Bipartisan Senate group proposes ‘no fly, no buy’ gun measure

[David Horn]

(04-24-2018, 08:43 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: It is rational, when potentially confronted with a situation, to be trained, equipped and mentally ready for that situation.  The founding fathers lived in a world where those situations were common enough to protect that right.  It is rational to believe that a bad guy confronted with such a hostile and active population would feel free to avoid drawing the attention of an armed, trained and ready population.

It does not hurt to write laws that supposedly prohibit bad guys (felons, the insane, etc...) from owning or carrying arms.  That fine if you think prohibition will work, but irrational if you do not.  Police can spend their time and effort trying to make prohibition work.  Just make sure due process and rule of law aren't thrown away in a vain hope for backwards safety.

Apply this to the case of Travis Reinking, who got treated with full respect, then his father gave him back his guns.  He was disarmed by an unarmed patron of the Waffle House, not by a friendly shooter.  

The system is broken and the idea of an armed citizenry to protect us all is simply not viable ... or wise, in my opinion.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-22-2018, 03:45 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I wonder who is crazier, the guy running around nude with an assault rifle, or the Waffle House customer that takes him on without a weapon?  You expect the shooter to be crazy?

Oh, the guy who took on the guy with the gun physically, was not only crazy, he was stupid, thoughtless and uncaring as far as thinking about who might have been shot and injured during the struggle too.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-24-2018, 02:07 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-24-2018, 08:43 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: It is rational, when potentially confronted with a situation, to be trained, equipped and mentally ready for that situation.  The founding fathers lived in a world where those situations were common enough to protect that right.  It is rational to believe that a bad guy confronted with such a hostile and active population would feel free to avoid drawing the attention of an armed, trained and ready population.

It does not hurt to write laws that supposedly prohibit bad guys (felons, the insane, etc...) from owning or carrying arms.  That fine if you think prohibition will work, but irrational if you do not.  Police can spend their time and effort trying to make prohibition work.  Just make sure due process and rule of law aren't thrown away in a vain hope for backwards safety.

Apply this to the case of Travis Reinking, who got treated with full respect, then his father gave him back his guns.  He was disarmed by an unarmed patron of the Waffle House, not by a friendly shooter.  

The system is broken and the idea of an armed citizenry to protect us all is simply not viable ... or wise, in my opinion.

I'm an armed citizen who lives to far away from you to be any help to you during a crisis.

[David Horn]

(04-24-2018, 10:49 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-22-2018, 03:45 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I wonder who is crazier, the guy running around nude with an assault rifle, or the Waffle House customer that takes him on without a weapon?  You expect the shooter to be crazy?

Oh, the guy who took on the guy with the gun physically, was not only crazy, he was stupid, thoughtless and uncaring as far as thinking about  who might have been shot and injured during the struggle too.

Have you heard from the Waffle House guy himself?  He said that he didn't think (an necessary precursor to effective action, by the way), but acted to save himself.  He doesn't consider himself a hero, merely a survivor.  At the time, all he could think was: this guy intends to kill us all.  Failing to act on impulse, which is the normal human response, might have lead to everyone in the restaurant either dead or wounded.  

I've tried to make this point with you in the past.  The presence of a 'friendly gun' is much less important than the instinct he showed at the time.

[David Horn]

(04-24-2018, 11:06 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-24-2018, 02:07 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-24-2018, 08:43 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: It is rational, when potentially confronted with a situation, to be trained, equipped and mentally ready for that situation.  The founding fathers lived in a world where those situations were common enough to protect that right.  It is rational to believe that a bad guy confronted with such a hostile and active population would feel free to avoid drawing the attention of an armed, trained and ready population.

It does not hurt to write laws that supposedly prohibit bad guys (felons, the insane, etc...) from owning or carrying arms.  That fine if you think prohibition will work, but irrational if you do not.  Police can spend their time and effort trying to make prohibition work.  Just make sure due process and rule of law aren't thrown away in a vain hope for backwards safety.

Apply this to the case of Travis Reinking, who got treated with full respect, then his father gave him back his guns.  He was disarmed by an unarmed patron of the Waffle House, not by a friendly shooter.  

The system is broken and the idea of an armed citizenry to protect us all is simply not viable ... or wise, in my opinion.

I'm an armed citizen who lives to far away from you to be any help to you during a crisis.

See my previous post.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-25-2018, 09:58 AM)David Horn Wrote: Have you heard from the Waffle House guy himself?  He said that he didn't think (an necessary precursor to effective action, by the way), but acted to save himself.  He doesn't consider himself a hero, merely a survivor.  At the time, all he could think was: this guy intends to kill us all.  Failing to act on impulse, which is the normal human response, might have lead to everyone in the restaurant either dead or wounded.  

I've tried to make this point with you in the past.  The presence of a 'friendly gun' is much less important than the instinct he showed at the time.

I heard what he had to say about it on the news the other night. The only point you've made to me is basically that doing nothing and waiting for professionals is best for survival. What he did and the result contradicts the point that you've been making to me and others for a long time and strengthened my point.

[David Horn]

(04-25-2018, 02:44 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-25-2018, 09:58 AM)David Horn Wrote: Have you heard from the Waffle House guy himself?  He said that he didn't think (an necessary precursor to effective action, by the way), but acted to save himself.  He doesn't consider himself a hero, merely a survivor.  At the time, all he could think was: this guy intends to kill us all.  Failing to act on impulse, which is the normal human response, might have lead to everyone in the restaurant either dead or wounded.  

I've tried to make this point with you in the past.  The presence of a 'friendly gun' is much less important than the instinct he showed at the time.

I heard what he had to say about it on the news the other night. The only point you've made to me is basically that doing nothing and waiting for professionals is best for survival. What he did and the result contradicts the point that you've been making to me and others for a long time and strengthened my point.

The ACTUAL point I made is much simpler.  Most people in a crisis situation don't act.  They freeze.  That's something that can't be taught ... not reliably anyway.  Having a gun doesn't change that.  Desmond Doss won the MoH.  He refused to carry a gun.

Another great example is the Toronto cop who refused to shoot the road-rage guy.  He was looking for suicide-by-cop and didn't get it.  The cop, on the other hand, showed an impressive degree of control by not shooting.

[Eric the Green]

(04-24-2018, 10:49 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-22-2018, 03:45 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I wonder who is crazier, the guy running around nude with an assault rifle, or the Waffle House customer that takes him on without a weapon?  You expect the shooter to be crazy?

Oh, the guy who took on the guy with the gun physically, was not only crazy, he was stupid, thoughtless and uncaring as far as thinking about  who might have been shot and injured during the struggle too.

What's crazy is to think that you can protect yourself and others by carrying a gun and getting into a shootout. 

The hero was wise to hide and then attack while the crazy shooter was reloading. That probably doesn't always work, because magazines are so big now, but it might be a useful lesson if anyone can ever get into the right position and attitude to apply it.

The more guns are around, the more of them can be stolen and used by criminals. Most guns used in crime are stolen. That also means owners must store their guns where they can't be stolen. Which by the way does not make them handy for your proposed shootout with a supposed intruder.

[Eric the Green]

Here's a video of future leader Matt Post after winning election as student member of the Board of Education for Montgomery County MD.





I don't know his presidential election horoscope score yet, but I'm hoping it's high and reflects what I and many others see as his potential.

David Hogg has become a more recognized figure, enough so that his birthday (April 12, 2000) is now listed on a wikipedia page about him. He scores 12-7 on my presidential horoscope score system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hogg_(activist)

[Classic-Xer]

(04-26-2018, 12:55 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-24-2018, 10:49 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-22-2018, 03:45 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I wonder who is crazier, the guy running around nude with an assault rifle, or the Waffle House customer that takes him on without a weapon?  You expect the shooter to be crazy?

Oh, the guy who took on the guy with the gun physically, was not only crazy, he was stupid, thoughtless and uncaring as far as thinking about  who might have been shot and injured during the struggle too.

What's crazy is to think that you can protect yourself and others by carrying a gun and getting into a shootout. 

The hero was wise to hide and then attack while the crazy shooter was reloading. That probably doesn't always work, because magazines are so big now, but it might be a useful lesson if anyone can ever get into the right position and attitude to apply it.

The more guns are around, the more of them can be stolen and used by criminals. Most guns used in crime are stolen. That also means owners must store their guns where they can't be stolen. Which by the way does not make them handy for your proposed shootout with a supposed intruder.

You don't think I would have been able to hit him with a few rounds at relatively close range after doing the same thing ( taking cover and waiting for an opportunity to use my gun and use it to directly engage with the shooter) as guy at the Waffle House. What he did was actually more risky, life threatening than what I would've accomplished with the use of a firearm and a couple of rounds. All he would have had to do was pick up the gun and lean it up against something some where out of his reach.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-25-2018, 03:12 PM)David Horn Wrote: The ACTUAL point I made is much simpler.  Most people in a crisis situation don't act.  They freeze.  That's something that can't be taught ... not reliably anyway.  Having a gun doesn't change that.  Desmond Doss won the MoH.  He refused to carry a gun.

Another great example is the Toronto cop who refused to shoot the road-rage guy.  He was looking for suicide-by-cop and didn't get it.  The cop, on the other hand, showed an impressive degree of control by not shooting.

I wouldn't shoot a suspected terrorist whose finger/fingers may be on a detonator for a bomb either. I'd wait, speak with and listen to him while using my brain to determine whether or not there's a bomb ( a greater risk ) inside the van too. I guess using vehicles as weapon to kill people is no longer exclusive to crazed/rabid groups and crazy people associated with radical Islam. BTW, Doss refused to carry a gun because killing went against his particular religious beliefs. I know who he was and I saw what he did to earn the Congressional Medal of Honor. I saw the movie Hacksaw Ridge.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-26-2018, 04:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Here's a video of future leader Matt Post after winning election as student member of the Board of Education for Montgomery County MD.





I don't know his presidential election horoscope score yet, but I'm hoping it's high and reflects what I and many others see as his potential.

David Hogg has become a more recognized figure, enough so that his birthday (April 12, 2000) is now listed on a wikipedia page about him. He scores 12-7 on my presidential horoscope score system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hogg_(activist)

Do you have any pictures of young good looking liberal women to show me? I'm not gay you know and every young dude you've shown me doesn't seem/doesn't appear to be much of a threat to me or my future existence either.

[pbrower2a]

(04-26-2018, 05:37 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-26-2018, 04:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Here's a video of future leader Matt Post after winning election as student member of the Board of Education for Montgomery County MD.





I don't know his presidential election horoscope score yet, but I'm hoping it's high and reflects what I and many others see as his potential.

David Hogg has become a more recognized figure, enough so that his birthday (April 12, 2000) is now listed on a wikipedia page about him. He scores 12-7 on my presidential horoscope score system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hogg_(activist)

Do you have any pictures of young good looking liberal women to show me? I'm not gay you know and every young dude you've shown me doesn't seem/doesn't appear to be much of a threat to me or my future existence either.

For a real threat to your existence,  think of a messed-up loser who owns a firearm. You never know when someone like that will pop up. Suspect number 1: some young anorexic man with big problems getting along with others, probably struggling with the educational system.

I do substitute school teaching again. I would rather that a live rattlesnake slither its way into my classroom than that someone bring a firearm of any kind.

[Eric the Green]

(04-26-2018, 05:37 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-26-2018, 04:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Here's a video of future leader Matt Post after winning election as student member of the Board of Education for Montgomery County MD.





I don't know his presidential election horoscope score yet, but I'm hoping it's high and reflects what I and many others see as his potential.

David Hogg has become a more recognized figure, enough so that his birthday (April 12, 2000) is now listed on a wikipedia page about him. He scores 12-7 on my presidential horoscope score system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hogg_(activist)

Do you have any pictures of young good looking liberal women to show me? I'm not gay you know and every young dude you've shown me doesn't seem/doesn't appear to be much of a threat to me or my future existence either.

You represent a segment of American opinion. Do you think Matt is too much of a smiley snowflake to appeal to folks like you? I don't know his birthday and horoscope score yet.

How about Mitch Landrieu? Have you seen him speak or be interviewed? He's 58 years old now, and is getting some likability buzz that verifies his horoscope score of 16-2. Could he possibly appeal to you or win you over?

How about Terry McAuliffe, 11-2?

I looked up Jennifer Lawrence, since she's been an outspoken liberal on political issues, and we know her birthday, but she only rates 6-10 on my system. But I'll keep an eye out.



I am only posting young folks here that might be future leaders. I don't think Emma Gonzales would appeal to you, on a looks basis, since I think she's bisexual, although she might seem a threat to you. I don't know her birthday yet.

Here is her famous speech, "We call BS," which became a gun control slogan.
https://youtu.be/ZxD3o-9H1lY

[David Horn]

(04-26-2018, 04:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You don't think I would have been able to hit him with a few rounds at relatively close range after doing the same thing ( taking cover and waiting for an opportunity to use my gun and use it to directly engage with the shooter) as guy at the Waffle House. What he did was actually more risky, life threatening than what I would've accomplished with the use of a firearm and a couple of rounds. All he would have had to do was pick up the gun and lean it up against something some where out of his reach.

The real question isn't 'could you' but 'would you'. that's unanswerable until the case arises. A secondary question, but only one that applies to firearms, would be: could you be both effective and measured? Shooting a guy, while also shooting one or more customers, is not helpful.

[Bob Butler 54]

I have claimed that if one is afraid of a terrorist or nut shooter, one should seek training, the right equipment, and be mentally prepared.  That seems a common red perspective.

There are many among the blue who seem obsessed with the worst case, that the training, equipment and readiness will be perpetually inadequate.  In some ways one is right.  You have to be a veteran, to have regularly encountered lethal incidents, to be truly ready.  You can only do so much in the classroom.

Me, I have studied western armed conflict and eastern unarmed.  I do not see the preparation as useless.  It seems obvious I can't convince those that avoid the training.  By inclination and inexperience, they remain perpetual victims and ready to perpetuate this helplessness.  They will say absurd things like it is not risky or less risky to let a lethal shooter continue to shoot and kill.  They seem ready so say anything to retain helplessness, the lack of responsibility for self defense and that of the community.

And the result is the sort of stalemate that comes from world view clash, with greatly varied understanding of how the word works.  To me, it is the blue who seem irrational.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-27-2018, 07:27 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-26-2018, 04:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You don't think I would have been able to hit him with a few rounds at relatively close range after doing the same thing ( taking cover and waiting for an opportunity to use my gun and use it to directly engage with the shooter) as guy at the Waffle House. What he did was actually more risky, life threatening than what I would've accomplished with the use of a firearm and a couple of rounds. All he would have had to do was pick up the gun and lean it up against something some where out of his reach.

The real question isn't 'could you' but 'would you'.  that's unanswerable until the case arises.  A secondary question, but only one that applies to firearms, would be: could you be both effective and measured?  Shooting a guy, while also shooting one or more customers, is not helpful.

As I've told you before, I could and I would without thinking twice about it. As far as my shooting, I'm disciplined and effective with my shooting. I won't fire multiple rounds in the general direction of a shooter with the hope of possibly hitting them with a lucky round. I'd be shooting one or two consecutive rounds while observing and reading signs associated with the shooter and the impact that each of the rounds had on the shooter. BTW, that would all be going on and taking place within a matter of seconds within a matter of a few minutes.

[David Horn]

(04-27-2018, 10:50 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I have claimed that if one is afraid of a terrorist or nut shooter, one should seek training, the right equipment, and be mentally prepared.  That seems a common red perspective.

There are many among the blue who seem obsessed with the worst case, that the training, equipment and readiness will be perpetually inadequate.  In some ways one is right.  You have to be a veteran, to have regularly encountered lethal incidents, to be truly ready.  You can only do so much in the classroom.

Me, I have studied western armed conflict and eastern unarmed.  I do not see the preparation as useless.  It seems obvious I can't convince those that avoid the training.  By inclination and inexperience, they remain perpetual victims and ready to perpetuate this helplessness.  They will say absurd things like it is not risky or less risky to let a lethal shooter continue to shoot and kill.  They seem ready so say anything to retain helplessness, the lack of responsibility for self defense and that of the community.

And the result is the sort of stalemate that comes from world view clash, with greatly varied understanding of how the word works.  To me, it is the blue who seem irrational.

These are good points, so let me ask a question: if we are planning to rely on well trained and mentally prepared members of the general public to be our safety shield in times of danger, what is the downside to this?  It sounds remarkably like a Samurai culture, which worked in a very disciplined Japan in the past, probably would not work in the Japan of today and seems totally out of step with America in the past, present and future.  In short, I don't see this as a viable model, and some very limited variant would be not just less valuable but actually antithetical to law and order -- the assumed target.

It's the old cats and dogs discussion; cats just don't play well as a team.  Dogs do.  All of which raises the question, are we socially more like the latter than the former?  Personally, I think not.

[David Horn]

(04-27-2018, 01:54 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-27-2018, 07:27 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-26-2018, 04:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You don't think I would have been able to hit him with a few rounds at relatively close range after doing the same thing ( taking cover and waiting for an opportunity to use my gun and use it to directly engage with the shooter) as guy at the Waffle House. What he did was actually more risky, life threatening than what I would've accomplished with the use of a firearm and a couple of rounds. All he would have had to do was pick up the gun and lean it up against something some where out of his reach.

The real question isn't 'could you' but 'would you'.  that's unanswerable until the case arises.  A secondary question, but only one that applies to firearms, would be: could you be both effective and measured?  Shooting a guy, while also shooting one or more customers, is not helpful.

As I've told you before, I could and I would without thinking twice about it. As far as my shooting, I'm disciplined and effective with my shooting. I won't fire multiple rounds in the general direction of  a shooter with the hope of possibly hitting them with a lucky round. I'd be shooting one or two consecutive rounds while observing and reading signs associated with the shooter and the impact that each of the rounds had on the shooter. BTW, that would all be going on and taking place within a matter of seconds within a matter of a few minutes.

And as I've repeated unendingly: you can't know how you would react until presented with the situation that requires it.  Ask our resident shrink, if she's still monitoring the site.

[Eric the Green]

(04-28-2018, 10:39 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-27-2018, 01:54 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-27-2018, 07:27 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-26-2018, 04:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You don't think I would have been able to hit him with a few rounds at relatively close range after doing the same thing ( taking cover and waiting for an opportunity to use my gun and use it to directly engage with the shooter) as guy at the Waffle House. What he did was actually more risky, life threatening than what I would've accomplished with the use of a firearm and a couple of rounds. All he would have had to do was pick up the gun and lean it up against something some where out of his reach.

The real question isn't 'could you' but 'would you'.  that's unanswerable until the case arises.  A secondary question, but only one that applies to firearms, would be: could you be both effective and measured?  Shooting a guy, while also shooting one or more customers, is not helpful.

As I've told you before, I could and I would without thinking twice about it. As far as my shooting, I'm disciplined and effective with my shooting. I won't fire multiple rounds in the general direction of  a shooter with the hope of possibly hitting them with a lucky round. I'd be shooting one or two consecutive rounds while observing and reading signs associated with the shooter and the impact that each of the rounds had on the shooter. BTW, that would all be going on and taking place within a matter of seconds within a matter of a few minutes.

And as I've repeated unendingly: you can't know how you would react until presented with the situation that requires it.  Ask our resident shrink, if she's still monitoring the site.

Right (although she is anti-gun control so that might color her opinions).

If the "good guy with a gun" misses the shooter, the good guy will in all probability be killed by the shooter. There's no time for adjustment after observing the impact of your rounds on the shooter.