with a Judge's decision on such matters, but that is the only person whose decision is relevant.  The opinion of some shrink who gives out an opinion favoring the government's desires because he wants to protect his license and livelihood from harassment, and who may not be competent to determine something so subjective anyway, does not count, although that opinion may be taken into consideration by the Judge.  The opinion of another shrink who was hired by the defendant will also be taken into account.  What the Obama EO's did was to try to remove the Judge from the process.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
7.2.59  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Transyferous Rex @7.2.2    6 years ago

On your knife set example, and I'm forever amused by the car accident example used by gun advocates, and except for the new method of terrorism invented by the Palestinians and others of their kind to purposely kill and maim, I would guess that at least 90% of the time kitchen knife sets are simply used for cooking purposes and cars are used for transportation, rather than pistols, which I would guess are used at least 90% of the time to shoot someone to kill or maim them.  I think "intention" cannot be ignored, and I consider making comparisons with car accident deaths nothing more than a sad attempt at justification.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
7.2.60  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TTGA @7.2.4    6 years ago
"I have no problem at all with the death penalty as long as it's carried out on the spot by the intended victim".

Would that have applied if the armed security guard who was killed by a police officer had shot first and killed the police officer?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
7.2.61  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.2.33    6 years ago
"You're getting a little worked up. Why don't you calm down?"

@ Trout:  Best post of the day. LOL

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
7.2.63  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sparty On @7.2.51    6 years ago

@ Sparty On:

"So are you for banning knives as well?   After all, they kill more people that AR's."

Oh come on, Sparty.  There are probably at least 1000 people who possess knives for every person who possesses an AR.  I really have to laugh at those kinds of comparisons.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
7.2.64  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to    6 years ago
A greater and better use of a gun is to protect. If the enemy or a criminal gets killed, that's too bad.

Tell that to the twelve dead people that were at that bar in California last month, tell that to this mother,

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
7.2.65  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Transyferous Rex @7.2.2    6 years ago

I'd give money, I doubt I'd get sued or hauled into court for that. LOL 

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
7.2.66  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.64    6 years ago
Tell that to the twelve dead people that were at that bar in California last month, tell that to this mother,

This is the video I meant to post, I couldn't get it to load earlier,

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
7.2.67  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  TTGA @7.2.57    6 years ago
At the time the Tate/LaBianca murders were committed, Manson had not been convicted of any criminal act and had no restrictions on purchasing any firearm he wanted.  If he had been stupid enough to use one to threaten an armed citizen, he would have been dead.  As it was, he wasn't even on the scene of the killings.  He used his voice and personality to get others to do his killing for him.  If his victims been armed and alert to the world around them, his followers would have been dead. That's the way it is in the real world as opposed to the Kumbaya world where nothing ever dies.

Well, in your real world one of those "good guys with a gun" went into a bar and, died and, he was a trained police officer, why not listen to what a grieving mother had to say about that day?

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
7.2.68  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  TTGA @7.2.58    6 years ago
The opinion of some shrink who gives out an opinion favoring the government's desires because he wants to protect his license and livelihood from harassment, and who may not be competent to determine something so subjective anyway, does not count, although that opinion may be taken into consideration by the Judge.  The opinion of another shrink who was hired by the defendant will also be taken into account.  What the Obama EO's did was to try to remove the Judge from the process.

So, tell me, what school of Psychiatry did that judge attend to gain the knowledge of who is mentally fit to own a gun? Oh, that's right, he went to Law School so, without a professional opinion he is going to make a decision on who is fit to own a gun and, be responsible for its use? Really?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
7.2.69  Nowhere Man  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.5    6 years ago
Neale and, I had a few rounds on NV back in the day, there were times we agreed and, I think in this case he would agree with me, it is wrong just to hand guns to anyone and, hope they don't have a mental condition. I think he would also agree that comparing cars to guns is a deflection.

Ah I actually did offboard research on gun issues for Neale and the legal work he was involved in.

He made exactly those comparisons on several boards I know of personally. including NV and right here. And yes he could and would talk to anyone about gun rights... Very honestly, openly and passionately. He was the go to guy to have a decent conversations about guns in this society with. But, also,  he didn't suffer fools well and was quite able to destroy any such arguments that have been posted here logically and legally...

WE do miss him.....

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
7.2.70  cjcold  replied to  Transyferous Rex @7.2    6 years ago

Does that mean that Ford is liable for whatever I do with my old 350 Shelby Cobra?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.2.71  Sparty On  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.56    6 years ago
Oh, I didn't expect you'd post the stats for all guns.

Again, don't need to.   One of the most maligned guns out there for the anti gun ownership group, the AR-15, kills less people in the USA than knives do.   It's hypocritical to want to ban one but not the other.

Nothing more need be said about that.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.2.72  Sparty On  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @7.2.63    6 years ago

Laugh if you want but why doesn't it matter?   Hell, there might be hundreds of thousands more that own knives than guns.   Would that matter to you if it was one of your loved ones who got killed by a knife?   I doubt it.

Bottom line, using the gun banners logic, it IS hypocritical as hell to want ban one but not the other.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
7.2.74  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.69    6 years ago
WE do miss him.....

Yep, he was one of a kind.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.75  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sparty On @7.2.71    6 years ago

Spin away.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
7.2.76  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Sparty On @7.2.71    6 years ago
One of the most maligned guns out there for the anti gun ownership group, the AR-15, kills less people in the USA than knives do. 

Sure I remember the case were some guy went into a mall with a knife and, killed thirty seven people...….oh wait.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.2.77  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sparty On @7.2.49    6 years ago
Don't tread on something i enjoy but go ahead and tread on something i don't enjoy.  

I own a gun and enjoy shooting it so I don't know what you're trying to say here because it certainly doesn't apply to me

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.2.78  Sparty On  replied to    6 years ago
And it's classic head-in-the-sand mentality

Nope, not at all.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.2.79  Sparty On  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.76    6 years ago

Thats just your basic "appeal to emotion" logical fallacy.   The yearly numbers don't lie.   Why does it matter to you if they happen 37 at a time or one at a time?

Dead is dead, especially if its someone close to you.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.2.80  Sparty On  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.2.77    6 years ago

Yeah my bad, i read that wrong.   I thought you were saying you should be able to be stoned and still  shoot/carry.   Clearly you weren't saying that.   My apologies.

However, I do think we agree on the basic concept that one should not be "impaired" when carrying/shooting a gun.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
7.2.81  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.76    6 years ago

I remember when they killed 29 at a train station with knives. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
7.2.83  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sparty On @7.2.72    6 years ago

A person can be stabbed to death with a ball-point pen, so with your logic ball-point pens should be banned, and appliances that use a power cord should be banned because the power cords can be used as garrotte, and hammers should be banned because they can be used to bash a person's head in...etc etc etc  In the movie The Godfather III a person was stabbed to death in the eye using a pair of reading glasses...so that's it for reading glasses.  I guess it would matter to you if it was one of your loved ones who got killed by a pair of reading glasses. I don't doubt it and who knows, maybe it happens more than with knives.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
7.2.84  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Dean Moriarty @7.2.81    6 years ago

It is illegal for citizens in China to possess a gun, and that was a VERY rare incident, and it was reported on TV, so such things do get reported to the public here.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.2.85  Sparty On  replied to    6 years ago
Is there a number out there that would make you stop and reconsider your knives v. AK rebuttal?

I'm not the one talking about banning anything.   I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of those that do or would.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.2.86  Sparty On  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @7.2.83    6 years ago

Really Buzz?

So how many people are stabbed to death with ball point pens each year?   How about with reading glasses?

I know your average knife is not as big and scary looking as that evil black AR-15 gun and yet somehow .... knives kill nearly the same number of people each year in the US.  

Ball point pens and reading glasses?   Not so much.

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
7.2.87  TTGA  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.67    6 years ago

Galen,

She HAS gun control and obviously isn't informed enough to realize it.  California is one of four States with the toughest gun control laws in the nation (the others being New York, Massachusetts and Illinois).  That gun control is so tight that the chances of anyone in the bar, other than the murderer, being armed for the first three minutes (plenty of time to kill 11 people) until the police arrived was very low.  This guy should not have been able to get off more than three rounds before someone at that location shot back and killed him.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
7.2.88  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sparty On @7.2.86    6 years ago

Whether or not your knife-death statistics are correct I really don't care.  The point is that as has been pointed out here, the purpose of guns is to KILL.  The purpose of the knives is for preparing food for meals, and the purpose of vehicles is transportation.  When a person does a knife attack the victim at least has a CHANCE of fighting him off, and the perpetrator must be close enough to the victim for that possibility, but a victim has NO chance against a person with a gun who can be ten feet away.  Perhaps the thing to do is compare statistics between countries that have strict gun laws and the USA. To me, that makes a lot more sense than using cars and knives as comparisons.

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
7.2.89  TTGA  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.68    6 years ago
without a professional opinion he is going to make a decision on who is fit to own a gun and, be responsible for its use? Really?

The Judge is there to weigh, in an impartial manner, the opinions of the shrink representing the State against those of the shrink representing the Defendant.  Eliminating the Judge essentially eliminates the shrink representing the Defendant.  Only the State decides then, without reference to the rights of the accused.  Do you really trust the Government or its representatives so much that you're willing to place your life, liberty and property in their hands without recourse?  If you do trust Government minions that much, they you really should trust President Trump that completely, since he is the chief Government minion.  If you don't trust him that completely, then you don't really trust the Government that completely either, and should insist on Due Process at all times and under all circumstances.

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
7.2.90  TTGA  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @7.2.88    6 years ago
The point is that as has been pointed out here, the purpose of guns is to KILL.

And as I have pointed  out, sometimes killing is NECESSARY.  Guns have uses that are just as legitimate as knives, cars and even electric cords and, possibly, even more vital.  Guns save lives by stopping violent crime.  How often?  This study (by a man who was actually anti gun when he started it) says that it happens about 2.5 million times per year.

That does not mean, of course, that assailants get shot that many times.  Most of the time, the fact that the assailant finds out that the victim is armed stops the assault immediately without a round being fired.  The assailant decides that someplace else (pretty much anywhere else) is a better place to be than in front of a gun.

When a person does a knife attack the victim at least has a CHANCE of fighting him off, and the perpetrator must be close enough to the victim for that possibility, but a victim has NO chance against a person with a gun who can be ten feet away. 

You're assuming that the assailant is armed but the victim is not.  An armed victim has plenty of chance against a person 10 feet away with a gun.  He/she simply pulls out their own gun and shoots the SOB twice in the chest.  If the assailant doesn't go down immediately, shoot him a third time in the face just to teach him not to wear body armor.

Perhaps the thing to do is compare statistics between countries that have strict gun laws and the USA.

Doesn't work Buzz.  It's been tried.  Mostly it doesn't work because the anti gun people insist on counting only firearm homicides rather than total homicides.  That skews the stats.  Also, it doesn't account for cultural, ethnic and economic (drug trade) differences between the US and other countries, in some cases going back for centuries. 

As an interesting side note, if someone should bring up the Wild West, it may interest you to note that most of the reputed killings in the Wild West took place in eastern newspapers and nowhere else.  During the 1870's and 1880's, there were more murders in New York City alone than in the entire Western United States, and that included places like San Francisco and New Orleans where the waterfront areas were pretty tough.

NOTE:  Please forgive the off topic thing here but I figured you'd love to hear it.  I just showed your twin circles joke to a sixth person and ended up with six people rolling on the floor laughing.  There's got to be some way to put that one out on general NT.  It's just too good to hold back.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.2.91  Sparty On  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @7.2.88    6 years ago
Whether or not your knife-death statistics are correct I really don't care.

That’s part of your problem.    You don’t care,are not listening and therefore are not open to learning.    Your mind is made up and closed.    Never a good thing.

The point is that as has been pointed out here, the purpose of guns is to KILL.

Intrisically wrong.    If true, all guns would be killing all the time.   Worst thing all of mine have done lately is “kill” paper targets and clay pigeons.    Scary eh?

  The purpose of the knives is for preparing food for meals, and the purpose of vehicles is transportation.

Knives are designed to cut/slice etc and yet they still kill.    Guns are designed to shoot and yes sometimes they are used to kill ..... just like knives.

Everything you have here are rationalizations of why guns are worse than knives when it comes to killing.    Fact remains it comes down to how they are used.    For good or bad.    In that regard they are no different regardless of how hard you try to rationalize that they are.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
7.2.92  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TTGA @7.2.90    6 years ago

LOL. You have my permission to post it wherever you want. 

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
7.2.93  TTGA  replied to  Sparty On @7.2.53    6 years ago
A CPL holder in Michigan is not allowed to be legally impaired while carrying.

Yep, you're allowed a .01 on a Breathalyzer (for comparison purposes, you can blow a .03 and still drive a car).

My personal rule is a little tougher.  I do not take care of children (I'm the regular babysitter for my grandchildren), drive a vehicle or carry a sidearm if I have had any alcohol at all.  All of those things require unimpaired judgement.  I don't use any other drugs that might impair it at all.  If I had to do so for medical reasons, the same rule would apply.

You have my permission to post it wherever you want.

Why not put it here Buzz?  It should lighten the mood a lot.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
7.2.94  Nowhere Man  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.76    6 years ago
Sure I remember the case were some guy went into a mall with a knife and, killed thirty seven people...….oh wait.

I do too, If I remember correctly, it happened in IDK? China? a few years back....

Oh Yeah! 33 dead 130 injured.....

Kunming Railway Station March 2014

Chinese Government called it a terrorist attack..... Five guys with knives went on a spree. They had to shoot down four of them.

So much for the argument that knives are not assault weapons...

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
7.2.95  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TTGA @7.2.93    6 years ago

It's off topic - I'll put it on a humour article.  I'll dig into that forum and come up with one, which will update it to the front page. 

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
7.2.96  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Dean Moriarty @7.2.81    6 years ago

Please Dean, that was in China, find something in the United States. DAMN.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
7.2.97  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  TTGA @7.2.87    6 years ago
She HAS gun control and obviously isn't informed enough to realize it.  California is one of four States with the toughest gun control laws in the nation (the others being New York, Massachusetts and Illinois).  That gun control is so tight that the chances of anyone in the bar, other than the murderer, being armed for the first three minutes (plenty of time to kill 11 people) until the police arrived was very low.  This guy should not have been able to get off more than three rounds before someone at that location shot back and killed him.

I'm not going to sit here and, argue with you about gun control and, where it is strongest, I will tell you this, I lived in California and, I was able to buy guns there three different times, in spite of the fact that I have PTSD, I'm Bi-Polar and, have four suicide attempts on record, it was known to California LEO's at the time of each purchase but, I was still able to pass a background check, in California.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
7.2.98  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.94    6 years ago

Did that happen in the United States? Oh wait, no, no it didn't.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
7.2.99  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TTGA @7.2.93    6 years ago

It's posted as an article now.

Maybe it will distract a certain member from his obsessive comments about "commie" China. One might think it's a sign of fear.  LOL

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
7.2.100  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.94    6 years ago

Just think about how many they could have killed if they had guns.  I recall seeing it on the news - it certainly made the news here because it so rarely happens here.  I believe they were rebel Uighur Muslims from the western provinces.  

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
7.2.101  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  TTGA @7.2.89    6 years ago
If you do trust Government minions that much, they you really should trust President Trump that completely, since he is the chief Government minion.  If you don't trust him that completely, then you don't really trust the Government that completely either, and should insist on Due Process at all times and under all circumstances.

Oh, I do think that a court should be the one to adjudicate whether a person is sane enough to own a gun but, that is not what was indicated above, the statement indicated that the judge was the soul person who should decide if a person was sane or, not, that is why I asked what school of psychiatry he had attended before becoming a judge who could decide that, I also indicated that it is a professional in the industry of psychiatry that should be the one telling the judge whether the person is sane or, not and, it has been folks like you who have tried to argue me down on that, until now.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
7.2.102  Nowhere Man  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.98    6 years ago
Did that happen in the United States? Oh wait, no, no it didn't.

Since it didn't happen in the US means it can't happen in the US....

I see.... (nice logical fallacy also)

The statement was that people can't commit mass murder with a knife.... that incident quite obviously proves that statement wrong...

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
7.2.103  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.102    6 years ago
Since it didn't happen in the US means it can't happen in the US....

I see.... (nice logical fallacy also)

The statement was that people can't commit mass murder with a knife.... that incident quite obviously proves that statement wrong...

No, not what I said or, meant and, you know it. There have been, in the United States this year, 307 mass shootings, that is almost one mass shooting for every day in the year. Show me, where in any country in the world, were there have been 307 MASS STABBINGS in 2018 and, I will say that we need to regulate knives.

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
7.2.104  TTGA  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @7.2.95    6 years ago

Far Out.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
7.2.105  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.102    6 years ago

What I have learned, being here, is that the general Chinese population consists of relatively docile and peaceful people.  When an unexpected incident happens, like that mass stabbing, they are not only unprepared for such a thing to happen but also due to the shock of it most likely paralyzed into non-defensive action, such as fleeing.  And of course nobody had a concealed gun which would have been illegal, even the perpetrators. That may induce gun advocates to say: "See, if the people were armed they could have stopped it." whereas personally I prefer that the people here are NOT armed - I feel one hell of a lot safer than I would in the USA. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
7.2.106  Nowhere Man  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @7.2.105    6 years ago

I can definitely understand that sentiment my friend, and the government has seen to it that there are very few guns if any in the populace's hands...

But what it does show is that the criminal will go to the most efficient weapon available to him... guns are not available, they turn to knives/blades as the next efficient...

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
7.2.107  Nowhere Man  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.103    6 years ago
Show me, where in any country in the world, were there have been 307 MASS STABBINGS in 2018 and, I will say that we need to regulate knives.

Not going to happen cause there is to readily available access to illegal weapons in the hands of those that are not supposed to have them....

The ideal was that a knife as a weapon was insufficient to commit such a crime. That is demonstrably false.

There is no doubt that a gun is a more efficient killing device and that is all your saying. There is quite a bit of evidence that for those that cannot obtain a gun the next weapon of choice is the bladed weapon. There is also quite a bit of evidence that terrorists are turning to the knife as the weapon of choice (as well as the automobile) to commit their atrocities..... (so I would say that the comparisons to knives and cars as weapons for mass killing is one that is becoming quite valid)

for example....

And you can see from the progression of dates, the pattern is accelerating......

Lots of arguments the pro gun side makes in defense of the right to possess & carry guns is proven right there.

Can't get a gun they will turn to knives & cars.

Knives and Cars can and have been used as the primary weapon to commit mass murder or attempted mass murder so such comparisons are valid.

The evil that criminals do has no relation to their weapon of choice. Any weapon will do as long as it can be wielded effectively to complete their evil design. So, taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will have no effect on deadly weapon crime rates except to allow them to accelerate.

All proven facts, private studies have also been done that back those facts up. The last government study done backs these facts up......

The conclusion is inescapable, we are safer as a nation of citizens with the sound and intelligent possession of firearms with the unfettered ability to use them when necessary.......

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
7.2.108  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.107    6 years ago
The conclusion is inescapable, we are safer as a nation of citizens with the sound and intelligent possession of firearms with the unfettered ability to use them when necessary.......

Ok, I'll put it another way, a way that may help you understand. Show me a mass stabbing in the U.S. that killed 59 people and, wounded many others and, the person using the knife was standing in a hotel room dozens of floors above where the killing took place.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
7.2.109  Nowhere Man  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.108    6 years ago

Obviously you missed this statement......

There is no doubt that a gun is a more efficient killing device and that is all your saying.

You can put it any way you want, you said one thing that is obviously wrong and now you wish to limit it to a point you did not initially say. You want to eliminate one device used for killing, and all that will do is send the perps to another device. Which we have already seen is a valid proven statement of reality.

The agenda is to eliminate guns that is the long and short of it.

It was tried once before, you remember the "Shot heard 'round the world" ? that was the reaction to the government with full intent to alleviate the populace of their privately owned weapons. It was also the start of the revolutionary war.

This country was founded on the principle of private ownership of Weapons, the same weapons the common foot soldier carries. With the intent and express purpose of providing for the defense of the individual citizen and nation.......

There are 200,000,000 gun owners in the nation, and you wish to eliminate their absolute rights on the basis of the actions of less that 1/100th of a percents bad actions...... (and claim that the government can protect us)

Plain history tells the opposite story.... AND if the current gun laws HAD been followed the Las Vegas shooter would never had been able to buy the weapons he used.....

You want more and more restrictive laws that you and your side have no intent to enforce, so the logical conclusion is these laws you want passed are only a stepping stone to the laws you really want passed, and there is no real intent to enforce any of them, so their purpose is to build a foundation of gun laws that are ineffective which will lead to the claim for even more and more restrictive laws, until you eventually get what you want.

Full banning and confiscation.

As I've said before, I'm a GCNCY, and proudly so.... (as the drive for disarming the American population goes on)

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
8  sandy-2021492    6 years ago

I see this as being like giving every employee a puppy, but with the potential for far more serious consequences.

Do they know that every employee wanted a gun?

Do they know that every employee is equipped to safely store a gun?

Do they know that every employee is psychologically suited to handle a gun?

Why not give every employee a monetary bonus, which they could then use as they see fit?  Answer - because this isn't about generosity.  It's about pushing an ideology and pretending it's generosity.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8    6 years ago

"An armed society is a polite society" - something I hear nearly every day

Yeah....so why did towns in the Old West make people turn in their guns when they came to town?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
8.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1    6 years ago
"An armed society is a polite society"

I really wish people would think about the implications of those words.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.1    6 years ago

I know

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  XDm9mm @8.1.3    6 years ago

I don't think that was the only reason. People came into town to get drunk. What happens when people get drunk?

answer: They get stupid

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.1.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  XDm9mm @8.1.5    6 years ago

So people don't get stupid when they drink?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
8.1.7  Ronin2  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1    6 years ago

To increase knife sales. Or do you think that the killing stopped just because they had everyone turn in their guns?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.1.9  Trout Giggles  replied to    6 years ago

Why don't you go read Xmm's comment?

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
Sophomore Silent
8.1.12  Phoenyx13  replied to  XDm9mm @8.1.10    6 years ago
But the "towns" that took guns when entering were not concerned with that.   It was a self preservation call by the gunslinger hired lawman that wanted to survive another day.

very interesting... it definitely doesn't support the mantra of "an armed society is a polite society", does it ? if an "armed society" were a "polite society" then i don't see why those old west towns would require such a thing... history is interesting

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
8.1.13  Sparty On  replied to  Phoenyx13 @8.1.12    6 years ago

As XD said, most of them didn't and there were plenty of shootouts in bars or that started in bars.   It's not called the "wild" west because there wasn't.

That said, as a CPL holder for over 30 years i have never had a desire to carry in a bar.   Like Trout has inferred, booze and guns don't mix.   Every responsible gun owner i know puts the gun away, if and when the booze comes out.   Other "gun free" zones i'm not in such agreement about.   For example, no reason a properly licensed and trained teacher shouldn't be able to carry where they work if they want to IMO.

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
Sophomore Silent
8.1.14  Phoenyx13  replied to  Sparty On @8.1.13    6 years ago
As XD said, most of them didn't

not said by XD (in this thread) - possibly implied, depending on how statements are taken.

and there were plenty of shootouts in bars or that started in bars.   It's not called the "wild" west because there wasn't.

that sounds very odd since i'm told -- "an armed society is a polite society" -- wouldn't that include bars and everywhere else ? or are there exceptions ? should the statement be "an armed society is a polite society... except in the following situations or places..." ?

That said, as a CPL holder for over 30 years i have never had a desire to carry in a bar.   Like Trout has inferred, booze and guns don't mix.  

i can agree.

Every responsible gun owner i know puts the gun away, if and when the booze comes out.  

very good for them - do you know any irresponsible gun owners that keep their guns out when the booze comes out ? how do you feel about those "responsible" gun owners ?

Other "gun free" zones i'm not in such agreement about.   For example, no reason a properly licensed and trained teacher shouldn't be able to carry where they work if they want to IMO.

ah... "properly licensed and trained" .... very interesting prerequisites that you felt the need to stick in first.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
8.1.15  Sparty On  replied to  Phoenyx13 @8.1.14    6 years ago

we disagree completely on most of this.  No need to take this conversation any further.    No point to it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9  Texan1211    6 years ago

Some progressive liberals will never be happy until only criminals have guns.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
10  Paula Bartholomew    6 years ago

I am betting that of those employees who have never had or fired a firearm before will end up shooting themselves while cleaning it.  Also, what about those employees who have hidden depression demons?  Do we really want them armed?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
10.1  Ronin2  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @10    6 years ago

They stated in the article that all of the employees had a gun safety course. If it was as thorough as the one I went through cleaning the weapon was part of "safe handling".  I will admit I took more than one course (bought 2 hand guns, and one shotgun). Had very good instructors that answered all of my questions.

Should everyone own a gun? No. I would be in that category as well; except the crime rate in our neighborhood his risen dramatically- even with a police station less than 15 minutes away.  In the neighborhood watch meeting the police representative politely told us that the surrounding neighborhoods crime rates were higher; and they had to allocate their resources there. Needless to say I know of at least 5 surrounding houses that now have guns; chances are it is more than that.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
11  Ender    6 years ago

It amazes me that people always think that to counter violence, more weapons are the answer.

Like if a shooting did occur, ten people all firing back and random would help the situation.

The guy actually said that they wouldn't have any workplace violence because they know each other well.

I am sure most people say that until something happens. Then it is, I always thought something was a little off.

If I worked for them I would want a raise instead, if they obviously can afford to spend thousands of dollars.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.1  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @11    6 years ago

when you hire and pay workers, you can pay them any bonuses you want, or none, and it can be anything legal you'd like it to be. Same with raises--all up to you.

Your business, your money, your decisions.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
11.1.1  Cerenkov  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1    6 years ago

Such freedoms are antithetical to the leftist platform. 

 
 
 
Freefaller
Professor Quiet
12  Freefaller    6 years ago

While I would personally decline as long as it is voluntary participation, and appropriate background checks are done and licences held I don't have a problem with this.  I actually like that a mandated safety course was held

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
14  seeder  Buzz of the Orient    6 years ago

I realized too late that this could have been a controversial subject that I should have been around to moderate, having become concerned that while I was sleeping it would get out of hand.  However I want to thank everyone who commented on their showing both restraint and civility no matter their position on the subject which pleases me greatly.  I only wish my photography and movie articles could get as much as 10% of the participation.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
14.1  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Buzz of the Orient @14    6 years ago
I only wish my photography and movie articles could get as much as 10% of the participation.

Well that s why violence and sex sells papers. Try starting your picture posts with sex or violence and I'll bet ya get more visitors. Here's a really mild sample.

512

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
14.1.1  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @14.1    6 years ago

LOL. I just don't have, or take, photos that fulfill those requirements, but I could post articles on movies that feature sex and/or violence.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
14.1.2  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Buzz of the Orient @14.1.1    6 years ago
LOL. I just don't have, or take, photos that fulfill those requirements,

Just tryin ta be helpful Buzz. 

lol

I enjoy your photo seeds and would also like to see viewership increase. 

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
14.1.3  TTGA  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @14.1.1    6 years ago
I just don't have, or take, photos that fulfill those requirements

You could find some Buzz.  I don't know about the violence part but I'd bet that you could start a magazine filled with pictures of scantily clad and very pretty girls.  Hmmmmm, somewhere I've heard that idea before......Some guy named Hefenstein or something like that.jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
14.1.4  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TTGA @14.1.3    6 years ago

LOL.  Since I gave up the Famous Photographer series I only post my own (or recently my stepdaughter's) photography, and I don't take the kind of photos that Steve suggested.  Sorry, TTGA, you and Steve will just have to buy Hustler and Playboy magazines for your "enjoyment".

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
14.1.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @14.1.4    6 years ago

I miss that Famous Photographer series.  Any chance you would bring it back?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
14.1.6  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Vic Eldred @14.1.5    6 years ago

There were a couple Native American photographers I was prepared to post - I'll talk to Kavika about partnering them with me - he provides the commentary.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
14.1.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @14.1.6    6 years ago

Thanks

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
15  charger 383    6 years ago

Guns are also a good investment.  I will sell some of mine to supplement my retirement 

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
15.1  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  charger 383 @15    6 years ago
Guns are also a good investment.  I will sell some of mine to supplement my retirement 

Real estate is usually better.  The last house I sold I pocketed almost 200 percent profit. The one I'm currently living in has increased over 300 percent (almost 400) since I've owned it in about 7 years. Ya just have to know the market, when ta buy and buy wisely when you do. Timing the sell of course is important as well.  Buy low, sell high. PS: Also buy the worse house in a good neighborhood and bring it up to par wth the surrounding homes. Bingo ...Gold in the O pocket and plenty of it. 

I bought a house in Phoenix 7 years ago for only 65K now its worth 230 k ... I like that !  A lot !!

I did buy the worse house in a good neighborhood and put 10 k into it instantly. But I haven't seen legal profits from anything like in real estate ever !

I sold real estate for about 4 years myself but it was back when the mortgage interest rates was about 9 % so I didnt last. But I did learn how to buy and sell and make a good return. 

I just wish I'd have bought more when I could have. 

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
15.1.1  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @15.1    6 years ago

PS: You are so far ahead of the game IF you can pay cash for the home right upfront. Mortgages eat up profit fast !!!  Although still a great investment you are splitting the profits with whoever loans you the money to buy it.   and Heavily !

My first home I financed, my second home I paid cash for once I made the profit from the first one. Worked out great for me.I highly recommend doing it. 

No mortgage and a home that is increasing in value daily.The true American dream !

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
15.1.2  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @15.1    6 years ago

Kind of off topic, Steve, but I too have had good luck in increasing prices of the homes I lived in, but in Canada there was also a balloon-burst real estate crash that bankrupted me at the time I owed about 3/4 of a million in income taxes...and the stress of it led to hospitalization for clinical depression, giving up my profession, ending my first marriage, and eventual move to China.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
15.1.3  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Buzz of the Orient @15.1.2    6 years ago
in Canada there was also a balloon-burst real estate crash that bankrupted me at the time I owed about 3/4 of a million in income taxes.

WOW 

Sorry to hear that. But glad you seem to like china that has to be a nice consolation to it all.

Yep as with any investment there are chances. I still would think there is more increased profit in real estate than buying and holding guns for profit. And yep I looked after you mentioned it I'm off topic once again. Sorry.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
15.1.4  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @15.1.3    6 years ago

Weaned myself of depression medication within a year of my moving to China to teach English, and have had the greatest adventure of my life being here.  You can see it in my photo-essay articles.  No problems now.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
15.1.5  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Buzz of the Orient @15.1.4    6 years ago

.

Opps double posted

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
15.1.6  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Buzz of the Orient @15.1.4    6 years ago
Weaned myself of depression medication within a year of my moving to China to teach English, and have had the greatest adventure of my life being here.  You can see it in my photo-essay articles.  No problems now.

Good for you Buzz,I could tell you seem happy in China. Sometimes we go thru Hell and come out the other side better off than we ever figured we would. Good for you !!!

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
15.1.7  charger 383  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @15.1    6 years ago

true on real estate, most of my gun purchases were around $500 or less 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
16  seeder  Buzz of the Orient    6 years ago

Now that I've seen a nasty comment or two, it looks as if the article will require moderation, so since I'm going to sleep I have to lock it. It will be reopened in about 9 hours.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
17  seeder  Buzz of the Orient    6 years ago

Open for business.  This seed is guarded by a guard with a gun, like everywhere else in America has to be, ready to lock the seed again if anyone starts shooting.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
17.1  charger 383  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @17    6 years ago

Buzz, how do you feel about the Citizens of Israel having guns for their protection?  

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
17.1.1  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  charger 383 @17.1    6 years ago

Even Israel has stricter gun control laws than the USA, notwithstanding the obvious threat they unceasingly have to live under.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
17.2  Sparty On  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @17    6 years ago

[Deleted] don’t worry Buzz.    You’re safe in communist China.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
18  Thrawn 31    6 years ago

Um, so how would a gun pay my bills?

 
 
 
lennylynx
Sophomore Quiet
18.1  lennylynx  replied to  Thrawn 31 @18    6 years ago

Well, you could rob a bank with it for one thing! jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
18.1.1  TTGA  replied to  lennylynx @18.1    6 years ago
Well, you could rob a bank with it for one thing!

Absolutely, then you wouldn't have to worry about paying bills at all for about forty years.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
18.1.2  Cerenkov  replied to  TTGA @18.1.1    6 years ago

In America, you can sell assets. At least until the Democrats regulate that right away.  

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
19  seeder  Buzz of the Orient    6 years ago

Okay folks, it's about 10:20 pm here and I'm going to turn off my computer soon, so this seed is locked for the night. I will reopen it in about 10 hours or so from now. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
20  seeder  Buzz of the Orient    6 years ago

Oooops.  Sorry. Got involved in other things and forgot to unlock this - now open for civil comments.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
21  seeder  Buzz of the Orient    6 years ago

Ooops. My message that I was locking this for the night didn't click, but now I've unlocked it. Go to it, everyone.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
23  seeder  Buzz of the Orient    6 years ago

It's about 10:35 pm here so I'm turning off my computer for the night and locking this seed. I will reopen it in about 10 hours from now.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
24  seeder  Buzz of the Orient    6 years ago

Now unlocked for the day, the last day for this seed.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
25  seeder  Buzz of the Orient    6 years ago

236 comments over 5 days and no recent posings - I will be unable to turn on the computer for about 21 hours from now anyway, so I think this topic has had a good run and it's time to put it to bed.  So it is now locked for good. 

 
 

Who is online





64 visitors