Biden Recommends That People Break the Law

[Metsfanmax]

For full disclosure, that video I posted was on behalf of Phatscotty, who asked me to post it from Live Chat.

[Neoteny]

For full disclosure, that video I posted was on behalf of Phatscotty, who asked me to post it from Live Chat.

I'm not surprised. The sexism combined with youtube screams "Phatscotty."

Since that was disclosed, I'd like to remind you of the following:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7785

Minor Infractions are those that are more annoying than hurtful with intent. This includes but is not limited to: Spamming, Off Topicing, Common Flaming, Common Trolling, Necro-bumping, Avatar Abuse, Chat/Forum Newbie Abuse, International Forum Abuse, Repeatedly Posting for Vacationed Users,"Report a Post" Abuse, "Cheating and Abuse Report" Abuse, Repeated Unwanted Solicitation of a user via PM/Walls/Gamechat), Pornographic Material, etc.

Phatscotty was banned for a reason. He'll be back soon. In the meantime, let us really appreciate his absence while we have such precious little time to do so.

[Metsfanmax]

For full disclosure, that video I posted was on behalf of Phatscotty, who asked me to post it from Live Chat.

I'm not surprised. The sexism combined with youtube screams "Phatscotty."

Since that was disclosed, I'd like to remind you of the following:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7785

Minor Infractions are those that are more annoying than hurtful with intent. This includes but is not limited to: Spamming, Off Topicing, Common Flaming, Common Trolling, Necro-bumping, Avatar Abuse, Chat/Forum Newbie Abuse, International Forum Abuse, Repeatedly Posting for Vacationed Users,"Report a Post" Abuse, "Cheating and Abuse Report" Abuse, Repeated Unwanted Solicitation of a user via PM/Walls/Gamechat), Pornographic Material, etc.

Thank you for the reminder. The last (and only) time I posted something for Phatscotty was on January 15th, but if that makes me a repeat offender I should be appropriately punished!

Phatscotty was banned for a reason. He'll be back soon. In the meantime, let us really appreciate his absence while we have such precious little time to do so.

As far as I am aware, the reason Phatscotty was banned because of a personal dispute with another member and not because of "sexism."

[Neoteny]

For full disclosure, that video I posted was on behalf of Phatscotty, who asked me to post it from Live Chat.

I'm not surprised. The sexism combined with youtube screams "Phatscotty."

Since that was disclosed, I'd like to remind you of the following:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7785

Minor Infractions are those that are more annoying than hurtful with intent. This includes but is not limited to: Spamming, Off Topicing, Common Flaming, Common Trolling, Necro-bumping, Avatar Abuse, Chat/Forum Newbie Abuse, International Forum Abuse, Repeatedly Posting for Vacationed Users,"Report a Post" Abuse, "Cheating and Abuse Report" Abuse, Repeated Unwanted Solicitation of a user via PM/Walls/Gamechat), Pornographic Material, etc.

Thank you for the reminder. The last (and only) time I posted something for Phatscotty was on January 15th, but if that makes me a repeat offender I should be appropriately punished!

Phatscotty was banned for a reason. He'll be back soon. In the meantime, let us really appreciate his absence while we have such precious little time to do so.

As far as I am aware, the reason Phatscotty was banned because of a personal dispute with another member and not because of "sexism."

You are probably more aware than I. He has personal disputes with many people because he is abrasive, which incorporates a variety of flaws he possesses. I'm just saying.

[kentington]

Bans are forum wide. This means that there was an error in judgement with posts, regardless of which rule was broken.
Second, bans are a discipline. By posting for someone on a ban it undermines the discipline.
Third, whenever you post for another member the rules will affect only you and not the person you are posting for.

Banned users have the use of Live Chat and this is where they can express themselves within those rules. If someone wants to hear from a banned member they can check there.

"Repeatedly" is vague. I would suggest letting them continue with their ban and that wont leave anyone subject to vague enforcement.

[BigBallinStalin]

Still, all of this back-and-forth overlooks the fundamental dispute ITT:

The best pump-action shotty is the BPS 10 gauge.

Observe:






Still not convinced?





All other shotguns are inferior.

QED.

[kentington]

That's silly. Women can use a 12 just fine. Using a bunch of ladies who don't know what they're doing is a little dishonest.

I think both sides have their agenda and they both are dishonest. While the video was funny it was just as misleading as the statements they were mocking.

I will say this however. My friend is a detective and firearms instructor. Do you know what he has in his house for self defense? Shotgun. He said that if he were attacked in his home the precision of a hand gun can be detrimental, just as the widespread of a shotgun in the home can cause issues. He prefers a shotgun, but in all cases he says that no one should own a firearm without training. It is irresponsible.
I will make an example and some people will hate it.
I am aware that cars are a privilege.
You must practice using a car and prove that you possess knowledge of its safety and use before getting a license. A car is a dangerous thing and without proper training it will be used incorrectly and may cause harm. It would be irresponsible of the state to allow people access to the roads without the wisdom to drive. Yes there are still horrible drivers that cause accidents and are irresponsible. This means that the same will happen with guns.

I think a good solution is for the government to embrace the rights of the people and start a program to provide proper arms training to any citizen who wants it. This also increases the security of the nation against terrorist threats.

[Neoteny]

I mostly agree. Biden's comments are, of course, just as silly as the video response, which is deserved because of that. I also agree that shotguns make fantastic home defense arms, though you don't necessarily need a 12 gauge. A 20 gauge is a good balance between stopping power and ease of use, IMO. If you feel like a pistol or rifle (assault or otherwise) is more effective for a minimally trained individual in a high stress situation, then I wish them the best of luck, because they'll need it.

I've got a .410 and a 20 gauge myself. My pops likes his 12 and his pistols, but, then, he's also an MP.

[BigBallinStalin]

If the government starts that program, kentington, then I'd expect similar results to government(s) monopoly(ies) on driver certificates (DMV) and (~35,000 dead per year).

If government intervention is a must, then I'd support subsidies for training programs offered at local gunshops/shooting ranges; however, since the government's debt is ridiculous and since this will most likely negatively effect future generations of Americans, then subsidies are simply off the table. They're also irresponsible and contribute to crony capitalism.

So, what's left? Maybe pass a law (state-by-state) which mandates that all who own a gun must receive training, but I still don't view that as necessary because most people who own guns learn from their experienced friends or get training anyway, so there's no need to impose such waste. Those who voluntarily forego that training can suffer the consequences, from which others may learn.

I'd remove "Gun Free Zones," which essentially advertise "bring your gun here if you wish to shoot a bunch of people."

[BigBallinStalin]

I mostly agree. Biden's comments are, of course, just as silly as the video response, which is deserved because of that. I also agree that shotguns make fantastic home defense arms, though you don't necessarily need a 12 gauge. A 20 gauge is a good balance between stopping power and ease of use, IMO. If you feel like a pistol or rifle (assault or otherwise) is more effective for a minimally trained individual in a high stress situation, then I wish them the best of luck, because they'll need it.

I've got a .410 and a 20 gauge myself. My pops likes his 12 and his pistols, but, then, he's also an MP.

That's interesting. Is it your physical frame which constrains your choices, or is it mostly psychological?

*(note: there's nothing wrong with using 410s or 20 gauges. I'm only curious cuz SCIENCE.)

[kentington]

A 20 gauge is a good balance between stopping power and ease of use, IMO.

I agree. Balance is needed. You just want a better chance at a quick shot than you get with a pistol or rifle.

[Neoteny]

I inherited the .410 from my grandfather, and got the 20 as a teen. I don't have the need for more (I don't actually need either, they stay at my father's house), so I haven't pursued more. I can handle the 12 physically and mentally, but I am more comfortable with the smaller cartridge. My slight build (6 foot 150) probably contributes to that.

When I first fired the twelve as a youngin', I took a scope to the eye like the woman in the video. I was also wearing eye protection because my family aren't incompetent. It just cut my nose open. More recently control hasn't been an issue.

[Neoteny]

A 20 gauge is a good balance between stopping power and ease of use, IMO.

I agree. Balance is needed. You just want a better chance at a quick shot than you get with a pistol or rifle.

Yeah, that feels more important to me in a "non gun nut in a home defense situation."

[Metsfanmax]

"Repeatedly" is vague. I would suggest letting them continue with their ban and that wont leave anyone subject to vague enforcement.

I would suggest making the rule less vague if you want it to be meaningfully enforced.

And to clear it up, I shouldn't have said that Phatscotty asked that I post the video. He linked it in Live Chat and I thought it was funny, so I put it in this thread.

[Metsfanmax]

I'd remove "Gun Free Zones," which essentially advertise "bring your gun here if you wish to shoot a bunch of people."

Another study points out that, in general, it has been difficult to establish a clear link between CCW permits and crime rates, and took the approach of comparing crime rates between those with concealed carry permits and those without. They found that concealed carry permit holders committed far fewer crimes, but the nature of their crimes tended to be more serious (e.g. sexual assault, murder as compared to burglaries, etc.). They argue that there is a small increased risk of crime rates when we expand the settings where people can carry concealed weapons. So I implore you to actually consider the data.

I'll even quote from the study itself, since it's behind a paywall:

Our research may shed some light on another major issue in the CHL debate. The drive of the National Rifle Association and other organizations is to reduce the number of settings where carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited. Legislative bodies in many states have already approved, or are considering, legislation to reduce the scope of these prohibitions. These proposals include allowing concealed carry by students and faculty in college classrooms, by faculty in public schools, in national parks, in state parks, and in churches. The foundation for these proposals is straightforward; advocates of these changes argue that the presence of legally armed civilians in these new settings will decrease the likelihood or consequences of crime-especially the occurrence of those rare events involving multiple victims of gun violence.

Our results imply that opening these settings to CHL holders carrying handguns may increase gun-related offenses in those previously gun-free zones. As the numbers in Table 1 indicate, these increases will not be dramatic; our results imply that the increase in the number of gun offenses or amount of gun violence committed by CHL holders in these new settings will be low. Nonetheless, policymakers should balance this likelihood against the likelihood that CHL holders will encounter and can positively affect the calamitous situations that often lead to the demand that carry restrictions be reduced.

[kentington]

"Repeatedly" is vague. I would suggest letting them continue with their ban and that wont leave anyone subject to vague enforcement.

I would suggest making the rule less vague if you want it to be meaningfully enforced.

And to clear it up, I shouldn't have said that Phatscotty asked that I post the video. He linked it in Live Chat and I thought it was funny, so I put it in this thread.

I wasn't trying to be rude or pick on you. I don't have control over the rules, yet.
Honestly, we are trying to come up with a system to make things more specific and less subjective. In the meantime, these rules are what we will be respecting. I know it sucks when something is vague, so if it isn't necessary then avoid breaking the rule.

[AAFitz]

Mormons break the law all the time by marrying more than one wife.

As far as I know, those are religious ceremonies that don't involve the civil authority (government), so they're not actually breaking any laws.

So then you're for gay marriage?

-TG

Nice trap guys!

NS dug the hole, they just through the spikes into the bottom.

I actually had posted something very similar myself, but deleted and moved on.

[notyou2]

..all of which are on the same level as "legitimate rape"

Not really.

So you agree with the Democrat who said that women aren't smart enough to trust their feelings of being threatened and therefore aren't smart enough to carry a gun?

All the instances mentioned in this thread, and the many more that will undoubtedly come, just show which politicians are the true perpetrators of a war on women.

1. Source please for the Dem that said that.

He used a woman in the example, but it could just as easily be a man that inadvertently shoots someone. Just ask Zimmerman.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'd remove "Gun Free Zones," which essentially advertise "bring your gun here if you wish to shoot a bunch of people."

Another study points out that, in general, it has been difficult to establish a clear link between CCW permits and crime rates, and took the approach of comparing crime rates between those with concealed carry permits and those without. They found that concealed carry permit holders committed far fewer crimes, but the nature of their crimes tended to be more serious (e.g. sexual assault, murder as compared to burglaries, etc.). They argue that there is a small increased risk of crime rates when we expand the settings where people can carry concealed weapons. So I implore you to actually consider the data.

I'll even quote from the study itself, since it's behind a paywall:

Our research may shed some light on another major issue in the CHL debate. The drive of the National Rifle Association and other organizations is to reduce the number of settings where carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited. Legislative bodies in many states have already approved, or are considering, legislation to reduce the scope of these prohibitions. These proposals include allowing concealed carry by students and faculty in college classrooms, by faculty in public schools, in national parks, in state parks, and in churches. The foundation for these proposals is straightforward; advocates of these changes argue that the presence of legally armed civilians in these new settings will decrease the likelihood or consequences of crime-especially the occurrence of those rare events involving multiple victims of gun violence.

Our results imply that opening these settings to CHL holders carrying handguns may increase gun-related offenses in those previously gun-free zones. As the numbers in Table 1 indicate, these increases will not be dramatic; our results imply that the increase in the number of gun offenses or amount of gun violence committed by CHL holders in these new settings will be low. Nonetheless, policymakers should balance this likelihood against the likelihood that CHL holders will encounter and can positively affect the calamitous situations that often lead to the demand that carry restrictions be reduced.

"gun-related offenses" = what exactly?
If it's "waving a gun around like an asshole for no good reason," then I don't view that as costly. If anything, I'd be glad the crazy person was allowed to make an ass of himself, so that he can be corrected--through various means, violent (imprisonment) or non-violent (fine, public shaming). It allows for trial-and-error, which is necessary but not allowed by prohibitions.

If the main concern is to mitigate the risk of violent crime from potential perpetrators seeking to do some damage in the least protected places, then I'd lift that prohibition.

of course, complementary goods decrease the chance of crime (e.g. private police--as on university campuses, more efficient justice system in particular ares, etc.). I wonder how the study controlled for all those relevant variables...

They argue that there is a small increased risk of crime rates when we expand the settings where people can carry concealed weapons. So I implore you to actually consider the data.

So, if CHL holders are allowed to expand into a new area, they expect some chance of crime increasing? If we ignore circumstances of time and place and the variance at which people behave in those different places at different times, then I'd believe that.

[rishaed]

That's silly. Women can use a 12 just fine. Using a bunch of ladies who don't know what they're doing is a little dishonest.



I wouldn't necessarily suggest firing both barrels of a double at the same time for anyone. My scrawny ass would probably go flying too.

Here's one that goes all the way up to ten.



Perhaps it just comes with the accent. "Damn, I don't see any point in shooting the other TV, do you?"

I find that misleading, If I randomly gave my siblings a 12 gauge and said here shoot it, i think the same thing would happen as in the first video Of course women can use a 12-gauge just fine, however if you don't show them how to shoot it, whats going to happens is that they'll get scared out of their minds cause the thing jumps

[john9blue]

the funniest part of this thread is the fact that nightstrike still thinks his debate opponents will admit to being wrong, or that a beloved politician of theirs could do anything wrong.

[Symmetry]

the funniest part of this thread is the fact that nightstrike still thinks his debate opponents will admit to being wrong, or that a beloved politician of theirs could do anything wrong.

I'd have gone with NS still considering Glenn Beck a reliable news source.

[john9blue]

the funniest part of this thread is the fact that nightstrike still thinks his debate opponents will admit to being wrong, or that a beloved politician of theirs could do anything wrong.

I'd have gone with NS still considering Glenn Beck a reliable news source.

^ that's funny too, but not very unpredictable.

[Night Strike]

the funniest part of this thread is the fact that nightstrike still thinks his debate opponents will admit to being wrong, or that a beloved politician of theirs could do anything wrong.

I'd have gone with NS still considering Glenn Beck a reliable news source.

Don't you have to prove something is unreliable, especially when its sources have already been shown to be reliable? Just check the videos and actual local laws discussed in the articles and you will see that the reports are accurate.

[Symmetry]

the funniest part of this thread is the fact that nightstrike still thinks his debate opponents will admit to being wrong, or that a beloved politician of theirs could do anything wrong.

I'd have gone with NS still considering Glenn Beck a reliable news source.

Don't you have to prove something is unreliable, especially when its sources have already been shown to be reliable? Just check the videos and actual local laws discussed in the articles and you will see that the reports are accurate.

That same day, a 22-year-old man in Virginia Beach, Va. followed Biden’s advice — and was charged with reckless handling of a firearm.

Can you support this statement- that the man was following Biden?