This Stat ought to scare people

[Limnophile]

Originally Posted by mehavey

Remember... Both Mobs & Lemmings once energized -- don't let facts stand in their way.

Also bear in mind there is no firearm in the majority of US homes. Gun owners are in a minority. Thus, mob-ocracy suits the tyrants.

[HiBC]

Lemmings depend on the approval of the crowd they are with to navigate ,dumb and happy,to their Cliff of Doom.

Our Founders did not write the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to serve a comforting thumb and blanket to an infantile public.

The word "democracy" is over pumped, implying that smartphone swipes and agenda driven media polls will reflect the popular "will of the People" .

Start with a school system that has an agenda, dumb down and indoctrinate the young and addict then to their smart phone, spice it with the ideaology of youth, and you have a malleable force with Political Power. Pass out the Che Guevara tee shirts!!

Supplement that with "Fear of Being Canceled" on Twitter,FB.etc. For some,its equivalent to Fear of Death.

Then we have had the SCOTUS in part composed of some members who scoff off their Oath to Uphold and Defend the Constitution, and take on the Narcissist role of being "The Divine Elite Who Shall Shape Society"

Well,BS. Separation of powers! Congress writes and passes Law. (Before you respond explaining the Executive Branch,etc, spare me! I know! This is already a long post . I'm not going to pre-empt your every argument)

Remember Folks, These Poll Wavers seek to exploit "Democracy" Democracy is Mob Rule. It fails. We are a Republic ,built on the Foundation of a Constitution. That Constitution includes the tool of democratic process.

But the notion of poll waving activists driving policy should be nothing more than a cross breeze in the Wind.

[44 AMP]

Judging the wind correctly, and making adjustments to allow for it's effect is important to shooters, and a whole lot of other folks.

A strong political wind, from any direction, is as dangerous as any storm in nature, though the effect is usually less obvious.

I see no reason to take a turn at the handcrank of the pollster's wind machine so that they can make a buck.

[Wag]

A couple of things come to mind here:

1. The poll sample is NOT random. You cannot get reliable results in a non-random poll and any online poll is not going to be random. You'll get a good idea of the kind of people that read the web site, but not a good idea of how the general population thinks.

2. Sample sizes do matter but beyond a certain number of people, it doesn't change the outcome much. Minimum required sample size is about 1,200 people and yes, it tells the opinions of millions of people, believe it or not. More than that is not particularly informative. Of course, it has to be a random poll, yada yada yada.

Everything else above seems to be spot on, for the most part.

--Wag--

[stagpanther]

Of all the things that threaten gun ownership I don't think background checks, age requirements etc are the biggest threats. BY FAR the biggest threat is so-called red-flag "mental health" checks. What that really comes down to is you're asking law enforcement to somehow figure out psychology and apply it to revoking firearms. This will NEVER work, and why the GOP keeps touting it is beyond me.

I can tell you why it won't work. I have been suffering from a chronic illness for almost 15 years. I hurt to some degree almost all the time. A typical visit to the doctor goes like this: a nurse intern walks in and asks generic questions, how you feeling today, etc and what did you come for. Your responses get immediately entered into a computerized "doctoring for dummies" database. You don't know what they enter nor have the right to review on demand as far as I know. That stuff stays on a permanent record and follows you around till the end of your days. I generally respond with something like "I'm OK, considering, but not great."

What happens is quickly they will direct their questions towards issues of depression and violence, mostly towards yourself--especially if they have failed to successfully diagnose and treat the medical cause of your illness; this starts the "it's all in your head, you're imagining things" entries into your record. Health care has become a money-making machine in this country, I'd go as far as to say that truly helping people get affordably well is inherently a conflict of interest. It's like going into your local garage needing an oil change--and being told that your car service needs to be out-sourced to the manufacturer for a new engine and transmission.

[Double Naught Spy]

Remember... Both Mobs & Lemmings once energized -- don't let facts stand in their way.

You paid too much attention to Disney movies and as a result, made a reflexive comment.

[mehavey]

Quote:
Remember... Both Mobs & Lemmings once energized -- don't let facts stand in their way.

My father was a deputy sheriff in Illinois in the 30's.
Having later survived as a B17 squadron commander out of England,
he told me that the only thing that ever really scared him... was a mob...

"... It has no brain'"

I think I'll stick with his actual experience,
and suggest others might consider it as well.






postcriptum: Dad also lived through another little rush to the cliff by the unthinking... prohibition.

[44 AMP]

Also bear in mind there is no firearm in the majority of US homes.

In the midst of a discussion over how flawed polls can be, how the statistics they generate and how conclusions based on that information can seriously far off the mark, here is yet another example, a purported fact, dropped into the conversation, with no source given, and no context to ascertain its relevance to the discussion.

Assuming (yeah, I know about "assume") that it is a valid fact, that gun owners are a minority, and there is no gun in the majority of US homes, what does that tell us???

NOTHING specific or useful that I can see.

Consider this,

"You see, in this world, there's two kinds of people, my friend; those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."
--Clint Eastwood as the Man with No Name in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)

I'm sure that my home would be counted in the group of "no firearms in the home". Yes, I have been asked. And I answered honestly, and truthfully.

I've been asked, "Do you have /is there a firearm in your home?"
and I have answered,
"I do not have a firearm in my home."
and my answer is factual, truthful, and honest. I do not have a firearm in my home.

[mehavey]

Do you have is there a firearm in your home?

"Next question..."

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

Of all the things that threaten gun ownership I don't think background checks, age requirements etc are the biggest threats. BY FAR the biggest threat is so-called red-flag "mental health" checks. What that really comes down to is you're asking law enforcement to somehow figure out psychology and apply it to revoking firearms. This will NEVER work, and why the GOP keeps touting it is beyond me.

Red flag laws don't ask law enforcement to play psychologist. All law enforcement does is serve the order, which is issued by a judge.

The overwhelming problem with red flag laws is that the initial proceeding (I won't dignify it by calling it a "hearing") is ex parte, which means that the poor schlemp who is being accused of being a wife beater and general menace to society knows nothing about it and has no opportunity to defend him/herself or to be represented by counsel. I, personally, think that's an unconstitutional violation of due process. I think the "red flag" process is possibly in violation of the 4th Amendment, certainly in violation of the 5th amendment, and possibly in violation of the 6th Amendment. The first the subject of one of these orders will generally know about it is when the police show up and confiscate his/her firearms.

Proponents of these laws argue that due process is observed because there has to be a hearing with (typically) two weeks, at which the subject of the order can argue why he/she should be allowed to have their guns back. But the process puts the cart before the horse, and leaves the subject of the order in the position of having to prove a negative, rather than requiring the person who made the complaint prove their accusations in a fair, open, two-party hearing.

Here's an early example of how badly these red flag laws can be abused:

https://www.denverpost.com/2020/01/1...olice-officer/

Susan Holes was the mother of a young man who left home with a knife, saying that he was going to kill his brother. He was stopped by a police officer, who did everything possible to talk the kid into dropping the knife. The body cam footage is available on YouTube -- the cop back-pedaled at least 100 feet, constantly asking the kid to put down the knife. Ultimately, the kid charged the cop, who shot then him. A female officer off to one side also shot the assailant.

The kid's mother perjured herself to get a red flag order issued against the cop who shot her son. A year later, she was convicted of perjury -- at which point she went on the lam.

https://www.reporterherald.com/2022/...ublic-servant/

Yeah -- it's a great system.

[44 AMP]

The kid's mother perjured herself to get a red flag order issued against the cop who shot her son. A year later, she was convicted of perjury -- at which point she went on the lam.

You left out the "best part", the way she perjured herself.

In order to have standing to request the red flag order, she claimed that she and the cop "had a child in common".

This term is generally understood to mean either a biological relationship, or a social one where both parties are involved in raising the child (such as stepparent or live in unmarried partner.

Her claim of having a child in common was that he was her son, and the cop shot him, so they both had that "child" in common!

The courts, ultimately, disagreed... and charged her.

[Aguila Blanca]

Mrs. Holmes was clearly a woman on a mission. Unfortunately, her mission was to destroy the life of a police officer who went far beyond the minimum to de-escalate the confrontation with her son, who was intent on committing suicide by cop.

This article lays out a time line: https://www.coloradoan.com/story/new...se/4667136002/

The time line omits the fact that she went on the lam for a year to avoid being sentenced for perjury.

The point is that this case is a poster child for how these red flag laws can be abused.

[HiBC]

Quote:
Also bear in mind there is no firearm in the majority of US homes.
In the midst of a discussion over how flawed polls can be, how the statistics they generate and how conclusions based on that information can seriously far off the mark, here is yet another example, a purported fact, dropped into the conversation, with no source given, and no context to ascertain its relevance to the discussion.

Assuming (yeah, I know about "assume") that it is a valid fact, that gun owners are a minority, and there is no gun in the majority of US homes, what does that tell us???

NOTHING specific or useful that I can see.

What may have had an effect on the number of households with guns is the astonishing number of boating accidents of late.


Remember the Constitution ,and all of the People who swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, are not one shuckey darn about what "The Majority" thinks.

The Foundation is about the Creator Given Rights of the Minority of One Individual Human Being standing alone.

If He or She were the only gun owner in the USA, as things stand today, Their 2A Rights would be protected by the Constitution.

Unfortunately, that Right CAN be lost.

[hikingman]

Who wants the free responses (about my lifestyle or choices) in a poll over a phone or device connected to the web?

Do I want to be used for data? No.

Do I want to answer questions provided by an automated voice/ robot? No.

I'm well paid (locally) for marketing survey data- several times each year. Offer me money to participate in your survey/ poll, or go ask someone else to give you opinions for no money.

Is the source willing to reveal what the poll is being used for, and who the principals are of the corporation funding the poll?

Would I choose to help those I don't agree with collect data for a poll? No thanks.

[44 AMP]

while I'm ok with "name unavailable" on my caller ID, because I respect the fact that some people want privacy, I detest the calls where my caller ID says one thing and then they say they are someone else. Zero credibility, right there, for me...

One of them even used the name of a place I had worked at for 30 years, but the guy on the phone had a sing-song accent, background noise indicated he was working from a call center (no idea if it physically in the US, or not) and he wanted to tell me about the "new' final expense insurance....

I also get call from groups with noble ideals (on the surface, anyway) asking for donations to support veterans, breast cancer, firefighter, the police, etc.

BUT the moment their pitch gets to "we support politicians who...." they're not getting even one penny from me.

And the other automatic "NO" from me is those unidentified or MISidentified friendly folk who want to give me a home security system, at no cost!!

Unidentifed caller wants my opinion on gun control, I'll tell them, no problem, and if they don't hang up, I'll give them chapter and verse.

IF they ask if I own a gun, I'll tell them the truth about that, too. I do not own A gun. next question....

I didn't fail English, "a" is an article, denoting ONE specific individual object. I don't own A gun! I own several dozen, but that's none of their business, and I'm not going to tell them about it.

sadly, the tragic boating accident won't work for me, don't have a boat. Lost it in the divorce....as Dr McCoy said, she took everything but the Bones....

[DaveBj]

Made me smile, AMP; thanks for that

DaveBj

[stagpanther]

sadly, the tragic boating accident won't work for me, don't have a boat.

No problem, people drive cars into lakes all the time.

[Wag]

The "surveys" that really irritate me are the ones that ask a couple of questions and then ask for a donation. NRA is notorious for that. Police groups as well.

--Wag--

[44 AMP]

Back before it was generally known how badly LaPierre was picking the NRA's pockets, if I had a few spare bucks and they asked, I would donate. No more, and not for a long time now.

First, WLP & co are still in charge (last I knew) and second, my personal situation changed and I no longer have spare bucks to give to anybody, noble cause, or not.

No problem, people drive cars into lakes all the time.

Interesting thought....

Long time ago I drove a truck camper over the really TALL bridge at the mouth of the Columbia. Wind was really pushing me around and I was more than a bit "puckered"...oddly enough what I thought most about was not if we would survive being blown off the bridge (it was a LONG way down!) but if I could get divers to find and recover my guns in the camper before they rusted solid. priorities, right?

[Gelrir]

The Columbia River from the bar up past Astoria is "only" 43 to 55 feet deep; but I bet divers would worry about the current and poor visibility first. I suspect that "a big claw from a crane on a barge" would be the usual method of recovering wrecks/clearing the shipping channel.