Tuesday, January 3, 2012

About What Robert Farago Said

TTAG post

"Assuming a “dangerous felon” is also a convicted felon (right?), they can’t legally buy, possess or carry a firearm. If they circumvent the law, it’s still illegal."

My comment:

I have a bit of difficulty with this.  Is there a difference between a dangerous and a convicted felon? No. You're either a felon or you're not. You must agree with that, right? Therefore we have only two categories, felons and non-felons, or bad guys and good guys, right?

Wrong.

Hidden among the non-felons, otherwise known as the good guys, you've got the hidden criminals.  I've expounded upon them plenty to not have to belabor the point here.  The point is the obvious one.  The more liberty and freedom we grant the "good guys" as far as lax gun laws go, the more liberty and freedom the hidden criminals enjoy.  And they're every bit as dangerous as their already-convicted buddies.

That's why you "good guys," in order to be truly good guys, have to submit to common sense and reasonable gun control regulations.

46 comments:

  1. You have a dark view of human nature. Felon or non-felon is a matter for the court system, but let's talk about good or bad. What portion of the population falls into the bad category?

    A belief in democracy is the belief that most people are good and deserve to govern their own lives. It's the belief that when individuals are generally free, society as a whole is the healthiest and best that it can be. Your comment here leads me to believe that you oppose democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The more liberty and freedom we grant the 'good guys'"

    You certainly have a high opinion of yourself.

    I am interested, though, how do you plan on weeding out these "hidden criminals"?

    ReplyDelete
  3. but let's talk about good or bad. What portion of the population falls into the bad category?

    OK. Lets talk about this.

    There are upwards of ten to twelve murder suicides EVERY WEEK in the U.S.

    There are NOT that many good, safe, credible defensive uses of firearms by civilians that save anywhere near the number of people lost to those murder suicides.

    The majority of homicides and a good proportion of suicides are from firearm deaths.

    Again - far more than the instances of funs being used successfully in any kind of civilian self-defense.

    And from there we can go to the number of instances of domestic abuse that involve a threat relating to a firearm.

    Or these numbers from the most recent FBI table on weapons and crime:

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls

    You can't blame all of these statistics on people who were criminals prior to becoming one of these statistics.

    You can identify that there is infinitely more harm done by the quantity of firearms in circulation than good to justify those numbers.

    I believe people deserve to lead their own lives. I think it is obvious if a fraction of the money spent on firearms went instead into law enforcement we'd have far less bad in our particular part of the world.

    And until those numbers change, I prefer to be objective rather than trust someone like Greg, who has repeatedly demonstrated he doesn't understand a safe occasion to defensively use firearms from an unsafe one, and has questionable secure storage as well - no I don't have to trust, and your silly justification of a false assumption about democracy is neither persuasive or compelling.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "That's why you "good guys," in order to be truly good guys, have to submit to common sense and reasonable gun control regulations."

    No thank you. I have a few pounds of lead I'd rather heat up than submit. I also have tens of millions of fellow citizens who feel the same way.

    What are you going to do about it? Whine, complain, moan, but nothing substantial. We win, you lose. You'll still be writing this stupid blog when I get my first machine gun...maybe I'll load it up onto an old laptop along with Baldrs and Joans websites before I begin the first range session.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh yeah, your logic here is "better to imprison a thousand innocent men than let one guilty man go free". That's how Stalin operated. You are a morally reprehensible collective.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dog Gone,

    It's a fundamental human right to decide how long one wishes to live. I do acknowledge that parents have obligations to live long enough to raise their children and that children are not of the age of majority, but an adult has the right to commit suicide.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Many of the hidden criminals could be identified through proper gun control laws, which we've never tried. Those would include ending the personal sale exemption, licensing all gun owners and registering all newly bought guns. The background check system would have to be revamped to include proper mental health screening.

    ReplyDelete
  8. mikeb302000 said...
    "Many of the hidden criminals could be identified through proper gun control laws, which we've never tried. Those would include ending the personal sale exemption, licensing all gun owners and registering all newly bought guns."


    Several states do that now. Cali and NY for example, Oh, and let's not forget DC.

    Then, what do you do about those 300+M firearms out there already? Voluntary compliance won't work. According to this news report, the police won't even voluntarily comply.

    http://calcoastnews.com/2012/01/morro-bay-police-officers-guns-stolen/

    "The background check system would have to be revamped to include proper mental health screening."

    Mental health screening can't predict criminal behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mikeb302000,

    You have yet to tell us what we gain from your proposals. I don't see anything in what you say that I want. Why then should I support you?

    ReplyDelete
  10. In with mental health screening should include long term drug testing -- hair analysis, not just peeing in a cup.

    I'd include really heavy alcohol use as a dis-qualifier.

    ReplyDelete
  11. dog gone said...
    "In with mental health screening should include long term drug testing -- hair analysis, not just peeing in a cup.

    I'd include really heavy alcohol use as a dis-qualifier."

    Yeah, yeah, and to make it easier, let's just let the government keep an open tap on your communications. That way, when someone starts chatting about a crime, they could get arrested for conspiracy to commit a crime, and save the potential victims.

    While we're at it, let's give a competency test before issuing voter ID cards to make sure the people voting are familiar with the issues. We should also exclude anyone on public assistance,'cause of course, they'll vote for the party that supplies that for 'em.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dog Gone,

    Now I have to wonder if you aren't a parody of a gun control advocate. Hair analysis? Are you trying to be funny? Is there any limit to your desire to take guns away from people?

    ReplyDelete
  13. GC writes:Is there any limit to your desire to take guns away from people?

    Hair analysis is logical; it indicates who is using long term, unlike a urinalysis which only indicates what drug use has taken place very recently - a matter of hours or days.

    We make drug users a prohibited class of people for gun ownership - so, lets sort out who those people are from those who are not before trusting them with a deadly weapon.

    What's the matter Greg - afraid you wouldn't pass? I would pass, no problem.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yeah, yeah, and to make it easier, let's just let the government keep an open tap on your communications. That way, when someone starts chatting about a crime, they could get arrested for conspiracy to commit a crime, and save the potential victims.

    We have no evidence that suggests there is any reasonable link between conversations and crime that merits that kind of intrusion.

    Deadly weapons violence is quite different; we have that over and over and over. It is a problem to which the response of drug testing, or mental health testing is appropriate.

    Estimates that we have 10-12 murder suicides a week is just one example of the levels of that kind of violence. Those aren't necessarily previously arrested or convicted criminals; just nuts with guns who go off the deep end and shoot people.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dog Gone,

    Hair analysis is a major invasion of privacy. Again, is there no limit for you? You're talking about a person's right here. But you don't believe in that right. Fine, you're setting an absurd standard for being allowed to own a gun. For what else do we require hair samples from someone? Why must you treat anyone who wants a gun as a criminal?

    Would I pass such a test? Of course I would, although my hair is rather short, so it wouldn't show too much of my life. Still, I'm pleased that you named this notion of yours. It shows how opposed to freedom you are. Not even the worst states in this country go as far as you recommend. The good news is that most states are on my side, and more come this way year by year.

    ReplyDelete
  16. someguy, I think you're wrong to say some states have this already. The ones you mentioned have a half-assed example of this, but their neighbors enjoy laxity. It would have to be national to work.

    Even in those states you mentioned, the mental health screening is lacking. Some of the worst nut-jobs could be identified.

    Greg, you want to know what you get out of it? Could you be any more self-absorbed and uncaring?

    ReplyDelete
  17. "In with mental health screening should include long term drug testing -- hair analysis, not just peeing in a cup.

    I'd include really heavy alcohol use as a dis-qualifier."

    You are completely and utterly batshit crazy, woman.

    ReplyDelete
  18. dog gone said...
    "Hair analysis is logical; it indicates who is using long term....."

    and for those of us who have no hair? We must be "hidden bad guys". Let's apply this same logic to drivers. Automobiles are a more dangerous weapon.

    "We have no evidence that suggests there is any reasonable link between conversations and crime that merits that kind of intrusion."

    Of course you are kidding, no? drug dealers never talk on the phone? bank robbers? hitmen for hire? Really? Mob? None of these people have been arrested because of their telephone converstaions? Well, let's look at worse class of criminal, How about investment bankers that commit fraud. Do they ever use the telephone? Of course they do, and if the SEC could just keep an open tap on all their phones, there would be less crime.


    mikeb302000 said...
    "It would have to be national to work."

    And again, what's to stop the "truck loads of firearms" from coming north? Does anyone know the areas where the most autothefts occur? Anyone? That's right someguy, in and around cities with shipping ports. And tell us why. Well, you see, because a large portions of stolen automobiles are shipped overseas. And how to they get away with this? There are a number of reasons why a SHIPPING CONTAINER can get past customs, but corruption does play a role.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mikeb302000,

    I know what you claim would be the result, but I don't believe that given the realities of America, we would see much change in firearms deaths.

    1. We've tried to prohibit other products, and look at what a failure those have been. Particularly with the gangs of Mexico, those who wanted a gun in this country could have one. And since owning a gun would be illegal in the fantasy of your side, a fully automatic weapon would be no more illegal than any other, so our thugs would get the fastest lead shoveller that the rest of the world offers.

    2. We have hundreds of millions of guns already. Unless those magically disappear, you can't get the disarmed America that you're looking for.

    So again, I'm asking you, what does my side have to gain from agreeing to your proposals?

    MAgunowner,

    Yup, that's Dog Gone for you. You want a gun? You have to grow your hair out to three feet so as to provide a long record of your substance use, but any man with long hair will be suspect and denied automatically.

    ReplyDelete
  20. someguy wrote:
    and for those of us who have no hair?


    It is a very rare person indeed who has NO hair.

    Hair for this purpose doesn't have to come from your head. There are lots of alternatives for those who are follicularly challenged, LOL.

    It can be a hair from your arm or leg, your chest or back, your eyebrow, that yucky stuff old guys grow in their ears....it can be straight, or curly (if you know what I mean).

    I would even argue that this is LESS intrusive, as it represents a smaller quantity of substance for testing, and does not require one to undo any clothing. It can be done with less of an issue over privacy.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "it can be straight, or curly (if you know what I mean)."

    In dog gone's view, having a cop yank hairs off of a CCW applicant's labia is reasonable gun control. You're a really fucking horrible person.

    ReplyDelete
  22. MAgunner wrote:

    In dog gone's view, having a cop yank hairs off of a CCW applicant's labia is reasonable gun control.

    You are a bald women and have hairy pudenda, MAGunner?

    No, I'm not suggesting that the cops do that. But in contrast, apparently you are unfamiliar with what many women routinely and frequently endure for vanity called waxing. We remove body hair regularly and often, and it doesn't have to be painfully done - one could pluck a single hair with a tweezers, but one could for purposes of such testing just as simply shave a single hair from some easily accessible body part, like your forearm, ankle, or the back of someone's hand.

    I wouldn't subject the poor cop to having to remove pubic hair, LOL, much less a 'brazilian'.

    Our silly MAGunner then wrote: You're a really fucking horrible person.
    Not at all, MAG.
    You're the one coming up with sick fantasies of strangers engaging in rough, violent depilatory behavior.

    Not me. But this is easily the best laugh out loud I've had in ages.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dog Gone,

    You self righteous fool--you're the one who proposed hair samples for getting permission to own a gun. You're the one who wants to impose an expensive and invasive system on good citizens. You're the one who brought up pubic hair to begin with.

    I really do hope that you have no control over the lives of anyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sorry doggie. That's literally what you suggested. It's a very scary example of left wing authoritarianism. Nice try deflecting it with humor. That made it all the more creepy.

    ReplyDelete
  25. In dog gone's view, having a cop yank hairs off of a CCW applicant's labia is reasonable gun control.


    the amount of ignorance demonstrated by gun loons is incredible.

    The hair test used for drug use does not "yank hairs from labia", instead,it takes clippings of hair from the head.

    Quite painless and not at all intrusive.

    See this FAQ from Trimega Labs, which performs the tests.

    ReplyDelete
  26. So let's get details on your plan... Cancer stricken woman takes the day off from work without pay and goes to the police station for her monthly hair follicle drug test to maintain her ccw permit. Technician can't find any body hair visible. Now at this point does she have to lay down and pull her knees up to her chest while they poke around down there?

    Come on, tell us what your forced drug testing plan would be.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Laci the Dog,

    And the extremes to which gun grabbers are willing to go never fails to astonish me. Hair samples are the kind of thing that we demand from criminal suspects (recall the arguing over O.J. Simpson and how many hairs he'd have to give up?) and perhaps people applying for high security clearance. It's ridiculous to demand the same from people who merely wish to exercise their rights.

    Dog Gone,

    Please go on a television program and advocate taking hair samples from people who want to buy a gun. The louder your voice is, the more people will be on my side.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "The hair test used for drug use does not "yank hairs from labia", instead,it takes clippings of hair from the head."

    Dipshit,
    Would maintaining a certain length of body hair be a condition of gun ownership? You people are fucked in the head worse than you know!

    ReplyDelete
  29. MAGunner writes: You're the one who wants to impose an expensive and invasive system on good citizens. You're the one who brought up pubic hair to begin with.

    Other body hair - like men's chest hair - can be curly while the hair on their head is straight. YOU made it all about pubic hair.

    This is NOT expensive testing, it is NOT invasive testing. It IS the kind of testing routinely done on those who privately carry firearms for their job, and by police departments and other law enforcement. It is widely,and increasingly being done in the corporate world for anyone who is at or above a certain level of responsibility or who has a sensitive job for security reasons.

    So on that basis, this simply would be standardizing the kind of testing which is already being done. making the carry process more professional and safe.

    As to your unintentionally humorous example of a woman with cancer who is receiving chemotherapy and has experienced hair loss --- even under some of the more intense chemo, men and women do not usually lose all their body hair, and it is likely that they would retain enough arm or leg hair for a testing purpose,since the required amount is so very very small.

    What is NOT a scenario is having a woman strip down; rather, she would be removing less, not more clothing than that required for supplying a urine sample, and the same is true for men in that comparison.

    Geeze, do you always use such silly vulgar euphemisms when you describe the human anatomy?

    I've never known of even the most intrusive female exam that required a woman to hoist her knees up to her chest, LOL.

    I don't know how chemotherapy or radiation therapy might affect the reliability of hair drug testing, but i do know it is one of the LEAST invasive and LEAST expensive and most professional testing there is for things like gun carry.

    For those few individuals who might have cancer and need, because of their course of therapy, to have an alternative test, there are plenty available for that rare instance.

    Once again, your imagination runs wild, while your brain operates without the usual limits of information or logic.

    That makes us all wonder about how reliable your judgment is, if your thinking is this flawed.

    But god, you ARE funny as hell.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Our silly commenter MAGunner writes:
    Would maintaining a certain length of body hair be a condition of gun ownership? You people are fucked in the head worse than you know!

    Actually, it is a common test among law enforcement officers; many of them seem to do just fine with relatively short hair.

    I'd bet you have underarm hair more than long enough to qualify.

    So, no, you're just ignorant as usual, and we actually know something about the topic when we write something.

    Keep this up and we'll start referring to you as MAGoofy.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Dog Gone,

    Are you paying attention to your own words? This is exactly the point that I've made before--we are living in a time in which privacy is trickling and flooding away, bit by bit and wave by wave. You blithely mention giving hair samples for a job as though that's nothing to worry about, nothing to be outraged about. Perhaps to you it is. If you've accepted this loss of privacy, then I can see why hair samples for gun ownership or carry makes sense to you. I do think that you need to have a look at what you have so willingly given up, though.

    Your hatred of guns has led you to argue for all manner of foolishness, and this is just the latest example. You're letting your own obsession color your whole thinking. As I said, try selling that hair sample idea to a broader audience. You could even run for a seat in Congress, although Minnesota has enough wackos representing it already.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Other body hair - like men's chest hair - can be curly while the hair on their head is straight. YOU made it all about pubic hair."

    You're such a liar. So lame. We all know you meant yanking out pubes. Then you realized the horrific implications of this and say that's not what you meant.

    You made a stupid suggestion. Just admit it and move on.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Better than you trying to harvest hair from my body, you creepy weirdo!

    ReplyDelete
  34. MAGunner wrote:

    You're such a liar. So lame. We all know you meant yanking out pubes. Then you realized the horrific implications of this and say that's not what you meant.


    No, I never meant "yanking out pubes", because I knew that hair was collected by cutting or shaving off a single hair or two, never yanking, and NEVER pubic hair.

    There is rarely any need in any kind of testing for the hair root/follicle; the hair shaft is sufficient,so there is no point to any kind of 'yanking', LOL.

    But I was pretty sure, from your lack of understanding and your chronic failure to inform yourself on a subject before you form an opinion, that you were unaware this was done routinely for law enforcement officers, and that you'd jump to the wrong conclusion.

    You're kind of predictable that way; and I do admit to setting you up for that leap, nothing more, nothing less.

    But YOU made the decision to jump, Bwaahaaaaahaaahaa HAHhhaaaahaaa.

    I have to admit though, you jumped so damn far when you jumped to your wrong conclusion, you surprised even me.

    MAgunowner said...

    Better than you trying to harvest hair from my body, you creepy weirdo!


    Idon't want your damn body hair, silly person. Although I probably have sufficient lab skills to run the testing, I have no desire to do so, and even less desire to be the person who has to clip a hair from someone- least of all YOU.

    It is however a cost-effective, useful, non-invasive way to determine someone's drug habits, it has been used for a very long time to test law enforcement officers, so it is a logical expansion to anyone who carries - open or concealed, or anyone for that matter who wants to own firearms.

    It is quick, it is relatively cheap, it is easy and noninvasive. Some of the best bang-for-the-buck in screening drug users to prevent them getting guns that there is!

    But I did laugh out loud for a long time at your expense. For that - thank you.

    But

    ReplyDelete
  35. MAGunner--do you read, write, and understand the English language?

    Are you on any drugs which may impair your ability to think?

    Have you ever been treated for mental illness?

    Those are the standard questions for determining whether you are competent.

    The standard procedure for the hair follicle test is to take hair from the head. They only take hair from other parts of the body if there is no head hair.

    --if you were intelligent enough to read the links provided.

    But, obviously, you are not intelligent enough to be able to read or understand what is going on.

    Thank you for making an idiot of yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Laci,
    Are there any other classes of people that should get weekly drug tests like Pubes McGee suggested? Welfare recipients, pregnant women, etc?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Laci The Dog said...
    "MAGunner--do you read, write, and understand the English language?

    Are you on any drugs which may impair your ability to think?

    Have you ever been treated for mental illness?

    Those are the standard questions for determining whether you are competent."

    Oh, I see now. It's just a simple questionnaire with some standard questions and of course, standard answers like yes and no. Oh, yeah, no prob. Hmmm... seems to me, though, that we already answer those questions when we purchase a firearm.

    Are you an unlawful user of, drugs? nope

    Have you ever be en adjudicated mentally defective? nope

    Are you an alien illegally in the United States? Nope, got My UFO driver's license right here.

    You see dog gone, I am competent!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Laci can attest that I was setting you up MaGunner. He was kind enough to expand on how many police departments he personally knew of where this kind of testing was done, including Philly and NYC.

    I know that the ACLU had some issues with the intrusiveness of urine testing in the Washington DC police department back in the 90's, which was part of the impetus to switch to hair testing as less intrusive, in addition to providing a longer period of time in the resulting drug profile.

    Laci was also very patient for those minutes at a time where I was just laughing at you. He laughed too, but not quite as much as I did -- but almost!

    Because you are funny, and so damned ignorant. But I suppose the information that I set you up to jump to the wrong conclusion, when I knew better and you did not about how the testing was done shrivels up your man parts.

    Strap on another gun to some part of your anatomy; maybe it will make up for the shriveled bits.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Yep, MAGunner, you were set up.

    And too stupid to notice it APU.

    I strongly suggest that you stay away from firearms and other potentially deadly objects as a means of self-defence given your propensity for not being able to see something tremendouly obvious coming for you.

    You are more likely to kill yourself than any possible assailant.

    I take it that a nine is higher than your IQ.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The correct explanation is that you and Pubes McGee actually do support pube shaving as a reasonable gun control measure. Don't backtrack now. Stand up for your beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  41. WahWahh Gunner writes:
    The correct explanation is that you and Pubes McGee actually do support pube shaving as a reasonable gun control measure. Don't backtrack now. Stand up for your beliefs.


    The correct explanation is that is what YOU thought, and you were to stupid or too lazy to look it up.

    Laci and I were well aware all along taht pubic hair was never ever a part of drug testing procedure using hair.

    But of course you have to lie and exaggerate WahWah gunner, because you were caught jumping to a stupid conclusion, instead of doing your own damned homework - AGAIN.

    This is no different than when you opined that I made a mistake about the Mt. Rainier 'shootist' firing at four other people before he shot the Park Ranger.

    You're sloppy Mama mama Gunner. Laci and I are more precise than you are, and know much more about subjects before we post or comment on them.

    Dear Laci was kind enough to listen patiently as I tried to talk while laughing for a good two minutes earlier after setting you up -- and YOU? You exceeded my wildest expectations for jumping to the wrong conclusion about 'curly' hair, instead of looking up how drug testing worked for bald people.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Pubes McGee,
    I've actually changed my mind and now believe that if your proposed mandatory taint shaving of bald gun owners will save even one life, then it's worth it.

    That's the last word I have on the topic. You've convinced me, now let it go.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Dog Gone,

    You're the one who proposed hair samples for buying or carrying a gun. You started this ridiculous line of thought. If MAgunowner follows it through to its conclusion, look to yourself for the blame. You're the one who can't stand the idea of free people making choices about their lives. So have your laugh about what you think was a setup. We know what's really going on. You and Laci and the whole gun grabber crowd are clinging to desperate hope, while most of America is moving our direction.

    ReplyDelete
  44. dog gone said...
    "But of course you have to lie and exaggerate WahWah gunner, because you were caught jumping to a stupid conclusion, instead of doing your own damned homework - AGAIN."

    Oh, like you did with your 40%+10%+50% numbers? And now your Wahwah? What are you, 11? you're a sad excuse for a person with a right to vote. You're acting like a fifth grader.

    Go ahead and censor this post, too.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I don't know about the hair testing, but what about drug or alcohol convictions. Let's disqualify all people with drug and alcohol convictions. Let's reserve the right to own guns to clean and sober people, assuming that they'd be more responsible.

    How's that sound.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Mikeb302000,

    As long as we're talking convictions for hurting someone while under the influence, I have no objection to what you said.

    ReplyDelete