A = criminal gun owners
B = law-abiding gunowners
AUB =all of the in-between guys, including but not limited to the following.
1. anyone who has ever violated a gun-law but has never been convicted of a felony.
2. anyone who abuses his wife or children in any way but has never been convicted of it.
3. anyone who is addicted to drugs and/or alcohol but has not yet been disqualified.
4. anyone who has ever dropped a gun or caused a negligent discharge.
5. anyone who has become elderly or otherwise physically incapacitated.
I realize there are others, please feel free to mention them in the comments. And I apologize for the disproportionate diagram. The AUB section should be much, much larger.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
What basis do you have for this? Do you have data that suggests a large portion of gun owners are un adjudicated felons? This despite DOJ findings that gunowners as a social group are one of the most law abiding groups they trace? This despite evidence that permit holders offend at a rate 25 times less often than police? This despite evidence that legal gun owners are 2200 times less likely to kill or injure you than your Doctor?
ReplyDeleteAgain mike. What is up with the fear mongering and self evident heebeejeeebeeies you have about guns. So seem to have this really irrational hatred of an inanimate object.
The term "law-abiding" is misleading and misused.
ReplyDelete"Law-abiding"--in the gunloon, NRA sense of the term--refers to people who may have a long string of misdemeanors, including misdemeanors for violence.
P:
ReplyDeleteThat's easy: Mikeb is irrational. Case closed.
He believes that a firearm is a magic talisman, which causes persons to do bad things. Unless, of course, you're an agent of the State, in which case you are yourself a magical being. Or so it's believed.
There's a lot of that going around.
BTW - he don't know his ass from a hole in the ground on Constitutional history or law, either.
Whatever happened to your 10% theory? AUB looks like about 25% of B, but now you are saying it should be "much much larger"? That's the whole idea behind gun control. Keep sliding the B circle to the left (by use of your first point) and so long as a sliver of B remains you can say you are respecting the second amendment.
ReplyDeleteMikeb30200:
ReplyDeleteHere's another one for you:
http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/local/south_central/drunk-man-fires-gun,-bullet-hits-home-a-quarter-mile-away
Odd that the guy was arrested for public intoxication, unless of course he decided to "front the pigs" outside his house's property line. But that would be a sign of someone being pretty stu--, never mind.
Wow Jadegold, pokes his head out of Mikey's ass in his weird game of whack a marxist and proceeds to add absolutely nothing to a pointless post....
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile the Connecticut legislature gets browbeaten into inaction by the evil gun lobby....bad, bad, mean ole gun loons win again.... weeeeheee!!!
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-ed-gun-bill-cowards-20110425,0,1162409.story
Tears of butt violating sadness sound out at Jadegold's house.
Anon allows us to see the drug-addled POV.
ReplyDeleteNo, a gun is not a "magic talisman"--'though it's quite clear gunloons believe it is. After all, gunloons believe their guns will magically ward off all criminals, tyrannical Govt forces *and* make them attractive to women.
Anon misses quite a few things in his struggles to walk upright including:
a. there are criminals;
b. there are mentally ill folks;
c. there are people who have substance abuse issues;
d. there are people who fall into categories a,b and c.
No, a gun doesn't cause people to do 'bad things.' Instead, a gun greatly facilitates those who are disposed to doing 'bad things.'
What people like Mike B, Jade Gold, and others on this blog are fighting for is to severely restrict gun ownership in America. They can't see that the Second Amendment is what protects their right to protest against us gun owners.
ReplyDeleteIf they had their way, no one would qualify for gun permits because they want to make it next to impossible to get one. Ticket for jay walking or speeding...parking ticket, lose your right to have a gun because you're a "criminal."
They also don't seem to get the idea that a criminal is going to get a gun if they want one. Laws don't matter to a person with a wish to create havoc, rob and steal. In fact, here's a story Mike B missed http://wp.me/p1umQi-3j
Mike G...who is getting tired of his posts getting swallowed up by the cyber monster...so am posting as anonymous instead of through wordpress.
Anon: Actually, no. Nobody has said a parking ticket or a jaywalking fine would cause anyone to lose access to firearms.
ReplyDeleteBut, let's face it, allowing folks who are domestic violence abusers, drug addicts, alcoholics, mentally ill unlimited access to guns is ridiculous. In fact, many of these things would serve as a bar to employment with most any business but wouldn't prevent that same person from buying a gun.
Jade: “Nobody has said a parking ticket or a jaywalking fine would cause anyone to lose access to firearms.”
ReplyDeleteNo, but he did say anyone who ever drops a gun.
Jade: “…allowing folks who are domestic violence abusers, drug addicts, alcoholics, mentally ill unlimited access to guns is ridiculous.”
All of which are currently denied under federal law.
TS wrote (quoting Jade) “…allowing folks who are domestic violence abusers, drug addicts, alcoholics, mentally ill unlimited access to guns is ridiculous.”
ReplyDeleteAll of which are currently denied under federal law."
TS, effectively given that some 30 states have not cooperated with supplying names of people in those categories of criminals, drug users, dangerously mentally ill, etc. ----it is stupid to claim that those groups of people are denied guns.
It is not true.
It may be illegal, but by making supplying names to the NCIS data base both voluntary and not funding it adequately, those prohibitions are nothing but a sad sick ineffective joke.
They make no one safe from illegal people getting all the guns they want.
Stop making such a bogus claim.
Serr8d, just an fyi - I have no idea why, but some of your comments have been ending up in our spam filter. I can't figure out why that is a problem; it's nothing our end that I can find.
ReplyDeleteJust wanted to let you know we're trying to do what we can to minimize comments failing to appear. It is a techinical problem, not because of an opinion in opposition. Sorry about the glitches!
Serr8d, Why would anyone laugh at you? We only laugh at people who jump to wild conclusions and then keep trying to pawn them off as fact.
ReplyDeleteAbout my intentions (or desire) to make gun restrictions so heavy that no one will be able to qualify, that's total bullshit. What we have now is not working. That's because the gun control laws we have, thanks to the NRA and gun industry lobbying and the pro-gun grass-roots support, are worthless. They are too easily circumvented, and as you guys keep saying, any criminal who wants a gun can get one. It doesn't have to be that way, and in order to accomplish that, most of you guys would not be affected.
So, what the hell is your problem?
Serr8d, just an fyi - I have no idea why, but some of your comments have been ending up in our spam filter.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that this sort of stuff couldn't possibly be the reason:
"Hey, you whiny-ass libtart, I saw you polluting SoBeale's joint (that pussy SoBeale won't publish my comments...just another asshole Democommie). Had you figured for dead or something (because of your stench) but since you've not yet kicked the can, here's this: BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA~!
By Serr8d on Well, I'm up early, absurdly early, so I have a fe... on 11/4/10"
MikeB302000:
StinkTaint doesn't "jump to conclusions" it's too short a trip, he skips.
I've made no bogus claims, dog gone. The law says all those people are denied. You are talking about people not doing their job- a whole nother issue. They better figure out the simple task of adding felons to a master list before there is any thought of implementing a licensing and registration scheme.
ReplyDeleteSerr8d, if you wish to contact me directly, my email - strictly speaking, the penigma blog email - is clearly listed on MikeB's blog.
ReplyDeleteYou happen to be wrong about a lot of things, including, but not limited to your conclusions about what I wrote re: your comments ending up in our spam folder here.
About the comment you left on Penigma, I deleted it as off topic and offensive - because I CAN as a blog administrator there - and which I can do here as a blog administrator here, along with Jadegold.
Contrary to what you think you know, MikeB is NOT the only person who moderates comments. And contrary to what you think you know, I had never visited your blog either. But even if I had, as another commenter pointed out to me recently, ip addresses are easy to fake or change, so even if you think you have that information you're full of .....lets just say smelly misinformation.
I, me, personally, have published a number of your comments here. I personally have found some of your comments in the mikeb blog spam filter, which is why I posted that to you. You were clearly mistaken as to what was happening to some of your comments.
From what you wrote, I don't think the spam filter is the reason for some of those comments to go missing. We've occasionally had that problem with blogger and so have other bloggers, it is not unique to this blog.
I don't know what MikeB or Jadegold's habits are regarding deleting comments rejected for publication here. I have done that so far ONLY with a few of Anonymous's comments - very few. When I do so, I make a point to copy MikeB that I have done so, and I usually post something as well to let the commenter know it was rejected, not lost.
So, if I DO reject something of yours Serr8d, you'll know about it. I'll probably tell you why as well.
If you wish to comment on something posted on Penigma, you will be welcomed, formally. Polite well-reasoned dissent is encouraged and appreciated.
If you have something to say about mikeb, or jadegold or I relating to what is written here, write it here. I like my colleagues here; I hope they enjoy me as well. If they need it, I have their backs.
I write for other blogs than just Penigma, btw.
Not that you've asked, but my blogging mentor happens to be a prominent conservative blogger; I have friends in the blogosphere across the political and ideological spectrum. I don't consider intellectual conformity to a particular point of view a requirement to like someone, or dislike them.
In case you hadn't figured it out from the icon, I'm a woman (and yes, I'm actually a redhead). I don't suffer fools gladly, so consider yourself put on notice.
JESUS, what a crybaby. Poor StainedIdiot, he just don't get no respect.
ReplyDeleteto my fellow blog admins - jadegold and blog owner mikeb:
ReplyDeleteapparently the only authentic serr8d comments include his icon.
I have deleted a comment which lacked the icon, as inauthentic, at serr8d's request, as a courtesy.
I would like to point out however that Serr8d is quite incorrect that any such bogus comments being published is NOT in any way proof that either of you were faking those comments. Anyone could do so.
And fyi, I am the admin who moderated / published the bogus comment now deleted, acting in good faith at the time, not my fellow admins.
Someone has a sick sense of humor. It is not anyone here with admin capability.
I would also point out that it appears that serr8d on his own blog is too afraid of comments to allow anyone to comment, unlike the bloggers here.
I know why people laugh at Serr8d.
ReplyDeleteSometimes, they point, too.
A law which does not implement the necessary requirements or funding doesn't do what you claim is accomplished by that law TS.
ReplyDeleteSo, yes, you were inaccurate to represent something which is in fact quite different in reality.
TS, I meant to say the other day, "welcome back" to you. I noticed your absense and suffered terribly from it, just as i did Zorroy's.
ReplyDeleteAbout the 10%, thanks for the reminder. I do need to revise those figures. If you remember well, the 10% was a very down-played amount. Some of the categories I halved and halved again. So from the beginning I was thinking more like 30%, but wanted to be fair about it.
Since then I've done lots of reading and have acquired a much better grasp on the situation. A major revision is in the offing. You'll be one of the first to know.
"The law says all those people are denied. "
ReplyDeleteNo, it does not.
You can have a number of misdemeanor assault charges and still legally purchase a firearm in most states from an FFL.
You can have any number of DUIs/DWIs and do the same in most states.
You can be mentally ill and taking psychotropic drugs that would knock your socks off and legally be able to buy a firearm.
Thanks for the sincere “welcome back”, Mike. I feel the love. Yeah, Zorro was the greatest. Too bad he rode off into the sunset. How about Fat White Man? Is he still around? Now onto business:
ReplyDeleteJade, you never said anything about misdemeanor assault in the quote I was responding to. Your direct quote was “domestic violence abusers, drug addicts, alcoholics, and mentally ill”. You also didn’t say anything about DUI offenders. You can get a DUI and not be an alcoholic, as you can use a psychotropic drug and not be an addict. Domestic violence abusers (even the misdemeanors), drug addicts, alcoholics are forbidden by law from buying a firearm. The only point were you were merely partially wrong was when you said “mentally ill”. Some technically mentally ill people are able to legally buy firearms- those who are *adjudicated* mentally ill (as a danger to themselves or others) are not. Unless you are willing to throw patient/doctor confidentiality out the window- that is the way it has to be. But think about the non-gun related consequences of that proposal before you do.
Tell me this; if someone gets a DUI, would you at least take away their driver’s license for life before you take away their gun rights? That only makes complete and total sense, not? I would never suggest we take away someone’s driver license for carrying a gun while intoxicated and let them keep their CCW permit. That would be silly of me.
Mike, regarding your 10% it sounds like that number is about to grow. So all that talk of “you 90%ers have nothing to worry about” might turn into “well…except for you 90% who are part of the 35%- but you 65% will have nothing to worry about…”
I'm not totally satisfied with the Venn Diagram. Is it possible to distort the shape of the circles so we maintain the A like it is, greatly increase the AUB and diminish the B section till it looks like a crescent moon.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't the legitimate gun owners be pleased to be represented by one of the symbols of Islam?
You flunked math didn't you.
ReplyDeleteAUB (A Union B) is ALL of circle A and ALL of circle B
What you are referring to is "A intersection B". Written as A "upsidedown U" B.
Thanks for that lesson. Did you not understand my meaning.
ReplyDeleteTry this:
total gun owners 100%
lawful gun owners 20%
criminal gun owners 30%
gray area 50%
It's something like that.