-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Aneurism inducing nonsense in the Columbus paper
- Thread starter JTScribe
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
snowdrifter
Marksman
Letter: Gun ownership foes don?t know full story
(If you get some BS about "Free Story Limit", try opening in a private window, works for me anyway)
Good to see it posted in it's entirety. Nice job JTScribe!
(If you get some BS about "Free Story Limit", try opening in a private window, works for me anyway)
Good to see it posted in it's entirety. Nice job JTScribe!
The devil is in the details. Fortunately for the people of Britain, their violent crime rate, as defined by American standards, isn't as high at 223%. There is difference in the definition of "violent crime." For instance a shoving match between two drunks at a bar, would be consider a "violent crime" in Britain, whereas here it would be not. Still it doesn't mean Britain's crime isn't higher, but in the interest of fact, that must be pointed out. Odds are the rates a much closer.
How do you define a "murder weapon"? If a baseball bat or a hammer is used to commit a murder, then the baseball bat or hammer used to commit that murder is a "murder weapon". Does that mean that all baseball bats and hammers are "murder weapons"? Of course not.
The difference is the intent and action of the person wielding the tool.
For the one hundred million law-abiding gun owners, their firearms are self-defense tools, not murder weapons.
Because the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Because the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a natural right, as the foundation and means of exercising our God-given rights of life and liberty (and the pursuit of happiness, for that matter). Because regulating the actions of the law-abiding will not burden, much less prevent, the actions of the lawless. Because even in the impossible utopia in which all firearms cease to exist, society is regressed, by forcing the law-abiding to use inferior means to defend themselves against the lawless, and by maximizing the disparity of force between the brutish lawless and the weak, infirm, and gentler law-abiding.
I never carried a firearm until I had a family to protect, and to whom to return home safely every night. NOT carrying a firearm would be a selfish act on my part, because others besides me depend upon my life.
True, but . . .
Crimes without suspects, or crimes that go unsolved, are not logged statistically at all a good portion of the time.
Whistleblowers' diary: 'no criming' the stats - The Justice Gap | The Justice Gap
Holy crap, they're up to it again.
Column: Sharing concerns about guns takes some nerve
Posting my response again to see if it's unmolested:
In his column of December 3, John Krull makes the claim that "the NRA ... by the way, receives the overwhelming majority of its funding not from its members but from firearms manufacturers."
Consulting publicly-available IRS reporting from 2004-2013, "73% of all NRA funding comes from membership dues and individual contributions, 9% comes from advertising, and 5% comes from organizational donations. The latter two figures are rounded up." I did not attend Franklin College but my basic math skills tell me that 14%, assuming all organizational donations are from manufacturers, in no way consists of a majority. This information is easily-found with a cursory Internet search.
As a columnist for this publication and as a professor of journalism, one would expect that you would conduct some basic fact checking and at the very least attempt some measure of honesty in the making of such hyperbolic statements. It shows a basic lack of journalistic ethics, and as the saying goes, sir, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
As far as your citation of the survey conducted by Ball State and WISH-TV, that survey encompassed a staggering (sarcasm intended) 602 Hoosiers, resulting in a 5.2% margin of error. The anti-gun Holy Grail of "universal background checks" is also laughable considering that the wording of the question implies no such checks currently exist for gun shows when in fact any individual buying a firearm from a licensed dealer (yes, even at a gun show) must pass a background check. The UBC talking point is couched language for requiring the tracking of all sales, whether between private individuals, family, or friends.
Such a requirement would result in a de facto registry of firearms - which Indiana did, admittedly once have. It was done away with some time ago, and strangely enough gun crime has fallen in Indiana, as it has nationally, by nearly 50% in the last 20 years.
Column: Sharing concerns about guns takes some nerve
Posting my response again to see if it's unmolested:
In his column of December 3, John Krull makes the claim that "the NRA ... by the way, receives the overwhelming majority of its funding not from its members but from firearms manufacturers."
Consulting publicly-available IRS reporting from 2004-2013, "73% of all NRA funding comes from membership dues and individual contributions, 9% comes from advertising, and 5% comes from organizational donations. The latter two figures are rounded up." I did not attend Franklin College but my basic math skills tell me that 14%, assuming all organizational donations are from manufacturers, in no way consists of a majority. This information is easily-found with a cursory Internet search.
As a columnist for this publication and as a professor of journalism, one would expect that you would conduct some basic fact checking and at the very least attempt some measure of honesty in the making of such hyperbolic statements. It shows a basic lack of journalistic ethics, and as the saying goes, sir, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
As far as your citation of the survey conducted by Ball State and WISH-TV, that survey encompassed a staggering (sarcasm intended) 602 Hoosiers, resulting in a 5.2% margin of error. The anti-gun Holy Grail of "universal background checks" is also laughable considering that the wording of the question implies no such checks currently exist for gun shows when in fact any individual buying a firearm from a licensed dealer (yes, even at a gun show) must pass a background check. The UBC talking point is couched language for requiring the tracking of all sales, whether between private individuals, family, or friends.
Such a requirement would result in a de facto registry of firearms - which Indiana did, admittedly once have. It was done away with some time ago, and strangely enough gun crime has fallen in Indiana, as it has nationally, by nearly 50% in the last 20 years.
Well said. I'm tired of hearing about background checks. It's just something that they've decided that should be the next big push to get "something". But I think any rebuttal should point out the utter failure of UBC to prevent "gun violence". The mass shooters in all these high profile cases passed UBC, even the terrorists in San Bernardino. The problem with them is the premise that an arbitrary set of criteria can predict who will be too violent to trust with firearms. But they don't really care about that. The purpose of gun control is not to reduce violence but to reduce the number of people who can own guns. Tougher gun laws means fewer gun owners. Fewer gun owners mean fewer people who will fight for their right to bear arms.
The people for "gun control" are generally scared of guns and spout off crap with no facts. What they hope to accomplish is by taking away a tool they'll deter the violence which is never the case. The only way to eliminate crime is to have full "control" over every single human being. We all make decisions and if someone is willing to commit violence they will do it no matter what. People who are not afraid to end their own life and take as many people with them as possible will not abide by any form of "law."
Boston bombing anyone? Mass violence committed with a damn cooking pot.
We are always looking to "control" every facet of our lives, but that is not possible. Stripping guns away from law abiding citizens is not the answer and they're too damn ignorant to realize it.
***Oh another possible solution is to have Tom Cruise go minority report on all the future crimes, which is about as logical as gun control***
Boston bombing anyone? Mass violence committed with a damn cooking pot.
We are always looking to "control" every facet of our lives, but that is not possible. Stripping guns away from law abiding citizens is not the answer and they're too damn ignorant to realize it.
***Oh another possible solution is to have Tom Cruise go minority report on all the future crimes, which is about as logical as gun control***
Might be an interesting read if it weren't for the pay wall.
ETA: Never mind. Apparently they haven't thought of the "reader view" blocking the javascript that blocks the content. Most sites behind pay walls have figured that out.
And when that fails: there's always View Source. There's no way for mere JavaScript to block that.
Don't get me started. Half of their articles have blatant typos and grammar issues, and they want you to pay to view them on the web? LOL.
It's not hard to do a pay wall that defeats disabling javascript. Have the server render the page with the teaser paragraph for nonsubscribers and the whole article for subscribers. No JavaScript is needed on that page (other than ads) to hide the full content. Also viewing source wont help because the source would only have the teaser.
State Rep Jim Lucas threw the gauntlet down, as well.
Column: Are facts on firearms missing the target?
Will be interested to see if Krull gets any more articles, heh.
Column: Are facts on firearms missing the target?
Will be interested to see if Krull gets any more articles, heh.
That only works until the URL for the full article is known publicly.
wow
Sorry about being late on the subject. The "reverend" should be reminded that there is already a law against murder. It is from a far higher authority than any position man can make. It is in the 10 Commandments, just over 1/2 way down. Pretty easy, does not even require legal council to explain it to a person. Maybe the guy needs to take some advanced training, like 1st grade Sunday School at a small Baptist Church. He evidently missed that foundation at his Seminary.
Not to mention, the first historically recorded murder was done with a rock.
