Less Molon Labe, More Reaching Out

[vito]

A big part of the problem is the reality that a goodly portion of the country's population lives in large urban centers, that by and large are anti-gun enclaves. People there have accepted frequent crime as the norm, as they also accept as the norm the idea that few non LEO's can legally carry firearms, or in some cases, even own them. They see the pro-gun agenda as upsetting the apple cart by adding guns into what they see as an already volatile environment, and it scares them. That is why despite the reality that state after state has legalized concealed carry, and the chaos and mayhem predicted has not happened, but they still scream the same fears when something like national reciprocity is introduced.

A real problem for all of us on the pro-gun side is that we are not a united group, while our opponents are pretty cohesive. The NRA gets its power from its 5 million members, but there are another 100 million gun owners who are not even members of the NRA or any other national pro gun organization. Too many hunters could not care less if there are restrictions passed on handgun sales or ownership. There are likely avid target shooters and competitive handgun shooters that would not say a word if hunting were banned tomorrow. How we change this is not something that I have the answer to, but I do know that all of us on the pro-gun forums went out of our way to encourage at least joining the NRA that would help our cause enormously. Maybe the next time you go to buy ammo and see others looking at guns or buying ammo or anything gun related, strike up a conversation and ask them if they are NRA members. If not, explain to them why they should join. Can you imagine if the NRA had 20 or 30 million members instead of 5 million how much more influential it would be?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If the gun world is correlated with such social unpleasantess as we saw out of major spokespeople, it will hurt.

They do not have a rationale for ownership of the guns that are under threat, that is convincing outside of the choir. The annoyance of a list member, I will summarize as:

We need AR-15s to keep the kindergarten teachers and college professors from making our kids into socialists.

It is common for gun folks to say - WHO CARES, TO THE TRENCHES!

If the next election swings Congress and state houses, you will get Heller/Scalia restriction analysis rammed down your throat for bans in many states thought safe. Forget SCOTUS.

All the money bombs and long posts with micro analyses of Heller won't do the RKBA a bit of good. If you want some of the 100 million gun owners to join the NRA - maybe some thought to messaging and leadership would be appropriate. Some hunter who thinks that ARs are too dangerous isn't going to join the current crew.

In a way, this parallels the last election when the Democrats couldn't understand why some of their folks who supported Obama, turned against Hillary. The person and message counts. Good analyses of the last election demonstrated that her persona sunk enthusiasm for her candidacy. Want more NRA members, think about it.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

PS - saw this on very techy gun discussion group. Here's the link:

https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2...one-you/219877

The member who posted it made the point that this is very counterproductive and that someone who didn't know the issues wouldn't join the NRA is that is their type of people.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

If the gun world is correlated with such social unpleasantess as we saw out of major spokespeople, it will hurt.

They do not have a rationale for ownership of the guns that are under threat, that is convincing outside of the choir. The annoyance of a list member, I will summarize as:

We need AR-15s to keep the kindergarten teachers and college professors from making our kids into socialists.

I confess to being annoyed by falsehood from people who should know better.

Glenn, your "summary", a formula you like well enough to have written here several times before, causes annoyance because it appears to be false. I asked you previously who argued that. You directed me to Lapierre and Loesch very generally, then declined to repeat yourself even though no one had asked you to.

You may think your kindergarten quip merits repetition, but if it is false (which appears to be the case) this repetition only illustrates an unhealthy enthusiasm.

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

If the next election swings Congress and state houses, you will get Heller/Scalia restriction analysis rammed down your throat for bans in many states thought safe. Forget SCOTUS.

All the money bombs and long posts with micro analyses of Heller won't do the RKBA a bit of good. If you want some of the 100 million gun owners to join the NRA - maybe some thought to messaging and leadership would be appropriate. Some hunter who thinks that ARs are too dangerous isn't going to join the current crew.

What crew would such a person join? A hunter who thinks a Palmetto State semi-automatic AR is too dangerous for a civilian to possess has a substantial disagreement with the text of the 2d Am. and Heller. How many rights do you want to give away to get that fellow to join the NRA?

Let's resist referring to the actual language of Heller as a "micro-analys[is]".

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

In a way, this parallels the last election when the Democrats couldn't understand why some of their folks who supported Obama, turned against Hillary. The person and message counts. Good analyses of the last election demonstrated that her persona sunk enthusiasm for her candidacy. Want more NRA members, think about it.

I wouldn't blame it primarily on her personality, but properly addressing this may be too political for a mere "list member" to address.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I’ll let the readership decide whether they agree with me. It’s that simple.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

I’ll let the readership decide whether they agree with me. It’s that simple.

That is simple, but not probative. If someone reads a falsehood and agrees with it, it is no truer for the agreement.

Why would you knowingly persist in an factual error?

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by buck460XVR

^^^I'm with Frank. Again, it's not the hard core anti's we have a chance with, it's those folks that in the past have been neutral to gun ownership. We have already chipped away at the edges with the old rhetorical "Shall not be infringed" arguments, but those still on the fence need something else. They've basically gotten sick of hearing the same ol' rhetoric and it's falling on deaf ears. On top of that, for every anti statement I've seen that is " wrong, misleading, and often flat-out lies", I've seen one from pro-gunners that is the same.

I've not seen anything from pro-gunners that matches what the anti's throw out ("assault weapons," "high-capacity magazines," "cop-killer bullets," "armor-piercing bullets," etc...).

We have to quit doing what we accuse the other side as doing if we want to present ourselves as legitimate. Overall, I see very few newly proposed realistic answers and solutions to violence using firearms from pro-gun folks, just the same ol' memes and quotes. Yes, we need to talk to folks, but we need good arguments directed at the whole congregation, not just the choir. We need to fight the battle we can win(those neutral to firearm ownership) and quit focusing on those anti extremists who will never see things our way. We don't need to defeat them, we just need to keep them in the minority.

You have to focus somewhat on the anti-gun extremists because they are often listened to by the neutrals. As for solutions to gun violence, there aren't a whole lot of them aside from what is already mentioned. One major solution would be a complete 100% ban on all semiautomatic firearms period. But that comes with the caveat of massively infringing on people's rights. Arguing this of course then requires defending why the right to arms is a right and how the proposed gun control of the anti's infringes greatly on said right.

I use the analogy of the right to freedom of speech. If some group holds a Muslim cartoon contest and then next week a radical Muslim plows over a group of school children with a truck, and then we see say a Muslim art mockery show (like how they will do horrible works of "art" regarding Christianity, we see one with regards to Islam), so then we again see a group of people run over with a truck and maybe another Boston bombing. Well the easy solution is to ban anything that mocks Islam in such a situation. But that doesn't make it right and I would not support it because it is a violation of people's rights and puts the blame on the exercise of the right as opposed to the people doing the killing.

[LogicMan]

All the time I've been in the gun culture, I've never seen a situation in which academia, the media, and politicians (even a former Supreme Court Justice) are all so openly and brazenly against the RKBA. This is far worse than 1994, and for now, it really is an us vs. them situation.

Well the situation of them being against it hasn't changed IMO, just their being more openly against it, and that is because of the frequency of the mass shootings as of late IMO. But SCOTUS justices, the media, academia, etc...have all long been against the RKBA.

[RC20]

The data that the OP stated for gun ownership looks to be wrong.

Gun owners are 3 out of 10 (probably some plus or minus to that). A percentage of those 3 own multiple guns so the numbers may be high but not the overall ownership and guns don't vote, owners do. 70% (more or less) don't own guns.

The reality is that when I was growing up, even where I did, no where near all the people owned guns (white, Native population tended to have at least one gun per household but they were far more dependent on hunting and trapping)

What I saw go from people who had guns and responsible was a push for lots of guns and regardless of responsible or not.

ARs are like the 22 of the day now.

Melenials and the subsequent generation have a different view and they are moving to vote in numbers and those kids are the generation that grew up with school shootings (as rare as they are, the impact is nationwide)

I grew up as a kid in the A Bomb era and I can remember how we felt.

The more guns out there the more get into the wrong hands.

One store was broken into in my city and 30 some firearms taken, 10 have been used in crime.

Legally bought guns are now being used in crime (that was rare to unheard of at one time)

So yes, we can get outvoted.

I am not adverse to discussing a different approach.

[Nathan]

Are we supposed to lie?

The purposeful lying of the other side has to catch up with them. I used to think the media reported...now, they have had time to change their wording, but it still remains horribly inaccurate. The trouble is, the media is spewing the Antigun message 24/7. Can they be sued for purposeful ignorance? If they misrepresented a person like this, they would be sued.

The issue with the NRA is deep. We have lost our roots for immediate fear based gains. We need to get back to our roots of firearms education. We need back into schools....clubs, sports, 3-7 days program for health classes with video, interactive, etc...

The NRA needs to buy into 2A4E. This is at the core of the new message. Loesch and Nuggent need to be dismissed. LaPierre replaced by a skilled leader. Get rid of fear tactics. We were winning and can get it back.

The key thing missing from these mass shootings?? Investigation. There seems to be no investigation. Can the NRA/ILA provide some investigative reporting? Is the FBI being fixed? Can the NRA show the statistics? Being shot is the least of kids concerns....texting, driving, drinking, falling....these are the real dangers in life. Who is holding Chicago accountable for their lack of policing in areas of HIGH murder? Trump said he would....What is the progress?

[LogicMan]

One major determining factor in gun politics, IMO, will simply be the frequency of the mass shootings. If they stop and die off for some time, then so will the drives for gun control and you will begin likely to even see some various forms of gun control reversed I think in certain states. But as long as they remain frequent, it will remain a heated issue.

[Tom Servo]

Gun owners are 3 out of 10 (probably some plus or minus to that). A percentage of those 3 own multiple guns so the numbers may be high but not the overall ownership and guns don't vote, owners do. 70% (more or less) don't own guns.

I'm very skeptical of that statistic. On one hand, the antis claim we have more guns than people in this country. Then they go on to tell us not that many people actually own guns.

They try to reconcile this in two ways. The first is their "data." It seems to come from phone surveys in which they call people and ask questions about gun ownership. Who actually gets called for phone surveys any more? Even then, how many of those people are willing to tell a complete stranger they own guns? In this political atmosphere? No.

So, what their "data" tells me is that 3 out of 10 people who were contacted through a phone survey were willing to talk about their gun ownership admit to owning guns. Can I be sure? No. They don't generally release their methodology or sample sizes, but those guns have to be going somewhere.

The second is the myth of the (I kid you not) "super owner." This comes up when I mention the dramatic upward swing of retail sales and NICS checks. Where did all these guns go? Their explanation comes down to, "well, sure. There's, like, twelve guys in Idaho buying thousands of guns each."

Yeah, um...no. I worked in the business during a few panics, including the post-Newtown frenzy of 2013. The reality was, our regulars stood aside while we focused the majority of our efforts selling to first-time buyers.

The whole thing is an agenda to "prove" some decline in gun ownership. If they do that, they can go to their donors and claim they're having success.

[spacemanspiff]

The whole thing is an agenda to "prove" some decline in gun ownership. If they do that, they can go to their donors and claim they're having success.

For reals! For the last few years they keep saying 'gun ownership is declining and is at all time lows!' but turn around and tell us gun deaths is the biggest epidemic and that this country leads the world in gun-related deaths.
It reminds me of when I did my own research back in 2001/2002 after I bought my first gun (thought I was a horrible criminal for buying it from a friend with no background check done or no registration of it; and even thought my landlord would evict me if he knew I had a gun in my apartment) and still held on to some liberal ideas about how evil guns were. The realization that the anti-gun groups were manipulating the data at every turn was a 'Come To Jesus' moment for me.

[riffraff]

For sure all gun owners should be NRA, and all NRA members should let others know they belong - put the sticker on, mention it when pertinant. If you know a gun owner who's not NRA shame them, they deserve it over the freakin 30 bucks.

Among anti gunners there's this idea that they are "against" the NRA and some handfull of senior citiczen rednecks. Moderate non gun owners are not neccesarily aware of how many gun owners really exist either - in any way possible we need to show that guns ARE COMMON, we are 30% of the population and not the percieved 3%.

[turkeestalker]

I'm going to call 30% way low.
No way to prove it but I'm betting it's twice that.
No way for anyone to disprove it either.

[DaleA]

The whole thing is an agenda to "prove" some decline in gun ownership. If they do that, they can go to their donors and claim they're having success.

I have no doubt this could be true.

There's so much stuff so much worse as far as misinformation of guns goes that the media is complicit in spreading that I wouldn't doubt for a minute that gun ownership is way higher than this stat.

Since the 2016 election it's kind of easy to throw these kinds of surveys onto the scrap heap.

And on a personal note, when I was a kid and my parents were surveyed, even up until I was middle-aged, IMhO, it was kind of an honor to be surveyed. Then there started to be lots more surveys, some with a really transparent agenda and some not really surveys at all but telemarketers trying to sell stuff that a lot of people, me included, just started hanging up on them, telling them it was none of their business or a few of my friends started lying just for sport.

[stephen426]

I totally agree with the original post and have been pushing for more dialogue for a long time. I try to use reason and logic when sharing my views with people who are not into guns. Notice how I did not say "anti-gun" since some people cannot and will not be reasoned with. There are plenty of people who are on the fence. Chest thumping tends to shove them over the fence where the anti-gun crowd is. I just took my friend's daughter shooting for the first time and she loved it. She just turned 16 and I have known her parents since high school. With the recent tragedy at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas, I cautioned them not to post any of the pictures they took since we live in South Florida. It would be a sure way to get lots of hate from those who believe all guns should be banned.

[buck460XVR]

Originally Posted by LogicMan

I've not seen anything from pro-gunners that matches what the anti's throw out ("assault weapons," "high-capacity magazines," "cop-killer bullets," "armor-piercing bullets," etc...).

Why is "Assault Rifle" any different than calling the same firearm "modern sporting rifle" or a "tactical rifle"? Both are used by different folks in an attempt to epitomize the firearm to what they want it to represent. As for High capacity Mags and armor piecing bullets, I see pro-gunners using those terms all the time. What I see most from pro-gunners is the attempt to make anti's out as stupid and ignorant, when in reality they are doctors, lawyers, successful businessmen/women and others with average and above average intelligence. That's why we need to use intelligent arguments and solutions in attempt to persuade them. Talking down and belittling them ain't doing it. If we don't like it when the antis portray us as Bubbas, with a loaded gun pointed out of our truck window, handing our beer to our buddy, while sayin' "watch this!", why should we expect them to be any different?

Originally Posted by LogicMan

You have to focus somewhat on the anti-gun extremists because they are often listened to by the neutrals. As for solutions to gun violence, there aren't a whole lot of them aside from what is already mentioned. One major solution would be a complete 100% ban on all semiautomatic firearms period. But that comes with the caveat of massively infringing on people's rights. Arguing this of course then requires defending why the right to arms is a right and how the proposed gun control of the anti's infringes greatly on said right.

We have to hope those neutrals are also listening to us. Again, why we need realistic and intelligent answers, instead of just cute memes on Facebook. As for solutions, I see very many presented by progunners other than the same ol' "Shall not be infringed", "From my cold, dead hands". Those neutral have heard all of that before. Those that are gonna be swayed by those simplistic statements have already been swayed, and it ain't enough. We want the other side to compromise and give up something while we don't give an inch, or any reasonable alternative. Because of this, I see us getting pushed farther and farther away from the ability to convince.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

One only has to look at the latest Ted Nugent uproar or the guy who got canned on Sinclair for suggesting horrific violence against the Parkland kids. If one thinks the progun messaging is working for the most part, that person has little understanding of messaging or just chortles over tribal rabble rousing. Fund raising from the tribe is not a strategic goal to protect the RKBA.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by buck460xvr

What I see most from pro-gunners is the attempt to make anti's out as stupid and ignorant, when in reality they are doctors, lawyers, successful businessmen/women and others with average and above average intelligence. That's why we need to use intelligent arguments and solutions in attempt to persuade them. Talking down and belittling them ain't doing it.

Emphasis added. That's fair. An intelligent person can set forth a foolish idea; some ideas are so foolish that one would almost need to spend a lot of time in school to believe them.

Condescension isn't persuasive, but noting the ignorance or poor reasoning in a position can't be off limits just because the writer wears a lab coat. We recently saw the article of a Florida medical doctor calling for a ban on ARs because of the terrible damage its bullets can do, and in the past we've seen docs used as a misapplied authority on gun violence as a public health issue. Recall also that there were quite a few smart attorneys on the other side of Heller.

One should be able to have respect for a person without granting undue deference to academic credentials.

[O4L]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

Emphasis added. That's fair. An intelligent person can set forth a foolish idea; some ideas are so foolish that one would almost need to spend a lot of time in school to believe them.

Condescension isn't persuasive, but noting the ignorance or poor reasoning in a position can't be off limits just because the writer wears a lab coat. We recently saw the article of a Florida medical doctor calling for a ban on ARs because of the terrible damage its bullets can do, and in the past we've seen docs used as a misapplied authority on gun violence as a public health issue. Recall also that there were quite a few smart attorneys on the other side of Heller.

One should be able to have respect for a person without granting undue deference to academic credentials.

Very well said.

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

One only has to look at the latest Ted Nugent uproar or the guy who got canned on Sinclair for suggesting horrific violence against the Parkland kids. If one thinks the progun messaging is working for the most part, that person has little understanding of messaging or just chortles over tribal rabble rousing. Fund raising from the tribe is not a strategic goal to protect the RKBA.

Hopefully, people are smart enough to realize that these people do not represent most gun people.

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by buck460XVR

Why is "Assault Rifle" any different than calling the same firearm "modern sporting rifle" or a "tactical rifle"? Both are used by different folks in an attempt to epitomize the firearm to what they want it to represent. As for High capacity Mags and armor piecing bullets, I see pro-gunners using those terms all the time. What I see most from pro-gunners is the attempt to make anti's out as stupid and ignorant, when in reality they are doctors, lawyers, successful businessmen/women and others with average and above average intelligence. That's why we need to use intelligent arguments and solutions in attempt to persuade them. Talking down and belittling them ain't doing it. If we don't like it when the antis portray us as Bubbas, with a loaded gun pointed out of our truck window, handing our beer to our buddy, while sayin' "watch this!", why should we expect them to be any different?

IMO, any pro-gunner who uses terms like "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" to refer to weapons like an AR-15, or who uses terms like "high-capacity magazine" when referring to standard capacity magazines and "cop-killer bullets" or "armor-piercing bullets" when referring to normal ammunition, is just being stupid and ignorant. And pointing out the wrongness of such terms need not involve any condescension or talking down to people.

It is important IMO to distinguish between nitpicking and legitimate criticism I think. If someone says "high-capacity clips," I'm not going to jump on them saying that the appropriate term is magazine, because you know what they mean. Or if they say "bullets" when they actually mean "cartridges," again, that is just nitpicking. But if a person uses a term like "assault weapon," that is different, and requires a correction. Again, the correcting need not be condescending at all, but does need to be pointed out.

We have to hope those neutrals are also listening to us. Again, why we need realistic and intelligent answers, instead of just cute memes on Facebook. As for solutions, I see very many presented by progunners other than the same ol' "Shall not be infringed", "From my cold, dead hands". Those neutral have heard all of that before. Those that are gonna be swayed by those simplistic statements have already been swayed, and it ain't enough. We want the other side to compromise and give up something while we don't give an inch, or any reasonable alternative. Because of this, I see us getting pushed farther and farther away from the ability to convince.

Would have to disagree here. We want the other side to compromise while we don't give an inch? Respectfully, but I think you are seeing it backwards. IMO, it is the Gun Control side that wants us to compromise without giving an inch. I also hate that term, "give an inch," because the Gun Controllers do not want us to give an inch, they want us to give a mile, and then another mile, and so forth. Holding the line against so-called "universal background checks," "assault weapons ban," "high-capacity magazine ban," "armor piercing ammunition ban," waiting periods, ban on "terrorists" from getting guns (i.e. people on Terrorist Watch Lists), CDC research for gun violence, and pre-emptive gun confiscations is not "refusing to give an inch," it is refusing to give miles and no different than a free speech or privacy rights proponent refusing to give in to demands for bans on "Hate Speech" or certain privacy protections.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Originally Posted by LogicMan

Hopefully, people are smart enough to realize that these people do not represent most gun people.

They don’t. Decision making depends in large part on emotional first impressions. Folks don’t go beyond that .

A PS - if you want a handle on decision making, it's a long read but take a look at:

Thinking, Fast and Slow – 2012
by Daniel Kahneman (Author)

Nobel Prize winner for academic credentials.

His work and that of many others demonstrate how even trained professionals - such as scientists, medical professionals, attorneys and judges do not always make 'rational' decisions even in their assigned professional role.

Such analyses demonstrate why a good number of knowledgeable folks about firearms issues think that messaging from the NRA and other gun rights advocates will be ineffective outside of the already committed (the choir, so to speak).

[44 AMP]

"Wearing a lab coat," academic credentials, etc...only means the person is an expert in their particular area of study. They can be of average knowledge and/or intelligence in all other areas, or even a flat-out moron in other areas.

My personal experience over a working man's lifetime of 40+ years, and working with numbers of engineers and some scientists is that a degree or a diploma hanging on the on the wall proves only that the owner didn't flunk out.

period.

They may, or may not know what they are doing. They may be wonderfully skilled and competent, they may be clueless idiots who somehow barely manage to keep from getting fired. The Diploma only proves they graduated. Even if they graduated at the top of their classes, it does NOT automatically guarantee competence in the "real" world.

Much the same can be said for military officer's commissions. Some are very good, some aren't, most are somewhere in between.

The worst part about this is the attitudes, and social groups that are too prevalent with many. The blue collar world has its own version, to be sure, but its mostly a reverse reaction to the snobbery displayed by too many people with degrees, or "ring knockers".

I have met (and worked with all too many) a lot of people who simply will not listen to ANY ideas (about anything) from people they do not consider their social or educational equal. And, along with that is often (but not always) a blind devotion and acceptance of any utterance, no matter how stupid, from those they consider their social/educational superiors.

The attitude that "if they knew what they were doing, they'd have a degree" or its military version "if they knew what they were doing, they'd be officers" is not only snobbish, it is hugely shortsighted and automatically discounts a potentially huge resource.

That guy bending tin down in the shop, or sweeping the floor, or wearing SGT stripes might be an idiot. Or they might be someone with a 160+ IQ who could have a wall full of degrees had they wanted them, but they simply didn't want them.

the doctors professors, engineers, etc with that attitude won't listen to us, because we don't have their degrees, so therefore we don't know anything worth listening to. The other side of the coin is people automatically listening to, and respecting every thing they say, simply because they have degrees.

So, right there, you have a major obstacle against any kind of "reaching out". Another is the bias in the news and entertainment industry (if there is still a difference between the two, something of which, I am no longer sure).

Anti gun messages both direct and indirect (in entertainment show plotlines) are run 24/7 and quite often free of charge. Pro gun messages, even ones paid for, are often refused. The "true believers" running the media simply refuse to take our money, to run our messages.

Tough to reach out when one's message is virtually strangled by their control of the most effective methods.

Another problem is the lack of rational thought of those who's most important priorities is following the latest celebrity trends and their version of group think.

I've spent over 50 years enjoying many sporting aspects of firearms, and a few years experiencing (not always enjoying) the military aspects of firearms. No Doctor's diploma or Professor's degree gives them the lifetime's worth of real experience I have. So, why, in my reverse snobbery, should I listen to them? Especially when they are spouting crap.

Likewise, no 17 year old, no matter how traumatized by a horrible experience has any "qualifications" in my opinion, to tell me how to live my life.

I respect their right to their opinions, and will defend the principle that they have the right to express them, just as I do. Doesn't mean they are right, or that I have to obey their diktats...

Yes, I'm old and I'm tired, and I've been beating my head against that wall so long I'm nearly blind from the brick dust. So, here's my share of the torch, I'm passing it to you, I wish you well. But I have no great hopes for the future.

Reach out all you can, as you can, if you can find someone to reach out to...and if your message is even allowed to be spoken. Good Luck with that.

There is hope, not a lot, but some, and some might be enough, if things go just the right way.

In 2001 a lot of people woke up to the fact that firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens, even the semi-automaticassaultweapons of war were NOT the greatest threat to our lives and safety as a nation. We stayed pretty awake for a decade or so, then went back to sleep, and while we have been sleeping, the rats have returned from their holes and are now about to bite us, directly. if they just ate my food (or my money) I wouldn't mind so much, but they just won't stop there.

As a gun owner & user, I've lived through every gun control law since 1968. Despite all the promises, and all the additional laws, the situation the laws were claimed to improve, has not gotten significantly better.

Quite often seems to be just the opposite, to me. But then, what do I know, I don't have a degree....