It is reported that there was a man with not just one, but two loaded guns at a local Hibachi in Roanoke, VA. Somehow this man restrained himself from shooting anyone, and also complied with the Virginia law about not drinking while carrying. Additional eyewitnesses report the same man was seen back at a residence just outside Roanoke consuming cocktails while firearms were safely stored away in the guest room. Gun control advocates are skeptical such a gun owner exists, since it is well known your average person is incapable of acting with such restraint when in the presence of firearms.
Heading home first thing tomorrow. Might buy a new pistol when I get back to PA. Will explain later.
I guess I won’t mention the times in Arabia we spent with illicit booze and machine guns without shooting anyone, because there is no way that could have happened.
Well I’ll be darned. Just today, here is a report of a man with a loaded gun, carrying it all over a National Park. Somehow this man restrained himself from shooting anyone, and in fact, is reported not to have frightened any fellow tourists at the park.
It’s amazing, but somehow not all of the predictions of the mayhem and murder in National Parks have materialized.
Learn something every day, I guess.
There was a report of a man with a Glock in a liquor store. Amazing thing. The Glock didn’t try to rob the store and it didn’t even go off on its own. Maybe the Glock is broken?
As Eric Shelton of the Handgun Podcasts always says, “If handguns cause crime, mine’s defective.”
The problem with gun control and anti-violence activists is that they think everyone in the world has their level of self-control. Fortunately, we don’t.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/11/anti-violence_activists_arrest.html
That’s so funny. I can’t stop laughing. Especially this: “Gun control advocates are skeptical such a gun owner exists, since it is well known your average person is incapable of acting with such restraint when in the presence of firearms.”
Actually, at the risk of responding seriously to what was meant in jest, we don’t think anything of the kind. We realize that the majority of you gun owners are responsible. We’re always talking about the smaller percentage who are not, about whom something should be done.
Why do you get so defensive and sarcastic if you’re one of the good ones?
Why do you get so defensive and sarcastic if you’re one of the good ones?
Because the foundation of the gun-control message is built upon spreading the notion that good, law-abiding gun owners can go rogue or get dangerous at any moment.
For example, what is the message behind the “Concealed Killers” canard? That all of us who possess concealed carry licenses are latent killers of innocent citizens, police officers, and others.
That, in part, is why. It’s nice that you can’t stop laughing, Mike, but I suppose you have to be the subject of bigotry and discrimination to understand.
Let’s quote your own words to show why we find your ideas offensive Sparky
http://www.commongunsense.com/2010/11/while-i-was-away.html?showComment=1290182779022#c8646322779399394407
Start from the source — the law abiding ! You are claiming without evidence that law abiding gun owners are the problem and you want to increase restrictions on us.
Wonder if you feel the same way about your camera and computer being part of the problem for child pron, eh?
Should we increase regulations on you because some perv is breaking the law?
http://www.commongunsense.com/2010/10/legal-or-not-that-is-question.html?showComment=1288082046428#c4817484981031569129
Now you accuse us of aiding and abetting criminals — a criminal act in itself if we disagree with you.
According to you MikeB302000 there are no “good ones” — gee wonder why we get offended.
Carl, The message is not that ALL of you can go rogue at any moment. But the fact is some of you do. SOME. In your own words, “the notion that good, law-abiding gun owners can go rogue or get dangerous at any moment,” covers it perfectly. CAN you said.
Bob, You can bluster with your oh-so.righteous indignation all you want, but you give yourself away when you say: “According to you MikeB302000 there are no “good ones†— gee wonder why we get offended.”
I don’t say that. The “good ones” are in the majority. And being good citizens they wouldn’t mind being inconvenienced for the Greater Good.
Some folks argue whether gun control as I see it would really be the greater good. But not you, Bob. You just attack and drop your “child pron” line and lie about what I say.
Is that 15lb test you have on that reel Mike? You hooked some awfully big ones there.
Mike:
You really haven’t got a leg to stand on, here, but I suspect you’ve been taking spin lessons from Dennis Henigan. The fact is that some gun owners can go rogue at any moment. Of course they can. So can some priests, some presidents, some peace advocates. The notion that gun control groups hope to plant into people’s minds is not merely that some can go rogue … but that any of them might rogue. The notion is that they are likely to go rogue. And based on that deceptive thinking, ever more restrictions are justified. Which restrictions? Helmke and the likes of him state that they don’t wish to ban gun ownership. Their actions suggest differently … the fact is that they pursue and promote any manner of restrictions on gun ownership that the public might support, and that legislators might enact. Any restriction, Mike. And hence … the are promoting the notion that any gun owner might or will go rogue at any moment.
Mike, please don’t play clever with me. Because I know the score, I know precisely the intent behind the VPCs “Concealed Carry Killers”, and I know who’s funding them, and why.
Sebastian,
I’m answering MikeB302000 to show what a liar he is.
While he seems moderate on this blog, his words elsewhere show that he has no desire to compromise, that his ‘reasonable restrictions’ are anything but and that he considers all gun owners to be part of the problem.
That is worth responding to the troll — showing his true colors, don’t you agree?
He’s trying to get a reaction. But don’t mistake my poking at MikeB as disapproval for speaking to him in the comments. If I really cared I’d just ban him. So comment way. But he’s accomplishing exactly what he wants, I think.
Sebastian,
He might be accomplishing what he wants but I don’t think he is.
I think he is trying to drive traffic and comments to his blog. Try this experiment and see if he still comments; simply delete the link back to his website from his comments.
For a long time, that was my policy on my blog. He was free to comment but I wouldn’t let his links stand. He quickly reduced the frequency of his comments and whined about the link when he did.
As for as MikeB302000, let me quote some more of his words
Does that sound I am lying about him anyone?
Sebastian, You’ve got me wrong. Bob is an obsessed lunatic and I think you know it. I’ll offer you a test to match his. Take a mental step back and consider my and Bob’s remarks and everything you’ve read of us two. Now tell me who’s the unreasonable one.
As far as my being a troll, which you seem to be pushing a lot lately, I’m not. You presume to read my mind and know my intentions. You’re wrong.
LOL, The troll hits another new low.
For someone who doesn’t do personal attacks, that sounds awfully like a personal attack.
Could it be your blog is loosing readers and you are trying to attract attention Sparky?
Doesn’t seem to matter how long ago someone could have owned a firearm, eh Sparky?
Wonder where I got those words?
Could they have been written two days ago?
Or how about these words
Isn’t that claiming that all gun owners are only ‘claiming’ to be law abiding — isn’t that the say as saying that all gun owners are criminals?
Were those words really written two days ago also?
3 days ago?
Good idea :)
You’re right Bob. Only some gun onwers obey the laws they like and look for ways to circumvent the rest. I should be more careful when I paint with a broad brush.
But, the rest of what you said sounded like the ravings of an obsessed man.
You’ve read my ideas about gun flow and who’s responsible enough to know just what I mean. You just don’t agree with them. That’s all.
It’s true, I blame all of you for that, at least all of you who favor lax gun laws. That doesn’t mean I think every one of you is irresponsible and dangerous. No. You’re just partly responsible for the gun violence that is made possible by the policies you support.
You may think it’s manageable to own a gun anonymously and whenever you want sell it or give it to someone else who may turn out to be even less responsible than you. I’m not OK with any of that.
http://www.commongunsense.com/2010/11/ready-aim-fire.html?showComment=1288964332709#c5188067639705564577
http://www.commongunsense.com/2010/10/legal-or-not-that-is-question.html?showComment=1288082046428#c4817484981031569129
mikeb302000 Said,
November 28th, 2010 at 10:44 am
“I don’t say that. The “good ones†are in the majority. And being good citizens they wouldn’t mind being inconvenienced for the Greater Good.”
For the “Greater Good.” Hmm, that sounds awfully familiar. China introduced a one child policy, for the greater good. This led to a systematical holocaust on baby girls, with more than 15 million baby girls aborted or left to die because they were girls. It also led for China to have too many men. But all for the “greater good”, right?
Anti-gun folks should go to Europe and check out how the strict anti-gun laws in some EU countries have lowered the crime rates.
Oh wait, they haven’t. Crime in countries like the UK or Germany (which both have very strict anti-gun laws) is exploding. Whoops!
But all for the “greater good”, right? Disarm the people, make them perfect victims for criminals. Lovely! Not.
There are some common sense actions that should be followed by gun owners, but should not be law. If I fill out the required forms, I can sell a handgun privately. Common sense tells me that this may increase my liability, so I will involve an FFL. None of this causes crime. Mike is blaming the tool instead of the craftsman. I take issue with his idea of common sense. Common sense tells me that we have more than enough laws IF only they were enforced. There are still more people killed by drunk drivers than by guns. Why are the “common sense” people not trying to reduce that number? Because they drive and that would impact them as well as you.
Pete Said (January 12th, 2011 at 12:00 pm):
There are some common sense actions that should be followed by gun owners, but should not be law. If I fill out the required forms, I can sell a handgun privately. Common sense tells me that this may increase my liability, so I will involve an FFL.
What forms are you required to fill out for a private transfer?
Pete’s right there are too many laws already. Some are obsolete and some are nonsensical. Others could certainly be enforced better. But that doesn’t change the fact that background checks on all transfers and full licensing and registration would give us the improvement we’re all looking for.
The fact that cars kill more people has nothing to do with it.
MikeB302000,
Let’s try a different tack.
Did you ever speed in any of your vehicles? Run stop signs or right lights?
Ever get a ticket for any of those crimes? Ever get a ticket for letting your registration or inspection lapse?
Did you ever let your registration or inspection lapse, correct it without getting a ticket?
Did you ever drive someone else’s car without proper insurance?
If the words written on paper didn’t stop you from breaking the law, how are more words going to stop other criminals?