(04-21-2021 12:28 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 11:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 11:12 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 10:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 10:28 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Are you saying that no gun laws work? That other countries where mass shootings are not such an issue just have less-maniacal people than the United States? I'm not clear as to why we have such a problem with it while similar countries don't if it isn't easy access to guns.

So how do you explain the fact that those other countries had much lower rates of gun violence BEFORE they had their gun laws, and the gun laws haven't really had a material impact on them?
In the UK, the gun laws have been on the books for close to 100 years, and the rate of gun violence is higher today than it was then. In Australia a fairly draconian gun law has been on the books since 1997, and the rate of gun violence has declined in the 20+ years since--at exactly the same rate it declined in the 20+ years before the law took effect, and the rate was microscopic before. Neither is a ringing endorsement of gun laws.

No reason to rehash the same thing that we've gone over countless times. I don't have time for that in any case. You guys don't think gun laws work and the other side thinks we should keep trying.

Why don't you concern yourself with what you think, and let me tell you what I think?

I'm not saying that NO gun laws work. I'm saying that gun laws that have never worked probably won't. And outlawing ugly, scary weapons has never really worked.

The kinds of gun laws that have had an impact are laws that require some sort of training and certification for persons to purchase of possess guns or ammo, linked to the criminal database, so that if you pull and armed robbery you can't legally possess a gun. That plus some accommodation in the HIPAA laws to allow health care providers to identify potential problems to police more readily, but no gun seizure without a judicial process. You can't take away a constitutional right without due process, but if law enforcement does their job properly, you can meet that standard. Think about how many mass killers would have lost their guns if we had an adequate procedure in place for that.

I could absolutely get behind laws of this nature. I believe that the vast majority of people would agree. So WHY do Republicans fight against this this type of legislation so vigorously?

Well the devil is in the detail. Let's just take the idea of training and certification....

Is it a one-off training course or do you need to renew it annually?
Does the training cover all firearms or is separate training required for each class or type of firearm?
What's the duration of the course? One day or one week or one month?
What's the cost of the course? $10 or $100 or $1000?
How often is it held? Every day or every week or every month?
Where is it held? Locally or county-wide or regionally?
Who can offer the course? The local municipality or a state agency or a federal agency?
How many people can be trained in a course at a time? Ten or twenty or ?

I'll assume this is all about gun safety. So I envisage a one-off one day course that costs less than $100 and covers all types of firearms. The training is held frequently and locally and that I can easily access.

If however the intention of the law, or those who apply the law, is to restrict firearms then the exact opposite will occur.

The key word in gun control is "control".

The key phrase in the second amendment is "shall not be infringed".

(04-21-2021 01:27 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  I'll assume this is all about gun safety. So I envisage a one-off one day course that costs less than $100 and covers all types of firearms. The training is held frequently and locally and that I can easily access.

That would be what I would have in mind. Anything more than that runs afoul of "shall not be infringed." Clearly any effort to limit firearm ownership by charging onerous fees or taxes would fail to pass constitutional muster.

I would think you might have endorsements for certain types of firearms. I would tend to think that you might need a higher level for a semi-automatic (but legal) rifle compared to a single-shot .410.

(04-21-2021 12:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 12:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 08:08 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Three of you guys brought up damage to livestock/crops.

Actually, YOU brought up feral hogs. Post #24. In post #26, I remarked that I had not heard that people needed protection from feral hogs. I guess that's where we all took off after the straw man.

Correct... I brought up the fact that some of you had previously mentioned feral hogs as a reason to own these weapons and then you guys commented on the issue with damage to crops/livestock.

When/where did I bring up feral hogs in any manner? I don't remember this, and feral hogs are not anything that is on my mind much, and feral hogs as an excuse for owning an AR-15 has never crossed my mind. Maybe you have me confused with somebody else.

And I AM a rancher(you don't need 10,000 acres), and I know a lot of ranchers, and feral hogs are not a item of discussion with or without gun control in my area. That's why you surprised me with your introduction of this in post 24.

(04-21-2021 02:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 12:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 12:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 08:08 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Three of you guys brought up damage to livestock/crops.

Actually, YOU brought up feral hogs. Post #24. In post #26, I remarked that I had not heard that people needed protection from feral hogs. I guess that's where we all took off after the straw man.

Correct... I brought up the fact that some of you had previously mentioned feral hogs as a reason to own these weapons and then you guys commented on the issue with damage to crops/livestock.

When/where did I bring up feral hogs in any manner?

In the past when this issue has come up "your side" brought up feral hogs as a reason for private citizens needing to own this type of weapon. I want to say it was Tanq... apologies if I'm mistaken.

(04-21-2021 01:27 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  What's the cost of the course? $10 or $100 or $1000?

considering that the cost of driver's license/ID is considered prohibitive and racist when requiring ID to vote, I would think they would consider even $10 to be racist.

(04-21-2021 02:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 02:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 12:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 12:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 08:08 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Three of you guys brought up damage to livestock/crops.

Actually, YOU brought up feral hogs. Post #24. In post #26, I remarked that I had not heard that people needed protection from feral hogs. I guess that's where we all took off after the straw man.

Correct... I brought up the fact that some of you had previously mentioned feral hogs as a reason to own these weapons and then you guys commented on the issue with damage to crops/livestock.

When/where did I bring up feral hogs in any manner?

In the past when this issue has come up "your side" brought up feral hogs as a reason for private citizens needing to own this type of weapon. I want to say it was Tanq... apologies if I'm mistaken.

It wasn't me.

(04-21-2021 02:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 02:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 02:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 12:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 12:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Actually, YOU brought up feral hogs. Post #24. In post #26, I remarked that I had not heard that people needed protection from feral hogs. I guess that's where we all took off after the straw man.

Correct... I brought up the fact that some of you had previously mentioned feral hogs as a reason to own these weapons and then you guys commented on the issue with damage to crops/livestock.

When/where did I bring up feral hogs in any manner?

In the past when this issue has come up "your side" brought up feral hogs as a reason for private citizens needing to own this type of weapon. I want to say it was Tanq... apologies if I'm mistaken.

It wasn't me.

I didn't think it was you.

(04-21-2021 12:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 12:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 08:08 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Three of you guys brought up damage to livestock/crops.

Actually, YOU brought up feral hogs. Post #24. In post #26, I remarked that I had not heard that people needed protection from feral hogs. I guess that's where we all took off after the straw man.

Correct... I brought up the fact that some of you had previously mentioned feral hogs as a reason to own these weapons and then you guys commented on the issue with damage to crops/livestock.

What has been left out is that AR style weapons are the most popular small game weapons around. To be honest while an AR-15 IS decent with deer, it can be problematic being used with hogs (caliber is borderline for a clean guaranteed hog put down).

AKs and AR-10s are the most widely used large game rifles in the US.

The problem is that the left thinks that sporting semiautomatic long rifles are only good for and used in one manner.

And yes, with hogs I want as many rounds as possible. Same for coyotes and wolves. Most places that have active deer seasons in the center and south US have a plethora of the former 2, and north and upper midwest have all three.

And nope, I didn't bring up hog clearing as a major reason. Sorry.

(04-21-2021 03:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And nope, I didn't bring up hog clearing as a major reason. Sorry.

Got it. Must have been somebody else. I didn't make that up as hog clearing would have NEVER occurred to me independently when it came to a discussion of gun control.

(04-21-2021 02:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 02:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 12:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 12:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 08:08 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Three of you guys brought up damage to livestock/crops.

Actually, YOU brought up feral hogs. Post #24. In post #26, I remarked that I had not heard that people needed protection from feral hogs. I guess that's where we all took off after the straw man.

Correct... I brought up the fact that some of you had previously mentioned feral hogs as a reason to own these weapons and then you guys commented on the issue with damage to crops/livestock.

When/where did I bring up feral hogs in any manner?

In the past when this issue has come up "your side" brought up feral hogs as a reason for private citizens needing to own this type of weapon. I want to say it was Tanq... apologies if I'm mistaken.

You said this:

Three of you guys brought up damage to livestock/crops.

Which three? I responded AFTER you brought feral hogs into this.

(04-21-2021 03:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 03:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And nope, I didn't bring up hog clearing as a major reason. Sorry.

Got it. Must have been somebody else. I didn't make that up as hog clearing would have NEVER occurred to me independently when it came to a discussion of gun control.

I don't see how it could be a topic for anybody, but apparently you heard three people bring it up.

Around here, guns are needed for small varmint control mostly, although one neighbor did shoot a hog and a couple of others have reported puma sightings. I hear coyotes at night. Main things I worry about are rattlers and people.

Go back to post #1. I have asked that question several times now, and have zero answers. let's forget about hogs and bears and yetis. Just answer the question.

(04-21-2021 03:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 03:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 03:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And nope, I didn't bring up hog clearing as a major reason. Sorry.

Got it. Must have been somebody else. I didn't make that up as hog clearing would have NEVER occurred to me independently when it came to a discussion of gun control.

I don't see how it could be a topic for anybody, but apparently you heard three people bring it up.

Around here, guns are needed for small varmint control mostly, although one neighbor did shoot a hog and a couple of others have reported puma sightings. I hear coyotes at night. Main things I worry about are rattlers and people.

After I mentioned hog clearing recently you said:

Quote:but I do know that many ranchers and farmers suffer financial damages from predation of both livestock and crops by the feral hogs.

#'s said:

Quote:It's not that ranchers want to defend themselves. It's that wild boars do potential harm to livestock and are generally pests on several levels.

I thought there were three but only two... Ham commented on the hog thing afterwards.

The original discussion of hog clearing goes way back. I am not going to search for it but I remember it being brought up.

(04-21-2021 03:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Go back to post #1. I have asked that question several times now, and have zero answers. let's forget about hogs and bears and yetis. Just answer the question.

My answer to you was that I don't know the particulars of the recent shootings but I believe you that currently proposed laws wouldn't have prevented them. I also noted that not every shooting will be prevented by new legislation however I don't look for these laws to provide 100% success... a reduction of deaths would be a win IMO.

(04-21-2021 03:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  a reduction of deaths would be a win IMO.

So why focus on the gun instead of the shooter?

And if you are going to focus on a gun, why focus on the gun or guns that kill maybe 100 people a year out of 30,000, instead of focusing on the guns responsible for the majority of the 30,000?

(04-21-2021 04:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 03:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  a reduction of deaths would be a win IMO.

So why focus on the gun instead of the shooter?

Focus on both.

Quote:And if you are going to focus on a gun, why focus on the gun or guns that kill maybe 100 people a year out of 30,000, instead of focusing on the guns responsible for the majority of the 30,000?

Because weapons of that magnitude seem like lower hanging fruit when it comes to public support for the measure than trying to legislate handguns.

(04-21-2021 04:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 04:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And if you are going to focus on a gun, why focus on the gun or guns that kill maybe 100 people a year out of 30,000, instead of focusing on the guns responsible for the majority of the 30,000?

Because weapons of that magnitude seem like lower hanging fruit when it comes to public support for the measure than trying to legislate handguns.

Given the results of years of auguring for an "assault weapons ban," I would argue that fruit ain't all that low.

Do a better job with suicides and you eliminate 60% of our gun deaths right there. Changes to HIPAA are probably the best way to deal with that.
Do a better job controlling gangs and you could eliminate maybe another 30%. That's one reason why I favor legalizing marijuana and decriminalizing the rest. Take the money out and you cut heavily into a revenue stream for gangs.
Make those changes and see where gun deaths go. I'm guessing either or both would have significantly greater impact than an "assault weapons ban."

(04-21-2021 04:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 04:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 04:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And if you are going to focus on a gun, why focus on the gun or guns that kill maybe 100 people a year out of 30,000, instead of focusing on the guns responsible for the majority of the 30,000?

Because weapons of that magnitude seem like lower hanging fruit when it comes to public support for the measure than trying to legislate handguns.

Given the results of years of auguring for an "assault weapons ban," I would argue that fruit ain't all that low.

Do a better job with suicides and you eliminate 60% of our gun deaths right there. Changes to HIPAA are probably the best way to deal with that.

Do a better job with suicides by changing HIPAA laws? You guys suggest that if we take away certain types of guns the criminals will find other guns/weapons to use. Do you not think that suicidal people will not find other methods? Also... the percentage of suicides that would have been prevented if HIPAA laws did not prevent notification to some type of gun registry is surely incredibly small.

(04-21-2021 12:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 12:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 08:08 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Three of you guys brought up damage to livestock/crops.

Actually, YOU brought up feral hogs. Post #24. In post #26, I remarked that I had not heard that people needed protection from feral hogs. I guess that's where we all took off after the straw man.

Correct... I brought up the fact that some of you had previously mentioned feral hogs as a reason to own these weapons and then you guys commented on the issue with damage to crops/livestock.

I live in an unincorporated area with lot sizes of 1-10 acres. No crops and maybe a few horses on the 5+ acre lots. Feral hogs don’t care. They will decimate yards and landscaping, which we are required to have per the deed restrictions, in one night if they choose to target your property. I have neighbors that have been out of pocket 1000s of dollars after such a visit, some on multiple occassions. Many of them now have these evil “military style” weapons to protect their investment. More power to them. Before I left Harris County, I had friends in the Katy area have their yards ripped to shreds. So, yes, feral hogs are bad news, they make rabbits look like celibates when it comes to procreating, and it takes power to bring them down. And the young ones are tasty.