Gyroscopic Investing

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/20 ... -shootings

Interesting article.

Greg wrote: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/20 ... -shootings

Interesting article.

I'm amazed that they included "citizen defenders" in that list!

That has a proven track record, but most media outlets won't touch it with a ten-foot pole.

Greg wrote: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/20 ... -shootings

Interesting article.

Yes, interesting article. Thanks for sharing.

New York Times calls for gun confiscation in a front-page editorial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opini ... erica.html

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

Added to my ever-growing list of sources to provide whenever anyone claims that liberals don't want to take away your guns.

Are people forgetting that the two San Bernardino terrorists had constructed bombs, too? Making this a gun issue misses the larger point.

Great article.  A level-headed approach and a comprehensive list of ways to address the mass shooter problem is exactly what's needed.  I must say, the knee-jerk reaction of "we need more gun control" struck me as almost an insulting response to the event.  I'd be completely in favor of gun-purchase regulations if they can be shown to help, but the other measures suggested all sound good too.

I don't think I'd ever be the one with the concealed gun ready to step in and save the day.  I'm way too klutzy.  But plenty of people aren't, and it would make sense to institute training requirements for maintaining a concealed carry permit.  Moreover, are there any examples of someone with a concealed carry permit going on a mass shooting spree?  I haven't heard of any.

WiseOne wrote: Great article.  A level-headed approach and a comprehensive list of ways to address the mass shooter problem is exactly what's needed.  I must say, the knee-jerk reaction of "we need more gun control" struck me as almost an insulting response to the event.  I'd be completely in favor of gun-purchase regulations if they can be shown to help, but the other measures suggested all sound good too.

I don't think I'd ever be the one with the concealed gun ready to step in and save the day.  I'm way too klutzy.  But plenty of people aren't, and it would make sense to institute training requirements for maintaining a concealed carry permit.  Moreover, are there any examples of someone with a concealed carry permit going on a mass shooting spree?  I haven't heard of any.

Not to my knowledge. However, there are many examples of concealed carriers preventing or ending shooting sprees. Some examples:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/1 ... .jeD69Z7ap
http://bearingarms.com/concealed-carry- ... -portland/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01 ... -was-dead/
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... OYf4EKDzN1
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... story.html
http://crimeresearch.org/2015/04/uber-d ... -shooting/
http://www.wsmv.com/story/29207977/metr ... ling-spree
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... shootings/
http://www.saysuncle.com/index.php?s=ma ... d+citizens
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/01/po ... ed-gunman/

Too many to list, really.

I think pro-gun people would absolutely be willing to accept concessions like background checks for private sales or training requirements if we got something in return, like national reciprocity, an end to gun free-zones, the legalization of sound suppressors, the end of all the assault weapons ban laws in blue states, etc. But you never seen anti-gun people offering compromises like that. It's always, "there was a mass shooting, now we should get everything we want and you get nothing!" which is especially laughable in light of the substantial impediments to them getting anything at all, such as the size of their opposition (40+% of the population), the organization of their opposition (NRA, SAF, Calguns, NYSRPA, etc), the structure of government that gives rural and suburban areas power disproportionate to their population, the constitution, and the supreme court. Little wonder they never get what they want when they stamp their feet and hold their breath instead of coming to the negotiating table like adults.

Greg wrote: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/20 ... -shootings

Interesting article.

That sure seemed like common sense to me, but I can't see Big Pharma voluntarily agreeing to #4, Big Police voluntarily agreeing to #3, nor Big Media voluntarily agreeing to #5.

Pointedstick wrote: Little wonder they never get what they want when they stamp their feet and hold their breath instead of coming to the negotiating table like adults.

Really?  I seem to remember you leaving both NYC and CA for gun liberal New Mexico...  they do get what they want, unfortunately.  It's just not universally, thankfully.

So you actually think the NRA actually advocates for gun safety and it is the Democrackdnuts that forestall such passage?  Why would the latter not accept a camel's foot into the tent inch by inch with stealth measures like that if their ultimate goal is the complete abolishment of all weapons owned by private citizens?  I don't buy it.  The onerus is on the gun owners to be defensive, not offensive.

MachineGhost wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Little wonder they never get what they want when they stamp their feet and hold their breath instead of coming to the negotiating table like adults.

Really?  I seem to remember you leaving both NYC and CA for New Mexico...  they do get what they want, unfortunately.  It's just not universally, thankfully.

I am talking about the federal level. The state level is different. The 10 or so bluest states with low levels of gun ownership have been successfully chipping away at gun rights the same way red states have been for abortion. Those successes are irrelevant to the anti-gunners because they want all the restrictions implemented at the federal level. It's never enough for them.

MachineGhost wrote: So you actually think the NRA actually advocates for gun safety and it is the Democrackdnuts that forestall such passage?

When you say the words "gun safety," are you using the typical meaning or a euphemism for gun control? If the former, yes, not only do they advocate for gun safety, but they have produced gun safety and training programs and spend a lot of money distributing them free of charge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Eagle
https://eddieeagle.nra.org
http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx
http://training.nra.org

And yes, Democrats generally oppose teaching gun safety in schools. There have been a number of bills at the state level and they always torpedo them because the gun safety programs in question are (shock!) about actual gun safety, not prohibitionist anti-gun propaganda. They hate the NRA's Eddie Eagle program because it teaches safety, not abstinence. Their idea of gun safety is, "Don't ever touch a gun ever because guns are bad and they shouldn't exist." It's the same kind of crap that conservatives do when they oppose sex ed in favor of abstinence-only approaches.

An example I found with 2 seconds of web searching:

http://bangordailynews.com/2013/01/24/p ... c-schools/

AUGUSTA, Maine — A group of state lawmakers introduced a bill Thursday that would require Maine public schools to offer gun-safety courses.

The measure, sponsored by Rep. Paul Davis, R-Sangerville, mandates that schools offer gun-safety education for students in grades nine through 12.
[..]
At least three prior attempts have been made to pass laws requiring gun-safety courses in public schools, according to a check of legislative records.

All three measures, offered in the mid- to late 1990s, were either voted down or defeated in committee.

Davis’ bill will likewise face opposition, including from the Maine Education Association, the statewide teachers’ union.

“Schools are learning places and we need to keep the focus on education issues,” said Lois Kilby-Chesley, president of the MEA. “All educators are looking for a way to make our schools safe. We do not believe guns in the classroom are part of that solution.”

Pointedstick wrote:

WiseOne wrote: Great article.  A level-headed approach and a comprehensive list of ways to address the mass shooter problem is exactly what's needed.  I must say, the knee-jerk reaction of "we need more gun control" struck me as almost an insulting response to the event.  I'd be completely in favor of gun-purchase regulations if they can be shown to help, but the other measures suggested all sound good too.

I don't think I'd ever be the one with the concealed gun ready to step in and save the day.  I'm way too klutzy.  But plenty of people aren't, and it would make sense to institute training requirements for maintaining a concealed carry permit.  Moreover, are there any examples of someone with a concealed carry permit going on a mass shooting spree?  I haven't heard of any.

Not to my knowledge. However, there are many examples of concealed carriers preventing or ending shooting sprees. Some examples:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/1 ... .jeD69Z7ap
http://bearingarms.com/concealed-carry- ... -portland/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01 ... -was-dead/
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... OYf4EKDzN1
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... story.html
http://crimeresearch.org/2015/04/uber-d ... -shooting/
http://www.wsmv.com/story/29207977/metr ... ling-spree
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... shootings/
http://www.saysuncle.com/index.php?s=ma ... d+citizens
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/01/po ... ed-gunman/

Too many to list, really.

I think pro-gun people would absolutely be willing to accept concessions like background checks for private sales or training requirements if we got something in return, like national reciprocity, an end to gun free-zones, the legalization of sound suppressors, the end of all the assault weapons ban laws in blue states, etc. But you never seen anti-gun people offering compromises like that. It's always, "there was a mass shooting, now we should get everything we want and you get nothing!" which is especially laughable in light of the substantial impediments to them getting anything at all, such as the size of their opposition (40+% of the population), the organization of their opposition (NRA, SAF, Calguns, NYSRPA, etc), the structure of government that gives rural and suburban areas power disproportionate to their population, the constitution, and the supreme court. Little wonder they never get what they want when they stamp their feet and hold their breath instead of coming to the negotiating table like adults.

Here's a scholarly article showing that concealed carry reduces the number of people injured or killed by mass shootings: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=161637

Pointedstick wrote: If the former, yes, not only do they advocate for gun safety, but they have produced gun safety and training programs and spend a lot of money distributing them free of charge.

Okay, you've tentatively convinced me.  I guess I'll add the NRA to my charity list this year and get the magazine and hold my stomach in case I have to close my eyes at seeing some redneck gun pr0n (or worse!).

MachineGhost wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: If the former, yes, not only do they advocate for gun safety, but they have produced gun safety and training programs and spend a lot of money distributing them free of charge.

Okay, you've tentatively convinced me.  I guess I'll add the NRA to my charity list this year and get the magazine and hold my stomach in case I have to close my eyes at seeing some redneck gun pr0n (or worse!).

Don't bother with the magazine, it's nothing worth perusing. It's mostly aimed at average, mildly conservative folks. The NRA is not an elite organization; it is unabashedly plebeian. Don't let it turn you off.

FYI, here's the NRA on Charity Navigator: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c ... orgid=5450

Established in 1990, The NRA Foundation raises tax-deductible contributions in support of a wide range of firearm related public interest activities of the National Rifle Association of America and other organizations that defend and foster the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans. These activities are designed to promote firearms and hunting safety, to enhance marksmanship skills of those participating in the shooting sports, and to educate the general public about firearms in their historic, technological and artistic context. Funds granted by the NRA Foundation benefit a variety of constituencies throughout the United States including children, youth, women, individuals with physical disabilities, gun collectors, law enforcement officers hunters and competitive shooters.

The NRA Foundation is actually anything but the "Gun Lobby". The political lobbying arm is a totally different branch.

Simonjester wrote: i used to get the magazine, the only part i actually ended up reading on a regular basis was the "the armed citizen" section, mostly for the true novelty of reading about citizens using guns to protect themselves and stop crime, not something that was available anywhere else at that time..
if you do contribute be warned their ability to send out mailers asking for (financial) support rivals SPROT making a takeover bid for GTU...

So the NRA is the "Gun Lobby"?  What's the difference between the NRA, the NRA Foundation and the NRA Freedom Action Foundation?

"The Gun Lobby" is not a rational term, but if it was it probably would refer to NRA-PVF and SAF, which are groups concerned with getting laws passed, changed, or repealed.

Regardless, it's irrelevant since of course there's a lobbying wing. Lobbying is how you get laws changed. Every issue has its own lobbying group nowadays. Gotta play if you wanna win. And if there's a "Gun Lobby" then there's an "Anti-Gun Lobby", and that one is funded almost entirely by a single billionaire--Michael Bloomberg. There are no grassroots to speak of. Nobody donates money to anti-gun groups. Their political support is completely astroturfed.

Libertarian666 wrote: Here's a scholarly article showing that concealed carry reduces the number of people injured or killed by mass shootings: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=161637

This paper has come up before and it's apparently not universally accepted - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott

n 2004, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) conducted a review of current research and data on firearms and violent crime, including Lott's work, and found "no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime."

rickb wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: Here's a scholarly article showing that concealed carry reduces the number of people injured or killed by mass shootings: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=161637

This paper has come up before and it's apparently not universally accepted - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott

n 2004, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) conducted a review of current research and data on firearms and violent crime, including Lott's work, and found "no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime."

Neither increases nor decreases violent crime? A policy with no discovered negative side effects that increases personal freedom should be considered a no-brainer.

Simonjester wrote: if you do contribute be warned their ability to send out mailers asking for (financial) support rivals SPROT making a takeover bid for GTU...

Yeah, that is highly annoying and even 4-star rated ones do it like you would not believe.  I do all donations anonymously now via Network for Good, not direct if I can help it: https://www.networkforgood.org/donate/

Eventually, I hope to become a philanthropist wannabe and set up my own donor-advisor fund at Schwab, Fidelity, etc..  Who says managing money and picking winners and losers can't be fun?  <insert Tales from the Crypt laugh here>

Pointedstick wrote:

rickb wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: Here's a scholarly article showing that concealed carry reduces the number of people injured or killed by mass shootings: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=161637

This paper has come up before and it's apparently not universally accepted - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott

n 2004, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) conducted a review of current research and data on firearms and violent crime, including Lott's work, and found "no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime."

Neither increases nor decreases violent crime? A policy with no discovered negative side effects that increases personal freedom should be considered a no-brainer.

Loss of personal freedom will accelerate as the Islamic terrorists kill more of us. It will be a necessity so get ready for it.

Reub wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

rickb wrote: This paper has come up before and it's apparently not universally accepted - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott

Neither increases nor decreases violent crime? A policy with no discovered negative side effects that increases personal freedom should be considered a no-brainer.

Loss of personal freedom will accelerate as the Islamic terrorists kill more of us. It will be a necessity so get ready for it.

What kinds of loss of freedom?  Please elaborate? 

Let's accelerate things a bit. Let's say that here on out, terrorists manage to kill 5,000 people per year for 10 years. Absolutely huge compared to now. Name how that loses me my freedoms.

moda0306 wrote: What kinds of loss of freedom?  Please elaborate? 

Let's accelerate things a bit. Let's say that here on out, terrorists manage to kill 5,000 people per year for 10 years. Absolutely huge compared to now. Name how that loses me my freedoms.

Well that's easy: politicians will use the attacks as excuses to curtail those freedoms, just like Obama is doing right now by pushing for the unconstitutional, 5th amendment-shredding "no-fly list" to bar gun purchases.

We either get serious about fighting this scourge now and release the NSA/FBI hounds on these Jihadists including record collection, mosque closings, profiling, refusing entry to those from nations known to harbor terrorists, enlarging Gitmo, waterboarding, bombing the hell out of them over there, propping up and creating strong armed allies, weapons running, etc or we will have to do much more later including martial law and the suspension of our Constitution after the loss of thousands of additional lives, many of them children and women.

Pointedstick wrote:

moda0306 wrote: What kinds of loss of freedom?  Please elaborate? 

Let's accelerate things a bit. Let's say that here on out, terrorists manage to kill 5,000 people per year for 10 years. Absolutely huge compared to now. Name how that loses me my freedoms.

Well that's easy: politicians will use the attacks as excuses to curtail those freedoms, just like Obama is doing right now by pushing for the unconstitutional, 5th amendment-shredding "no-fly list" to bar gun purchases.

So the real direct threat to my freedoms is (gasp) government and not terrorism?

Reub wrote: We either get serious about fighting this scourge now and release the NSA/FBI hounds on these Jihadists including record collection, mosque closings, profiling, refusing entry to those from nations known to harbor terrorists, enlarging Gitmo, waterboarding, bombing the hell out of them over there, propping up and creating strong armed allies, weapons running, etc or we will have to do much more later including martial law and the suspension of our Constitution after the loss of thousands of additional lives, many of them children and women.

False dichotomy.

Please tell me how terrorism on even a much higher scale than we have in the US now... Say 5,000 people per year, is a loss to my freedoms.

Or are you saying that the real threat to my freedoms is the US government? 

Reub wrote: We either get serious about fighting this scourge now and release the NSA/FBI hounds on these Jihadists including record collection, mosque closings, profiling, refusing entry to those from nations known to harbor terrorists, enlarging Gitmo, waterboarding, bombing the hell out of them over there, propping up and creating strong armed allies, weapons running, etc or we will have to do much more later including martial law and the suspension of our Constitution after the loss of thousands of additional lives, many of them children and women.

That's a very stark choice to have to make. Thanks for having such a clear vision into the future for pointing it out to us.