[ucodegen]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=ucodegen]

You also have no idea about what knife wounds are like… and no clue.. PS: the max blade length is about 3 inches.. longer is illegal.[/quote]

I don’t think that’s true in CA with regards to unconcealed knives. They must be worn at the waist, and sheathed. But other than bans in specific places (gov’t buildings I think is a 4″ limit, all prohibited in schools, k-12) and some municipalities, I don’t think there is any length limitation. (fishing and hunting knives?)[/quote]Los Angeles has a 3″ limit, as well as a few other cities. The state doesn’t have a limit on length– If you read through the ordinances, it is really convoluted and changing all the time. I do remember when it was 3.5″ from a state level.. but that is back a bit in time.

[ucodegen]

[quote=squat300]No you wouldn’t. You would follow the constitution, search only when reasonable and put people in prison for long periods of time for gun possession in public. There would be a very strong incentive not to carry a gun. Or to shoot it out with the police to avoid the long sentence. If the penalty is 25 years in prison for gun possession, that’s a strong incentive to just carry a knife.[/quote]Not supported by facts already in evidence. Already:

[ucodegen]

[quote=ScottUSA]
Gun Lock Law: I think a law should be passed to ensure only the gun owner can shoot their gun using something they have or own. It could be a RFID chip, thumb print, PIN number, swipe card, and so on. The market place can work it out.[/quote]They tried it.. doesn’t work and was too problematic. Do you code it to all members of family, only one? The problem with RFID, Swipe Card is that in a home invasion, etc.. you have to find where you put those items(An there have been several documented examples of handguns being used to foil home invasions, one of them being quite recent and recorded across 911). RFID/swipe card can be hacked.. and the readers are fairly large. I have worked with thumbprint readers.. very problematic, particularly with Asians.

[quote=ScottUSA]I know this sounds crazy because a handmade gun could be created so easily but then I remember seat belts. By law I have to wear my seat belt. As a result everyone is safer.[/quote]It is crazy, because the Criminals will just pick up a black market manufactured gun.. Saturday Night Special II. You would have to have everyone patted down by police whenever the police feel like it to stop this.. do you want civil liberties to go that way? Is that an effective use of police effort?

[ucodegen]

[quote=squat300]Uh if we are going to war w the Feds there are going to be collateral damage. Your pea shooter won’t mean shit against their armored vehicles. You need ieds and big explosives to fight your revolution. And you can’t be scared about killing a few hundred thousand innocents.[/quote]One word… Lahti. You don’t have to kill the tank. Just disable it. They have to get out when it no longer moves… This thing will destroy APCs. Remember that the GAU8 is 30mm… and it eats tanks for snacks.

[ucodegen]

[quote=squat300]It’s difficult to strangle or beat someone to death. Try it. You have to get really revved up.[/quote]No its not.. all it depends upon is knowing what you are doing. If you don’t know.. then it takes a long time and you may not be successful.
[quote=squat300]i dontsee why guns are good for figthing the govt is logical but keeping plenty of homemade explosives are bad is nutty

seems like if you like the former you’d love the latter.[/quote]I already covered this before. Bombs are indiscriminate.. guns are targeted. Bombs would be killing individuals from both sides.

NOTE: Bombs and shaped charges, breaching charges are different.

[ucodegen]

[quote=zk]You think that my logic skills are broken because you’ve somehow (probably due to poor logic skills) mistakenly come to the conclusion that I’ve linked home schooling and crime rates. Read what I wrote again and see if you find anywhere that I’ve linked the two. I even stated that I don’t have any reason to believe that home schooling produces criminals. Not sure how you could miss that. You even quoted it.[/quote]No. You stated that larger numbers would show up on public school sides due to the lower numbers of kids going through home-schooling as a percentage of population (I think it is currently 2.3%). I reiterated that the term used was ‘percentage’ which takes into effect the number of individuals going through public school and going wacko divided by the number of kids going through public school. I didn’t think I had to clarify the definition of percentage. I also emphasized the use of percentage in

Are you saying that as a percentage

[quote=zk]I’m not even against home schooling, which you also seem to imply, again without any basis. Just because I think that some home schoolers might have a wacky curriculum does not mean that I am against home schooling. I might be against that particular wacky curriculum, but I’m not against home schooling. Just like I’m against people who are terrorists but not all people. The logic is pretty simple. Not sure how you’re missing it.[/quote]Where the heck did I state that you said that you were against homeschooling? Nowhere did I say that. I stated that homeschooling may in fact contribute fewer ‘unstable’ failures w/ a gun to society. It was an additive point to the statement, potentially in counterpoint to some of yours. In addition, you made the statement [quote=zk][quote=paramount][quote=zk] There is a subset of home schoolers who home school because they believe the government is trying to brainwash us and oppress us and is working toward becoming a tyranny. And it wouldn’t be surprising if a few in that subset of home schoolers teach insurrection techniques, including ied production, to their children. [/quote]

Wow. You really are a conspiracy theorist.[/quote]

If you think a few wackos teaching their kids wacko things is a conspiracy, then you don’t know what a conspiracy is. At least not in the context we’re talking about them in.[/quote] and [quote=zk][quote=squat300]It might be best to start teaching schoolkids now how to create IEDs to disable govt vehicles approaching their homes per the 2nd amendment. why isn’t that in the curriculum?[/quote]

You snark. But I wouldn’t doubt that it is in some home-school curricula.[/quote]
which while not exactly tying home-schooling to wackos, implies the connection when used in the current context – particularly when you consider that the current percentage of the population that is homeschooled is about 2.3% (which is already a low percentage). Are you stating 1% of 2.4%?? which is about 0.0024% of schooled kids?

[ucodegen]

[quote=zk]You show a glaring weakness in your logic skills, yet again, with your “vast majority of criminals were traditionally schooled” comment. If 98% of people are traditionally schooled, then the vast majority of criminals will almost certainly be traditionally schooled, whether home schooling produces criminals or not (which I have no reason to believe it does). [/quote]Actually your logic skills seem broken. It is proven that home schoolers on average score 37 percentile points higher than those that went to public schools. They also have a better success rate after high school. — just one of many links I can put up..

http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/28/doing-the-math-behind-homeschooling/
http://www.home-school.com/news/homeschool-vs-public-school.php

Are you saying that as a percentage, those that have a better future are more likely to resort to crime?.. Most criminals are those that don’t have a future or have decided to abandon a future. Many homeschoolers are much more independent than kids that have gone through public schools… which unfortunately enforce multiple forms of conformity

Don’t disagree with the teacher even when he/she is wrong.

Don’t argue with the big kid.. if he wants your lunch money, give it to him.

Don’t report abuse,attack etc by big kids.. otherwise you get labelled as a tattle-tale(almost equiv to saying ‘abuse is legal provided you are bigger than the other guy)

Don’t speak up with new ideas, because they will just make fun of you.

Don’t dress different, act different than the conformity established by school and/or big kids.. otherwise you will be ostracized, and picked on relentlessly.

-Conform, obey, don’t think for yourself, just regurgitate..
These are just a few. I suspect that many of the mass killings by those under about 25 years of age, are caused by kids that have been forced to conformity through the above means.. and have just ended up striking out just to establish themselves as an individual. Unfortunately it is a last gasp method of striking out which is ‘terminal’ in its own method.

[ucodegen]

[quote=CA renter]FWIW, I did read that diatomaceous earth can be helpful in keeping down (hopefully, eliminating) bedbug populations. This should be used in conjunction with professional treatments. [/quote]It does by abrading the bugs as they move. Also helps with fleas.

I would recommend moving the tenants out.

Suggest they replace all beds, couches.. or have them leave them in when you bomb the place.

Have them wash everything else at a laundromat and dry at high temp. Be very careful of handling because the clothes they are wearing when cleaning ‘may’ also have bugs/eggs on them (handle things short sleeved?).

Bathe and switch clothes. Make sure you then clean the clothes you took off.. treat them as ‘contaminated’ until cleaned (put them in plastic bag immediately after taking them off – try to avoid them dropping to the floor when taking of).

Do not bring cleaned clothes back into the house. (Hotel?)

Steam Clean carpet.. bed surfaces and couches if they are there. – dry.

Work Diatomaceous Earth into the carpet, bed surfaces(w/o sheets), couches – vacuum after the bombing.

Bomb the place. (could also work Hartz flea spray into the carpet before bombing.. ) The Diatomaceous Earth could potentially aid in getting poison into the bugs because it abrades the bugs as they move. The Hartz can help prevent them from surviving the bombing if deep in the carpet.

Now replace the carpet.

The reason why all of the ‘duplicate’ effort, is that all it takes is a few eggs.. or a few to survive. You want to reduce the likelihood of eggs or bedbugs falling off the carpet or transferring to the workers when the carpet is being removed.

[ucodegen]

[quote=zk]Getting us “used to being …violated and screened?” I think it’s highly unlikely that anyone in that field is thinking that far ahead. And I think it’s paranoid to see the TSA screen people in a way that you don’t like and think that they’re “preparing” us for worse.[/quote]Actually they do think that far ahead. The real question is whether this is the real intent. Consider that it really doesn’t make us all that safer.. particularly in light of the Shoe Bomber, laser printer cartridge issue and others. Everything ignores the fact that the one Aircraft that did not make it to the target on 9/11, was because its passengers decided to be something other than sheep. Unfortunately most schooling seems to enforce the do-not-question, follow-like-sheep mentality.

Considering that the CIA/FBI had reports from agents in the field, of Arabs taking flying lessons in the United States and that these individuals didn’t seem to be that interested in ‘landing’; it brings up a question of a potential variant to a ‘False Flag’. True “False Flags” involve our own forces attacking the public. The variant would be allowing a preventable occurrence to occur, with the intent of using it to justifying further incursions to civil rights or other actions as you would with a true “False Flag”. True “False Flags” are quite damaging when they blow up in your face or get discovered. The variant isn’t, and could even be ‘spun’ as an ‘oops’ or ‘mea culpa’. Intent could be hard to prove on discovery.

NOTE: It is very easy to transport a Sidewinder or its equivalent. Range is about 3 miles… cost is only #38k. It works as a fire-forget. TSA is unable to do anything about these.

[ucodegen]

[quote=paramount]Considering the current eroded state of our “rights”, using drones under the broad terms/guise of “homeland/national security” would/could certainly go a long way in further eroding whatever rights we do have left.[/quote]Speaking hypothetically(can’t say more).. this may already be in the works. It becomes a question of 4th amendment incursion.. what if these same drones have the ability to fire weapons?

[ucodegen]

[quote=zk]“In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.”[/quote]So we get a reduction of approx 30% in one category, 9% in another (which may statistically overlap with the first – if the armed robbery resulted in a homicide).. and a 40% increase in another category (assault) which has the sub-category sexual assault increasing by 20%? That does not look like good statistics to support gun control or a gun ban. Considering the reduction in armed robbery, I would suspect that it had nothing to do with gun control. It could be better police work, money obtained during a robbery not justifying the risk and finally… more prevalent use of credit cards meaning that establishments carry less cash. A person considering using a weapon for a crime, has already considered that killing is ‘justifiable’ to achieve their ends. Making guns completely illegal will not stop them.

Be careful of taking statistics out of the context of the environment in which they were generated.

[ucodegen]

[quote=craptcha]You responded to the initial post about Spengler. Your position was that new laws would make no difference since he was already banned from owning a gun. My point was that we should figure out how he got the gun and address the loophole.[/quote]The problem is that there is no way to address this so called loophole, because there was no loophole. What she did is a felony, already illegal, and it really looks like she is going to be in the pokey for it. She may also end up being financially liable. We have yet to see how he got the other bushmaster.. I suspect it may be something similar. Unfortunately this item may have hit the press before the police finished their investigation into the other weapon. In that case, the other person may have had time to get their story ‘cleaned up’.

[ucodegen]

[quote=squat300]as some say, it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, so shoot first and ask questions later.[/quote]That in a line, is an example of the real problem.

[ucodegen]

[quote=squat300]i dont hear anything about eprsonal responsibility int he song, like he turned himself in or anything. it sounds like the gun was the cause of his misery the way i read the lyrics. the way his mama told him not to play with guns, but he went to Reno, a sort of risky town, and was i figure probably drinking and gambling,a dn the next thing you know, he killed a man, where if it had been other circumstances, might merely have been arelatively friendly fistfight.[/quote]Take a look at the wording. Does it say anything about blaming having a gun? or that his mama told him not to and he did it anyway? That he was warned, did it anyway just to see, and is paying the price. Also look at the quote from Cash on how the phrase came about. It was not the worse use of a gun, it was the worse reason for killing someone. It also mentioned nothing about drinking, gambling, etc. Quite a stretch there. Here is another line from the same song:

Well I know I had it coming, I know I can’t be free.

Looks like it is personal responsibility.

[ucodegen]

[quote=craptcha]I doubt she walked in and asked for a gun that will be handed over to a convicted criminal. According to the article she’s still claiming that she bought the guns for personal protection, gun(s) were stolen, she failed to report the theft.[/quote]The problem with her statement, is that it is contradicted with other facts in evidence. Of course she would claim that it was ‘stolen’. What she did is a felony(fine of up to $250,000 and/or up to 10 years in prison). If he was stealing guns, why did he need to risk theft to obtain a second bushmaster? Theft would only instigate investigation within the neighborhood.

See 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A), 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)

[Author]

Posts