Originally Posted by Kepi

Because both are the products of industrialization. We needed a new social order, and used law to implement it. Law was a stop gap, a way to create compliance with a new order. Necessary to a new society. Once you have an order in place you don't need to keep the associated laws in place. Nobody drives how they've been taught to. They drive the way their local driving culture reaches them to. Plus, let's point out out that both were products of a 3T. Far too late for this kind of garbage now.

How do you think a new order manages to emerge in the first place? There have to be carrots and sticks to motivate, encourage and threaten people into a behavior pattern society wants to establish. It doesn't happen on its own.

Originally Posted by Kepi ...

Uh, that's not my method, that's called "how law works". Law is a reactive process. Anything else is a violation of things like due process. There's no such thing as a preventative law, becausethe entire purpose is to punish people for doing something wrong. Not crazy, not irresponsible, not unnerving: wrong. And it had to involve a specific action, and intent. None of these criteria are present in what you propose.

You seem confused by the difference between law making and law enforcement. Enforcement is reactive, but enforcement is not what I was discussing. I was discussing the carrots and sticks need to get the populous moving in the direction society intends. Of course, society has to have the intent first, but assuming some limits on gun ownership and control are desired, licensing and regulation are a lot less onerous than prosecuting assaults and homicides.

Originally Posted by Kepi ...

This is part of the 1-2 punch combo that keeps gun control advocates on the ropes the entire time when it comes to getting legislation passed. People see tragedy, that swing percentage says "maybe gun control", but then they see what the proposals are and decide "no thank you". Part two of this combo comes in with the general disposition of the strongest advocates. Loud, nagging, and hysterical... which of these is supposed to appeal to people who fence ride the issue? Especially when you're talking about Millennials, all three of those qualities are seen as negative, and when they're already like warm on the concept, that will send them running away from the proposed legislation, for sure.

See threes are kids who grew up with the results of Columbine hysteria, War on Terror hysteria, and likely hysterical, overly emotional parenting. They're not going to respond well to fear and outrage.Things like tantrum laws are going to disenfranchise and demotivate Millennials, which effectively leaves these laws DOA because in this day and age a noisy, hysterical minority doesn't get laws past. You have to have a large number of people backing it, and that means feet on the ground, which means a Millennial response is necessary.

I've watched issues swing quickly, and the gun issue is so imbalanced today that this is highly likely to be the end-game for gun rights. It will take a trigger, but the huge number of guns and low level of gun control will eventually trip the point of no return. It's sad that the mayhem to date isn't enough, but apparently it isn't.

Originally Posted by Kepi ...

Your first part had you seeing the locomotive and the cars, but missing the tracks entirely. Places with the higher rates of gun ownership generally correlate with longer police response times. If you live in a place with a 4 minute response time, your neighbor is less likely to own a gun, because he doesn't need it. Your neighbor is also less likely to escalate his domestic dispute to the point of no return in that time either. There's one place in my county that has a 30 minute minimum response time. They're all armed up there because of it. It's also the most violent area, because there's nobody that can defuse a situation nearby, as all parties there are involved. That, coupled with the fact that criminals actively do seek out places where cops don't hang out is precisely why you see that correlation, because when we're talking declining crime, we're talking all crime indexes. Nobody needs a gun to go shop lifting. They do need a place with no cops.

Personally, I don't care that some jurisdiction prefer the wild-west approach to safety. I do care that they demand that the rest of us must follow suit. If you want to let everyone in your city, county or state to own guns, fine. Just make sure that those guns stay there, and not somewhere they are not wanted. Licensing and registration go a long way. Start there.

Originally Posted by Kepi ...

As to your second point, it seems the gun control cause is more than a day late and a dollar short. Also, my guess is implementation of gun control would lead to more spree shootings, which are the statistically insignificant exception to the lower Millennial violence rule. So, yeah, gun control can go back in the box and wait to fail again in another turning (likely an early to mid 3rd), likely in another couple saeculum, if ever.

Now is the only time it's possible. Fear in high crime periods will stop it cold ... and the number of guns floating around out there assures us that high crime periods will be violent.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

How do you think a new order manages to emerge in the first place? There have to be carrots and sticks to motivate, encourage and threaten people into a behavior pattern society wants to establish. It doesn't happen on its own.

No, it does not, it happens when there are major structural changes to your society. That has to happen first, and the manipulation has to be in concert with the change to society. Industrialization was a huge dynamic change to the way we lived. Showing up plastered at work or moving wherever you wanted whenever you wanted in what ever way you wanted was no longer an option. Once you alter the pattern of behavior, you don't need the carrots and sticks any more. Once people traded continual drinking for binge drinking, we didn't need prohibition anymore. Once everyone understood what the road culture was (staying in lanes, what certain features of the road meant), you really didn't need car licencing anymore, that behemoth just stuck it out

You seem confused by the difference between law making and law enforcement. Enforcement is reactive, but enforcement is not what I was discussing. I was discussing the carrots and sticks need to get the populous moving in the direction society intends. Of course, society has to have the intent first, but assuming some limits on gun ownership and control are desired, licensing and regulation are a lot less onerous than prosecuting assaults and homicides.

Enforcement is, by definition guided by the laws people make and if a law can't be enforced then there's no point in making it. For instance numerous laws have been made in the 3T which lack intent requirements which are necessary for criminal prosecution. By and large, use is very rare, and usually only as a lesser included offense by uneducated juries. In the case of licensure, prosecutors would likely only ever use this charge coupled with another charge, because the only time that having a gun license would be relevant in an investigation would be when a gun was used in the commission of a crime or when someone was arrested with a fire arm while committing an unrelated crime. Generally, this is already covered under concealed weapons permit laws and existing laws related to crime and gun ownership. The licensure process would only add tedium and busy work to law abiding citizens lives to basically have the same net effect that existing laws already have. It's all stick, no carrot.

I've watched issues swing quickly, and the gun issue is so imbalanced today that this is highly likely to be the end-game for gun rights. It will take a trigger, but the huge number of guns and low level of gun control will eventually trip the point of no return. It's sad that the mayhem to date isn't enough, but apparently it isn't.

They swing quickly, and swing quickly back. Tragedy happens, everyone freaks, then back to business as usual. There's a 5-10% margin that is willing to entertain the notion, and they quickly flip back once they see what's being proposed or when a person explains what the word ban means. If your populace automatically sees the concept of a ban or a restriction as negative, they've never been actually in favor of gun control. They just erroneously believe there is a way to prevent tragedy, and once they're shown the option they at least understand that proposed laws won't actually do so.

Personally, I don't care that some jurisdiction prefer the wild-west approach to safety. I do care that they demand that the rest of us must follow suit. If you want to let everyone in your city, county or state to own guns, fine. Just make sure that those guns stay there, and not somewhere they are not wanted. Licensing and registration go a long way. Start there.

Most jurisdictions don't have a choice in how they're enforced, it's a matter of population density and money (which is also affected by population density). Licensure won't affect these areas because nobody has time to enforce it. They're either to busy dealing with real crime or too busy dealing with their own crippling limited budgets which have left them, technologically, in the 80's, which means they're working over time to match up with other agencies to get their carrots (state and federal money).

Also, I'm not willing to start anywhere. The only options are stick only laws which don't have a carrot for anyone, and which opens up the doors to other stock only special interests. And even if there was a carrot, it'd have to be enormous and very low hanging because thanks to the way Boomers have managed society and run institutions, frankly I'm existentially exhausted by the stick parade. There's a disconnect with getting support and I have to say it's very much due to the fact that everyone's tired of the constant stream of sticks. Otherwise, something would have been done after Newtown, but it went down exactly as I said it would because I get what the controversy is really about, and guns are pretty tangential to it.

Now is the only time it's possible. Fear in high crime periods will stop it cold ... and the number of guns floating around out there assures us that high crime periods will be violent.

Now is not a high crime period. It's an extremely low crime period. It's a high time of systemic distrust. So you're advocating relegating a low that issue to organizations which most people perceive as being high threat. That's not going to work out well.

It occurs to me that lincensure may encourage a thriving black market.

It occurred to me that "gun grabbing" by distrusted institutions...may make military weapons a hot item. Think semi-automatic or fully automatic.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Now is not a high crime period. It's an extremely low crime period. It's a high time of systemic distrust. So you're advocating relegating a low that issue to organizations which most people perceive as being high threat. That's not going to work out well.

But try telling that to all the families grieving in high-crime areas such as the South and West sides of Chicago. Nearly every day you hear of another shooting, many of which are fatal. We may have had the lowest crime rate in half a century, but it is of little or no solace to those who have lost in this fashion.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

It occurs to me that lincensure may encourage a thriving black market.

That market is already thriving.

My thoughts are geared towards logistics, especially when it comes to transfer. Estates become messy, as do sale of pre-licence fire arms. Add in the fact that people have lives and jobs and just don't have the time to sit in line or take classes, this sort of thing is going to wind up putting a lot of innocent people in jail because of a pointlessly raised expectation for a law that is unnecessary, especially in a time of very low violence.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

But try telling that to all the families grieving in high-crime areas such as the South and West sides of Chicago. Nearly every day you hear of another shooting, many of which are fatal. We may have had the lowest crime rate in half a century, but it is of little or no solace to those who have lost in this fashion.

Just because someone is grieving, this does not give them any kind of special right or license. If they want to bring something to the negotiation table, bring it. If they have the legal power to over power my opinion, bring it. They have neither. Meanwhile, the things they want are likely to punish lots of innocent people unjustly. The point of law is to stop cycles of injustice, not to make people feel better.

Originally Posted by Kepi

No, it does not, it happens when there are major structural changes to your society. That has to happen first, and the manipulation has to be in concert with the change to society. Industrialization was a huge dynamic change to the way we lived. Showing up plastered at work or moving wherever you wanted whenever you wanted in what ever way you wanted was no longer an option. Once you alter the pattern of behavior, you don't need the carrots and sticks any more. Once people traded continual drinking for binge drinking, we didn't need prohibition anymore. Once everyone understood what the road culture was (staying in lanes, what certain features of the road meant), you really didn't need car licencing anymore, that behemoth just stuck it out

I agree that major social changes trigger other changes that complement or offset them, but let's be honest here. We are now in the throes of the emerging Information Age. We have no idea what that will mean in another 50 years. Then again, waiting 50 years to resolve the firearms issue may be what it takes.

Originally Posted by Kepi ..

Enforcement is, by definition guided by the laws people make and if a law can't be enforced then there's no point in making it. For instance numerous laws have been made in the 3T which lack intent requirements which are necessary for criminal prosecution. By and large, use is very rare, and usually only as a lesser included offense by uneducated juries. In the case of licensure, prosecutors would likely only ever use this charge coupled with another charge, because the only time that having a gun license would be relevant in an investigation would be when a gun was used in the commission of a crime or when someone was arrested with a fire arm while committing an unrelated crime. Generally, this is already covered under concealed weapons permit laws and existing laws related to crime and gun ownership. The licensure process would only add tedium and busy work to law abiding citizens lives to basically have the same net effect that existing laws already have. It's all stick, no carrot.

I don't see that as totally necessary, but sticks are mandatory. The Australians limited the number of guns in circulation by making it hard to own one (stick) and offering to buy them at full values (carrot). It worked beautifully.

Originally Posted by Kepi ..

They swing quickly, and swing quickly back. Tragedy happens, everyone freaks, then back to business as usual. There's a 5-10% margin that is willing to entertain the notion, and they quickly flip back once they see what's being proposed or when a person explains what the word ban means. If your populace automatically sees the concept of a ban or a restriction as negative, they've never been actually in favor of gun control. They just erroneously believe there is a way to prevent tragedy, and once they're shown the option they at least understand that proposed laws won't actually do so.

Like I said, if there are jurisdictions that wish to use personal weapons and untrained volunteers as police surrogates, then they should do it in a way that others are exempt from that model. Licensure and registration are trivial in comparison to gunshot wounds ... which are unavoidable in densely populated areas awash in guns.

Originally Posted by Kepi ..

Now is not a high crime period. It's an extremely low crime period. It's a high time of systemic distrust. So you're advocating relegating a low that issue to organizations which most people perceive as being high threat. That's not going to work out well.

It's now or the next period of low crime. Arguing that one needs to be armed to the teeth for protection is pretty limp when the need is very low.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I agree that major social changes trigger other changes that complement or offset them, but let's be honest here. We are now in the throes of the emerging Information Age. We have no idea what that will mean in another 50 years. Then again, waiting 50 years to resolve the firearms issue may be what it takes.

We're more at the culmination to the information age. If gun law were somehow at the center of needs with the information age, it would have happened early in the 3T and sustained into the 4th. The assault weapons ban came late 3T and lapsed late 3T-early 4T. Also, let's not ignore the fact that guns have nothing to do the implementation of computers, and frankly bans are totally counter to the information age because they intrinsically involve information suppression. In a world where we'll likely be capable of printing off reams of guns in a matter of hours in 50 years and the nature of our information age means that plans and designs will be readily available to people in circles that want them and largely invisible to the people they don't want to know, licensure and bans seem to be increasingly invalid.

I don't see that as totally necessary, but sticks are mandatory. The Australians limited the number of guns in circulation by making it hard to own one (stick) and offering to buy them at full values (carrot). It worked beautifully.

If that's what people in Austrailia wanted, it might be a carrot, but here? I don't think so. Effectively what you're saying is "here's you're money back". I'd what I really wanted was a gun, it's all stick. Also, in a world where we're increasingly 24 hour in some areas and increasingly limited hours in others, I don't see this working well for a lot of people. Specifically, I don't are it working well for a lot of Millennials and a lot of Xers.

Like I said, if there are jurisdictions that wish to use personal weapons and untrained volunteers as police surrogates, then they shoforuld do it in a way that others are exempt from that model. Licensure and registration are trivial in comparison to gunshot wounds ... which are unavoidable in densely populated areas awash in guns.

You're right, it's an extremely trivial reason to punish people. You ever think that Millennials might be sick to death of being punished for trivial things? A third of them have been arrested, mostly for petty offenses. The last thing they want is more grief because of another pointless moral crusade. Every time the Millennials have stood up, it's to tell their elders "no". No to pointless foreign war, no to stupid copyright enforcement, and now no to pointless spying campaigns. On the other side, look at what they're not showing up for... No feet on the ground for gun control. No feet on the ground fire culture war carp on either side. Hillary lost with me because of her comments about Iran, but I suspect that she lost because she wants restrictions on media violence. Do you not get the picture here?

It's now or the next period of low crime. Arguing that one needs to be armed to the teeth for protection is pretty limp when the need is very low.

You'd have to pick a time when crime is down and arrests are also down. Nobody wants more petty pit falls they can get arrested for. Also, I think 150 years is a closer estimation for when gun control might be a consideration, but my guess is that by the 1T even Europe will lose a lot of their gun control laws due to lack of necessity.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________________

Originally Posted by Copperfield

All that is fine. Now how did you confirm that you seated the magazine correctly?

After answering that then tell me how you confirm that you didn't short stroke the slide (we are talking about doing this under pressure after all)?

If you answered either question with, "When I pulled the trigger and got that lonely, empty click" then you are already dead. As for my pistol, all that has already been checked before I even walk out the door. Adding unnecessary steps to the manual of arms will always decrease your effectiveness and in a combat situation is that really what you want?

Ok, fine. I give up.

This could go on forever. If, for example, you don't carry your weapon into the shower in the morning inside a plastic bag, I guess, then if someone should attack you while you're in the shower, you'd be dead. If you don't drive your car with your weapon in your hand, someone could step up to you and hijack you before you could get to it. Etc. Etc. blah, blah, blah.

You do it your way. I'll do it mine.

Again, I deal mostly in threats, etc. that I think have some form of probability to them.

This exchange is getting repetitive, at least from my end, so this will be my last response.

Originally Posted by Kepi

We're more at the culmination to the information age. If gun law were somehow at the center of needs with the information age, it would have happened early in the 3T and sustained into the 4th. The assault weapons ban came late 3T and lapsed late 3T-early 4T. Also, let's not ignore the fact that guns have nothing to do the implementation of computers, and frankly bans are totally counter to the information age because they intrinsically involve information suppression. In a world where we'll likely be capable of printing off reams of guns in a matter of hours in 50 years and the nature of our information age means that plans and designs will be readily available to people in circles that want them and largely invisible to the people they don't want to know, licensure and bans seem to be increasingly invalid.

We may be a lot of thing, by nearing the end of the Information Age is not one of them. We in the throes of the libertarian phase unique to emerging paradigms, where the rules are limited – mostly out of ignorance, yet we’re far enough along to know that the model is flawed. But it’s still too early to know how this gets resolved, so none of us should presume.

Originally Posted by Kepi ...

If that's what people in Austrailia wanted, it might be a carrot, but here? I don't think so. Effectively what you're saying is "here's your money back". I'd what I really wanted was a gun, it's all stick. Also, in a world where we're increasingly 24 hour in some areas and increasingly limited hours in others, I don't see this working well for a lot of people. Specifically, I don't are it working well for a lot of Millennials and a lot of Xers.

All stick is how we handled Prohibition and the War on Drugs. Requiring the buy-back guns at full price is same model we use for eminent domain. The fact that you, or anyone else, may not wish to have you personal arsenal limited in number and type is not an argument for eliminating the mandate. Australia didn’t forbid firearms, it merely defined what was legal and what wasn’t, then removed the now illegal weapons by the most non-threatening manner possible.

Now I’m sure that the gun culture in America will decry the assault on their opportunity to own what they will, but no one has ever be able to legally own one of these … not in working order, at least.

[

So that horse is already out of the stable.

Originally Posted by Kepi ...

You're right, it's an extremely trivial reason to punish people. You ever think that Millennials might be sick to death of being punished for trivial things? A third of them have been arrested, mostly for petty offenses. The last thing they want is more grief because of another pointless moral crusade. Every time the Millennials have stood up, it's to tell their elders "no". No to pointless foreign war, no to stupid copyright enforcement, and now no to pointless spying campaigns. On the other side, look at what they're not showing up for... No feet on the ground for gun control. No feet on the ground fire culture war carp on either side. Hillary lost with me because of her comments about Iran, but I suspect that she lost because she wants restrictions on media violence. Do you not get the picture here?

Be careful what you wish for:

• Petty arrests: Xers are the ones who have the biggest gripe there. Stand in line.
• Foreign wars: no one under the age of 58 has ever been forced to serve. That can change, and probably should, but its hard to bitch about something totally avoidable.
• Copyright infringement: yes, feel free to steal at will, but eventually, there won’t be anything to steal. No one will work hard to give something away, when they need to sell it to keep body and soul together.

You do have a point about Millie’s lack of interest in anything of substance. Sorry, but the old-folks will not be handling this forever, and soon enough, Millie’s will have to take it upon themselves to fix what’s broken.

Originally Posted by Kepi ...

You'd have to pick a time when crime is down and arrests are also down. Nobody wants more petty pit falls they can get arrested for. Also, I think 150 years is a closer estimation for when gun control might be a consideration, but my guess is that by the 1T even Europe will lose a lot of their gun control laws due to lack of necessity.

Guns in a modern society are an anachronism. That will be obvious at some point. Until then, we’ll muddle through.

Anachronisms are things which fall out of use on their own, and if that happens, all good. Swords fell out of use. People still make them. They're appreciated by a niche audience freely, that's good because it allows people to freely learn and know what they want. I'd be cool with that as an end to guns our anything else. But information, information is forever, and information must be preserved.

I think we're going from the information age to an archivist age, and for an archivist age addto work information, specifically technical information and cultural works have to be allowed to proliferate on their own. This includes information on guns and where information on guns proliferates, so will guns themselves. They're too small, too simple, and too easy to produce not to. I mean we're talking century old mechanics as the pinnacle achievement on something that had existed for 700 years.

That doesn't go away.

As fire the rest of it...

Xers have the gripe on crack downs, not pretty offenses. Most of them didn't grow up under a curfew law, for instance. Crime, while declining, was hardly anemic when they were kids, and right in the middle you had the gang war stuff. Cops had things to do, and there were a lot fewer on the streets. At this point the lack of crime is downright worrisome.

As to service, those kids aren't signing up to fight, they're signing up for a paycheck.

And to copyright, I don't know of any successful ban that had quit touring. Some have had to up the amount of dates they play specifically to keep their lifestyles at the same level, but it's become pretty clear that the guy who doesn't have to buy your album is more likely to have $20 to get your shirt and $10 to get in the door. The cost to record an album is now a laptop and some software. It's much better than the world where you had to get signed to a label and handed a check which you have to pay back and then some and where most of your money still came from touring because most of the money your album made was funneled into promotions and wasn't used to recoup your costs... until the label wanted another album. So I sincerely doubt art will die. The unnecessary end of the industry will, sure. But I think the artists are better off for it.

To relevance, that's for each generation to figure out what that is. I'm sure Boomers think that the culture wars are extremely relevant, but like you said, soon it will be our mess to clean up. Judging by nearly everyone I know, we're very much looking forward to it, because the last 20-30 years haven't been particularly relevant to our interests.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/c...-shop/4666967/

CONNERSVILLE, Ind. – Shooting himself in the leg is not the way Connersville Police Chief David Counceller planned to promote his candidacy for Fayette County sheriff.
Counceller’s 40-caliber Glock handgun accidentally discharged Saturday afternoon while he was at Wullf’s Gun Shop. Counceller, who was off-duty at the time, said he’d been examining a handgun similar to the one he carries.
“I need to pay more attention,” Counceller said. “I know what the dangers are. It was pure carelessness on my part.”
The accident occurred when Counceller was putting his Glock into its holster after he removed it to compare it to a newer Glock model at the gun shop, Counceller said.
“It got tangled in my clothing,” Counceller said of his weapon. “I was wearing a sweatshirt and a fleece jacket. I felt (the gun) go in the holster and I pushed it, but it was tangled in the material which caused it to discharge. The bullet went into my leg and then into the floor.”
Counceller said he drove himself to Fayette Regional Health System for treatment of the flesh wound on his upper, right thigh. Nurses thought the chief was joking when he told them he’d shot himself, Counceller said.
“It is an entrance and exit wound,” Counceller said. “I’m really lucky. It doesn’t even hurt. I’d have been at work (Monday) if it wasn’t Martin Luther King Jr. Day. I’ll be back at work on Tuesday.”
Mayor Leonard Urban said he also thought the police chief was kidding when he got the call saying he’d shot himself.
“It was just a little accident. Dave is an excellent marksman,” Urban said Monday. “Apparently the Glocks don’t have the trigger safety that they should have.”
The gunshot wound Saturday is not Councellor’s first. Fifteen years ago, Counceller said he accidentally shot himself in his hand.
“I was working third shift as a captain. I was unloading (the gun) to take it to the gunsmith and I didn’t drop the barrel to see if there was (a bullet) in the chamber,” Counceller said. “The shot hit my hand. That one really hurt.”
Counceller, 60, began his law enforcement career in the 1970s as a military policeman and has served almost 34 years with the Connersville Police Department. Now seeking the Republican nomination for sheriff in Fayette County’s May primary, the chief is philosophical about the accident over the weekend.
“If anyone says this could never happen to them, they’re mistaken,” Counceller said. “You have to keep your guard up at all times. Some candidates are out there doing things for kids to try to get elected. Me, I shoot myself. What a way to get publicity.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4619171.html

Lawmakers are aiming to expand Florida's "stand your ground" law with the help of a top NRA lobbyist.
Gawker's Adam Weinstein reported that S.B. 448, which would protect someone who fires warning shots or waves a weapon when they feel threatened, was written by Marion Hammer, a former NRA president.
The bill would amend the current law, which permits residents to use deadly force under certain circumstances, to allow the "threatened use of force." Gun owners couldn't be arrested for brandishing a gun or firing warning shots. The legislation also could lead to more permissive open-carry laws or lighter requirements for gun licensing.
If passed, S.B. 448 would apply "immunity provisions that relate to the use of force to the threatened use of force," meaning that gun owners wouldn't be subject to state"10-20-life" laws mandating an automatic 10-year sentence for anyone convicted of flashing or using a gun in the commission of a felony.
The "10-20-life" law was passed in 1999. Ironically, Gawker noted, the NRA supported that bill at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4619171.html

Lawmakers are aiming to expand Florida's "stand your ground" law with the help of a top NRA lobbyist.
Gawker's Adam Weinstein reported that S.B. 448, which would protect someone who fires warning shots or waves a weapon when they feel threatened, was written by Marion Hammer, a former NRA president.
The bill would amend the current law, which permits residents to use deadly force under certain circumstances, to allow the "threatened use of force." Gun owners couldn't be arrested for brandishing a gun or firing warning shots. The legislation also could lead to more permissive open-carry laws or lighter requirements for gun licensing.
If passed, S.B. 448 would apply "immunity provisions that relate to the use of force to the threatened use of force," meaning that gun owners wouldn't be subject to state"10-20-life" laws mandating an automatic 10-year sentence for anyone convicted of flashing or using a gun in the commission of a felony.
The "10-20-life" law was passed in 1999. Ironically, Gawker noted, the NRA supported that bill at the time.

This nonsense will stop when Florida sees a marked drop in tourism. As it is, I'm not sure I want to go there. If the state gets tagged as an American Acapulco (which saw tourism tank about three years ago), Florida politicians will react pretty fast.

Stand your ground is the 3 Strikes Law of Florida. It's stupid and ignorant and sooner or later the cost is going to make it unable to continue and they'll scale back to something reasonable.

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/l...-purdue-campus

And three dead in a Maryland mall.

In theory there might be groups with culture changing agendas instigating a spiral of violence where both sides are trying to intimidate the other into accepting agendas. But no. This feels like another lone nut. Rebels without causes? High stress and available weapons might well indicate a problem with our society, but if so said problem isn't being well identified and articulated.

But if feels like there have been a bunch of incidents lately.

Originally Posted by B Butler

And three dead in a Maryland mall.

In theory there might be groups with culture changing agendas instigating a spiral of violence where both sides are trying to intimidate the other into accepting agendas. But no. This feels like another lone nut. Rebels without causes? High stress and available weapons might well indicate a problem with our society, but if so said problem isn't being well identified and articulated.

But if feels like there have been a bunch of incidents lately.

But most of the time the perpetrator is either killed or kills himself(yes, so far it seems to have been all men--the last female to do something like this was Laurie Dann in Winnetka IL back in 1988). This way we continue to be baffled regarding motive as so many of these folks are Jekyll and Hyde types who seem so normal to those they are closest to. Mental health services have been on the wane ever since Reagan considered them part of the "government is the problem" agenda three decades back. Sanitariums as the next growth industry?

Originally Posted by B Butler

And three dead in a Maryland mall.

In theory there might be groups with culture changing agendas instigating a spiral of violence where both sides are trying to intimidate the other into accepting agendas. But no. This feels like another lone nut. Rebels without causes? High stress and available weapons might well indicate a problem with our society, but if so said problem isn't being well identified and articulated.

But if feels like there have been a bunch of incidents lately.

This was a domestic dispute due to a love triangle. Not all public shootings are spree shootings, and neither are all multi kills. Now the media is looking to break the next big spree shooting, so they don't care it is or isn't.

As to actual spree shooters, just because they aren't affiliated with a group or have a political complaint doesn't mean that they don't have a valid social commentary or complaint embedded within their otherwise completely muddled communication. All the media focus on these issues have been to pick a pet peeve and hang it on tragedy. These people aren't monsters. They aren't legally insane. There is a legitimate message in there that they, at the very least, felt was legitimate expression at the time, otherwise they wouldn't have done it.

If we are actually interested in stopping this behavior we may wish to try to understand what they were getting at rather than concentrating on what they did. That's the whole point of this society thing. We involve a 3rd party in order to resolve problems instead of allowing victims to run that show and resolve nothing. It's not so we can all rally behind the victims. Which leads us to our next comment...

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

But most of the time the perpetrator is either killed or kills himself(yes, so far it seems to have been all men--the last female to do something like this was Laurie Dann in Winnetka IL back in 1988). This way we continue to be baffled regarding motive as so many of these folks are Jekyll and Hyde types who seem so normal to those they are closest to. Mental health services have been on the wane ever since Reagan considered them part of the "government is the problem" agenda three decades back. Sanitariums as the next growth industry?

These aren't necessarily mentally ill people in the sense we think of, say, schizophrenics. Clearly they're extremely emotional, but I don't think that mental health services would help. Guys like Cho are retroactively "obvious", but there was an entire process that determined he wasn't enough of a threat and he was let go, and we do that with thousands of people every day because they legitimately aren't threats.

So, these guys are margins guys, and we've had people on the margins since the dawn of civilization, and they've been very angry since then. So why, now, when these folks are the most likely to get caught for this kind of thing, are they doing it? Frankly, we've captured enough of them that maybe we should start asking them, seeing if we come away with commonalities, and start from there instead on feigning shock and somehow reveling in the glory and horror of the new American Monster.

Here's a good use for all of those guns that are in over supply in this country.


http://www.upworthy.com/youve-never-...his-one?c=ufb1

Originally Posted by B Butler

And three dead in a Maryland mall.

In theory there might be groups with culture changing agendas instigating a spiral of violence where both sides are trying to intimidate the other into accepting agendas. But no. This feels like another lone nut. Rebels without causes? High stress and available weapons might well indicate a problem with our society, but if so said problem isn't being well identified and articulated.

But if feels like there have been a bunch of incidents lately.

The problem is well identified, I'd say. Too many guns available too easily, which enable young people that don't get adequate help for their problems, in a society that is unable to inspire people to lead fulfilling lives.