More guns, more profiling

[Daryl Hunt]

Here is what baffles me. In 1791, the 2nd Amendment passed. For the next 174,years, I struggle to find any account in US History where there was a mass shooting where someone walked into a crowed and started shooting random unknowns. The first one I can site is 1965 University of Texas shooting. In nearly 55 years since the number of similar mass shootings has spread to fast food restaurants, workplaces, shopping centers, hotels, K-12 schools, colleges, nightclubs.

How come between 1791 and 1965, no one was motivated to do a mass shooting and since that time we have more than 50?

Think about the weapons that were available. In order to accomplish a mass shooting you need the tool to actually kill the masses. There were shootings but they weren't called Mass yet. Oh, you might have 2 or 3 dead but the limit of the weapon didn't allow much more than that. (let's omit the mob 1920s and 30s) But in 1962 a new weapon was introduced call the AR-15 or the Colt Model 750. And in 1969, the US Army started training all their forces in using their version of it. The Army called their AR-15 Model 602 the M-16 due to all weapons needing to have a M identifier. Until then, the Air Force called theirs the AR-15 Model 601 but had to restamp them to read AR-15 Model 601 (M-16) until they started buying the M-16 which was the same weapon. For the first time, the Mass Shooter had the weapon designed for mass shooting. He had the tools he needed.

I am not talking about quantity of victims. No question the capability of weapons to kill more evolved. Let’s define a mass shooting as shooting one or more UNKNOWN innocent civilians. The point I am trying to make is that more than the capability of the weapon, more than the availability of the weapon, there has been a cultural shift in the mindset of people believing they can kill masses. That number goes up when you factor in non-gun mass killings involving bombs, cars, knives.

If I try and do a mass killing with a car or knife, I won't get much of a body count. Yes, the potential is there but the reality is, it's going to be limited to a low number. That might be an attempt at Mass Killing but it's going to fall far short.

As for bombs, it's almost impossible to get the materials to assemble a real mass killing bomb. Oh, sure, you can make Black Powder or even buy gun powder but not in enough quantity to do a lot of damage. If you purchase the amount of gun powder to do that you will raise enough flags long before you get to that point that you will fail. The best you can do is make a few small bombs that "Might" hurt or kill a couple or three people. Not a mass killing machine by any standard except for yours. As for the big stuff, trying to get that much Nitrogen Fertilizer will get your raided very quickly. Or buying that much Diesel Fuel without having an industrial or agricultural reason will definitely get your raided. Unlike France, the US learned from our own OKC bomber.

You say Mass means anything one or more. Get real. The number is much higher than 1 or 2 or even 8 or 9. There has been some over 50. That's more than a major Military Middle Eastern Battle. What you are trying to do is say that every murder is Mass Murder. It's not. A Mass Murder is when a person has the right tools and picks the right environment and has the driving mind set to kill as many people as they can with little or no regard for their own life. There has been only 2 cases where handguns have been used primarily for mass murder, the first one and the one in California. All the rest have involved a "Military Style" rifle with high capacity mags. And the two with handguns were rather unique but I won't go into what made them special.

So, are you saying that the will, the urge, the drive to go kill multiple people without cause, reason other than personal hate and anger has always been there and that because of innovations in firepower and automation, that is why we have seen an uptick in the last 55 years vs the previous 174 years? I think it is more than the means or vehicle. People intent on random mass murder have zero deterrent and fear no accountability for one. I also think culturally, we have moved away from human compassion and empathy.

We have had shootings all along. And before the gradual affect of the 1934 National Firearms Act, there were plenty of Mass Shootings because the tools were available. It took them 10 years to get those tools out of normal circulation and the mass shootings stopped. That is until another weapon of war came about in large numbers. Now, almost anyone could afford the tool. The nutcases have always been there but they didn't have the tool. Today, they have the tool and are using it. Someone pointed out that during a certain time period that something was different that prevented the mass shootings. Well, that difference was between the time of getting the Thompson, Grease Gun and BAR off the streets and when the AR and the AK became the in fashion nutcase mass shooting tool. Yes, right after his 1965 cutoff, the AK and the AR started hitting the streets in semi auto form. And that is the only difference. You can make all kinds of excuses but you can't change that fact. The Tools of War were on the Streets and used exactly for the purpose they were designed for. Kill a lot of people in a very short time period.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Innocent people in El Paso and Dayton over the past 24 hours are dead at the hands and actions of evil people. From a policy perspective, I don’t think restricting guns from lawful people is going to get to the root of the problem. I think if there are more guns in the hands of lawful people both concealed and open carry coupled vetting and profiling people’s behavior will drive down mass shootings. Shooters need to be both deceived and have a sense of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that they will not be successful. I don’t own a gun nor do I plan to but I am sincerely concerned that mass shooters since 1965 have felt confident that they can carry out their acts of terror against innocents. Whether using guns, cars, knives.... terrorists need a deterrent.

The two shootings happened in very gun friendly states. A lot of people do carry them, and I'm sure the Democrats are going to have a party with this one next debate. However there are still gun free zones around, and it will be interesting to see if these incidents took place in gun free zones like so many have in the past.

I'm not going to argue the subject until more verifiable information comes out. It's too early to tell what set these people off and most early reports are inaccurate anyway.

The Dayton shooting took place where there were armed guards that killed him in less than 45 seconds. But someone who does not care about dying can do a lot of damage before people can react.

Correct. Imagine if it took cops five minutes to arrive. That's why people need to be armed, it's just nobody in that group was armed and luckily police were there ASAP. You are not allowed to be in possession of a firearm with any alcohol in you. I think that law should be changed to allow people who only had a few drinks to be allowed to carry. After all, if they let you drive an automobile with a few drinks, we should be allowed to carry a firearm.

So you have a couple or three drinks. The first one makes you a better person. The Second one makes you steadier, the third one makes you invincible. Now, put a gun in a drunks hand. You mind letting the rest of us know the town that is going to do this so the sane people can all sell the homes and move the hell out before the carnage begins happening?

You are changing my words. I never said put a gun in a drunks hands. I said if a person has a few drinks, he or she should still be allowed to carry and defend themselves. Perhaps let's say half of the limit for driving at .04.

A few drinks equals a drunk. You can call it any way you want but the NHTA (National Highway and Transportation) says that a "Few" drinks makes you impaired to operate a motor vehicle. In otherwords, you are driving drunk. What makes you any less drunk if you "Have a Few" to handle firearms? There is a damned good reason that if you have a couple of drinks that you are barred carrying any firearms. Drunks are dangerous. It's that you drunks think you are supermen. The rest of us know better. If you have a "Few" we hide your car keys and call you a cab. If you have a few, do we take your firearm and call you an idiot?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Usually, it doesn't matter if it's a gun free zone or not. It usually doesn't matter what the gun laws are one bit. If a person decides to go on a shooting rampage, they are going to do it regardless. The only thing we can do is try and keep the body count down. We can never stop the incident itself, just minimize the body count. If that's all the common sense gun regulations do then they did their job.

That was not my point. My point is that these psychos usually choose gun free zones because they know it's likely nobody is armed but them. It's very common for them to choose such zones, but at least what I read to this point, the one in our state was carried out on the street.

Most are carried out in non gun free zones. There are enough done outside of gun free zones to debunk your "First they look for Gun Free Zones" idea. No, they get the idea to do a mass shooting and take the first opportunity they can get. IF it happens to be a Gun Free Zone then that's where they do it. If it's not in a gun free zone, then that's where they do it as well. You keep using sanity to judge their actions. Stop that. These mass shootings are actually part elaborate suicides. The shooter has no intention of living through the action.

Correct, but they don't want to risk a non life threatening injury by an armed citizen. They do want to die because they are cowards that can't face prison. So they do look for gun-free zones as their targets. They may be loony, but that doesn't mean they are stupid.

One small problem with what you keep saying. MOST mass shooting happen in non gun free areas. The last one happened with armed police all around the place. It only lasted about 45 seconds but a lot of people were killed by an AR 100 round armed shooter. You still don't see the one thing that all the high body count shootings have in common.

I think you are wrong, and so does Crime Prevention Research.

UPDATED: Mass Public Shootings keep occurring in Gun-Free Zones: 94% of attacks since 1950 - Crime Prevention Research Center

Wow, a John Lott special. He's part of the "Studies" that Klek did in the late 1990s and he's trying to play it smart. He's presenting those same facts and figures that Klek presented and was found to be lying about except he's not putting Klek's name on them.

The Original Study had both Klek and Lott's name on it. There is one exception between Lott and Klek, Lott is a much better liar and can do a much better presentation than Klek can. If I wasn't aware that Lott was a fabricator, I would believe his studies and outputs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That was not my point. My point is that these psychos usually choose gun free zones because they know it's likely nobody is armed but them. It's very common for them to choose such zones, but at least what I read to this point, the one in our state was carried out on the street.

Most are carried out in non gun free zones. There are enough done outside of gun free zones to debunk your "First they look for Gun Free Zones" idea. No, they get the idea to do a mass shooting and take the first opportunity they can get. IF it happens to be a Gun Free Zone then that's where they do it. If it's not in a gun free zone, then that's where they do it as well. You keep using sanity to judge their actions. Stop that. These mass shootings are actually part elaborate suicides. The shooter has no intention of living through the action.

Correct, but they don't want to risk a non life threatening injury by an armed citizen. They do want to die because they are cowards that can't face prison. So they do look for gun-free zones as their targets. They may be loony, but that doesn't mean they are stupid.

One small problem with what you keep saying. MOST mass shooting happen in non gun free areas. The last one happened with armed police all around the place. It only lasted about 45 seconds but a lot of people were killed by an AR 100 round armed shooter. You still don't see the one thing that all the high body count shootings have in common.

I think you are wrong, and so does Crime Prevention Research.

UPDATED: Mass Public Shootings keep occurring in Gun-Free Zones: 94% of attacks since 1950 - Crime Prevention Research Center

Wow, a John Lott special. He's part of the "Studies" that Klek did in the late 1990s and he's trying to play it smart. He's presenting those same facts and figures that Klek presented and was found to be lying about except he's not putting Klek's name on them.

The Original Study had both Klek and Lott's name on it. There is one exception between Lott and Klek, Lott is a much better liar and can do a much better presentation than Klek can. If I wasn't aware that Lott was a fabricator, I would believe his studies and outputs.

That's a response I was expecting from you. But given where these shootings have taken place in the past, it's hard to remember one not in a gun-free zone. It's usually high schools, colleges, stores or other public places where gun-free zones are.

The Dayton shooter deliberately waited until after 1:00 in the morning when all the bars closed. Nobody coming out of the bar would likely be legally armed. And if they were, he had bullet proof gear on as a backup. Given what they found on him, I'm sure he was not expecting nearly the response time of officers.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The two shootings happened in very gun friendly states. A lot of people do carry them, and I'm sure the Democrats are going to have a party with this one next debate. However there are still gun free zones around, and it will be interesting to see if these incidents took place in gun free zones like so many have in the past.

I'm not going to argue the subject until more verifiable information comes out. It's too early to tell what set these people off and most early reports are inaccurate anyway.

The Dayton shooting took place where there were armed guards that killed him in less than 45 seconds. But someone who does not care about dying can do a lot of damage before people can react.

Correct. Imagine if it took cops five minutes to arrive. That's why people need to be armed, it's just nobody in that group was armed and luckily police were there ASAP. You are not allowed to be in possession of a firearm with any alcohol in you. I think that law should be changed to allow people who only had a few drinks to be allowed to carry. After all, if they let you drive an automobile with a few drinks, we should be allowed to carry a firearm.

So you have a couple or three drinks. The first one makes you a better person. The Second one makes you steadier, the third one makes you invincible. Now, put a gun in a drunks hand. You mind letting the rest of us know the town that is going to do this so the sane people can all sell the homes and move the hell out before the carnage begins happening?

You are changing my words. I never said put a gun in a drunks hands. I said if a person has a few drinks, he or she should still be allowed to carry and defend themselves. Perhaps let's say half of the limit for driving at .04.

A few drinks equals a drunk. You can call it any way you want but the NHTA (National Highway and Transportation) says that a "Few" drinks makes you impaired to operate a motor vehicle. In otherwords, you are driving drunk. What makes you any less drunk if you "Have a Few" to handle firearms? There is a damned good reason that if you have a couple of drinks that you are barred carrying any firearms. Drunks are dangerous. It's that you drunks think you are supermen. The rest of us know better. If you have a "Few" we hide your car keys and call you a cab. If you have a few, do we take your firearm and call you an idiot?

So you're saying our government allows people to drive drunk? Even a social drinker would have a hell of a time getting a buzz with a BAC of .04. Actually here in my state, it used to be .10 until the insurance companies paid off the Congress people and forced us to drop it down to .08.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Most are carried out in non gun free zones. There are enough done outside of gun free zones to debunk your "First they look for Gun Free Zones" idea. No, they get the idea to do a mass shooting and take the first opportunity they can get. IF it happens to be a Gun Free Zone then that's where they do it. If it's not in a gun free zone, then that's where they do it as well. You keep using sanity to judge their actions. Stop that. These mass shootings are actually part elaborate suicides. The shooter has no intention of living through the action.

Correct, but they don't want to risk a non life threatening injury by an armed citizen. They do want to die because they are cowards that can't face prison. So they do look for gun-free zones as their targets. They may be loony, but that doesn't mean they are stupid.

One small problem with what you keep saying. MOST mass shooting happen in non gun free areas. The last one happened with armed police all around the place. It only lasted about 45 seconds but a lot of people were killed by an AR 100 round armed shooter. You still don't see the one thing that all the high body count shootings have in common.

I think you are wrong, and so does Crime Prevention Research.

UPDATED: Mass Public Shootings keep occurring in Gun-Free Zones: 94% of attacks since 1950 - Crime Prevention Research Center

Wow, a John Lott special. He's part of the "Studies" that Klek did in the late 1990s and he's trying to play it smart. He's presenting those same facts and figures that Klek presented and was found to be lying about except he's not putting Klek's name on them.

The Original Study had both Klek and Lott's name on it. There is one exception between Lott and Klek, Lott is a much better liar and can do a much better presentation than Klek can. If I wasn't aware that Lott was a fabricator, I would believe his studies and outputs.

That's a response I was expecting from you. But given where these shootings have taken place in the past, it's hard to remember one not in a gun-free zone. It's usually high schools, colleges, stores or other public places where gun-free zones are.

The Dayton shooter deliberately waited until after 1:00 in the morning when all the bars closed. Nobody coming out of the bar would likely be legally armed. And if they were, he had bullet proof gear on as a backup. Given what they found on him, I'm sure he was not expecting nearly the response time of officers.

The Data is taken from Government Studies that either are made up or are completely different than presented. In the end, all roads lead back to Klek. And Klek is a fabricator.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The Dayton shooting took place where there were armed guards that killed him in less than 45 seconds. But someone who does not care about dying can do a lot of damage before people can react.

Correct. Imagine if it took cops five minutes to arrive. That's why people need to be armed, it's just nobody in that group was armed and luckily police were there ASAP. You are not allowed to be in possession of a firearm with any alcohol in you. I think that law should be changed to allow people who only had a few drinks to be allowed to carry. After all, if they let you drive an automobile with a few drinks, we should be allowed to carry a firearm.

So you have a couple or three drinks. The first one makes you a better person. The Second one makes you steadier, the third one makes you invincible. Now, put a gun in a drunks hand. You mind letting the rest of us know the town that is going to do this so the sane people can all sell the homes and move the hell out before the carnage begins happening?

You are changing my words. I never said put a gun in a drunks hands. I said if a person has a few drinks, he or she should still be allowed to carry and defend themselves. Perhaps let's say half of the limit for driving at .04.

A few drinks equals a drunk. You can call it any way you want but the NHTA (National Highway and Transportation) says that a "Few" drinks makes you impaired to operate a motor vehicle. In otherwords, you are driving drunk. What makes you any less drunk if you "Have a Few" to handle firearms? There is a damned good reason that if you have a couple of drinks that you are barred carrying any firearms. Drunks are dangerous. It's that you drunks think you are supermen. The rest of us know better. If you have a "Few" we hide your car keys and call you a cab. If you have a few, do we take your firearm and call you an idiot?

So you're saying our government allows people to drive drunk? Even a social drinker would have a hell of a time getting a buzz with a BAC of .04. Actually here in my state, it used to be .10 until the insurance companies paid off the Congress people and forced us to drop it down to .08.

So, you are saying that someone should take their gun with them to go and drink, and once they have have more than a couple drinks and are buzzed or drunk they will be responsible enough to put it away?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Dayton shooting took place where there were armed guards that killed him in less than 45 seconds. But someone who does not care about dying can do a lot of damage before people can react.

Correct. Imagine if it took cops five minutes to arrive. That's why people need to be armed, it's just nobody in that group was armed and luckily police were there ASAP. You are not allowed to be in possession of a firearm with any alcohol in you. I think that law should be changed to allow people who only had a few drinks to be allowed to carry. After all, if they let you drive an automobile with a few drinks, we should be allowed to carry a firearm.

So you have a couple or three drinks. The first one makes you a better person. The Second one makes you steadier, the third one makes you invincible. Now, put a gun in a drunks hand. You mind letting the rest of us know the town that is going to do this so the sane people can all sell the homes and move the hell out before the carnage begins happening?

You are changing my words. I never said put a gun in a drunks hands. I said if a person has a few drinks, he or she should still be allowed to carry and defend themselves. Perhaps let's say half of the limit for driving at .04.

A few drinks equals a drunk. You can call it any way you want but the NHTA (National Highway and Transportation) says that a "Few" drinks makes you impaired to operate a motor vehicle. In otherwords, you are driving drunk. What makes you any less drunk if you "Have a Few" to handle firearms? There is a damned good reason that if you have a couple of drinks that you are barred carrying any firearms. Drunks are dangerous. It's that you drunks think you are supermen. The rest of us know better. If you have a "Few" we hide your car keys and call you a cab. If you have a few, do we take your firearm and call you an idiot?

So you're saying our government allows people to drive drunk? Even a social drinker would have a hell of a time getting a buzz with a BAC of .04. Actually here in my state, it used to be .10 until the insurance companies paid off the Congress people and forced us to drop it down to .08.

It's acceptable that a normal sized man can probably handle two drinks and possibly be below the legal limit. Or maybe not. Depending on a lot of factors. When you say a few, you exceed the 2 drinks. That's 2 single 1 oz drinks or 2 beers or 2 small glasses of wine. It's been proven over and over, anymore than that impairment sets in. The average person will be impaired somewhere between 3 and 4 normal drinks. By drink 4 he's well within legally impaired at .091. With 3 drinks, the average man will be at just under .07. The average Female can consume less alcohol but the amount of drinks for impairment aren't that much different. She is just fairly blitzed before the man loses all use of his faculties.


And this is under ideal conditions for the average weights of male and females not drinking on empty stomachs. We all know what happens when you drink on an empty stomach. A Beer may not affect you but that one drink of Tangeray will be felt. Two will put you over the limit. I should know. That's what I drink from time to time. And I am well over 200 lbs. 3 drinks on an empty stomach and it's don't leave the recliner nor do I want to. Shoot, on a medium filled stomach, 3 drinks still makes me want to enjoy that recliner. There is no way in hell I would want to drive with 3 shots of that fine gin. Now, why would I want to handle a firearm at the point either?

I would say that 2 shots of that fine gin would be about the same alcohol content as a about 4 cans of 16 oz beers. 3 would be about like a six pack. My math may be wrong since it was scientifiicificicfically gathered the old fashioned way.

So a FEW and you would be okay to drive? A Cop may disagree. A Judge may disagree. Your Insurance Company will definitely disagree and so will the ATF.

I haven't had my drink this month. Maybe I will do some more scientification study on it tonight.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Correct. Imagine if it took cops five minutes to arrive. That's why people need to be armed, it's just nobody in that group was armed and luckily police were there ASAP. You are not allowed to be in possession of a firearm with any alcohol in you. I think that law should be changed to allow people who only had a few drinks to be allowed to carry. After all, if they let you drive an automobile with a few drinks, we should be allowed to carry a firearm.

So you have a couple or three drinks. The first one makes you a better person. The Second one makes you steadier, the third one makes you invincible. Now, put a gun in a drunks hand. You mind letting the rest of us know the town that is going to do this so the sane people can all sell the homes and move the hell out before the carnage begins happening?

You are changing my words. I never said put a gun in a drunks hands. I said if a person has a few drinks, he or she should still be allowed to carry and defend themselves. Perhaps let's say half of the limit for driving at .04.

A few drinks equals a drunk. You can call it any way you want but the NHTA (National Highway and Transportation) says that a "Few" drinks makes you impaired to operate a motor vehicle. In otherwords, you are driving drunk. What makes you any less drunk if you "Have a Few" to handle firearms? There is a damned good reason that if you have a couple of drinks that you are barred carrying any firearms. Drunks are dangerous. It's that you drunks think you are supermen. The rest of us know better. If you have a "Few" we hide your car keys and call you a cab. If you have a few, do we take your firearm and call you an idiot?

So you're saying our government allows people to drive drunk? Even a social drinker would have a hell of a time getting a buzz with a BAC of .04. Actually here in my state, it used to be .10 until the insurance companies paid off the Congress people and forced us to drop it down to .08.

So, you are saying that someone should take their gun with them to go and drink, and once they have have more than a couple drinks and are buzzed or drunk they will be responsible enough to put it away?

It's illegal for them to take their gun with them to go drinking. NO firearms shall be present around where alcohol is being served, period. Before you started drinking, a responsible gun owner would know to properly store that weapon. Someone that shouldn't have a gun in the first place won't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you have a couple or three drinks. The first one makes you a better person. The Second one makes you steadier, the third one makes you invincible. Now, put a gun in a drunks hand. You mind letting the rest of us know the town that is going to do this so the sane people can all sell the homes and move the hell out before the carnage begins happening?

You are changing my words. I never said put a gun in a drunks hands. I said if a person has a few drinks, he or she should still be allowed to carry and defend themselves. Perhaps let's say half of the limit for driving at .04.

A few drinks equals a drunk. You can call it any way you want but the NHTA (National Highway and Transportation) says that a "Few" drinks makes you impaired to operate a motor vehicle. In otherwords, you are driving drunk. What makes you any less drunk if you "Have a Few" to handle firearms? There is a damned good reason that if you have a couple of drinks that you are barred carrying any firearms. Drunks are dangerous. It's that you drunks think you are supermen. The rest of us know better. If you have a "Few" we hide your car keys and call you a cab. If you have a few, do we take your firearm and call you an idiot?

So you're saying our government allows people to drive drunk? Even a social drinker would have a hell of a time getting a buzz with a BAC of .04. Actually here in my state, it used to be .10 until the insurance companies paid off the Congress people and forced us to drop it down to .08.

So, you are saying that someone should take their gun with them to go and drink, and once they have have more than a couple drinks and are buzzed or drunk they will be responsible enough to put it away?

It's illegal for them to take their gun with them to go drinking. NO firearms shall be present around where alcohol is being served, period. Before you started drinking, a responsible gun owner would know to properly store that weapon. Someone that shouldn't have a gun in the first place won't.

That depends on the state. Our laws were the same way. If a place was selling alcohol, you couldn't have a gun there whether you were drinking or not. They changed that law because some restaurants like Applebee's serve alcohol, but it's not a place where people get drunk at. Perhaps a beer with a burger type of thing.

Of course, the anti-gun crowd made all their doom and gloom predictions; none of which ever came true.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Correct. Imagine if it took cops five minutes to arrive. That's why people need to be armed, it's just nobody in that group was armed and luckily police were there ASAP. You are not allowed to be in possession of a firearm with any alcohol in you. I think that law should be changed to allow people who only had a few drinks to be allowed to carry. After all, if they let you drive an automobile with a few drinks, we should be allowed to carry a firearm.

So you have a couple or three drinks. The first one makes you a better person. The Second one makes you steadier, the third one makes you invincible. Now, put a gun in a drunks hand. You mind letting the rest of us know the town that is going to do this so the sane people can all sell the homes and move the hell out before the carnage begins happening?

You are changing my words. I never said put a gun in a drunks hands. I said if a person has a few drinks, he or she should still be allowed to carry and defend themselves. Perhaps let's say half of the limit for driving at .04.

A few drinks equals a drunk. You can call it any way you want but the NHTA (National Highway and Transportation) says that a "Few" drinks makes you impaired to operate a motor vehicle. In otherwords, you are driving drunk. What makes you any less drunk if you "Have a Few" to handle firearms? There is a damned good reason that if you have a couple of drinks that you are barred carrying any firearms. Drunks are dangerous. It's that you drunks think you are supermen. The rest of us know better. If you have a "Few" we hide your car keys and call you a cab. If you have a few, do we take your firearm and call you an idiot?

So you're saying our government allows people to drive drunk? Even a social drinker would have a hell of a time getting a buzz with a BAC of .04. Actually here in my state, it used to be .10 until the insurance companies paid off the Congress people and forced us to drop it down to .08.

It's acceptable that a normal sized man can probably handle two drinks and possibly be below the legal limit. Or maybe not. Depending on a lot of factors. When you say a few, you exceed the 2 drinks. That's 2 single 1 oz drinks or 2 beers or 2 small glasses of wine. It's been proven over and over, anymore than that impairment sets in. The average person will be impaired somewhere between 3 and 4 normal drinks. By drink 4 he's well within legally impaired at .091. With 3 drinks, the average man will be at just under .07. The average Female can consume less alcohol but the amount of drinks for impairment aren't that much different. She is just fairly blitzed before the man loses all use of his faculties.


And this is under ideal conditions for the average weights of male and females not drinking on empty stomachs. We all know what happens when you drink on an empty stomach. A Beer may not affect you but that one drink of Tangeray will be felt. Two will put you over the limit. I should know. That's what I drink from time to time. And I am well over 200 lbs. 3 drinks on an empty stomach and it's don't leave the recliner nor do I want to. Shoot, on a medium filled stomach, 3 drinks still makes me want to enjoy that recliner. There is no way in hell I would want to drive with 3 shots of that fine gin. Now, why would I want to handle a firearm at the point either?

I would say that 2 shots of that fine gin would be about the same alcohol content as a about 4 cans of 16 oz beers. 3 would be about like a six pack. My math may be wrong since it was scientifiicificicfically gathered the old fashioned way.

So a FEW and you would be okay to drive? A Cop may disagree. A Judge may disagree. Your Insurance Company will definitely disagree and so will the ATF.

I haven't had my drink this month. Maybe I will do some more scientification study on it tonight.

For my weight, I can have four beers, and then one more every two hours after that. That's pushing it to the limit though.

Because of my license, I don't touch a drop of alcohol because technically, if I have one beer, they can hold me to CDL standards of drunk even though I'm in my car. Whether it would hold up in court or not, who knows, but who needs the problem?

All I drink is beer. Never was much for the hard stuff. Besides, it never really did anything for me anyway. In fact I'll be opening up my first Molson in about a half-hour.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Correct. Imagine if it took cops five minutes to arrive. That's why people need to be armed, it's just nobody in that group was armed and luckily police were there ASAP. You are not allowed to be in possession of a firearm with any alcohol in you. I think that law should be changed to allow people who only had a few drinks to be allowed to carry. After all, if they let you drive an automobile with a few drinks, we should be allowed to carry a firearm.

So you have a couple or three drinks. The first one makes you a better person. The Second one makes you steadier, the third one makes you invincible. Now, put a gun in a drunks hand. You mind letting the rest of us know the town that is going to do this so the sane people can all sell the homes and move the hell out before the carnage begins happening?

You are changing my words. I never said put a gun in a drunks hands. I said if a person has a few drinks, he or she should still be allowed to carry and defend themselves. Perhaps let's say half of the limit for driving at .04.

A few drinks equals a drunk. You can call it any way you want but the NHTA (National Highway and Transportation) says that a "Few" drinks makes you impaired to operate a motor vehicle. In otherwords, you are driving drunk. What makes you any less drunk if you "Have a Few" to handle firearms? There is a damned good reason that if you have a couple of drinks that you are barred carrying any firearms. Drunks are dangerous. It's that you drunks think you are supermen. The rest of us know better. If you have a "Few" we hide your car keys and call you a cab. If you have a few, do we take your firearm and call you an idiot?

So you're saying our government allows people to drive drunk? Even a social drinker would have a hell of a time getting a buzz with a BAC of .04. Actually here in my state, it used to be .10 until the insurance companies paid off the Congress people and forced us to drop it down to .08.

So, you are saying that someone should take their gun with them to go and drink, and once they have have more than a couple drinks and are buzzed or drunk they will be responsible enough to put it away?

Yes, I think so. Not that you have much of a buzz though. But like I said, how do we allow people to drive an automobile with a few drinks and not have a gun. It's either dangerous or it's not. As a drinker, I can say it's fairly safe. Besides, there is 99% chance of you will never need a weapon for self-defense anyway.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Correct, but they don't want to risk a non life threatening injury by an armed citizen. They do want to die because they are cowards that can't face prison. So they do look for gun-free zones as their targets. They may be loony, but that doesn't mean they are stupid.

One small problem with what you keep saying. MOST mass shooting happen in non gun free areas. The last one happened with armed police all around the place. It only lasted about 45 seconds but a lot of people were killed by an AR 100 round armed shooter. You still don't see the one thing that all the high body count shootings have in common.

I think you are wrong, and so does Crime Prevention Research.

UPDATED: Mass Public Shootings keep occurring in Gun-Free Zones: 94% of attacks since 1950 - Crime Prevention Research Center

Wow, a John Lott special. He's part of the "Studies" that Klek did in the late 1990s and he's trying to play it smart. He's presenting those same facts and figures that Klek presented and was found to be lying about except he's not putting Klek's name on them.

The Original Study had both Klek and Lott's name on it. There is one exception between Lott and Klek, Lott is a much better liar and can do a much better presentation than Klek can. If I wasn't aware that Lott was a fabricator, I would believe his studies and outputs.

That's a response I was expecting from you. But given where these shootings have taken place in the past, it's hard to remember one not in a gun-free zone. It's usually high schools, colleges, stores or other public places where gun-free zones are.

The Dayton shooter deliberately waited until after 1:00 in the morning when all the bars closed. Nobody coming out of the bar would likely be legally armed. And if they were, he had bullet proof gear on as a backup. Given what they found on him, I'm sure he was not expecting nearly the response time of officers.

The Data is taken from Government Studies that either are made up or are completely different than presented. In the end, all roads lead back to Klek. And Klek is a fabricator.

It's really the only study I found. Now if you want to take one incident at a time, that could take quite a while given the fact a mass murder is considered (by FBI standards) as four people murdered. I don't consider that a mass murder. Hell, we had an incident of four getting killed here two weeks ago. It was domestic. Even some drugs deals end up with that amount of people getting killed.

However when we are talking about people that kill strangers in numbers for no reason, it's usually where nobody else is armed.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yes, I think so. Not that you have much of a buzz though. But like I said, how do we allow people to drive an automobile with a few drinks and not have a gun. It's either dangerous or it's not. As a drinker, I can say it's fairly safe. Besides, there is 99% chance of you will never need a weapon for self-defense anyway.

How many people each year drive a car assuming they are "good to go" but are really drunk? One thing about getting drunk, you do not make good decisions.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, I think so. Not that you have much of a buzz though. But like I said, how do we allow people to drive an automobile with a few drinks and not have a gun. It's either dangerous or it's not. As a drinker, I can say it's fairly safe. Besides, there is 99% chance of you will never need a weapon for self-defense anyway.

How many people each year drive a car assuming they are "good to go" but are really drunk? One thing about getting drunk, you do not make good decisions.

And like driving, you need to take that responsibility and be held accountable. I don't think many people get busted driving drunk because they thought they were okay. They know they are drunk, but just willing to take a chance. I have a neighbor that had about three DUI's. He knew he was drunk each time, but has a F-it attitude. One episode he didn't know what happened. All he remembered is he woke up in a jail cell.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yes, I think so. Not that you have much of a buzz though. But like I said, how do we allow people to drive an automobile with a few drinks and not have a gun. It's either dangerous or it's not. As a drinker, I can say it's fairly safe. Besides, there is 99% chance of you will never need a weapon for self-defense anyway.

How many people each year drive a car assuming they are "good to go" but are really drunk? One thing about getting drunk, you do not make good decisions.

And like driving, you need to take that responsibility and be held accountable. I don't think many people get busted driving drunk because they thought they were okay. They know they are drunk, but just willing to take a chance. I have a neighbor that had about three DUI's. He knew he was drunk each time, but has a F-it attitude. One episode he didn't know what happened. All he remembered is he woke up in a jail cell.

And these are the same people you think will be responsible if they can take their guns into the bar with them???

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, I think so. Not that you have much of a buzz though. But like I said, how do we allow people to drive an automobile with a few drinks and not have a gun. It's either dangerous or it's not. As a drinker, I can say it's fairly safe. Besides, there is 99% chance of you will never need a weapon for self-defense anyway.

How many people each year drive a car assuming they are "good to go" but are really drunk? One thing about getting drunk, you do not make good decisions.

And like driving, you need to take that responsibility and be held accountable. I don't think many people get busted driving drunk because they thought they were okay. They know they are drunk, but just willing to take a chance. I have a neighbor that had about three DUI's. He knew he was drunk each time, but has a F-it attitude. One episode he didn't know what happened. All he remembered is he woke up in a jail cell.

And these are the same people you think will be responsible if they can take their guns into the bar with them???

Not really, because most people like that are not responsible in the first place. It takes a little doing to get a carry license, and mostly only serious people get them. If somebody is going to break the law with a license, they probably are already carrying.

Unlike a drivers license where they give you a second chance, there is no second chance if you are drinking and in possession of a gun. Your license is revoked for life.

 

[Norman]

The second amendment is not a request or opinion. You disagree and it's time to get back to your 3rd world shit-hole. Attempting to disarm honest Americans... not a good idea.

As for the shootings, we will just have to learn how to deal with crazy people. So far it seems the education centers are mostly producing crazy people, as was the case with the CNN viewer who attacked law makers.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

One small problem with what you keep saying. MOST mass shooting happen in non gun free areas. The last one happened with armed police all around the place. It only lasted about 45 seconds but a lot of people were killed by an AR 100 round armed shooter. You still don't see the one thing that all the high body count shootings have in common.

I think you are wrong, and so does Crime Prevention Research.

UPDATED: Mass Public Shootings keep occurring in Gun-Free Zones: 94% of attacks since 1950 - Crime Prevention Research Center

Wow, a John Lott special. He's part of the "Studies" that Klek did in the late 1990s and he's trying to play it smart. He's presenting those same facts and figures that Klek presented and was found to be lying about except he's not putting Klek's name on them.

The Original Study had both Klek and Lott's name on it. There is one exception between Lott and Klek, Lott is a much better liar and can do a much better presentation than Klek can. If I wasn't aware that Lott was a fabricator, I would believe his studies and outputs.

That's a response I was expecting from you. But given where these shootings have taken place in the past, it's hard to remember one not in a gun-free zone. It's usually high schools, colleges, stores or other public places where gun-free zones are.

The Dayton shooter deliberately waited until after 1:00 in the morning when all the bars closed. Nobody coming out of the bar would likely be legally armed. And if they were, he had bullet proof gear on as a backup. Given what they found on him, I'm sure he was not expecting nearly the response time of officers.

The Data is taken from Government Studies that either are made up or are completely different than presented. In the end, all roads lead back to Klek. And Klek is a fabricator.

It's really the only study I found. Now if you want to take one incident at a time, that could take quite a while given the fact a mass murder is considered (by FBI standards) as four people murdered. I don't consider that a mass murder. Hell, we had an incident of four getting killed here two weeks ago. It was domestic. Even some drugs deals end up with that amount of people getting killed.

However when we are talking about people that kill strangers in numbers for no reason, it's usually where nobody else is armed.

The problem is, the Klek and Lott Studies weren't really studies. They had a goal and manupulated the data to get to that forgone conclusion. Happens in "Science" all the time. Not so much anymore but it used to happen a bunch. And I imagine that there are a few "Studies" out there that are also done the same way. Luckily, the science community polices it's own.

It appears that the studies you would want to see aren't happening. Don't ask me why. Instead everyone keeps going back to the original Klek and Lott "Study" with it's outlandish claims and expects everyone to accept it. Afterall, on the surface, both Klek and Lott have some pretty impressive credentials. It just so happens that they are both dishonest.

So far, every reference I have ever seen to why we need more guns in a scientific manner refers back to Klek. It appears that those that are presenting the views are just plain lazy. When I say there is NO reputable study that shows that more guns means less violent gun crimes, that's is what I mean. Not to say that more guns won't affect violent gun crime one way or another, it's just that no one has ever proven in a scientific way that they will. And you response would be "But there are no studies that less guns means fewer gun violent crimes". True. But history says you are wrong where we saturated environments with guns and had to curtail them a bit. WE are not at the saturation level yet so right now, there are no scientific studies that show that fewer or more guns has any affect on violent gun crimes.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The second amendment is not a request or opinion. You disagree and it's time to get back to your 3rd world shit-hole. Attempting to disarm honest Americans... not a good idea.

As for the shootings, we will just have to learn how to deal with crazy people. So far it seems the education centers are mostly producing crazy people, as was the case with the CNN viewer who attacked law makers.

YOu seem to believe that the 2nd amendment only applies to firearms. It doesn't. It applies to all arms including fists, feet, head butting, etc.. They took the word "Arms" from the Magna Carta and the British Bill of Rights which were written and adopted before the firearms were widely accepted. It was from a day when only Kings could afford "Weapons of War" or Arms of War. Why aren't you up in arms because the authorities won't allow people to wear long swords walking down the streets? Or not allow anyone to pull that Bowie Knife in a public place. How about playing catch with a Grenade with the pin still in place in a parking lot. I happen to like a good Broad Sword and you have infringed on my rights. What's the difference?