There is no silver bullet solution to the problem. There are so many aspects to the gun problems here in the US as to make a simple solution completely out of the solution. The Pie In The Sky crowd says "Just Take all the guns away" sounds simple, but how do you make sure you get all the criminals guns? They are in most cases the bulk of the problem. It would eliminate the accidental shootings, but not those done by criminals. Then there is the whole unreasonable search and seizure aspect, and the folks that would just not give them up. I also don't think such a thing is possible in this country.
More training, labels, PSA's are all small drops in the bucket I suspect, but get enough drops and ya got something.
Not going to Fix The Problem, but it sure can't hurt could it? And they don't step on anyones rights, can't even see how it would be all that expensive..
Oh the guy was funny, but humor usually does depend on ignoring glaring facts
'
I'm curious as to what glaring pro-gun arguments you think Jeffries failed to cover in his opinion comedy bit, Six?
-He addressed the "criminals will still have guns" argument.
-He used Australia's lack of any mass murders since were guns were banned as proof, in his opinion, that banning guns drastically reduces the problem.
-He covered the "I need guns for protection" argument.
-He targeted the "second amendment to the Constitution is impenetrable" position.
-He took on the "we need guns to prevent government tyranny" cries.
-He addressed child gun deaths, suicide, gun safes...
Of course, he wasn't doing a dissertation during a stand-up gig, so he's not gonna start citing stats and stuff. But, he hit just about every pro-gun stance that I've seen tossed out in this thread.
In regards to gun safety PSAs, I've pointed them out to you a couple of times in this thread, but you keep saying they don't exist because you apparently haven't seen them.
Gun safety materials are available all over the internet, at gun shops, via free brochures and classes at schools and churches, via verbal guidance and printed materials at hospitals and doctors' offices, all over the media...
So, aside from a sticker or tag hanging off a gun like they do off hair dryers, what means do you suggest for PSAs? Do you think expensive tv and radio ads would help hammer home the importance of gun safety? If so, would you support those ads being paid-for by public funding/tax dollars?
(03-17-2015, 10:52 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]I'm curious as to what glaring pro-gun arguments you think Jeffries failed to cover in his opinion comedy bit, Six?
-He addressed the "criminals will still have guns" argument.
He addressed it and completely blew off the consequences as paranoia as part of his schtick
-He used Australia's lack of any mass murders since were guns were banned as proof, in his opinion, that banning guns drastically reduces the problem.
-He covered the "I need guns for protection" argument.
He addressed it and completely blew off the possibility of a person being attacked as paranoia as part of his schtick
-He targeted the "second amendment to the Constitution is impenetrable" position.
-He took on the "we need guns to prevent government tyranny" cries.
-He addressed child gun deaths, suicide, gun safes...
Of course, he wasn't doing a dissertation during a stand-up gig, so he's not gonna start citing stats and stuff. But, he hit just about every pro-gun stance that I've seen tossed out in this thread.
In regards to gun safety PSAs, I've pointed them out to you a couple of times in this thread, but you keep saying they don't exist because you apparently haven't seen them.
Still haven't seen any out here
Gun safety materials are available all over the internet, at gun shops, via free brochures and classes at schools and churches, via verbal guidance and printed materials at hospitals and doctors' offices, all over the media...
Not all over, or I would have seen it here, also have not seen any gun safety classes listed at churches or schools. If they exist where you are, well thats progress. Haven't been in Dr's office in a couple years, so can't say. As to brochures at gun shops, Yes they can be found in just about every new gun box and I have actually read them. However, Lots of guns are bought and sold used without documentation to idiots. THOSE are the target audience, I don't need the safety warnings, I have a lot of years of training to go by.
So, aside from a sticker or tag hanging off a gun like they do off hair dryers, what means do you suggest for PSAs? Do you think expensive tv and radio ads would help hammer home the importance of gun safety? If so, would you support those ads being paid-for by public funding/tax dollars?
Billboards, PSA adds on TV & Radio and why not pay for them with tax dollars, thats whats paying for the DD and anti texting adds.
Six, that was the point -- Jeffries addressed ALL of the general arguments in a short time from his point of view in an anti-gun COMEDY bit. Stand-up isn't a stage for balanced analysis or a fact-citing exercise.
I think Chris Rock's gun control bit is funny; he likes his guns. He expresses his opinion about the contention that video games, music, movies and such are to blame for school massacres, without citing any facts on the comedy stage. He's also not real interested in the "mental health issues are to blame" view and whether it has some merit. And, he thinks he knows who's to blame for school shootings. Plus, he has a solution to gun violence that has nothing to do with gun control or bans. All from HIS non-PC mocking point of view.
I know you've seen several PSAs because I've posted several and you've commented upon them, but I understand that you haven't seen them outside of Mock. Maybe we'll start seeing more of them that are not target-marketed but instead on billboards, tv and radio that hit a broader audience. Those are very expensive means of advertising, but I think the gun-safety groups (as opposed to the gun-ban advocates) would be all for such public-funded venues.
Sarah Palin's future son inlaw -
He'll be co-parenting her grandson. I wonder how she'll view this type of thing when it goes on in her daughter's home.
![[Image: 26D633FC00000578-3004156-image-a-16_1426857861898.jpg]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/03/20/26D633FC00000578-3004156-image-a-16_1426857861898.jpg)
^ Interesting, F.U.
As a defense attorney and NRA member, the boss is certainly getting some good exposure to drum up business and espouse his political beliefs. That's kinda smart marketing strategy, IMO.
What's kinda dumb about it, IMO, is taking the associated Human Resources and Liability risks. Financial incentives and rewards for gun-carriers on-the-job as an employment policy could easily be viewed by a labor judge as discriminating against those employees (like the receptionist) who choose to exercise their rights not to pack at work. Bonuses are typically handed out based on achieving or exceeding performance goals, not exercising a right. And, if any employee shot himself or another on the job and was getting paid for packing, I could see the boss possibly being held at least partially responsible in civil or criminal court.
If the employees like guns or feel more safe with guns, why would they need to get paid to carry them? Why wouldn't the boss simply make his commitment to carry rights very clear and let the employees know that he supports their right to do so while they're on his clock? Why bribe them? Maybe the media/marketing exposure is worth it for him. Or, he's just of the "more guns, the better!" ilk and is looking to motivate his employees who don't wanna carry guns to carry them anyway -- just for the money. Or, he gets incentive from the NRA. Or, a combination. IDK.
Anyway, I'd feel the same way and ask the same questions about a politically passionate Democrat employer paying his/her employees a bonus to go to the polls and exercise their rights to vote during work time. Or, a clinic financially rewarding its female employees to choose abortion over the pill and do interviews about it in order to drum up business and reinforce the clinic's and its cients' legal rights to terminate pregnancies.
In any case, if the employees wanna do it and the employer wants to take the associated risks (and there's nothing illegal about it), more power to them all.
I wouldn't encourage my husband's employees to carry guns. They'd kill each other.
Hi HotD. I asked myself a couple of those questions when I first read this. Then I thought, hey he is a lawyer so I am sure he has asked himself those same questions long before he instated this policy . I do know it is the talk of this area right now [and the quad cities is far from a small area] and most people are all for it.
I personally allow and encourage my employees to carry, but the decision is theirs weather or not to do so. I sure as hell wont pay them to do so, and you know my feelings about this subject.
(03-20-2015, 01:23 PM)sally Wrote: [ -> ]I wouldn't encourage my husband's employees to carry guns. They'd kill each other.
I hear you Sally. When I was still running roofing crews most of the guys I had working for me couldn't even hold a gun , let alone own and carry one. hahahahahahaha Damn criminal construction workers. LMAO
Yeah we've had a few of them get into fist fights, the last thing they need is to be carrying guns. Lawyers on the other hand may be more competent to carry them lol.
(03-20-2015, 01:38 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]Hi HotD.
I personally allow and encourage my employees to carry, but the decision is theirs weather or not to do so. I sure as hell wont pay them to do so, and you know my feelings about this subject.
Hi F.U.
So then, why are you so excited and giving two big thumbs up to this employer?
I grew up in Kansas (Republican state for most part). My father was an avid hunter, i.e, pheasant, chucker, quail, etc. He also had two Brittany Spaniels he used while hunting so I am not anti-gun, but I am against everyone owning weapons and running around in public, department stores, bars, restaurants, schools, highways, with their handguns. There are many crazies who walk among us and they scare the hell out of me. Road rage which ends in a shoot out is becoming more common. If I see someone in Target, with a visible handgun, I am going to promptly leave the building. If crime is that rampant where you live or if you have to go into the ghetto, then by all means, try to protect yourself.
Now, I just read that 80% of Kansans think that permits and training should still be the law for carrying open/concealed weapons; however, the Kansas Senate just passed Senate Bill 45 which will permit carrying weapons without a permit or any (now required) training. Still has to go to House, but I wish someone would explain how this makes any sense. If you can open carry (or concealed) weapon without a permit, doesn't that spell danger for the general public? I try to be open minded, but if you get up every morning and think you have to carry a weapon to stay alive another day, then maybe you ought to see the Psychiatrist and be treated for Paranoia (I know it is clique, but true in my mind.
(03-20-2015, 06:15 PM)blueberryhill Wrote: [ -> ]Now, I just read that 80% of Kansans think that permits and training should still be the law for carrying open/concealed weapons; however, the Kansas Senate just passed Senate Bill 45 which will permit carrying weapons without a permit or any (now required) training. Still has to go to House, but I wish someone would explain how this makes any sense.
It makes sense if you look at it politically, considering special interest groups and wealthy lobbies.
The backing and campaign funding from the NRA has a stronger influence on those politicians than do the voices of the majority of people who elected them into office. Sad, but true.
It's the same at the federal level. 90% of the American public wants universal background checks. The bill to make it a law did not have a bunch of frivolous riders attached and specifically stated that the federal government would not (and was not legally permitted to) try to establish a national gun registry. The bill was submitted not long after the Sandy Hook massacre. And still, Congress did not pass the bill into law.
Morning HotD. I support his decision to encourage his employees to exercise their constitutional rights. I think his situation is a bit different than mine though. I run a bar now and think that the combination of booze and guns changes the situation. Yes I carry and let the employees carry should they choose, but I also know that all of us drink while on the job and the alcohol impairs a persons judgment. That is something that does not exist in the lawyers office.
In Iowa it is perfectly legal to sit in a bar drinking and carry a loaded gun. You cant be drunk though. Just like drinking and driving you must not carry/drive once you hit a certain level. With driving it is a B.A.C. of .08. When it comes to having a weapon on you the cutoff point is .1. I think that is kinda odd if you ask me. I mean at .08 you are to drunk to drive but you can still carry a deadly weapon. But now I am getting off track on this subject.
Two U.S. Army reservists in San Diego County were arrested Wednesday and charged with illegally selling guns, ammunition and body armor to an undercover federal agent posing as a member of a Mexican drug cartel.
According to a criminal complaint, Jaime Casillas, 22, and Andrew Reyes, 34, sold 10 guns, including four AK-47 assault rifles, and thousands of rounds of ammunition to the undercover agent. The complaint says some of the arms were military issue and others were bought in Texas and resold in California.
They were sold in seven different meetings with the undercover agent, who made it clear on multiple occasions that he worked for a cartel and the guns were bound for Mexico, the complaint said. The agents wore their military uniforms to at least one of the exchanges.
Reyes indicated that the body armor and ammunition magazines they sold were from military inventory, the complaint said.
The reservists got at least $13,000 from sales to the undercover agent. Both men work in the Army National Guard Armory in La Mesa and were arrested Wednesday - Casillas during a traffic stop in El Cajon and Reyes at his home in La Mesa.
They were indicted on charges of dealing firearms without a license and the unlicensed transport of a firearm.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/reservists-a...el-member/
-----------------------------------
What a disgrace; pendejos.
What follows was one school's bright idea to see how prepared their teachers were in case a gunman got into the school. Jesus Christ. These are educators.
An Oregon teacher is suing her rural school district over the lingering stress she feels following a surprise active shooter drill that administrators held in 2013.
Linda McLean was in her classroom at Pine Eagle Charter School in the tiny town of Halfway in August of that year when a masked man in a hoodie burst in with a gun, lowered it to her head and pulled the trigger.
The 56-year-old elementary school teacher had no clue it was a drill to test her 'preparedness' or that the gun was loaded with blanks. 'You're dead,' the shooter said.
Class was out of session that day and school officials had warned emergency services in the area not to show up should any teachers call 911.
They also ran checks on all the teacher to make sure none of them had concealed weapons permits, should they decide to fight back.
The two masked 'intruders' stormed a room where several teachers had gathered.
Story
I think that was a bullshit thing to do.
The district is lucky no one dropped dead from a heart attack.
I don't really even understand the point. Yes be observant, etc., but if you don't have a gun and a shooter really makes it to your classroom, what should a person do? What did this lesson teach her? To carry a gun?
Has anyone been to an elementary school lately? Once you get past the secure door, you're in. And if someone was that determined, he'd just shoot out the glass in the door to gain entry.
I do believe that most schools have implemented plans in the wake of Sandy Hook. Just have to hope and pray that a madman never chooses to do that again.
![[Image: jesus-with-gun.jpg]](http://frontlinestudy.com/wp-content/uploads/jesus-with-gun.jpg)
"JESUS WANTS YOU TO CARRY A GUN"
Edward Fride, a reportedly popular and beloved pastor at Christ the King church in Ann Arbor, has told parishioners to carry guns.
He has essentially told churchgoers that Jesus would defend his loved ones and others from evil-doers by lethal means, if necessary.
He sent them a letter informing them that since they were not in Mayberry anymore, they needed to learn to defend themselves and should take a Concealed Carry License class which he was sponsoring.
Fride told parishioners in the letter that Catholic teachings do not preclude carrying a gun for self-defense and to defend others. Fride then asserted that crime is up and that because of budget cuts, "there has been a significant reduction in the availability of an armed police response."
Michael Diebold, a spokesman for the Diocese of Lansing which oversees the Ann Arbor parish, confirmed Monday that the controversial letter had been sent.
"Yes, it appears that 'We're Not in Mayberry Anymore, Toto!' was sent out to the parishioners of Christ the King by their pastor, Fr. Ed Fride," Diebold wrote in an email to the Free Press.
Guns and gun lessons do not belong in a Catholic church, Lansing Catholic Bishop Earl Boyea stressed in a statement after they learned about Fride's letter from the Free Press.
"Additionally, Bishop Boyea further states that Concealed Pistol License classes are inappropriate activities to be held on Church property," wrote Diebold.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/20.../26086691/
Kinda freaky seeing Jesus with a gun.