I've talked with gun shop folks and multiple ones agree with me.

One even said the gun laws are too lax now.

I am against unreasonable laws even guns laws that go too far. Somehow the country must come up with some restraints that protect the gun owner and the public.

Nada else. Period.

You know the facts - why don't you share them?

Why are people online her on DU proffering logical fallacies regarding guns, every turn its some bullshit from terminology to even sound.

A person can listen to multiple youtube vids and hear a .22 is not as loud as freakin jack hammer ... some bullshit

in any case, a silenced .22 at 116 db is louder than an emergency siren. Still pretty loud, don't you think?

... keep pushing these NRA talking points as if no one has a counter them.

Don't know why these logical (or illogical) fallacies are allowed on DU

explain to me why suppressors are such a menace to public safety.

You perhaps could toss in some stats on what types of guns are most commonly used to kill people and might even try to show how suppressors would impact those numbers.

I appreciate your emotions - your hate is pure. Just wondering about your logic.

Modern sirens can develop a sound level of up to 135 decibels at 100 feet (30 m)

I thought assault weapons are what needed to be banned?

Can we at least agree that the most dangerous rifles and the ones used most often in mass killings are louder than jackhammers when silenced?

... not mine.

Matter of fact, seems like a false meme all together... DBs from an emergency siren at 10 feet is way louder than many of those firearms with a silencer.

Going back to the silencer legislation ... its dumb, another WMD Firearm enhancer just like the bump mod.

There's no reason to make these things easier to get and untrackable.

you found the one rifle that is not louder than a jackhammer to try to deflect the conversation.

... either way.

Its dumb legislation, making it easier to get another WMD enhancement isn't what America needs

Last edited Thu Oct 5, 2017, 09:46 AM - Edit history (1)

can we move past the hand waving and actually hear your logic?

Quite a bit hysteria surrounding suppressors on the board, but hey don't seem to be much of a problem where the a lawful for civilians to own.

... red herring of narrowing my position down to your set of guns.

You'll break a sweat moving it like that.

... of "louder than a jackhammer" which has been proven to be bullshit on a stick ... has given any proof of that shit.

These logical fallacies must be written on an NRA card or something because I see them over and over especially on winger sites

Then you hefted that goal post to mean 22's.

Don't strain yourself.

New Zealand for that matter?

Why allow suppressors in the first place?

The “protect hearing” crap is absolute bullshit! If you’re worried about your hearing, then wear ear plugs or other forms of hearing protection.

In an event where a suppressor is used, no, it won’t be totally silent, but what it does do is limit the ability to localize where shots are coming from!

I have a good bit of land that I co-own with three cousins. I’d sure as hell like to know where shots are coming from before walking around blindly onto our land.

This whole ”sportsman’s hearing” act is a load of horse crap. Either wear hearing protection or don’t but allowing suppressors is just another give away to the gun industry.

Not especially high, but a considerable number hunt and I think there is an argument in favor of suppressors for noise mitigation. Hearing protection is not an ideal solution for hunters in the field, even the highest quality aren't as effective as natural hearing.

Noise mitigation is the last thing I want when I’m on my land hunting...and in high density populations, most states only allow bow and shotguns, are you going to put a suppressor on a shotgun?

That muted "twang" can really disturb a peaceful morning.

Didn’t know I’d been missing out for so many years! Next thing your going to tell me is that I need a suppressor for my muzzleloader cause it helps with accuracy!

Adorable gun advocates, assuming that everyone who doesn't worship guns is an idiot!

Similarly, I believe that you value guns over human life, as evidenced by your hundreds of posts on the subject.

Every gun tragedy reminds me again why I put good ol' Wayne's propagandists on Ignore.

Accessible database believes as well?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7941063

Would you like to attempt to pretend once again this isn't for the hoped- for purpose of harassment, or worse?

BTW, if I'm on ignore, why are you responding?

And you did not disappoint.

I stand by the call for the database, and I have never seen a single valid argument against it.

Yes, some gun advocate will predictably declare that it would violate their privacy, but of course that's bullshit. All sorts of personal information is freely accessible to the public, so guns should be afforded no special sacrosanct status.

And attractive for theft as firearms? In reality, you don't accept any argument in opposition as valid becuase you desire legal gun owners to be subject to harassment, or worse as I suspect.

My home ownership is publicly listed, but the contents are not.

Therefore it is acceptable to publish a record people's gun ownership, but the contents of the weapon (i.e., whether or not it is currently loaded). While we're at it, it's not necessary to publish the location of the precious, precious guns; you can store them in a safe in a pile in your living room or in the bathtub. The public has a right to know of the ownership of these precious, precious guns, but their specific location is privileged information.

I don't believe that gun owners would be subject to harassment, and I don't believe that gun owners believe it either. If they were concerned about people harassing them because of their precious, precious guns, then no one would open-carry, no one would sport visible gun racks in their vehicles, no one would post gun-porn pics on their social media, and no one would post "I DON'T CALL 911" signs on their lawns.

Store their firearms? Do you honestly believe that a location could never be determined by someone planning a theft? Would this database include the manufacturer and model, thereby giving indication of value?

Last edited Tue Oct 3, 2017, 01:18 PM - Edit history (1)

There is a market for stolen firearms, why on earth would you wish to provide gun thieves with location
Information? With valuable information with which they can target selected homes based on the value of the firearms
Listed in the database? How does this make any sense from s public safety perspective? Other than by researching this database you propose, how is anyone to know whether or not my home contains firearms?

Potential usage of your proposed gun owner database for the purpose of targeting specific persons and locations for theft or worse. Are you honestly suggesting there is no market for stolen firearms?

I am acutely aware of gun owners' famous inability to keep their precious, precious guns secure. Why would you imagine otherwise? It's not as though I haven't been quite explicit in this regard.

This, in fact, is the value of the database. When your precious, precious guns are stolen, you--as a responsible gun owner--will quickly be aware of it, and you will responsibly report the theft to the authorities. The guns will then be flagged as stolen, so that if/when they show up in a crime (including, of course, the illegal resale of stolen guns), then you're off the hook because you've taken the responsible step.

However, if you are so irresponsible as to fail to notice the theft, or if you fail to report it, then you are complicit in subsequent crimes committed with the guns because you will have, in essence, supplied them. Why would you fail in your most basic responsibility of gun ownership?

Would you risk increasing the potentiality of targeted theft with a publicly accessible database? That's simply contemptible.

This isn't difficult to understand:
If gun owners can't accept the responsibilities of gun ownership, then maybe they shouldn't own guns.

Part of that responsibility is the secure storage and safe maintenance of their precious, precious guns.

I provided counter-examples to reveal your fear as unjustified, yet still you cling to it. Other official information regarding public safety (sale of alcohol, storage of medications, fiduciary responsibility, etc.) is commonly and readily available to the public. Why are gun owners so terrified?

You parrot good ol' Wayne's propaganda about the danger of gun theft; do you fail to comprehend that alcohol and prescription medications are also heavily targeted for theft? How can these licensed businesses be so brave while gun owners are so terrified?

What makes gun owners think that they must be afforded some special, protected status simply because they're afraid that someone will covet their precious, precious guns?


See my earlier--and IMO increasingly convincing--observation that your real fear is actually that The Gubmint will confiscate your precious, precious guns.

It would indeed be more difficult for criminals to obtain firearms if there were far fewer firearms available overall.

Of course, you are also arguing that gun owners can't be held responsible for the secure storage of their guns simply because criminals want to steal those guns. Even you must recognize that this is preposterous, yes?

A gun advocate might object that they have the right to own whatever they want and store it however they want, and that might be true in fantasy land, but not here. Certainly it's not true of pharmacies, which are legally responsible for the security of the medications they keep on site--even though they have the right to possess those medications. Even though prescription drugs are highly coveted for black market resale.


Why are gun owners so uniquely terrified?

State in the union require this?

The responsible storage of the gun is up to the responsible gun owner. Don't tell me that you'd embrace an authoritarian Federal regime telling you how to store your precious, precious guns!

Are gun owners so irresponsible that they are unable to secure their precious, precious guns without The Gubmint telling them how to do it? As with much else in this debate, you are outsourcing the responsibilities of gun ownership to parties other than the gun owners--in this case, ot the dreaded nanny state! Why do you shun responsibility in this way?

I have previously seen DU's gun advocates claim that so-called "gun safes" are anything but safe. I suppose that such graham cracker & tissue paper constructions are so fragile that even the most casual of interlopers can readily help himself to a responsible gun owner's precious, precious guns.

Well too fucking bad. Secure your guns. And if you can't be bothered to secure them, then you probably should own them.

Illumating indeed. It simply reinforces my original suspicion that the entire point of this proposal of yours is to facilitate harassment of gun owners with the objective to compel them to disarm. Prove me wrong, if you can.

Since I'm not advocating for guns, why the fuck should I know the federal regulations for gun storage? Much more relevant to hold responsible gun owners responsible for their precious, precious guns.

Within your home, their relative values, your full legal name, and address as I asked you to do. As you failed to do so, might I assume unjustified paranoia on your part that someone may take notice and burglarize your home? According to you, such a concern is silly. So, how about it?

But when I call you out for your obvious paranoia and terror, you get all ruffled about it.

Personal property listed in a public database. None whatsoever, as no one will care or even notice for that part. You've guaranteed me this database would never be used to select a target for theft, why the irrational fear?

You expended a great deal of effort assuring me that a gun owner has absolutely no concern over having potentially valuable and possibly theft-attractive personal property listed in a database that anyone can view, that no gun owners household could possibly be targeted based on the publicly available inventory of firearms. I should think this guarantee of security would also apply to other personal possessions within a household, more so for thr mundane. That being the case, why would be reluctant to share publicly the contents of your household? It's almost as if you are afraid. What are you afraid of?

Any other info relevant to establishing the value of these items along with your legal name and the address. If this doesn't increase the potentiality of theft in your mind, you shouldn't have any reasonable objection.

Name for me the types of items that I might have in my home that could facilitate a mass killing.

Since my possessions do not pose a reasonable threat to public safety, the obligation to disclose them is much less than the obligation to disclose the ownership of your precious, precious guns.

However, when I carried an insurance license, that information was publicly available, even though I possessedconfidential health information about my clients. And when I had my Series 7, I maintained confidential financial information about my clients.

Holy shit, you're right! I'm lucky that no evildoers broke into my house to steal this information that they could reasonably ascertain from the publicly accessible record of my license! Whew!

Certainly is at least one catagory of item which can, and has, facilitated a mass killings. I find this oversight on your part curious, it seems to suggest a very narrow train of thought on this subject. As you know, knives are manufactured for different purposes and some configurations are more effective for the killing of humans than others. I, for one, would like to know what types you possess. Anything other than those used for food prep or basic utility could be cause for public concern.

Where to begin destroying that idiotic point? Hmm...

The number of knives in the US exceeds the number of firearms by several orders of magnitude. Therefore, any nonsensical point that you think you're going to make about knife lethality relative to guns (e.g., "but you can stab ten people with one knife," etc.) must be divided by 1000. Ask good ol' Wayne what he wants you to say after that.

Of course, this ties in directly to the larger point that you are incapable of addressing, that guns are used to cause more deliberate deaths annually than any other machine or object. Every point that you think you are making is simply an obvious and feeble attempt to distract from that irrefutable truth.

I reject good ol' Wayne's idiotic talking point and will not be distracted by it.

You asked for me to identify the items in your home which could facilitate a mass killing. I did just that. In order to assess the level of potential threat to public safety you may pose, I think it in the public interest to know how many and what types you possess. More than what would be considered necessary for culinary or basic utility may indicate a psychological issue, an unhealthy obsession with weaponry which may suggest an intervention is necessary.

Deer will still jump the string if they're far enough out.

Topography and atmospheric conditions could create some bizarre acoustics. Folks shooting far off on the adjacent property could sound as is they were firing off the back porch. A bit of an exaggeration, but not by much. Hunting season was hard on the animals due mainly to the gunshot noise.

The bowstring silencers are rubber devices that stop the twang so that a deer doesn't "jump the shot", since an arrow is only going a few hundred feet per second but sound travels at 1000 feet per second.

But they do exist.



And before you ask, no, I don't really think anyone needs one of these.

Sounds ridiculous but I didn’t know that! Guess I need to up my hunting game!

I want to know where every potential mass murderer is and hear their guns. It's the only chance normal people have avoiding getting gunned down. Actually let's make them have a recording, I am dangerous, my kind has the potential to gun people down. Run and seek shelter. Maybe we can have guns made to be visible also. Like international orange. Also gun owners should have to carry a visible sign stating they are potential mass murderers.

You think I am kidding? You guys could have stayed in your DU hole for a few more days. Yet here you are educating us and adding your pathetic excuses for more murder. Go. Hide in your DU hole for a few more days and then maybe the vileness of what you support can be tolerated. Hide in your little DU gun group and cheer, educate, stroke, whatever you people do there. But don't come out and start trying to normalize this. I'm not having it.

BTW, are you a motor vehicle or knife owner? Both have been used in recent years to commit mass murder, with the Renault truck in the Nice attack producing a higher death toll (so far at any rate) than the LV shooter.

The world would come to an absolute standstill if guns were banned. Can you imagine? Not everyone can walk and bike to work.

Motor vehicles are potential mass murderers based on the fact that vehicles have been used to commit mass murder.

In the US, how many are killed annually by deliberate vehicular homicide? Hell, let's throw in deliberate vehicular suicide while we're at it.

Does it approach the 30,000+ annual firearm deaths?


No? Then your desperate comparison is foolish and offensive.

Able to determine what it is? Unless, of course, you have driven into incoherence by offense

Because a method of transportation was used as a weapon does not then make it a weapon. It doesn't change the definition or categorization. If I use a banana as a hammer, it doesn't then mean that bananas should then be classified as tools. They're still food.

I ask, what can be done to attempt to prevent a recurrence?

The vast majority of the time, they are used as such. Weapons are always used as weapons. Because they actually are weapons. You can ask what can be done to attempt to prevent a recurrence, but you're being disingenuous by comparing methods of transportation with weapons and declaring they are the same, and declaring if weapons bans can be called for than so can methods of transportation for they are also weapons! No, because they aren't weapons, even if in a few instances they are used that way.

Globally on objects which can be utilized as improvised weapons. Considering the carnage at Nice, (and several subsequent motor vehicle attakcs) I think it's time to consider all motor vehicles as improvised weapons.

Restrictions are for other stuff. Not guns! That's a losing fight that Dems should drop, like, right now! thingy 'cause you had problems with my other posts in this thread.

You falsely attempted to posit an equivalence between mass murder by vehicles and mass murder by guns. Anyone not blinded by gun advocacy recognizes that such a comparison is idiotic. I invite you to reflect upon it before you continue to portray yourself as a guns-above-all campaigner.

You imagine some silly "potential mass murder" scenario, but of course that's a useless criterion because it ignores reality. I might be a mass murderer with this pack of ramen noodles--we should ban ramen noodles!

Instead of entertaining the talking points that you parrot from good ol' Wayne, we should consider the actual fact that guns are used to cause more deliberate death than any other machine you can name.


Any analogy that you use in a desperate attempt to rationalize your gun advocacy is obviously false.

Potential mass murder scenario"? You must be insensible with offense having posted such a thing.

One of your fellow gun advocates has dismissed the current slaughter as an anomaly from which we can draw no conclusions, so your example is equally an anomaly to be discarded.

Instead, why don't you answer the actual question: annually, how many deliberate deaths are caused by vehicles? How many deliberate deaths are caused by firearms?


Funny how those adorable gun advocates want to posit false equivalencies when it suits their pro-gun agenda, but they reject all comparisons when it contradicts the propaganda that they parrot from good ol' Wayne.

As always, good ol' Wayne's propagandists love to shoot first, generally without understanding the situation.

You have demonstrated this time and again, generally in the immediate aftermath of whatever mass shooting is most current.


Like any gun advocate, you are rejecting facts that contradict your propaganda pamphlets. You are rejecting the irrefutable fact that guns are used to cause more deliberate death than any other machine or method.

In your desperation to ignore this fact, you are comically insisting that you are in control of the discussion, which you certainly are not.


You are unimpressive.

To inflict a higher death count than the LV shooter. It would seem logical that, if public safety was tour primary interest, you would wish to see measures implemented to make this more difficult in the future however I've seen nothing from you. How am I to interpret this?

Gun advocates reject the "it was designed as a weapon" argument when it is convenient for them to do so. You can't simply embrace that argument when it serves your agenda.

Why are you so terrified to acknowledge the irrefutable fact that guns are used to cause more deliberate death annually than any other machine or object? Why are you so afraid to accept the reality of your precious, precious guns?

offers some ideas or proposals for a discussion on how to prevent a Nice type event in the future?

Apparently you misunderstood.

As noted previously (and correctly), gun advocates reject the current gun massacre as an anomaly and therefore not relevant to ehte overall issue of gun safety. Yet you desperately want to claim that an isolated incident of vehicular mass murder must be held up as emblematic of vehicular violence in general. Why would you engage in this dishonest double standard?

I wrote:

"Why don't you offers some ideas or proposals for a discussion on how to prevent a Nice type event in the future?"

You replied

"Either repeal the 2nd amendment outright or else formally recognize that "militia" doesn't mean what good ol' Wayne and his propagandists (including Scalia et al) insist that it means. Thereafter, regulate guns to a level appropriate to their proven lethality."

Thats not an answer to the question I asked. Try again.