tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post1319735674788308309..comments2024-02-05T03:41:13.688+01:00Comments on Mikeb302000: Safe StorageAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-83005762614157348402010-02-10T06:09:24.447+01:002010-02-10T06:09:24.447+01:00nice post. thanks.nice post. thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-62697460680516796682010-02-09T03:58:26.420+01:002010-02-09T03:58:26.420+01:00Zorro:
I'll get to looking at those links whe...Zorro:<br /><br />I'll get to looking at those links when I have a little time (very busy the past week). <br /><br />I keep telling you and mikey that I don't give a damn about how many guns you own. I do give a damn that you seem to think that teaching one's children to shoot at targets with likenesses of folks whom YOU dislike is in some way equivavlent to good parenting. <br /><br />Rhodes is a whanker. He's managed to hoodwink quite a few people, including you.democommiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08714733977927594559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-4627036188547630772010-02-08T10:56:27.827+01:002010-02-08T10:56:27.827+01:00Zorro, I'm afraid you're right. Democommi...Zorro, I'm afraid you're right. Democommie is definitely immune to your charms. But the results are good. He makes some good points.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-64269435581874102082010-02-06T23:38:12.712+01:002010-02-06T23:38:12.712+01:00A few times I thought you were joking just to get ...<i>A few times I thought you were joking just to get a rise out of democommie . . . </i><br><br>By the way, speaking of Democommie, is it just me, or do you get the impression that he's somehow immune to my charm? Sounds crazy, I know, but for some reason I sometimes get that idea.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-83490043935061309252010-02-06T23:10:37.439+01:002010-02-06T23:10:37.439+01:00Mikeb, the reason I figured you would accuse me of...Mikeb, the reason I figured you would accuse me of dishonesty is that I think I remember you--several times, actually--saying that gun rights advocates' talk of rights and the Constitution was all an intellectual smokescreen that we use to lend moral authority to a "hobby," because we simply <i>like</i> guns, and are selfishly costing lives for the sake of that hobby. If that's <i>not</i> your position, I'm glad, because such a position unfairly dismisses our very real concerns.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-57548196882322297012010-02-06T22:53:39.149+01:002010-02-06T22:53:39.149+01:00Zorro, I find your comments here very believable. ...Zorro, I find your comments here very believable. A few times I thought you were joking just to get a rise out of democommie, but when you explain things like in this comment I find your words absolutley credible.<br /><br />Besides, "gun lover" is a description I don't use all that often. It always sounds slightly offensive to me, and I don't mean to be. The idea of "gun lover" and "emotional attachment to guns" are pretty nebulous anyway.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-25659126868344311792010-02-05T20:20:46.217+01:002010-02-05T20:20:46.217+01:00Zorro, You are one of the most fascinating guys ar...<i>Zorro, You are one of the most fascinating guys around here.<br /><br />gun lover - yes<br />3 percenter - yes<br />Oath Keeper - yes<br />nihilist - no<br />survivalist - ?</i><br><br>Thanks, I guess.<br /><br />Frankly, I find the term "survivalist" to be a little silly. Yes, my (and my family's) survival is important to me--if that makes me a "survivalist," I suppose that's what I am--but would that mean that non-survivalists <i>don't</i> really care whether they and their families survive?<br /><br />I put more effort into disaster preparation than some--less than others. As funds become available, I'm gradually moving us off grid-dependence, with solar panels as I can afford them, and hopefully a small wind turbine before too long. I have a large garden, and keep some chickens to dispose of food waste (they'll eat anything). If I ever get the time to take up cheese-making, I might get a few goats, as well.<br /><br />Much of that is as more about being "green" (surprised?) and saving money, than it is about "preparing for the apocalypse."<br /><br />I can my produce for long-term storage, we hunt, we have a lot of camping equipment (we camp recreationally a lot).<br /><br />I'll let you decide if the above makes me a "survivalist."<br /><br />As for "gun lover," I know you'll accuse me of dishonesty, but I don't see it that way. I'm a <i>rights</i> lover, and I won't surrender the means to protect those rights. I do have fun with guns, but the fun isn't what drives my willingness to fight to the death to keep them.<br /><br />Presumably, you don't refer to free speech advocates as "radio/TV transmitter lovers," or "internet server lovers," or "high-speed laser printer lovers," etc. Similarly, I am not motivated by an emotional attachment to guns.<br /><br />Like I said, I don't expect you to believe that, but I also don't know how you come to the conclusion that you would know better than I do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-23745130951250633562010-02-05T20:00:13.600+01:002010-02-05T20:00:13.600+01:00Says Democommie:I'm still waiting for you to o...Says Democommie:<br><br><i>I'm still waiting for you to offer more than the one citation for the "anti-Bush" bona fides of that asshat who started the Oath Keepers.</i><br><br>Jesus Jumping Jaws on a Jet-Ski--you are <b>the</b> whiniest, most helpless little crybaby I've ever encountered. The onus of proving Mr. Rhodes' criticism of Bush administration is <b>not on me</b>--<i>you</i> were the one accusing him of racism. Still, just because I'm a sweet guy, here you go:<br /><br /><a href="http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2006/12/only-jailers-are-safe.html" rel="nofollow">A 2006 blog post about systemic abuse in U.S. military prisons</a><br /><br /><a href="http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2006/12/torture-inc-americas-brutal-prisons.html" rel="nofollow">Similar theme</a><br /><br /><a href="http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2006/12/talk-radio-hosts-hoax-has-callers.html" rel="nofollow">Not really criticism of the government itself</a>, but of anti-Islam/anti-Middle Easterner prejudice in the U.S.--not the kinda thing one would expect from a "right-wing racist"<br /><br /><a href="http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2006/11/german-man-kidnapped-by-cia-dismissed.html" rel="nofollow">Strong criticism of CIA abuses</a><br /><br /><a href="http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2006/11/rumsfeld-okayed-abuses-says-former-us_28.html" rel="nofollow">Rumsfeld's abuses</a><br /><br /><a href="http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2006/11/gingrich-raises-alarm-at-event-honoring.html" rel="nofollow">Newt Gingrich's war on freedom of speech</a><br /><br /><a rel="nofollow">Bush's authority to designate "terror groups"</a>--granted, that's just a blurb from someone else's article, with a teaser, but Rhodes' thoughts on the matter should be made clear by the photo and caption.<br /><br />Those are all from 2006, and I found all of them in about 2 minutes of looking--<i>on the same damned blog that had the <b>first</b> link I gave you</i>. Excuse the hell out of me for thinking that you might have been clever enough to find 'em on your own.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-50897249359194305212010-02-05T16:09:20.884+01:002010-02-05T16:09:20.884+01:00Demo - You haven't answered those questions? ...Demo - You haven't answered those questions? Why are you running away from debate?Mike W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03425962910696301026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-70644612761896960132010-02-05T15:44:32.023+01:002010-02-05T15:44:32.023+01:00Demo - To say that I'm on a higher intellectua...Demo - To say that I'm on a higher intellectual plane than you is an objective certainty. I'm glad you recognize it.Mike W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03425962910696301026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-27751012908992365272010-02-05T15:30:42.064+01:002010-02-05T15:30:42.064+01:00Demmocommie says: One, when you don't agree wi...Demmocommie says: <i>One, when you don't agree with someone and you can't debunk what they've said in a comment, you simply insult them and ignore the comment's point.</i><br /><br />And then says: <i>It must be a great comfort to know that you and mike w. and ruffrider and others are on a higher plane than others. It surely has to be a comfort to know that whatever comment you make is correct, just by virtue of your making it.</i><br /><br />You don't see the irony of your statements? Demmocommie, I don't think I have once attacked you directly. I have attacked your statements to be sure, but not you directly. However, you have called me many names ranging from gun nut to moron and worse. Nearly every single comment from you is attacking someone. I don't know about the others, but I find it rather amusing.RuffRidrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13597758856457029471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-79692904952783168482010-02-05T13:40:31.379+01:002010-02-05T13:40:31.379+01:00Zorro, You are one of the most fascinating guys ar...Zorro, You are one of the most fascinating guys around here.<br /><br />gun lover - yes<br />3 percenter - yes<br />Oath Keeper - yes<br />nihilist - no<br />survivalist - ?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-91228718800340069182010-02-05T03:35:37.042+01:002010-02-05T03:35:37.042+01:00Zorro:
You say you were raised better? I've ...Zorro:<br /><br />You say you were raised better? I've seen numerous insults from you, from mike w. and others directed at other people you disagree with. You have, as your gravatar, a cute little dog in the crosshairs of a scope. You think that's funny, apparently. <br /><br />It must be a great comfort to know that you and mike w. and ruffrider and others are on a higher plane than others. It surely has to be a comfort to know that whatever comment you make is correct, just by virtue of your making it.<br /><br />You always "debunk"? I'm still waiting for you to offer more than the one citation for the "anti-Bush" bona fides of that asshat who started the Oath Keepers. <br /><br />I think that you guys really should just own up and say, "I like my guns and you can't take 'em away." All of the posturing and flag waving is very unmimpressive.democommiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08714733977927594559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-66110615878597842862010-02-04T18:08:57.963+01:002010-02-04T18:08:57.963+01:00Demmocommie says:One; when you don't agree wit...Demmocommie says:<br><br><i>One; when you don't agree with someone and you can't debunk what they've said in a comment, you simply insult them and ignore the comment's point.</i><br><br>Interesting hypothesis, Democommie, and it would be a learning experience, I'm sure, to test it out--so I look forward to the first time you manage to <i>make</i> a point (especially one that I "can't debunk"). As for the insults, I was actually raised better than that, but sometimes I tire of the effort of hiding the fact that I have no more respect for you than I would for a <a href="http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/beetle_names.html" rel="nofollow">slime mold beetle named after Dick Cheney</a>. Also, as Mike W. and RuffRidr have already pointed out, an accusation from you that I rely on <i>arguments ad hominem</i> is extremely amusing--if you meant it as a joke, well played, sir.<br /><br />As for "waffling on [my] statements," I see no such thing. I said I don't care what insurance companies think of my priorities. Insurance policies can set conditions that must be met in order to for a claim to be eligible, but one's "priorities" aren't among those conditions, because there is no way to quantify, much less prove, some one else's priorities.<br /><br />I didn't dismiss the efficacy of the safe--just pointed out that it does not--<i>can</i>not--<i>guarantee</i> that the contents will not be stolen. If it would please you for me to acknowledge that such a safe would make theft significantly more difficult, and less likely, than my lightly constructed gun cabinet would--sure--acknowledged. Again, though--that's what insurance is for.<br /><br />I don't dispute that wearing seat belts is a good idea (and refraining from doing so is a bad idea)--I just don't think it's any of the government's business. If someone wants to take foolish, easily avoidable risks with his life and limb, that's his business.<br /><br />Finally, I'm not concerned about my kids <i>or</i> "their little friends" getting into my guns, because they <b>don't have unsupervised access</b> to them. That, too, is properly a parental decision--not a governmental one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-59893838518118082672010-02-04T17:32:04.220+01:002010-02-04T17:32:04.220+01:00You folks also forget that anyone leasing an apart...You folks also forget that anyone leasing an apartment can't just go buy a huge floor safe and have it secured to the floor or otherwise concreted in.<br /><br />Try telling a landlord you want to do that and see how far you get.<br /><br />When you don't own the property there are limitations to what you can do. You certainly can't alter/damage the structure.<br /><br />Also, assuming the floor could hold the weight and the landlord allowed it, where in the hell would you put a large safe in a studio/ 1 bedroom?Mike W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03425962910696301026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-69361867109338268912010-02-04T15:58:24.371+01:002010-02-04T15:58:24.371+01:00Democommie wrote: One; when you don't agree wi...Democommie wrote: <i>One; when you don't agree with someone and you can't debunk what they've said in a comment, you simply insult them and ignore the comment's point.</i><br /><br />Pot. Kettle on line two.RuffRidrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13597758856457029471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-31307673191479478962010-02-04T14:55:34.894+01:002010-02-04T14:55:34.894+01:00when you don't agree with someone and you can&...<i>when you don't agree with someone and you can't debunk what they've said in a comment, you simply insult them and ignore the comment's point</i><br /><br />You're right Demo, YOU do this consistently.Mike W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03425962910696301026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-83779383971258992872010-02-04T13:37:04.951+01:002010-02-04T13:37:04.951+01:00Zorro:
I notice two things about you.
One; whe...Zorro:<br /><br />I notice two things about you. <br /><br />One; when you don't agree with someone and you can't debunk what they've said in a comment, you simply insult them and ignore the comment's point.<br /><br />Two; You start waffling on your statements.<br /><br />"Anyway, whether or not the insurance company would "love to know" my priorities, or not, is of little concern to me."<br /><br />Not quite so sure as the earlier statement.<br /><br /><br />Sounds pretty definite and somewhat dismissive of the insurance company's concerns in such matters.<br /><br />"Because, genius, the insurance company's feelings about the matter are far from my only concern."<br /><br />I like this, too.<br /><br />"Again, obviously I can't guarantee that (and neither can someone who stores his gun in that $12,000, 2-ton monstrosity in the article Mikeb linked to)."<br /><br />You don't want to do it, so you dismiss it's efficacy? <br /><br />You don't think the requirement to wear seat belts is a good idea. Now, THAT, is just plain dumb. Seatbelts (and airbags) have saved many thousands of lives. The old argument that they would cause a death if you were to, say, go into the water and have the car sink while you were strapped helplessly into your "deathmobile" has been pretty thoroughly debunked by actual experience. I'm thinking that the idiot who had to shoot out his window after his cellphone caused him to lose control of his vehicle--and end up in the water--had one on.<br /><br />And since you're not concerned that your own kids might do something wrong with a gun in their hands does that mean that none of their little friends might if they were tempted?democommiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08714733977927594559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-45299835271222286902010-02-04T07:59:08.466+01:002010-02-04T07:59:08.466+01:00democommie, Since so many pro-gun folks keep makin...democommie, Since so many pro-gun folks keep making comparisons like the "guns to cars one," it's great what you wrote.<br /><br /><i>"Suicide and homicide by guns accounted for almost 31,000 deaths that year, compared to the 42,642 attributed to motor vehicle causes."</i><br /><br />You pointed out that the average person who uses a car does so for many hours a day more than the average gun owner uses his gun. Taxi drivers and CCW permit holders are the obvious exceptions. In addition, 200 million licensed drivers would be far in excess of the number of gun owners in the country. <br /><br />These facts make the gun many times more deadly than the car.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-39178009741121137532010-02-03T21:17:21.270+01:002010-02-03T21:17:21.270+01:00Democommie says, between bong hits:So you lock you...Democommie says, between bong hits:<br><br><i>So you lock your doors and windows? Do you lock your place of business and your vehicles? If you're not concerned with what the insurance company thinks, why bother?</i><br><br>Because, genius, the insurance company's feelings about the matter are far from my only concern. I don't have any interest in constantly replacing stolen items--some of which, by virtue of sentimental value, are not replaceable.<br><br><i>Your kids will never make a mistake with a gun, because you have drilled them on firearms safety?</i><br><br>Obviously, I don't know that for certain, and that's why they, for now, don't have unsupervised access to guns. In life, we make an infinite number of choices based on risk/reward calculations. According to my calculations, careful, responsible gun ownership brings rewards that far outweigh the risks. Mikeb, obviously, strongly disagrees. That's fine, and I would never try to force him to own guns. The bottom line is that the calculation is the individual's to make--not the government's, and not some internet busybody's.<br><br><i>Your guns will never be stolen because nobody has the stones to go up against your dogs?</i><br><br>Again, obviously I can't guarantee that (and neither can someone who stores his gun in that $12,000, 2-ton monstrosity in the article Mikeb linked to). The risk, according to my calculations, is acceptable.<br /><br />Apparently you made some point in your comparison of motor vehicle safety to firearms safety. I'm sure it was very telling--good for you.<br /><br />I will say that the requirement to wear seat belts is offensive, but it's simply not big enough an issue for me to consider worth fighting.<br><br><i>More later, maybe.</i><br><br>I'll eagerly and hopefully await being edified by your wisdom, sir.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-62856968045042987482010-02-03T20:08:33.754+01:002010-02-03T20:08:33.754+01:00Zorro:
So you lock your doors and windows? Do yo...Zorro:<br /><br />So you lock your doors and windows? Do you lock your place of business and your vehicles? If you're not concerned with what the insurance company thinks, why bother? <br /><br />Your comment implies that this is not the case. Your comment implies that you know EXACTLY how much security is required (and, by your own admission, security is required.<br /><br />The degree of certitude among many Type 2A folks is puzzling. Your kids will never make a mistake with a gun, because you have drilled them on firearms safety? Your guns will never be stolen because nobody has the stones to go up against your dogs? <br /><br />I knew people with that degree of certitude when I was a kid. They hated seatbelts. Like you, they KNEW how to avoid having an accident and so they simply never would have one. Some of them beat the law of averages, some didn't. Seatbelts are now required on every new automobile sold in this country--and most other countries. Most states in the U.S. have laws requiring motor vehicle operators to wear them--even if it's only the driver on a Greyhound or school bus.<br /><br />Of course you or mike w. will likely say, "driving is a privilege, gun ownership is a right". It's a non sequitir.<br /><br />Accidents and deliberate misdeeds by others still kill a lot of motorists, passengers and pedestrians every year, 42,642 in 2006. <br /><br />(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year)<br /><br /><br />Also in 2006, the CDC reports the following:<br /><br />Firearm—In 2006, 30,896 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (Tables 18–20), accounting for 17.3 percent of all injury deaths that year. Firearm suicide and homicide, the two major component causes, accounted for 54.6 and 41.4 percent, respectively, of all firearm injury deaths in 2006. In 2006, the age-adjusted death rate for firearm suicide decreased significantly from 2005 by 3.5 percent, from 5.7 deaths per 100,000 U.S. standard population to 5.5. However, the age-adjusted rate for all firearm injuries was the same in 2006 as in 2005—10.2 deaths per 100,000 U.S. standard population <br /><br />(source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf)<br /><br />The New England Journal of Medicine also weighed in (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/10/989)<br /><br />Suicide and homicide by guns accounted for almost 31,000 deaths that year, compared to the 42,642 attributed to motor vehicle causes. I've actually had people who are quite fond of their guns state that given the number of motor vehicle deaths in this country that we should perhaps outlaw driving. That the remark is disingenuous goes without saying. I operate a motor vehicle on a daily basis as do a significant fraction of the over 200 million licensed drivers in this country. I'm going to hazard a guess that the number of people using firearms on a given day in this country is a few percent of the other figure. Let's be generous and assume that 10M use a gun every day, vs 100M using a motor vehicle every day. As anyone can see, guns are a much greater threat, per use, than motor vehicles.<br /><br />I'm outta time. More later, maybe.democommiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08714733977927594559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-6833692388103170582010-02-03T18:35:32.621+01:002010-02-03T18:35:32.621+01:00Going to answer questions posed about what other h...Going to answer questions posed about what other household items people should be criminally liable for failing to "properly secure?"<br /><br />Demo - Can we prosecute you for failure to lock up your steak knives?Mike W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03425962910696301026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-43458427921731818042010-02-03T16:25:23.864+01:002010-02-03T16:25:23.864+01:00Mikeb says:Well, it might not be if you gun owners...Mikeb says:<br><br><i>Well, it might not be if you gun owners had enough common sense to keep the guns secured from thieves and children. But since that's not the case, I guess it becomes the government's business.</i><br><br>One more time, Mikeb: <b>IT'S NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE MY POSSESSIONS "UNSTEALABLE"--IT'S THEIVES' RESPONSIBILITY TO NOT STEAL</b>.<br /><br />As for the amount of access one's kids have to guns--that's a parental decision, not a governmental one. Before my kids get much older, they'll be as well equipped to defend their lives <a href="http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=402271" rel="nofollow">as this one was</a> to defend his and his mother's.<br /><br />We've seen <a href="http://gunowners.org/op0132.htm" rel="nofollow">what happens when the government determines</a> what kind of access kids should have to guns. California is <i>not</i> going to condemn <i>my</i> kids to death by lack of firepower.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-20905982059151414462010-02-03T16:07:17.214+01:002010-02-03T16:07:17.214+01:00Zorro said, "It's not the government'...Zorro said, <i>"It's not the government's place to tell me how I must store my guns."</i><br /><br />Well, it might not be if you gun owners had enough common sense to keep the guns secured from thieves and children. But since that's not the case, I guess it becomes the government's business.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-18288881204696896712010-02-03T08:14:24.262+01:002010-02-03T08:14:24.262+01:00Yeah, I would love to have a safe like that someda...Yeah, I would love to have a safe like that someday. Right now, I live in an urban 5th floor condo with no place to put a safe that would serve as a better deterrent than the locks on my building and the locks on my doors. In a perfect gun control world, should I be ineligible for gun ownership along with all apartment renters, poor people, students, etc…?<br /><br />-TSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com