kimmy

I don't find any of these arguments very persuasive. Suppose they had published the names and addresses of single women in their readership area. Or names and addresses of same-sex couples. Everybody here would be smart enough to recognize that for what it is: reckless endangerment. "Gun control has been a topic of great concern to our readers in the week since the Sandy Hook shooting!" Hey, so is same sex marriage. Finding single women is always a topic of great interest, I hear. "It's publicly available information!" Well, just as with the gun permit list, you could probably compile lists of single women or same-sex couples pretty easily using the phone book and public records. "It's a challenging statement concerning the abuse of freedoms!" So would be publishing lists of single women or same-sex couples. One difference between these examples and the gun permit list is that people would obviously recognize a list of single women as an invitation to stalkers, and would recognize a list of same-sex couples as an invitation to homophobes and bigots, but some people are apparently too dense to recognize a list of gun-permit holders as an invitation to robbers. The other difference is that some people apparently feel that gun permit holders deserve the harrassment that will come from this. -k

Sounds like Muslim logic to me. -k

BC Sapper posed the question about how people would feel about publishing lists declaring innocent people threats based on arbitrary criteria. Bryan's enthusiastic support for the concept indicated that he didn't actually understand the premise being proposed. And your ongoing effort to quibble what criteria make one a potential rapist indicate that you don't actually understand the premise being proposed either. Whether having a penis is really sufficient grounds to declare someone a potential rapist is completely beside the point. The premise in itself is unfair. And the premise would generate great offense if it were directed at some group other than people with gun permits (not gun owners with criminal records, not gun owners, but people with gun permits). Because in the hype surrounding the gun control debate, law abiding citizens with gun permits are apparently less deserving of consideration than sex criminals who have been released from prison. I ask again: Where can I get a list of convicted rapists living in my town? What about accused rapists who were not convicted in court? Maybe my safety would be improved if I had access to information about which men have been accused of sexual assault, even if they weren't convicted of anything. -k

If you grasp why it might be offensive and inflammatory to brand people as potential rapists based on arbitrary criteria, then perhaps you might also grasp why it is offensive and inflammatory to brand people as potential gun murderers based on arbitrary criteria. -k

Maybe not, but if you were placing bets on who might be a potential rapist, the odds vastly favor a male. Nonsense. It's entirely analogous to the logic that somebody with a gun permit is a potential shooter. -k

BC Sapper's point is that these gun owners have been targetted as potential threats to shoot; the same logic would make any adult male a potential rapist. My own point was to contrast the vindictiveness these law abiding gun owners have been treated with against the sympathy that released sex criminals are given. That seems to me to be the result of a political agenda (specifically: guns BAD, rehabilitation GOOD), rather than a concern with public safety. -k

One of the things that my instructor mentioned was to NOT publicize the fact that you have firearms because it makes you a target for theft. As Signals Corporal mentions, burglars could easily figure out when you're not at home. A class action lawsuit? I think that's a possibility. Personally, I'm far more concerned about rapists than gun owners. Can I get a list of convicted rapists in my city? I'm sure that most parents are more worried about child molestors than gun owners. Can we also get a list of convicted child molestors? It seems to me that when sex criminals are released from prison, their locations are made available only in the rarest situations. There's this belief that they should be given a chance to live normal lives. Why do convicted sex criminals get more consideration than law-abiding gun owners? -k

Only because in recent years the "center" has moved far to the right of where it used to be. I think Obama's point is that today's Republicans have moved far to the right of where Republican icons like Reagan or Eisenhower were. Jeb Bush said during the primaries that if his dad or Ronald Reagan ran for the Republican nomination today, they'd be attacked as "too liberal" by today's Republicans. -k

I'm calling BS on this guy's claim. I want to see evidence as to what medicines mass-murderers were taking before I take the word of a guy called "The Herb Doc". This guy has an agenda that's just as obvious as the anti-gun people. His agenda is, "western medicine is barbaric, man! Dig my all-natural healing. Buy my book. Buy my herbs. Far out!" -k

Check out this douchebag. Let me tell you, some of these Independent Baptists are bughouse loco, amen, and I'm glad that even in the Bible Belt, chumps like this guy are a small minority, amen. At least that's what I tell myself to help me sleep at night, amen. -k

The WBC are like Al Qaeda? WBC has never hurt anybody. They're saying the WBC should lose their tax exempt status because (a) they're a hate group or ( because their message is "politicking". But the WBC message is scripturally accurate and is no more hateful than things other churches have said, some of it documented in this very thread. As for "politcking", I'm not aware of any instance of the WBC making statements that would meet the legal definition, unlike plenty of churches that the IRS has refused to investigate. Bottom line, the WBC are being singled out because they're saying on main street what some of their counterparts only say in the confines of their churches and mosques and synagogues. They're being persecuted because the standard isn't being applied equally to other religious groups. -k

My $150 SKS is on the way! Should be here Friday. I won't have a chance to do much more than lock it in my cabinet before I head off on my Christmas vacation, though. -k

If you're thinking of something "one size up from a .22", get a .22. From what I gather, other small-bore rifle calibres are pretty specialized: they're designed for high-speed and flat trajectory-- shooting small game and predators (ie, bunnies, coyotes) at long range. The cartridges are far more expensive than .22. You can get .22LR ammo for 5 cents a shot, or less if you buy in quantity. Other small bore rifle cartridges cost way more-- 30 cents a shot for .17 Hornady, 40-50 cents for .223, to maybe a buck a pop for .22-250, .22 Hornet, .204, .243, .250-06. So unless you have a special reason to get one of these other small-bore rifles, a .22 makes a lot more sense. Another thing you could consider: a rifle chambered in .357 magnum. Guns chambered in .357 magnum can also shoot .38 Special, which is pretty cheap (around 25 cents a shot). A lever action "cowboy rifle" in .357 magnum is on my shopping list. Jeez, wipe out a few old-people and you never live it down. -k

The Black Keys are another outfit I've been listening to lately! I like the retro keyboard sound. They've made organ sound cool for the first time since Jon Lord left the business. Speaking of retro keyboard sound, I just stumbled on this a few minutes ago: "Corey Chisel and the Wandering Sons". -k

Nobody actually died in the China stabbing spree. So while it's not any more acceptable, at least it was a lot less deadly. -k

The Westboro Baptist Church are suddenly finding themselves feeling a mite persecuted, as thousands of Kansas residents are signing petitions to have WBC declared a hate-group and remove it's tax-exempt status. Adding insult to injury, the WBC's website was trashed by the hackers known as "Anonymous". -k

Awwwww yeah, my license finally arrived! That's right, bitches! I'm Glenn Beck's worst nightmare: An atheist with a gun! Welll, I don't actually have a gun yet. I'm going to visit my local shop tomorrow to see if their on-again/off-again supply of SKS carbines is "on-again", and see if they have a Ruger 10/22 as well. I plan to order my Mosin-Nagant 91/30 after I return from my Christmas adventures, because the idea of stuff arriving by courier while I'm away creeps me out for some reason. -k

I think that it is important to keep in mind that there are different kinds of gun homicides, and steps that might be effective for preventing one might not help others. In many cases, the guns are tools of professional criminals who will have access to guns through illegal channels whatever the law says. And in many other cases, the guns are simply weapons of opportunity. Somebody is in a rage and does something they might not do if they had 30 seconds to think about it. If it's not a gun it might be a knife or a blunt object or a fist. Guns are more effective than knives or blunt objects or fists, and they also give you less of a chance to have second thoughts. Even the time it takes to unlock a gun cabinet and remove the trigger guard and find the ammo and load the gun can give somebody enough time to realize they're doing something stupid. Somebody like Adam Lanza (or Kimveer Gill or so on...) doesn't seem like the guy who'd be able to get a gun through illegal channels. These guys are basically losers. They don't have many real-world connections, let alone underworld connections. I believe that some states have limits on magazine sizes. Some states have regulations requiring that a detachable magazine requires a tool to operate. Here in Canada, semi-automatic center-fire rifles are limited to 5-shot magazines. I have a hard time seeing a need for more. Maybe some gun expert will have an anecdote about how fast they can reload their weapon... but how many of these kids who have committed these rampages have actually had that kind of gun expertise? Anything that slows down the hail of lead should have a chance of saving lives. edit to add: this has gotten pretty immature, guys. -k

I've recently gone through the process of getting a firearms license (just approved, by the way.) The first thing I can say about it is that it took over 5 months. I think that if I'd been in a rush to kill somebody, I'd have given up waiting for my PAL to arrive and gone and strangled them instead. The glacial pace of the process was frustrating enough that it could itself probably provoke a rampage of some sort. The second thing I can say is that all of the information I was asked to provide about my mental health was, as far as I can tell completely voluntary. I informed them that I have been treated for depression in the past, and ongoing treatment for general anxiety. They asked me for my doctor's contact information and for a letter indicating that she felt I was not a risk to harm anyone. Which I provided, and they approved my application afterward. I told them about my mental health history because that's the sort of person I am. However, as far as I can tell I could have just as easily told them that I had no mental health issues at all, and they would have never been the wiser. It would have been easy to write "no" on the application form and to tell them I'd never had any mental health concerns during the interview. How would they have found out otherwise? Further, if somebody who doesn't even know he's got mental health issues applies, how would they know? This voluntary screening might turn up somebody like me, who is aware and honest enough to tell them about it. It wouldn't turn up a liar. It certainly wouldn't turn up somebody with undiagnosed mental health issues. I think the only part of the process that provides any real screening is the interview with the references... and you're still depending on the honesty of the applicant's friends. "Joey's my friend and he's a pretty good guy... I don't think I'll mention the time he screamed at the boss and said he was going to kill everybody. He probably didn't mean it..." -k

Propaganda is exactly what the Fox News network provided for the Republican party. There is no difference at all between Dick Morris's "landslide!" predictions and Baghdad Bob telling the world that there were no Americans in Iraq. We don't need evidence of their motivation to assess their actions, and the word propaganda is an entirely fair description. -k

I'd be surprised if they didn't. But whatever. I was referring to the network that gets indignant when people talking about gun-control after tragedies running this on the air: Because it's wrong to exploit the deaths of these children to advance gun-control. But it's right to exploit the deaths of these children to advance prayer in schools! -k

Perhaps, but maybe just not entertaining people. As somebody said, this is an entertainment-focused list, and America and the UK are by far the biggest English-language entertainment markets. -k

"States Rights! States Rights! We don't need judges in Washington telling us how to run our state!" -k

"I'm offended that someone would use a horrible tragedy like this to advance their personal agenda. Up next, Mike Huckabee will be here to explain how prayer in schools could have prevented the massacre." -k