Some Nevada seniors find protection in owning guns.

[Bowline]

LAS VEGAS – Some arrive at the indoor shooting range in wheelchairs. Others use walkers. A few are missing limbs lost in previous wars.

They call themselves the "Senior Militia," a group of about 20 gunslingers mostly in their 60s who meet twice weekly to shoot the breeze – and their guns.

They are vigilant about their standing date for target practice because they think that off the range they are the targets.

"Old people tell me they feel like sheep, because they're so helpless," said John McCormack, 80, unofficial president of the group.

Complete article.

---

Won't that be quite the surprise for some sleazy street punk when he goes to rob Grandpa in a wheel chair and gets a face full of Smith & Wesson?

[madmom]

1. We can learn something from these old shooters.

Self preservation is a personal responsibility that should be taken seriously.

[Bowline]

2. Absolutely.

I've noticed, over the past year, a sizable increase in the number of minorities, women, and older folks target shooting and at the concealed weapons course at my local range. As recently as a year or so ago it was pretty much an all-white, all-male environment. However, recently, that is changing to include quite a few minorities, women, and the older set. I think it's great.

[FatSlob]

3. It is great.

I'm glad for these folks. I pity the criminal who thinks one of these seniors is an easy target.

[CO Liberal]

4. And I Pity The Innocent Bystander....

...who gets shot when poor vision or a shaky hand causes one of these seniors to miss their intended target.

[FatSlob]

5. Sure.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Jack_DeLeon]

6. Personally....

I'm more worried about getting run over or ran off the road by an old person than getting shot by one.

[gatlingforme]

7. I am glad these seniors are protecting themselves. Do you really

think the guns will all go away with banning them? The seniors have been targets of criminals since forever. IMHO, I am glad to see them do this.

[RoeBear]

16. You should really try to curb...

...your bias against seniors and the handicapped.

[CO Liberal]

53. Just So You Know....

...I am 51, a member of AARP, and handicapped.

[goju]

21. Well now

I think its just great that our "Constitutional Control" crowd is so eager to stereotype people. Shaky hands, poor vision, yep.. thats everyone over 60 years old that I know :eyes:

[RoeBear]

22. I play softball on a 50 and over team...

...many of the players are over 60.

One of the fastest guys on the team is 65. Homeruns by the over 60 crowd aren't uncommon. I also play on a blooperball team that has an 80+ pitcher

It's too bad that we have 'progressives' here saying that they can't be entrusted like younger people.

[library_max]

23. You're right. Age has nothing to do with it.

It's not safe putting guns in the hands of civilians of any age. Shaky hands, shaky intelligence, shaky ethics, shaky self-control, shaky grasp on reality - plenty of potential problems. Of course, this doesn't describe all or even most gun owners, but you can't write a law that permits guns only for sensible, sane, responsible people.

[goju]

33. Yeah

Because all guns do is cause harm right? All guns do is make us victims right? All guns do is kill people, all by themselves, right?

This charade the "constitutional controllers" put on in defense of their feigned concern for safety is a joke.

[library_max]

37. So I take it you don't agree.

If you've got anything beyond that to say, you're not saying it.

[slackmaster]

89. Tests for concealed-weapons permits are and should be objective

Because the infirmities of age hit different people at different times, it would not be fair to put an age limit into the rules. It's analogous to driver's licenses. Here in California we (reasonably and sensibly IMO) require drivers over 70 to take a vision and written test every year IIRC. (If not 70 it's something close to that.)

People with disabilities from whatever cause usually are capable of making their own decisions as to what they should and should not do. Sometimes they overestimate their abilities, and that is what testing is for.

FWIW my grandmother who recently passed away at 96 gave up her car at 85 even though she could still pass the Arizona DMV's tests and had never been in an accident. She gave up her little 20-gauge shotgun when she moved into a retirement home. Nobody had to tell her to make either of those sacrifices. She did it on her own for her own safety and that of others. I think most elderly people have enough sense and enough social responsibility to do the same.

The poor old man who mistook his accelerator pedal for the brake and killed 10 people in Santa Monica a couple of years ago is a rare exception. He fell through the cracks. If that happens too often it's a sign that the standards need to be tightened up. Same applies for concealed-weapons permits.

Max, please let us know when you see signs that elderly Nevadans with concealed-weapons permits are causing problems.

[library_max]

92. I'm with you on the age issue.

Throughout this thread, I have been very consistent on that point. I don't think that age should be a factor. So I don't see why you keep directing these complaints to me.

[iverglas]

69. so, library_max

What do you suppose he's talking about this time?


Because all guns do is cause harm right? All guns do is make us victims right? All guns do is kill people, all by themselves, right?

I figger about the only thing anybody can say to all the noise is "... if you say so ...".

[slackmaster]

85. You'll change your tune when you get a little older

There's nothing quite like feeling the first signs of age discrimination. I got just a taste of it at 43. Not much, just a warning and a sign of things to come.

I think most of us can't really understand prejudice until it hits ourselves.

See you at the Kountry Kitchen Buffet, sooner or later.

[library_max]

87. As a matter of fact, I'm 46.

And I'm not sure what in my post you are talking about. What I said was that agee doesn't matter - there are problematic gun owners (and non-problematic gun owners) of all ages.

[slackmaster]

90. I'm 46 as well

Sorry if I minconstrued your post. I agree with you.

[Retired AF Dem]

34. You sure are hard on seniors

at your age you are going to be one before you know it.

[CarinKaryn]

8. This just shows how lax the permit process is

Anyone, regardless of their ability to safely handle a firearm, is allowed to possess them. At the very least, a doctor's certification should be part of the permiting process.

What's next? CCW's for the blind and developmentally disabled?

[MrBenchley]

9. Our trigger-happy chums have pushed guns for the blind before

with more or less comic results...no gun-related cause is ever too absurd....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=7742

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=7088

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=7903

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=29022

Meanwhile, from the article...

"Gun ownership among senior citizens isn't risk free, said Matt Bennett, a spokesman for Americans for Gun Safety. The national organization says law-abiding adults have the right to own guns, but fears that some older adults are incapable of handling a gun responsibly.
Bennett said gun-related suicides among senior citizens are a major concern. In 2002, the most recent year available, the National Center for Health Statistics reported that 16,882 Americans committed suicide with a gun, 36 percent of whom were older than age 55.
"Anecdotal evidence shows that these types of suicides are men who have recently lost their spouses or suffer from a medical ailment," Bennett said. "If a family member falls into this category, it may be worth considering a discussion with them about their gun ownership."
Donald Carns, a sociologist at UNLV, agreed that senior citizens who own guns, especially those who live alone, can be potentially dangerous because they often don't have adequate "social support."
Carns said people who own guns may also attract more attention to themselves. "

[Jack_DeLeon]

10. Cars

Same thing is true for cars aswell.

So what would you suggest Karyn, that old people not be allowed to buy new guns?

In many cases its not like these people just went out and bought a new gun they may have had them since they were younger.

So are you saying that the government should come in and take away these people's property? What type of compensation should be given for taking away thier possessions?

[CarinKaryn]

11. Not suggesting govt should take anyone's property

Which you know, since you read my post.
What happens when a senior is too infirm to drive safely? Does the govt steal and crush their car? No, they revoke their license to operate.
Same procedure could be used here with no violation of rights.

But you knew that.

[FeebMaster]

13. That's going to be tough to pull off with guns

what with there being no federal license required to own one and for the most part no state license either.

[CarinKaryn]

14. Lots of states have permits required for purchase

the ones that don't are part of the problem.

[FeebMaster]

18. Which ones do and which ones don't? (nt)

[Retired AF Dem]

35. Lots of States?

I can think of NY and NJ needing permits to buy a pistol. There might be one or two others. I guess that is a lot of states.

[slackmaster]

63. California requires a safety certificate for handgun purchases

We have to renew them every three years by passing a test and paying a $25 fee.

Is that good enough to make us not part of the problem? I don't like being part of problems.

[John BigBootay]

79. I'm not even going to entertain this idea for a nanosecond--

until we start seeing a rash of "senior / bystander" shooting accidents.

And that should happen right around the time that hell's temperature dips into the low zero's.

It seems pretty obvious that a perp is going to wait until a senior is alone to strike-- out of the sight of helpful citizens who might thwart the crime or see it and make an identification.

[Bowline]

12. How incredibly arrogant of you.

Why would you assume the these people are somehow incompetent or incapable of safely handling a firearm just because they are over age 60?

Oh, and in Nevada they don't need a permit to carry a handgun. Open carry is completely legal in Nevada.

[CarinKaryn]

15. How incredibly arrogant of you

to suggest that drivers of vehicles on public roads submit to licensing and registration schemes.

[Wcross]

24. Deleted message

[library_max]

26. Moving from place to place is also a right.

Moving from place to place in a car is a privilege. Self defense with a gun is a privilege.

[Bowline]

29. "Self defense with a gun is a privilege."

Perhaps in your personal reality but for most of us it's an inalienable, Constitutionally guaranteed right. Those who can't see the difference will be the first to go when the time comes to surrender to the likes of Ashcroft and Company.

[library_max]

31. Every standing US court decision limits the Second Amendment

to the context of the armed militia, which no longer exists. Every single case supports the gun control measure and not the gun owner. You can't just make up rights and claim that they're Constitutionally guaranteed. You can't just say "most of us" and have that be the law. And John Ashcroft is on your side, not on our side.

[slackmaster]

64. Bull-pucky

Self defense with a gun is a privilege.

Cite, please.

Yes, I'm asking you for proof. I know damn well that there is no special dispensation required for me to use a gun (that I possess legally) for self-defense here in California.

[library_max]

68. So, legally, you have that privilege.

What's the problem?

[slackmaster]

74. No, self-defense is a right

Here are the opening words of Article I of the California state constitution:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Notice this is a declaration of rights, not a declaration of privileges, and note that there are no qualifiers on the means available for a citizen of California to exercise those rights.

For the whole document please see http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const-toc.html

For California law and pending legislation see http://www.leginfo.ca.gov

[library_max]

82. No, there are no qualifiers,

but that doesn't mean that the right is unrestricted. What if you wanted to defend yourself with a hydrogen bomb? What if you wanted to defend yourself with a truckload of dioxin? What if you felt that you had to kill a bunch of your neighbors in "pre-emptive" self-defense?

Nowhere in your cited text does it say anything about a right to have a gun. The exact point I was making is that, while travel is a right, driving a car is a privilege, and likewise while self-defense is recognized as a right, self-defense with a gun is not.

[slackmaster]

84. Egad, a McFeeb's Law violation!

Hydrogen bomb my eye!

:nuke:

BTW today is the 59th anniversary of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima.

Nowhere in your cited text does it say anything about a right to have a gun.

It doesn't say I don't have a right to have a gun either, THEREFORE I DO!

[library_max]

86. McFeeb's Law is a figment of your imagination.

If you're talking about legally-protected rights, they have to be defined in law. If you're talking about rights you make up, well, then, I guess you'll have to set your own criteria.

[FeebMaster]

88. Actually it was a figment of my imagination.

Unfortunately it's been about as effective as Godwin's Law.

[slackmaster]

91. Let's see what the Constitution of the US says about non-enumerated rights

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I read that as meaning we have the right to say, do, or own anything we want as long as it hasn't been proscribed by due process.

It's my libertarian view of things, and I believe the founders of our country and the people who came here before them felt the same way. You are free to disagree.

[library_max]

93. Yes, but that doesn't mean that anything that hasn't been proscribed

by due process is a Constitutionally-protected right.

Some municipalities have laws against spitting on the sidewalk. Some don't. So is spitting on the sidewalk a Constitutionally-protected right?

The distinctive feature of Constitutionally-protected rights is that you have to have an amendment to the Constitution to take them away or limit them. That's why laws against flag burning require a Constitutional amendment, for example, but laws or regulations against flammable pajamas do not.

By your reasoning, any new law that any government (city, county, state, or federal) wanted to pass, would require a Constitutional amendment. That isn't so.

Regarding guns specifically, the US courts have consistently ruled that there is no Constitutional provision that protects individual RKBA outside of the context of the armed militia, which no longer exists. Limits of federalism have been invoked in some cases, but that protects the rights of state and municipal governments, not the rights of gun owners.

So you can believe what you want, but the entire weight of American jurisprudence on the subject is against you.

[slackmaster]

94. Yes, Constitutionally protected rights are special

But other rights exist nonetheless.

By your reasoning, any new law that any government (city, county, state, or federal) wanted to pass, would require a Constitutional amendment. That isn't so.

Right after the Ninth Amendment comes the Tenth. Please go read it. Rights that are not constitutionally enumerated and protected are subject to curtailment by simple legislative processes by the federal and state governments.

Regarding guns specifically, the US courts have consistently ruled that there is no Constitutional provision that protects individual RKBA outside of the context of the armed militia, which no longer exists.

Even if the armed state militias referred to in the Second Amendment have no members (and I'm not sure that's true in all states) they still exist on paper, and the population at large (the unorganized militia) is still the pool from which members could and would be drafted in times of emergency. As I've shown here several times the governor of the state of California has the power to draft every able-bodied citizen for militia duty. That power is still on the books, so the militias actually do exist.

Limits of federalism have been invoked in some cases, but that protects the rights of state and municipal governments, not the rights of gun owners.

I'm pretty much in agreement with Howard Dean on this subject - The states have the power to regulate guns.

So you can believe what you want, but the entire weight of American jurisprudence on the subject is against you.

It sounds as if you are trying to pidgeon-hole me into the Second Amendment extremist camp. That's not really fair, and not really my view. I don't recall ever taking the so-called NRA line on the Second Amendment, but I do believe it refers to the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms.

[library_max]

95. Okay, maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

I don't entirely get the distinction you are drawing between Constitutionally-protected rights and other rights.

Your objection, as I understand it, was to my use of the word "privilege" to describe owning and using a firearm in self-defense. I was likening that to the privilege of driving a car, in response to an earlier poster who said that driving was a privilege (therefore regulable) but self-defense was a right (therefore not regulable). I have merely tried to show that the legal status of driving a car and owning and using a firearm for self-defense are the same - both legal when and how the law says, and otherwise not. Both equally regulable. If we can agree on that, then we agree.

[slackmaster]

96. It depends on where you are using the item in question

Here in California one does not need a license or permit to use a gun for self-defense inside of one's home. You need a permit to carry the gun as a defensive weapon in public places.

You don't need a license to own a car or to drive it on private property. You need a license (and registration, etc.) to drive a car on public roads.

There are (at least in CA) no regulations on ownership of cars. There are some types of firearms (e.g. assault weapons as defined by California law) for which ownership is conditional and regulated. Aside from those specific cases ownership of firearms is unregulated here. It might be regulable, but since it isn't I see it as a right. Once regulated it would become a privilege.

As much as I hate cars/guns analogies this one seems pretty sound to me. Ownership is unregulated but may be regulable. I think the state of California could legally decide that nobody can manufacture or sell a car with "tail fins that protrude conspicuously above the line of the body" or some such twaddle. Because of the difficulty of enforcement of an outright ban and the financial cost of compensating people who own finned cars and would be forced to turn them in, the state would probably grandfather ownership rather than try to implement an actual ban. It might be able to legally prohobit transfers of existing finned cars other than to licensed dealers of finned cars.

Usage of anything in public spaces (other than one's mouth because of rights enumerated in the First Amendment) can affect or endanger other people, so there is a public interest in being able to set some limits on behavior. Doing any old thing you please is not guaranteed by the Constitution and is therefore regulable.

[iverglas]

97. we got that cloaking device already?

Here in California one does not need a license or permit to use a gun for self-defense inside of one's home. You need a permit to carry the gun as a defensive weapon in public places.

You don't need a license to own a car or to drive it on private property. You need a license (and registration, etc.) to drive a car on public roads.


'Cause without that cloaking device, we really do have a basket of fruit, and not an analogy. The difference between the two things is just too fundamental to make them analogous -- "like".

Firearms have cloaking devices. They're often called "jackets". Or "the trunk of your car", maybe.

I haven't yet observed one for cars. A phoney licence plate might be a sort of primitive one, but on-board computers in cop cars (or even two-way radios) tend to render it ineffective.

Have cops (and the general public, which can also see cars on the road) recently been equipped with x-ray vision?

"You don't need a license to own a car or to drive it on private property" -- and when you TAKE IT OFF that private property, the whole world is there to see you do it.

Now, you were saying, about firearms ...?


Ownership is unregulated but may be regulable. I think the state of California could legally decide that nobody can manufacture or sell a car with "tail fins that protrude conspicuously above the line of the body" or some such twaddle.

Actually, if California is like where I'm at, you might find that it has indeed prohibited big pointy insignia sculptures ... I know there's a term for them -- hood ornaments, that's it. They have a tendency to impale people, and therefore make the cars wearing them "more dangerous" than other cars.

Aha, yes, it seems so -- and sharp tailfins too; and look whom we have to thank for this:

http://www.flora.org/afo/afz/afz17.html

Vehicle design needs to take into account the principle of "offensive safety" and provide to those outside the vehicle a cushion in the case of a collision. Ralph Nader succeeded in lobbying for the removal of sharp hood ornaments and door handles and tailfins with sharp edges ...

You still have the age-old problem here:

Usage of anything in public spaces (other than one's mouth because of rights enumerated in the First Amendment) can affect or endanger other people, so there is a public interest in being able to set some limits on behavior.

The use of one's mouth in public spaces is actually rather heavily regulated. You know of laws against perjury, I'm sure: you may be prosecuted and punished simply for speaking. Ditto laws of the shouting-fire/crowded-theatre variety. Uttering death threats. Conspiring to commit an offence. Disclosing state secrets. Violating court-ordered non-disclosure of info.

Plainly, your founders & framers never really meant, when they wrote that first amendment -- "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" -- that Congress should make no law regulating speech. Do we not suppose that they knew of, and supported, laws against perjury, for instance?

So why on earth would anyone think that they would have hamstrung themselves when it came to firearms?


Because of the difficulty of enforcement of an outright ban and the financial cost of compensating people who own finned cars and would be forced to turn them in, the state would probably grandfather ownership rather than try to implement an actual ban. It might be able to legally prohobit transfers of existing finned cars other than to licensed dealers of finned cars.

Hmm, yes. Just like Canada's laws do in respect of prohibited firearms.

[Bowline]

27. BAM! Another Strawman.

No one is discussing drivers, vehicles, or public roads.

Please stay on topic.

[FeebMaster]

28. I agree.

We should do away with driver's licensing and vehicle registration.

[Endangered Specie]

17. ...

"Won't that be quite the surprise for some sleazy street punk when he goes to rob Grandpa in a wheel chair and gets a face full of Smith & Wesson?"

:eyes:
What is it with fantasizing about killing someone in self-defense?



Better hope the robber isnt taking advantage of the lax gun laws and pulls his S&W out faster then poor Grandpa, or he could just take Grandpa's gun from him.

[FeebMaster]

19. How do you take a gun away from someone?

Sounds like a good way to get shot.

[Endangered Specie]

46. In the heat of the moment...

It DOES happen even to cops. (at close ranges obviously, made more difficult if the senior citizen in question has slow reaction times)

[FeebMaster]

50. I'm not saying it doesn't happen.

I'm saying it's a good way to get shot. If anything, it's more likely to happen to police since they carry openly and are more likely to be put into a situation where they end up in a physical struggle before being able to exercise deadly force.

[CarinKaryn]

76. I seem to recall about half the officers shot

are killed with their own weapons.
If a young, well trained, physically fit officer who is expecting trouble cannot retain the weapon, how can a shaky senior with poor vision and hearing who is propping himself up on a walker.

[Endangered Specie]

78. Exactly.

[FeebMaster]

81. Like I said

a cop is more likely to end up in a situation where it is likely to happen. He could be chasing someone and tackle them to the ground and during the struggle have his gun taken away. I doubt once he has a gun pointed at someone they're going to run up to him and grab his gun. Are you saying senior citizens should have to engage in a physical struggle before being allowed to use deadly force?

[RoeBear]

20. I fantasize about alot of things...

...killing someone isn't one of them. FYI

[Bowline]

30. Beautiful strawman, really. Fantastic random leap.

When did anyone mention killing anyone, let alone fantasizing about it?

As for your assertion that the robber might take advantage of lax gun laws, well, I've got a news flash for you: Criminals don't give a flying rat's ass about gun laws! Doesn't matter how strict or lax the laws are...criminals ignore them. That's why they're criminals!

[library_max]

32. "Criminals don't give a flying rat's ass about gun laws!"

And if guns are removed from the market, criminals will just snap their fingers and pull guns and ammunition from thin air. They're criminals. They can do that.

:eyes:

[goju]

36. Solution?

Prohibition? Like with drugs? Since thats worked so well, I guess you have a winner.

Exactly how, will taking guns away from law abiding citizens, prevent criminals from getting guns. That model hasnt worked with drugs, why would guns be different?

Oh wait.. you didnt say "taking guns away from law abiding citizens".. you said "remove them from the market". I remember the "debate" tactics employed here so I need to be precise. So, the question is, are you advocating taking guns away from law abiding citizens? If you are not advocating taking guns from us directly, do you think that would that be a consequence of "removing guns from the market"?

[library_max]

38. It's easy to make alcohol or drugs at home.

You can grow pot in your basement. You can make alcohol by letting apple cider go bad. You can smuggle millions of dollars worth of cocaine in a briefcase or a plastic bag you can swallow. None of that stuff works for guns. So the guns/drugs/prohibition analogy doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Besides, no one is addicted to guns.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get me to say re: the market. When I say "remove them from the market," I mean "remove them from the market." Which word is giving you trouble?

[FeebMaster]

39. The guns/drugs/prohibition analogy makes plenty of sense.

Are you saying that all the alcohol consumed during prohibition was just apple cider that went bad? Are you claiming that you could smuggle millions of dollars worth of alcohol in a briefcase back then? Are you saying that all the pot consumed the US now is grown in people's basements?

Try using your imagination. Here's the first link I got by plugging "marijuana" and "truckload" into yahoo: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n452/a10.html

Guns are and will be smuggled the same way drugs are. By boat and by truck. Hell, probably by plane too. They are and will be manufactured discretely in machine shops and in people's basements around the country.

[library_max]

41. Put a gun in a plastic bag, swallow it, and call me in the morning.

And save the old lie about homemade guns. We've had whole threads about that and your side hasn't been able to come up with a single credible fact to back it up.

HINT: If you really wanted a fair result, you'd type "smuggle" or "supply" and not "truckload" in your yahoo search. You know, so as not to bias the results. That's if you wanted a fair result. So, come to think of it, never mind.

[FeebMaster]

43. I used truckload

to make your briefcase and swallowing crap look as lame as it is. Not that I'm saying some drugs aren't smuggled like that, mind you, just that plenty aren't. Do you think all the marijuana being consumed in this country is grown in people's basements? Please. It's being moved around by the truckload just like alcohol was during prohibition just like guns are now and just like guns will be as long as there are gun laws restricting the legal market. If you believe otherwise, you're living in a dreamworld.

You were shown plenty of evidence in that thread that guns are easily manufactured. Whether or not you believe guns are being manufactured in various places around the country doesn't matter. They are and they're being smuggled in too. The funniest part is, the more restrictive the gun laws get, the more it's going to happen because it will become more and more profitable to do it. Do you think that was the only 7 ton truckload of pot in the country? Do you think a 7 ton truckload of guns would be somehow harder to move around the country?

[library_max]

44. Around the country? Into the country.

Where are the guns supposed to come from in the first place? Think you can get a seven-ton truck of guns through customs inspection at a border crossing? Gee, try it going into Mexico and tell me how it came out.

And you admit your bias on the yahoo search. Shocking - that you would admit it, that is.

[FeebMaster]

45. What are you talking about?

How have I admitted bias? What bias is there for me to even have? I searched for truckload because obviously drugs are being moved around the country by the truckload. You keep talking about briefcases and swallowing million dollar bags of drugs, clearly that isn't how all drugs are moved around. Was someone going to swallow that 7 tons of pot? Where do you think that 7 tons of pot was grown? In people's basements? Border guards and customs officials can be and are bribed you know.

[library_max]

51. Geez, I'd think you'd be an expert on bias.

But I guess I have to explain it to you.

When really want to know how drugs are getting into the American market, you use neutral terms like "drugs" and "market."

When, however, you want to support a preconceived notion, you use a term that will produce only the results you want. This is called "bias." Say it with me - BIIIIIII - USSSSSSSS.

To generalize from a single incident and say "that's how it happens" is ludicrous. There are almost 300 million people living in this country. Everything is bound to happen at least once or twice.

[FeebMaster]

54. Right. Just answer these questions for me.

Do you think that was the only truckload of marijuana in the US?

Do you think all the marijuana consumed in the US is grown in people's basements?

Do you think all of the alcohol consumed in the US during prohibition was apple cider gone bad?

Do you think all the drugs smuggled into the country are swallowed or in briefcases?

Do you think border guards and customs agents are never bribed?

[library_max]

57. Feeb,

remember school? Remember taking True Or False tests. Remember the one infallible trick to getting questions right was that any question with the word "all" or "always" or "only" or "none" or "never" was invariably False?

So what do you think you're accomplishing by asking these loaded all-only-never questions?

The real question is, are there many easy, effective, and highly lucrative avenues for the supply of drugs that are absolutely not available for firearms. And the answer is, yes there are.

And you haven't even addressed the point about addiction. No one is addicted to guns.

[FeebMaster]

59. See when I took a test in school

I knew the answers and didn't have to use half-assed tricks to answer questions correctly.


"So what do you think you're accomplishing by asking these loaded all-only-never questions?"

I was asking them because I thought you might have missed them when I asked them in other posts and you didn't bother answering them. I notice you still haven't.


"The real question is, are there many easy, effective, and highly lucrative avenues for the supply of drugs that are absolutely not available for firearms. And the answer is, yes there are."

Yes. Some drugs are smuggled by swallowing them and other methods that can't be used for guns I haven't denied that. Most aren't.

Since you apparently think that truckload of pot was a fluke here's some links you should read.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nye/pr/2003jun03a.htm

<snip>
In pleadings and other documents filed with the court, the government alleged that the HAZANS operated a large scale marijuana and ecstasy distribution organization that employed approximately 60 individuals as distributors, warehouse workers, drivers, packers and money launderers. Their organization trafficked in tons of marijuana grown in Mexico and hydroponic marijuana from Canada for more than a decade
<snip>
At the time of the arrest of the HAZANS in December 2002, agents searched a stash house located at 684 Old Country Road, Dix Hills, New York, and seized a truck containing 697 pounds of marijuana, industrial scales, heat sealing machines, plastic packaging used for marijuana, a money counting machine, unregistered handguns and an SKS assault rifle. Agents also seized 13 vehicles used by the organization -- including a Mitsubishi Montero, a Dodge Durango, a Corvette, a tractor-trailer, several vans and a panel truck. Many of the vehicles were equipped with sophisticated hidden storage compartments known as "traps." Shortly thereafter, agents seized approximately $9.7 million in cash from hidden safes located at two storage facilities on Windsor Place in Central Islip, New York, and at a tanning salon owned by the HAZANS at 295 Broadway, in Hicksville, New York. According to the DEA, this cash seizure is believed to be the largest ever by law enforcement on Long Island. Agents also intercepted a 3,500 pound truckload of marijuana at a warehouse located on Trade Zone Drive in Islip.
<snip>


http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/states/newsrel/detroit030103.html

<snip>
Members of the Melvindale Police, DEA Detroit and the Michigan State Police COMET Narcotics Unit acted on the Melvindale Police information and seized approximately 3,700 pounds of marijuana. Law enforcement officers arrested a truck driver who subsequently agreed to cooperate. Agents conducted a controlled delivery to the marijuana recipient at 1404 Devonshire in Grosse Pointe Park, Michigan. Local resident John BROSNAN was arrested as he took possession of the marijuana. Brosnan was arraigned in U.S. District Court in Detroit and charged with conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
<snip>


http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=canada_home&articleID=1666769

This one is really good. Almost a million pounds, I'm sure that's all shipped into the US by people swallowing bags of it and in briefcases and stuff.

<snip>
While the amount of pot detected moving south from Canada has increased steadily since 2000, to almost 15,700 kilograms last year, it was dwarfed by the 406,000 kilograms of Mexican marijuana seized at the U.S. border in 2003.
<snip>


http://www.corpuschristi.bbb.org/2001/may/01/today/localnew/24896.html

According to this one a million bucks worth of cocaine would weigh about 30 pounds. Kind of heavy for a briefcase, not to mention how much space it probably takes up.

<snip>
About 4:30 p.m. a drug dog alerted agents to 1,143 pounds of marijuana, valued at $914,400, in a tractor-trailer carrying watermelons. Two men, one from Nicaragua, were turned over to the DEA.
<snip>
About 10 p.m. a drug dog sniffed out 781 pounds of marijuana, valued at $624,800, in a truckload of onions. A Wisconsin man was arrested.
<snip>
And at about 7:30 p.m. agents found 24 pounds of cocaine, valued at $793,600, under the rear seat of a 1996 Chrysler.
A man and a woman, both from Mexico, were arrested.
<snip>



http://www.abqjournal.com/news/drugs/1drug3-4.htm

This one is all about border guards and customs agents and bribes and all that.

Oh and the 33 pounds of heroin in two seizures. No doubt a couple people had each swallowed 16.5 pounds worth.

<snip>
In the tiny Columbus port-of-entry alone, 30 miles south of Deming, customs agents impounded 33 pounds of heroin in two seizures last March and April.
<snip>
American customs agents have their own problems.
They can fully inspect only a fraction of the 500,000 trucks crossing international bridges into El Paso and New Mexico each year.
<snip>
Drug dealing is a lucrative business, the dealer said. An ounce of heroin purchased for $70 in a central Mexico city like Guerrero or Michoacan would, after being cut and divided, reap $1,000 in street sales.
<snip>

Hmm sounds like it might be tough to swallow a million bucks worth of heroin too.



"And you haven't even addressed the point about addiction. No one is addicted to guns."

Addiction is irrelevant to the War on Drugs.

[library_max]

60. Five anecdotes don't prove jack.

If five anecdotes were any kind of proof of anything whatsoever, then the hundreds and hundreds of anecdotes MrBenchley and CO Liberal have posted in the GITN threads would have to be stone tablets from God himself saying Thou Shalt Not Own Guns.

To actually support your contention that drugs are primarily trucked in from other countries, you'd have to have actual percentages from a credible source. Anecdotes don't cut it. Also, while some drugs do come up from Mexico, Mexico is very serious about gun trafficking. I live on the border and talk to people who have tried to take a gun into Mexico or know someone who did.

The reason I know about test-wiseness is that I used to be a teacher and have a master's degree in education. But of course it doesn't take a degree to be able to recognize a biased question, and not be fool enough to answer it. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Answer yes or no.

Addiction is irrelevant to the War on Drugs? Wow, you really will (pretend to) believe anything.

[FeebMaster]

66. Alright then.

"If five anecdotes were any kind of proof of anything whatsoever, then the hundreds and hundreds of anecdotes MrBenchley and CO Liberal have posted in the GITN threads would have to be stone tablets from God himself saying Thou Shalt Not Own Guns."

There is more to my links than anecdotes. First of all your claim that someone can swallow a million dollars worth of heroin or any other drug or carry it in a briefcase for that matter is bullshit.


http://www.abqjournal.com/news/drugs/1drug3-4.htm
An ounce of heroin purchased for $70 in a central Mexico city like Guerrero or Michoacan would, after being cut and divided, reap $1,000 in street sales.

$1,000 an ounce. You'd have to swallow over 60 pounds of heroin. Maybe you could carry that in a suitcase, certainly not a briefcase. Even that would depend on the volume of heroin.


http://www.corpuschristi.bbb.org/2001/may/01/today/localnew/24896.html
About 4:30 p.m. a drug dog alerted agents to 1,143 pounds of marijuana, valued at $914,400, in a tractor-trailer carrying watermelons. Two men, one from Nicaragua, were turned over to the DEA.

I don't think anyone is carrying more than half a ton of marijuana in a briefcase or swallowing it, if you disagree please prove me wrong.

And at about 7:30 p.m. agents found 24 pounds of cocaine, valued at $793,600, under the rear seat of a 1996 Chrysler.
A man and a woman, both from Mexico, were arrested.

I don't think someone is going to swallow 30 pounds of cocaine. Maybe you could fit that in a briefcase, depending on the volume of cocaine, but it'd be a pretty heavy briefcase.


"To actually support your contention that drugs are primarily trucked in from other countries, you'd have to have actual percentages from a credible source. Anecdotes don't cut it. Also, while some drugs do come up from Mexico, Mexico is very serious about gun trafficking. I live on the border and talk to people who have tried to take a gun into Mexico or know someone who did."

Some? Hahahah. Almost a million pounds! I'm sure those border guards who can be bribed to ignore drug shipments get all honest and stuff when someone wants to smuggle guns instead of drugs.

Common fucking sense should tell you that it will take a hell of a lot of people to carry 7 tons worth of marijuana in briefcases and in their guts, nevermind the other almost million pounds. I guess not, though, so why don't you go get some numbers and prove it, since you brought up this swallowing drugs garbage in the first place.


"The reason I know about test-wiseness is that I used to be a teacher and have a master's degree in education. But of course it doesn't take a degree to be able to recognize a biased question, and not be fool enough to answer it. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Answer yes or no."

I don't think you should give true/false questions on tests and I've never been married.

"Addiction is irrelevant to the War on Drugs? Wow, you really will (pretend to) believe anything."

It's certainly more believable that someone swallowing 60 pounds of heroin to smuggle it across the border.

[library_max]

70. Boy, the strawmen are flying tonight!

I said nothing about heroin or marijuana. I was actually thinking about cocaine as far as the briefcases and plastic bags are concerned. And, obviously, the street value per ounce of any given batch depends on its purity, which is highly variable. Marijuana is easily home-grown. As for the rest, you're basically arguing with yourself.

[FeebMaster]

80. Ohhhhhh you were only talking about cocaine.

If you're going to cry strawman, you should probably only do it if someone makes a strawman argument. Now I don't believe I have, but if you'd like to point out where I did, I'd appreciate it.

You didn't specify what kind of drug you were talking about when you mentioned briefcases and people who swallow them. In any case I don't think anyone is swallowing a million dollars worth of any drug. Certainly not marijuana, cocaine, or heroin.

Are you claiming that someone can swallow 30 pounds of cocaine? That would be about a million dollars worth. Frankly I'm not convinced you could fit that much in a briefcase. Show me evidence that most of the drugs in this country are shipped in in briefcases and by people swallowing them and I'll be happy to admit that I'm wrong.

If marijuana is so easily homegrown why is so much imported from Mexico? I mean they seized almost a million pounds in 2003 how much do you think got through? Or do you think that was all of it or at least a majority of it?

[Endangered Specie]

47. Two things...

first, going after illegal gun sources.

second, tightining up the legal gun sources to keep criminals from buying from them.

[library_max]

52. Trouble is, criminals don't have it stamped on their foreheads.

And some people become criminals after buying the gun. Criminals get their guns the same places law abiding citizens get theirs. Cut off the one and you've cut off the other.

[Endangered Specie]

55. How about long waiting periods, psych exams and/or polygraph tests...

be required before buying a gun?

You cant just ban all guns, theres gotta be a compromise.

[FeebMaster]

56. Some compromise.

Psych exams and polygraph tests? That is the funniest thing I've seen posted in a while.


Are you going to kill someone if you buy a gun?
No.
BZZZZT.
Uh oh, don't sell this guy a gun.

[library_max]

58. Besides, a lot of our RKBAers could never pass.

Not naming names, mind you.

[slackmaster]

62. Nice broad-brush argumentum ad hominem

Flown right under radar of common decency and the posting rules.

[FeebMaster]

67. It's a group attack so it should be OK.

It's be like me saying a lot of gun grabbers are barely literate, ignorant fuckwits. See, I haven't singled anyone out.

[MrBenchley]

71. And amply supported by the evidence

[library_max]

73. No, you're right.

Lost my temper. Sorry. I'll delete it.

On edit: No, I can't, the editing period has expired. Well, again, I apologize.

[slackmaster]

75. Apology accepted

It takes a big person to admit error.

:toast:

[slackmaster]

65. I think they should

Bring back the practice of cutting off the tips of convicts' noses!

[library_max]

83. Ah, but you're talking about convicted criminals.

If there were no criminals but convicted criminals, I would agree that background checks (if properly performed) would be effective.

[Endangered Specie]

48. "face full of Smith & Wesson" to quote...

I beleive that implies killing.

The fantasy element comes from the tone of that and many other instances where people sound off in a "make my day" style, not just on this board but with pro-gunners of all types.

[NorthernSpy]

77. sure -- some people probably do have that fantasy

What of it?

Fantasy is one method that people use to keep their fears from overwhelming them. They may be troubled about their own vulnerability in the face of other people's malevolence (for example), and they deal with that fear by staging little mental dramas in which they have a chance to defeat the Bad Thing. Doing this allows a person feel as though he has a psychologically-acceptable script to follow if he ever winds up in the situation he fears.

What does everyone seem to find so bloody horrible and shocking about that?


Mary

[library_max]

25. Yet another case of keeping the elephants away.

A: Why are you whistling like that?
B: To keep the elephants away.
A: There isn't an elephant within a thousand miles of here!
B: See how well it works?

[slackmaster]

40. And if the whistling and/or gun-carrying DOESN'T HURT ANYONE

Why would anyone in their right mind care?

[library_max]

42. 30,000 gun deaths per year. /nt

[Endangered Specie]

49. And 0 by whistling.

[slackmaster]

61. The conversation is about Nevada seniors carrying guns

How many of those "gun deaths" are attributable to older people with permits to carry guns misusing those guns? Or old people doing bizarre rituals to keep tigers away?

Can you find even one case?

I know, I know; demanding proof is a standard Republican trick. It's just common sense that people shouldn't be able to get permits to carry guns around. Think of the children.

:tinfoilhat:

[library_max]

72. It's all part of the same grand tapestry.

The millions of guns available to criminals and others lacking in responsibility or self-control which make up those 30,000 deaths are available because we prioritize making people like these "feel" safer. It doesn't do any good, but at least it puts more guns in circulation, and that's the point after all.