Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics

July 31st, 2012   Submitted by Davi Barker

Firearm prohibitionists love to use tragedy to leverage their agenda. So, it’s important for gun rights advocates to stand their ground and fire back (proverbially) whenever this happens.

I posted a graphic on Facebook claiming the average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 18.25, and the average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by civilians is 2.2. I based it on 10 shootings I found listed on some timeline somewhere. I honestly don’t even remember where. I presented the case studies in a blog post on the Silver Circle blog and I did the math myself.

The graphic was met with great enthusiasm and much skepticism. Leave it to Facebook users to demand an audit on a meme. So, I started over, only much more meticulous this time. I compiled and analyzed 100 shootings, noting my methodology, and I am now prepared to present my findings, complete with links to the data. But here’s a spoiler… It’s not that different.

The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29

The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33

I was so close! Here’s what I think accounts for the difference. In the first sample there was likely a selection error based on what grabs headlines. Larger shootings get more press, so if you take a small sampling you’re going to be working with a data set of the worst shootings. As for the consistency of the civilian statistic, it makes perfect sense if you think about from inside the mind of a heroic civilian with a concealed carry permit. It goes something like this:

BANG!
“Holy crap! that guy shot that other guy.”
BANG!
“He’s just going to keep shooting people.”
BANG!

And the shooter goes down.

Quite a few cases went something like that. In fact, I found only one example of a shooter stopped by civilians who killed more than three people. Jared Loughner killed 6 people in Tucson, Arizona before he was tackled by two civilians. An astute reader informed me that at least one of the civilians that helped stop Jared Loughner was carrying a concealed weapon, but he did not use his gun out of concern for innocent bystanders.

I want to be perfectly clear. I am not much of a firearms enthusiast. I don’t own a firearm. I’ve only ever been shooting twice. For me it’s not an issue of gun rights. It’s about property rights. A person has a natural right to own a hunk of iron in any damn shape they want, and they shouldn’t be criminalized until they use that hunk of iron to harm someone. People can argue crime statistics ’till they’re blue in face. I frankly don’t care about people’s ideas for managing society.

What I am is a math enthusiast. So, without further delay, here’s how I arrived at these numbers.

Step One: Amassing a data set

I searched for timelines of shootings and selected 5 that appeared the most comprehensive.

  1. Info Please
  2. CNN
  3. Denver Post
  4. News Max
  5. TruTV

While doing this I learned some important vocabulary. A “spree shooting” is when a killer murders in multiple locations with no break between murders. As in the Virginia Tech killer who began shooting in one hall, and then walked across campus and continued shooting in another hall. A “mass shooting” is when a killer murders multiple people, usually in a single location. As in the Fort Hood shooter who killed 13 people at one military base. A “school shooting” can be either of these as long as one or more locations is a school. As in the Columbine shooting, which is also classified as a spree shooting because they went from room to room. The term “rampage shooting” is used to describe all of these, and does not differentiate between them. So that is the term I’ll be using from here on out.

As many have pointed out, none of the weapons involved are “automatic weaponry” or “assault rifles” but they are often misreported as such by media outlets that lack knowledge of firearms.

I selected these lists because they were the most comprehensive of those that I found, and I was seeking as large a data set as possible. I combined them all, including the first 10 from my previous post, and removed all redundant data for a total list of 100 shootings.

Step Two: Trimming irrelevant data.

While the list was comprehensive, the details about each shooting were not. In each shooting I had a date and a location, but often important details, like the number of people killed, or how the shooter was apprehended were missing. So, I set to the long task researching each incident to fill in the missing data. I didn’t incorporate the number of wounded people because so many were not reported. But the reason they call a single death a shooting rampage is because there were many injuries. All relevant data is contained in the links in the finished list below or in the timelines linked above. Most of the data came from either Wikipedia, a mainstream news article about the incident, or a handy resource I discovered called Murderpedia.

Next I removed incidents that did not fit within the scope of this analysis. Even though every incident on the list was a shooting, not every incident was a rampage shooting. So, I selected for incidents that included at least some indiscriminate targeting of bystanders. I removed incidents like Dedric Darnell Owens who shot and killed his classmate Kayla Rolland and then threw his handgun in a wastebasket (*meaning I removed incidents where the shooter killed all he was going to kill and stopped, because neither police or civilians actually reduced the deaths at the scene.) And I removed incidents like Michele Kristen Anderson who killed her entire family at a Christmas Party. So what remained were specifically rampage shootings in which a killer went someplace public and began firing at random people.

Suicide presented a tricky variable in the analysis. Roughly half of the remaining rampage shooters ended their own lives. So, I removed all incidents where the shooter killed themselves before police arrived reasoning that they had killed all they were going to kill and police had no impact in stopping them. Theoretically these incidents could have been stopped sooner by a civilian, but let’s not speculate. What I left in were incidents where shooters commit suicide after engaging the police, either during a shootout with police, or after a chase. I included, for example, Jiverly Wong, who witnesses say stopped shooting and killed himself as soon as he heard sirens but before police arrived, crediting the police’s response time with stopping the murders. But I did not include the shooters themselves in the total number of people killed.

I also removed cases like Edward Charles Allaway who shot up a library, then fled to a nearby hotel and called police to turn himself in, and cases like Darrell Ingram who shot up a high school dance and fled the scene only to be apprehended later after a long investigation. I was only looking for incidents when intervention from police or civilian saved lives.

What remained was 32 cases of gunmen firing indiscriminately whose rampage was cut short through the intervention of either a civilian or a police officer.

Step Three: The List

I divided the remaining cases into two categories, those stopped by police and those stopped by civilians. I included both armed and unarmed civilians for reasons that will become clear in the final analysis. I also removed cases like Dominick Maldonado and Charles Joseph Whitman. Moldonado went on a shooting rampage in a shopping mall in Tacoma, Washington, and ultimately surrendered to police but was confronted by two legally armed civilians who interrupted his shooting. They did not fire for fear of hitting innocent bystanders. Whitman climbed a tower at the University of Texas in Austin, Texas and began shooting at other students and faculty with a sniper rifle. The police who stopped Charles Whitman were assisted by a civilian with a more powerful rifle. I’m calling incidents like this an assist from civilians and removing them from the analysis as anomalies.

  • 9/6/1949 – Howard Barton Unruh went on a shooting rampage in Camden, New Jersey with a German Luger. He shot up a barber shop, a pharmacy and a tailor’s shop killing 13 people. He finally surrendered after a shoot-out with police.
  • 7/18/1984 – James Oliver Huberty shot up a McDonalds in San Ysidro, California killing 21 people before police shot and killed him.
  • 10/16/1991 – George Hennard entered Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas and began indiscriminately shooting the patrons. He killed 23 people in all. He committed suicide after being cornered and wounded in a shootout with police.
  • 12/7/1993 – Colin Ferguson brought a handgun into a Long Island Rail Road car and opened fire at random. He killed six people before passengers Michael O’Connor, Kevin Blum and Mark McEntee tackled him while reloading.
  • 11/15/1995 – Jamie Rouse used a .22-caliber semi-automatic rifle to fire indiscriminately inside Richland High School in Lynnville, Tennessee. He killed two people before being tackled by a football player and a coach.
  • 2/2/1996 – Barry Loukaitis entered Frontier Middle School in Moses Lake, Washington with a rifle and two handguns. He killed three people before the Gym teacher, Jon Lane grabbed the rifle and wrestled the gunman to the ground.
  • 10/1/1997 – Luke Woodham put on a trench coat to conceal a hunting rifle and entered Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. He killed three students before vice principal Joel Myrick apprehended him with a Colt .45 without firing.
  • 12/1/1997 – Michael Carneal brought a pistol, two rifles and two shotguns to his high school in Paducah, Kentucky and opened fire on a small prayer group killing three girls. His rampage was halted when he was tackled by another student.
  • 4/24/1998 – Andrew Wurst attended a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania intent on killing a bully but shot wildly into the crowd. He killed one student. James Strand lived next door. When he heard the shots he ran over with his 12 gauge shotgun and apprehended the gunman without firing.
  • 5/21/1998 – Kipland Kinkel entered Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon with two pistols and a semi-automatic rifle hidden under a trench coat. He opened fire killing two students, but while reloading a wounded student named Jacob Ryker tackled him.
  • 4/20/1999 – Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were the killers behind the Columbine shooting in Littleton, Colorado. The two both commit suicide after police arrived, but what many people do not know is that the school’s armed security guard and the police all stood and waited outside the library while executions happed right inside. Fifteen people died, not including the shooters.
  • 7/31/1999 – Mark Barton was a day trader who went on a shooting rampage through two day trading firms in Atlanta, Georgia. He killed 12 people in all and after a police chase he was surrounded by police at a gas station where he commit suicide.
  • 1/16/2002 – Peter Odighizuwa opened fire with a handgun at The Appalachian School in Grundy, Virginia. Three people were killed before the shooter was apprehended by three students, Mikael Gross, Ted Besen, and Tracy Bridges with handguns without firing.
  • 8/27/2003 – Salvador Tapia entered an auto parts store in Chicago, Illinois and shot and killed six people with a handgun. He then waged a gunbattle with police before a SWAT team fatally wounded him.
  • 9/24/2003 – John Jason McLaughlin brought a .22-caliber pistol to Rocori High School in Cold Spring, Minnesota. He killed two people before PE teacher Mark Johnson confronted him, disarmed him, and held him in the school office for police to arrive.
  • 2/25/2005 – David Hernandez Arroyo Sr. opened fire on a public square from the steps of a courthouse in Tyler, Texas. The shooter was armed with a rifle and wearing body armor. Mark Wilson fired back with a handgun, hitting the shooter but not penetrating the armor. Mark drew the shooter’s fire, and ultimately drove him off, but was fatally wounded. Mark was the only death in this incident.
  • 3/21/2005 – Jeff Weise was a student at Red Lake High School in Red Lake, Minnesota. He killed seven people including a teacher and a security guard. When police cornered him inside the school, he shot and killed himself.
  • 11/8/2005 – Kenneth Bartley, Jr. brought a .22 caliber pistol to Campbell County Comprehensive High School in Jacksboro, Tennessee and killed 1 person before being disarmed by a teacher.
  • 9/29/2006 – Eric Hainstock brought a .22 caliber revolver and a 20-gauge shotgun into Weston High School in Cazenovia, Wisconson. He killed one person before staff and students apprehended him and held him until the police arrived.
  • 4/16/2007 – Seung-Hui Cho was the shooter behind the Virgina Tech shooting in Blacksburg, Virginia. Police apprehend the wrong suspect allowing the shooter to walk across campus and open fire again in a second location. He eventually committed suicide after murdering 32 people.
  • 12/9/2007 – Matthew J. Murray entered the Youth With A Mission training center in Arvada, Colorado and killed two people, then went to the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado killing two more. He was shot and injured by church member Jeanne Assam and committed suicide before police arrived.
  • 9/3/2008 – Isaac Zamora went on a shooting rampage in Alger, Washington that killed six people, including a motorist shot during a high speed chase with police. He eventually surrendered to police.
  • 3/29/2009 – Robert Stewart went on a killing rampage armed with a rifle, and a shotgun in a nursing home in Carthage, North Carolina. He killed eight people and was apprehended after a shootout with police.
  • 4/3/2009 – Jiverly Wong went on a shooting rampage at a American Civic Association immigration center in Binghamton, New York where he was enrolled in a citizenship class. Thirteen people were killed before the shooter killed himself. Witnesses say he turned the gun on himself as soon as he heard police sirens approaching.
  • 11/5/2009 – Nidal Malik Hasan was the shooter behind the Fort Hood shooting at a military base just outside Killeen, Texas. The shooter entered the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, where personnel are disarmed, armed with a laser sighted pistol and a Smith & Wesson revolver. He killed 13 people before he was shot by a Civilian Police officer.
  • 2/12/2010 – Amy Bishop went on a shooting rampage in classroom at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Alabama. She killed three people before the Dean of the University, Debra Moriarity pushed her out of the room and blockaded the door. Bishop was arrested later.
  • 1/8/2011 – Jared Lee Loughner is charged with the shooting in Tucson, Arizona that killed 6 people, including Chief U.S. District Court Judge John Roll. He was stopped when he was tackled by two civilians.
  • 2/27/2012 – T.J. Lane entered Chardon High School in Chardon, Ohio with a handgun and started shooting. Three students died. The shooter was chased out of the building by a teacher and apprehended by police later.
  • 4/22/2012 – Kiarron Parker opened fire in a church parking lot in Aurora, Colorado. Parker killed one person before being shot and killed by a member of the congregation who was carrying concealed.
  • 7/20/2012 – James Holmes went into a crowded movie theater in Aurora, Colorado and opened fire with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. Twelve people were killed, before the shooter surrendered to police.
  • 8/5/2012 – Wade Michael Page entered a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin and opened fire killing six people. He committed suicide after being shot by police.
  • 12/14/12 – Adam Lanza entered Sandy Hook Elementary School with two handguns and a rifle, going room-to-room shooting students and staff. He killed 27 in all including 20 children, and committed suicide after police arrived.

Step Four: Final analysis

With 15 incidents stopped by police with a total of 217 dead that’s an average of about 14.29. With 17 incidents stopped by civilians and 45 dead that’s an average of 2.33.

The first point I want to draw your attention to is that roughly half of shooting rampages end in suicide anyway. What that means is that police are not ever in a position to stop most of them. Only the civilians present at the time of the shooting have any opportunity to stop those shooters. That’s probably more important than the statistic itself. In a shooting rampage, counting on the police to intervene at all is a coin flip at best.

Second, within the civilian category 11 of the 17 shootings were stopped by unarmed civilians. What’s amazing about that is that whether armed or not, when a civilian plays hero it seems to save a lot of lives. The courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas was the only incident where the heroic civilian was killed. In that incident the hero was armed with a handgun and the villain was armed with a rifle and body armor. If you compare the average of people killed in shootings stopped by armed civilians and unarmed civilians you get 1.8 and 2.6 but that’s not nearly as significant as the difference between a proactive civilian, and a cowering civilian who waits for police.

So, given that far fewer people die in rampage shootings stopped by a proactive civilian, only civilians have any opportunity to stop rampage shootings in roughly half of incidents, and armed civilians do better on average than unarmed civilians, wouldn’t you want those heroic individuals who risk their lives to save others to have every tool available at their disposal?

* Updated 12/15/2012 – This article was originally posted shortly after the Dark Knight premier shooting in Aurora, Colorado, but I have continued to refine the data set and update the statistics. I am especially grateful to all the knowledgeable commenters who have helped correct my errors. I was also contacted by a college professor who I supplied with all my research notes, so they can be peer-reviewed and perhaps published in a more academic setting. So, in light of the recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut that has left 27 dead, including 20 children, I updated this article to reflect shootings that have occurred since the Aurora, Colorado shooting, and corrected the errors that readers brought to my attention. I have preserved the integrity of the original analysis and have only updated the raw numbers and a few factual errors.

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

12,776 Responses to “Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics”

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      Breitbart. Pure unadulterated rubbish and hate speech. It’s where all those that live in fear and ignorance congregate.

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        And YOU are the arbiter of truth?

        Pause while I clean my monitors.

        Please post a warning to put down drinks and swallow food before you bring forth another blatant falsehood of that nature..

      • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

        well,both the number of CCW applications and the number enrolled in soteorocare are public record.Reference it.

  1. You actually make it appear so easy with your presentation but I find this matter to be actually something which I think I might never understand. It sort of feels too complex and very huge for me. I’m having a look ahead for your next post, I’ll attempt to get the grasp of it!

  2. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Yet another “responsible gun owner”

    Ohio Man Arrested With 48 Bombs, Detonators And Other Weapons In His Car
    by Liam O’Connor
    An Ohio man pulled over for speeding has been arrested after police found 48 bombs, firearms, detonators and schematics for more explosives in his car.

    Andrew Scott Boguslawski has been charged with illegally making or possessing explosive devices. He was stopped on New Years Eve for doing 85 mph in a 70 mph zone. The arresting officer asked if he had any weapons in his car. Boguslawski said he didn’t, but when the officer returned with a speeding ticket, he noticed the butt of a gun between the suspect’s legs. The officer then drew his service weapon, trained it on Boguslawski, and called for backup.

    Investigators are not sure what his plans were. What they have said is that Boguslawski works at a Navy SEALS training facility in Indiana, and among his possessions were “schematics and other plans for buildings” that may have been for the SEALS base.

    According to Gawker.com:

    “One prosecutor told Dispatch.com that Boguslawski mentioned to a trooper that he planned to make an explosive vest.”

    While no details have been released about Boguslawski’s motives or political ties, his car had a bumper sticker which read “IF YOU CAN READ THIS, YOU’RE IN RANGE” a well-known mantra among extreme right-wing terrorists. More details are likely to be released as investigators analyze items seized from his car, including a GPS system, a camera and a laptop.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      Nut job and a dumbshit.. Not a “responsible” gun owner any more than you are a Constitutionalist. For one thing, ya don’t transport explosives and detonators in close proximity. For another, if ya don’t want to be caught, ya drive at or below the speed limit. Third, ya don’t have a handgun in sight AFTER telling the cop ya don’t have any.

  3. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    “Half truth, obfuscation, redefinition, misdirection, and outright lies. Slander, evasion, fabrication, deceit, false accusations, and statistical chicanery”

    Let’s see, this: “My guess would be a figment of your imagination,or a result of some of the ‘shrooms for your latest trip to Oregon.”…would fall under evasion it seems.

  4. Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

    Wow Mark: I am sure that if we had laws banning every single gun that you do not like, then this man would have not have had a gun. Just like we have laws that ban all kinds of drugs that you do not like, and we never have anyone dying from drug overdoses. Not only that, but people in intractable pain can get easy access, under a doctors care, to whatever medication that they need to relieve their suffering — cause the government knows what it is doing.

    Examples of the government being in almost complete control, and knowing what it is doing:
    Native Americans
    VA hospitals
    The military and sexual assault and suicides due to toxic officers
    The budget.
    Should I go on?

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      mark knows what’s best for everyone. He’ll decide what should be allowed.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      “Wow Mark: I am sure that if we had laws banning every single gun that you do not like, then this man would have not have had a gun.”

      Straw man and a bonus nirvana fallacy. I have never advocated anything even close to that. Seems like another one of those right-wing lie things spinning out of control. You should try confining your arguments to things I actually said.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      “Examples of the government being in almost complete control, and knowing what it is doing:
      Native Americans
      VA hospitals
      The military and sexual assault and suicides due to toxic officers
      The budget.
      Should I go on?”

      Safe highways
      Safe airways
      Military far above other countries
      Safe food
      Safe drugs
      Automobiles with increasing safety and fuel efficiency
      The space program
      Research into cures for diseases
      Should I go on?

      • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

        Safe highways
        Safe airways
        Military far above other countries
        Safe food
        Safe drugs
        Automobiles with increasing safety and fuel efficiency
        The space program
        Research into cures for diseases
        Should I go on?

        Except that most of that is just flat out wrong. Some of this we can not evaluate such as safe highways since there is nothing to compare it to. There is no evidence that the gov makes the airways safe, and an abundant amount of evidence that the FAA is the subject of regulatory capture. What makes airlines safe is the fact that crashing planes is both very expensive and inefficient. It would not be hard to make the case that if the FAA were to vanish tomorrow that airline safety might well improve. Certainly none that it would get worse.

        Military above other countries… and your point is? That we can waste vast amounts of money while being the only imperial power on the planet with a defense planet at least 40% of that of the rest of the planet, most of whom are our allies. And we have more Carrier battle groups than everyone else combined. Well maybe one shy. OK I give you that one.

        Safe food. ON what planet do you reside? Just do a search on food poisoning. What keeps food safe it the fear of being sued into bankruptcy, not the bought off FDA. In fact, given our obesity and bad health, that constitutes prima facie evidence that the gov is a wholly owned subsidiary of big pharma and the food industrial complex

        Safe drugs. At least 100K deaths each year from legal drugs used as per directions. That is a definition of safe that only a moron would make that statement.

        And this is based on almost zero online research on my part. I could trash most of the rest, but I would be wasting my time since you are clearly immune to actual verifiable information

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Nirvana fallacy dude.

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            He is not comparing those agencies with perfection, he’s comparing them with not having them at all. The FDA is responsible for killing about 70,000 people in one single act, which it proudly proclaimed by saying “FDA approves drug (propranolol) which will save about 10,000 people/year!” What they didn’t say was that the drug was already approved in Europe, and the approval process takes 7 years. Come to think of it, the approval process for that single drug nearly tied the entire firearms homicide rate of the entire nation, carry-banned places included, for nearly an entire decade! And you think they are not only good, but necessary!! Furthermore, that’s just one drug out of many. Indeed, the FDA itself admits that approved drugs kill 100,000 people per year, about ten times the firearms homicide rate (carry-ban places included). http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/hidden-in-plain-view -fda-murder/ Without so much as accepting a dollar in fines or a day in jail. And yet you’re here not only (1) trying to further restrict firearms rights and (2) telling us that the FDA is and does good. Broken moral compass.

            Oh – and no nirvana fallacy either.

            • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

              “The FDA is responsible for killing about 70,000 people in one single act, which it proudly proclaimed by saying “FDA approves drug (propranolol) which will save about 10,000 people/year!””

              Drama queen strikes again! They killed 70K in one act! What act was that?

              Do you know anything about the approval process for drugs in US markets? Of course not. So why are you trying to pretend like you do? Your argument is that since it took so long to approve, they were killing people in the process of approving it? What would you have recommended they have done differently?

              Hey Bruce, if you want to go ahead and regulate your own drugs and food, you can go for it. Let us know how you fare. Your crack-pot link is pretty funny. Great source. Doesn’t contain any of the information you are claiming. It reads like a text book paranoid conspiracy theory crack pot of a source.

              • KorruptorNo Gravatar says:

                You could try using this wonderful new web service they just started offering.
                It’s called ‘Google,’ such a weird name.

                bit.ly/1jrLjhX – As openly reported by HuPo here: huff.to/1jrLytl
                bit.ly/1jrMDBz – Original article
                bit.ly/1jrMMoq – A recent update there of

                Similar numbers were separately extrapolated by a CA study of merely improper medical care and or complications of surgery:
                Mortality Morbidity Associated Complications Medical Surgical Care [2000-2002]
                bit.ly/1jrNOAW

                “Your argument is that since it took so long to approve, they were killing people in the process of approving it?”
                A simple review of the heads of the FDA and various Foods or Drug industry leaders readily shows a horrible incestuous relationship. It is hardly in the service of the American taxpayer, purportedly the primary beneficiary of FDA, that the people approving both food and drugs for the American people are the primary financial beneficiaries.

                “Hey Bruce, if you want to go ahead and regulate your own drugs and food, you can go for it. Let us know how you fare.”
                Fool, a person does that every day of their lives – it’s called your diet. All anyone true American is asking is that the people be given fair warning, and be allowed to make their own informed decision

                “Your crack-pot link is pretty funny. Great source. Doesn’t contain any of the information you are claiming.”
                Disparagements barring any evidence of rebuttal are pathetic assaults of another’s character in vain attempts to mask your own lacking.

                “It reads like a text book paranoid conspiracy theory crack pot of a source.”
                Case in point.

                As is clearly illustrated, the FDA and the Medical industry are culpable in far more deaths per year, loss of limb and revenue than firearms anywhere.

                Thus your entire specious argument is moot.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  “Fool, a person does that every day of their lives – it’s called your diet.”

                  Unless you raise all your food it has to come from somewhere. A “diet” is typically what you can find at the grocery store. Generally, the FDA goes to great lengths to make sure the amount of rat feces and e-coli are at safe levels. I’m guessing you think this is nearly useless since they are not perfect and subject to corruption. Heavens, that would NEVER happen with a for-profit business. Right Jack in The Box?

                  BTW, what does calling him a fool do to bolster your argument?

                  “Disparagements barring any evidence of rebuttal are pathetic assaults of another’s character in vain attempts to mask your own lacking.”

                  Disparagements are pathetic assaults, regardless of ones rebuttal. Similar to calling someone a fool.

                  “As is clearly illustrated, the FDA and the Medical industry are culpable in far more deaths per year, loss of limb and revenue than firearms anywhere.”

                  Which is striving for safety, the FDA or the NRA? How many people eat every day? How many people shoot a gun every day?

                  “Thus your entire specious argument is moot.”

                  Hmmm

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    Striving for, and actually attaining, safety are two different things; you can’t simply wish away deaths due to adverse drug reactions. Neither can you attribute criminal firearms homicides in locations where (1) guns aren’t allowed or (2) where there is no law-abiding “gun culture” or (3) where the NRA or the things it advocates are absolutely unwelcome, to the NRA. Instead, you must attribute them to your choice of gun grabbers such as MAIG who are in charge of many of the places where the bulk of criminal firearms homicides occur, the useful idiots who elect such people, or to criminal gangsters who are responsible for most of the shootings. Furthermore, people don’t need to actually shoot guns to be protected by them, so your question of how many people eat vs. how many shoot guns is logically irrelevant.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Entirely missing the point.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      ***you can’t simply wish away deaths due to adverse drug reactions.***
                      Do not neglect those incidents where people die while waiting years for the fda to approve a drug that might save them.

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  Hi there, welcome to the party!

                  “A simple review of the heads of the FDA and various Foods or Drug industry leaders readily shows a horrible incestuous relationship.”

                  So you are asking for more regulation to make sure that there isn’t that relationship? I agree with you.

                  “It is hardly in the service of the American taxpayer, purportedly the primary beneficiary of FDA, that the people approving both food and drugs for the American people are the primary financial beneficiaries.”

                  Free market economy. Oh, you want regulations to make sure this type of benefiting doesn’t occur? Sure, I agree with you.

                  “Fool, a person does that every day of their lives – it’s called your diet.”

                  Ah, alright. So you’re saying what you choose to put in your body is the same thing as regulating the creation of drugs, or regulating the conditions that meat factories need to be in? Very good comparison.

                  “Disparagements barring any evidence of rebuttal are pathetic assaults of another’s character in vain attempts to mask your own lacking.”

                  The link contained no information that was claimed in the post. I’d say that is a decent rebuttal. But thank you for your disparagements barring any evidence of rebuttal. I’ve heard that makes for pathetic assaults of another’s character, in vain, and in an attempt at masking your own lacking. Have you also heard that?

                  “As is clearly illustrated, the FDA and the Medical industry are culpable in far more deaths per year, loss of limb and revenue than firearms anywhere.

                  Thus your entire specious argument is moot.”

                  Not really. Medical errors/FDA/whatever you want to throw at me being responsible for deaths does not make other deaths moot. All factors leading to death need to be looked at and reduced if possible. Can you explain how gun deaths are related to medical errors/FDA? And can you explain how one argument makes the other moot? The leading cause of death in the US is heart disease. Does that make all other efforts to reduce deaths from other causes moot? Alright then! Only one cause of death at a time folks. Until we lower heart disease deaths/year below number 2, which is cancer, we shall not look at reducing any other deaths! Brilliant argument.

                • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

                  People like Babs and Mark are true believers. See Eric Hoffer. they believe in the power of the state and its inherent goodness. They may even have mensa level IQ’s. Like the people who ran the Shuttle program, they are simply not capable of learning anything from information or logical arguments that contradicts their world view. (Interesting factoid. The bitch that believed that if she did not look for shuttle damage, then it would not exist, was married to an astronaut. How long do you think that marriage lasted after she killed seven of his “brothers”?)

                  Smart people who refuse to learn are very dangerous. And almost everyone falls into that category. Probably even you 🙂 See my article orwells boot. Just enter the two words into any search engine. The first item back after paid links, will be mine, usually under the name factotum666. It is a 6000 word read. You can then link to xfoolnature.org Name chosen in homage to Feynman whose closing sentence in his minority report on the challenger was “nature can not be fooled”

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    Power of the state? Are you living in the same country? The only power I see is the one that corporations aka special interests have over the state. Soon the take over will be complete and there won’t even be an illusion of state power. Isn’t that what you want?

                    • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

                      Babs — you are so clever. So government has no power, only corporations. So when we have gun laws then does that mean that only corporate officers can have guns? Or maybe corporations can have guns but not people? Or maybe officers of corporations.

                      Or maybe you are claiming that we need gun laws to keep people from shooting corporations? When you are arguing in restricting the ownership of guns who restricts that ownership? Goldman Sachs?

                      And did you miss my comments on regulatory capture posted on the 13th? Seriously, what was the purpose of making that statement? Or maybe I should ask — what are you smoking?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      I responded generally to your general statement. If you want to talk about a specific issue, be my guest. You didn’t though, you just claimed what you thought I believed in and I thought it was funny, since corporate interests rule our government. So it’s like you’re playing a false victim by talking about this great and strong state power, when its the big players in the economy (corporations) who are calling the shots.

                      What is your problem with gun laws? Make your case.

                    • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

                      I am afraid that I can not begin to wrap my head around the concept “making my case” against gun laws, when it is your position that the state has no power, it is really corporations. I must confess that I can simply not understand the concept of the state protecting us via laws, when the state has no power, but corporations have all the power. I think that means that gun laws come from corporations. As I say, I am totally confused. Perhaps you can explain this to simple minded me. Why do corporations want gun laws? Why do they care? If the state has no power and the corporations run things them why do you want gun laws. Again, perhaps you can explain. But from what you have said, your point of view is the offspring of Lewis Carol and Rod Serling

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    Read “Thinking, Fast and Slow”, also “The Signal and the Noise.” I’m well aware of confirmation bias and frequently test my conclusions.

                    You have incorrectly characterized reliance on the state. The state is not a panacea, nor is capitalism. You shouldn’t be so quick to judge.

                    Weren’t you the guy all fuzzed because of a lack of respect for Stephen Hawking?

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Are you not the Stephen Hawking advocate from a while back? I was hoping to debate with someone who understood how to put forth a valid argument.

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            … spoken by Mark The Troll, who has been caught in many dozens if not hundreds logical fallacies of his own. I even had to classify new forms of logical fallacies in the course of such debates, much like Darwin in the Galapagos discovering new species. All these new fallacies, never identified before, awaiting discovery on Mark The Troll island. The mind reels at how many more there might be.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      Doug, i thought you wetter the anti fallacy guy.

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        It is most amusing that you only see fallacies in Doug’s arguments when he disagrees with you. Double standard much? To my knowledge, you have never, ever, called a fallacy from Babs The Troll. I guess there’s no need to, since he’s “on your side.”

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          The angst against those not recognizing Stephen Hawking was entertaining but i feel no obligation to label every fallacy, especially those not directed at me or about things that are no concern of mine.

          You may now resume jerking off to the teen idol of your choice.

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            Forgive me for interrupting your session of raping children.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              You guys have a fixation with doing illegal things. Might want to get that checked out.

              • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                And your job is to interpret the law and decide what is illegal?

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  Are you delving into epistemology now? Do you understand the concepts of assault with a deadly weapon and rape? If not, you might want to check those out.

                  Let me ask, if someone points a gun at you saying they are going to shoot you, what if anything would you call it?

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    That depends on what you’re doing at the time. If it’s raping little children, no, it’s not assault with a deadly weapon. The same overt act can be criminal or not, depending on the circumstances. (Well, except for raping children.) But pointing guns at people, or even shooting them dead where they stand, may or may not be criminal. But of course in order to understand that, you’d have to have a functioning moral compass. Which assumes facts not in evidence in your case.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      I did not ask you to modify the question. “You” meaning the participants of this discussion, have made it clear you are in the right. Notice I made no mention of mitigating circumstances. So we have you, person A, and them, person B. A is minding his own business when B acts as above.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      First, I am not beholden to your orders in this discussion.

                      Second, you are a hypocrite. You order me to not modify the question but then you add “_A_is_minding_his_own_business_ when B acts as above,” which, by the way, modifies the question.

                      In any case, my answer was, it depends on the circumstances. “Minding one’s own business” does not preclude the possibility that the business which he is minding, is criminal, and in particular is criminal enough to warrant use of deadly force. If famous, violent killer just escaped from jail, and is sitting on a park bench and is “minding his own business” but is recognized by a passerby, the use of force under the circumstances would be entirely justified, at least in those jurisdictions where the authorities can handle people being able to defend themselves from escaped killers, which is admittedly not everywhere. Or, if your business happens to be raping children, again, it would be justified. Neither of those circumstances would be considered “assault with a deadly weapon” nearly anywhere. When Kitty Genovese was murdered, too many passersby made the mistake of assuming the killer was just minding his own business. You might have been one of them.

                      {begin / emulate / Mark The Troll} But hey, at least no one shot the guy, that would have contributed to ‘gun violence’. So thank goodness for that. {end / emulate / Mark The Troll}

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Short answer. “I can’t answer because it would be an admission that there are misuses.”

                      BTW, it’s my question so I will clarify it as much as I want.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      You are now ‘clarifying’ your question because you were not specific? Quibbling is the appropriate term..

                      Quibble: 1. To evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections.
                      2. To find fault or criticize for petty reasons; cavil.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Often necessary when one attempts to dodge the question. I think you referred to it as duplicity.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Mark The Troll sez: “Short answer. “I can’t answer because it would be an admission that there are misuses.””

                      I have already admitted that criminals misuse guns. That is exactly why I want good people to find few obstacles in getting and carrying them. (Noting, as an aside, that showing picture ID “is intimidating” when it comes to voting, apparently.)

                      Mark The Troll also sez: “BTW, it’s my question so I will clarify it as much as I want.”

                      1. Hypocrite. 2. It’s my answer, so I will clarify it as much as I want. 3. I will remain free to clarify what question I am answering, so as to be as rid as humanly possible, of your charges of “straw man” or other logical fallacies which you have almost as sharp an eye for detecting, as you have an urge to employ. I might have been willing to cut you a break if you weren’t a troll and didn’t fling charges of straw man as freely as you do. But, since you are and you do, you deserve no courtesy here.

                    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                      “Noting, as an aside, that showing picture ID “is intimidating” when it comes to voting, apparently.)”

                      Yeah,but the leftist base does’nt flinch when they have to show photo ID to draw welfare

                  • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                    Bruce, ya have to understand that mark refuses to credit anyone but himself and a few select rabid liberals with more intelligence than it takes to sign a welfare check. In his world, it is impossible for the average citizen to recognize a situation where armed intervention is appropriate and necesary, therefore only himself and his rad lib associates are the only ones other than the ‘authorities’ that deserve to have arms.

                    “Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins.”
                    — Former Mafia hit man turned informant Sammy “the Bull” Gravano

                    According to a March 2013 anonymous poll of 15,000 officers by the law enforcement website policeone.com., almost 90 percent of the respondents believed casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present during shooting incidents, while more than 80 percent supported arming teachers who were trained with firearms.

                    From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140103/METRO01/301030038#ixz z2qF65e02J

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      We have established that there are defensive gun uses. The fact that there can be no acknowledgement of assaults points in the exact opposite direction. In the gun lovers world, misuses are what “the bad guy” does and pointing a gun at someone in order to get their way suddenly becomes self defense. Too many cowboy movies.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Isn’t it obvious, even to such a mental defective as yourself, that deliberate misuse of a weapon makes the wielder a “bad guy”?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      I’m not so sure that “we” have established that there are _lawful_ defensive gun uses. Care to do so?

                      Furthermore, I am happy to concede that there are criminal gun assaults. Of course criminals have guns, and use them for criminal purposes. Such as the school shootings in which people were only wounded, or only threatened. Pity it’s not legal to shoot those people where they stand, though, thanks to the ‘gun-free schools’ law that makes doing so, or rather, even being prepared to do so, a felony. Which (1) didn’t, doesn’t, wouldn’t, and can’t stop the perpetrators, and (2) only emboldens such people, cowards that they are, to seek out such places as being soft, target-rich shooting galleries, the attacks upon which will ensure their place in history.

                      Meanwhile, while you talk about us “cowboys,” did you happen to see the _overall_ homicide rate back in the late 1800’s, you know, back in the days of the “Wild West?” Back before there were nearly any gun control laws. (Except, of course, for the racist laws that were intended to disarm blacks?)

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      So brandishing a gun takes you into the bad guy category. Thank you.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Brandishing” a gun is already defined as a criminal misuse, so you are (intentionally?) conflating “pointing a gun at another” (which may or may not constitute a criminal act) with “brandishing” which is defined in many states as a criminal act. So you still haven’t admitted that there could be circumstances in which “pointing a gun at another” could be a lawful act, even as I have already and repeatedly conceded that criminals misuse guns, including by pointing them at other people (whether shooting them or not).

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      You still haven’t admitted that there are _lawful_ defensive gun uses, Mark The Troll. Will you ever? Or is every single firearms homicide, including when a mass shooter is himself shot by a bystander, an example of ‘tragic’ ‘gun violence’ that you seek to eliminate, step-by-step?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      You need to read closer.

                      “We have established that there are defensive gun uses.”

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “”Brandishing” a gun is already defined as a criminal misuse, so you are (intentionally?) conflating “pointing a gun at another” (which may or may not constitute a criminal act) with “brandishing” which is defined in many states as a criminal act.”

                      Wrong. It isn’t simple “brandishing” that is criminal. It is brandishing with the intent to assault/intimidate/etc. How can you believe something so stupid as the garbage you posted? Unbelievable. Truly.

                      Just look at the definition of the word. It’s a good place to start, right?

                      bran·dish:

                      wave or flourish (something, esp. a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement. exception: if you are bruce and infinitely stupid, you may define this word as you please.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Dear Babs The Troll,

                      If you want to talk about infinite stupidity, you’ll need to look in the mirror.

                      California Penal Code 417 (a)(2): Defines “brandishing” a firearm as follows:

                      (2) Every person who, except in self-defense, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any
                      manner, unlawfully uses a firearm in any fight or quarrel ….

                      Virginia Code 18.2-282:

                      It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable of justifiable self-defense.

                      Utah Section 76-10-506:

                      Threatening with or using dangerous weapon in fight or quarrel. (1) As used in this section, “threatening manner” does not include:

                      (a) the possession of a dangerous weapon, whether visible or concealed, without additional behavior which is threatening; or

                      (b) informing another of the actor’s possession of a deadly weapon in order to prevent what the actor reasonably perceives as a possible use of unlawful force by the other and the actor is not engaged in any activity described in Subsection 76-2-402(2)(a).

                      (2) Except as otherwise provided in Section 76-2-402 and for those persons described in Section 76-10-503, a person who, in the presence of two or more persons, draws or exhibits a dangerous weapon in an angry and threatening manner or unlawfully uses a dangerous weapon in a flight or quarrel is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

                      (3) This section does not apply to a person who, reasonably believing the action to be necessary in compliance with Section 76-2-402, with purpose to prevent another’s use of unlawful force:

                      (a) threatens the use of a dangerous weapon; or

                      (b) draws or exhibits a dangerous weapon.

                      South Carolina Section 16-23-410:

                      Unlawful to present or point loaded or unloaded firearm at another person; felony; must be fined or imprisoned not more than 5 years.

                      Nevada Section 202.290:

                      Aiming firearm, whether loaded or not, or discharging where person might be endangered is a penalty; even if injury does not result; gross misdemeanor

                      Montana MCA 45-3-111:

                      (Montana approved legislation says simply that brandishing a firearm in self defense is not a crime.)

                      (1) Any person who is not otherwise prevented from doing so by federal or state law may openly carry a weapon and may communicate to another person the fact that the person has a weapon.

                      (2) If a person reasonably believes that the person or another person is threatened with bodily harm, the person may warn or threaten the use of force, including deadly force, against the aggressor, including drawing or presenting a weapon.

                      (3) This section does not limit the authority of the board of regents or other postsecondary institutions to regulate the carrying of weapons, as defined in 45-8-361(5)(b), on their campuses.

                      Arizona ARS 13-421: Justification; Defensive Display of a Firearm.

                      A. The defensive display of a firearm by a person against another is justified when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.

                      B. This section does not apply to a person who:

                      1. Intentionally provokes another person to use or attempt to use unlawful physical force.

                      2. Uses a firearm during the commission of a serious offense as defined in section 13-706 or violent crime as defined in section 13-901.03.

                      C. This section does not require the Defensive Display of a firearm before the use of physical force or the threat of physical force by a person who is otherwise justified in the use or threatened use of physical force.

                      D. For the purposes of this section, “defensive display of a firearm” includes:

                      1. Verbally informing another person that the person possesses or has available a firearm.

                      2. Exposing or displaying a firearm in a manner that a reasonable person would understand was meant to protect a person against another’s use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.

                      3. Placing the person’s hand on a firearm while the firearm is contained in a pocket, purse or other means of containment or transport.

                      Michigan Penal Code 750.234e:

                      Brandishing firearm in public; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not knowingly brandish a firearm in public.

                      (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:

                      (a) A peace officer lawfully performing his or her duties as a peace officer.

                      (b) A person lawfully engaged in hunting.

                      (c) A person lawfully engaged in target practice.

                      (d) A person lawfully engaged in the sale, purchase, repair, or transfer of that firearm.

                      (3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both.

                      http://www.usacarry.com/brandishing-firearm/

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Most of the examples you provided don’t talk about brandishing. Some talk about pointing. The point I made, if you read my post, is that brandishing is not always criminal. It is brandishing in a certain unlawlful manner that is illegal.

                      From your post:

                      ” in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any
                      manner, unlawfully uses a firearm in any fight or quarrel”

                      “in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another”

                      It even spells it out for you:

                      “(3) This section does not apply to a person who, reasonably believing the action to be necessary in compliance with Section 76-2-402, with purpose to prevent another’s use of unlawful force:”

                      That means a DGU in case you didn’t understand.

                      South Carolina law (the part you didn’t show):

                      “A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined in the discretion of the court or imprisoned not more than five years. This section must not be construed to abridge the right of self-defense or to apply to theatricals or like performances.”

                      Which eliminates everything except for criminal use.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Here, I’ll slow down for you:

                      California Penal Code 417 (a)(2): Defines “brandishing” a firearm as follows:

                      There are other states which use the term “brandishing” to DEFINE A CRIME. It doesn’t matter what the dictionary says, it matters what the law says, when talking about crimes. “Brandishing” under the law, is a crime in many places.

                      To help you out here, “structuring” might well be a word in the dictionary, and you might even have some opinions what it means. He is structuring his sentence to put the verb at the end, and she is structuring her workload so as to accommodate her upcoming maternity leave. But “structuring” is specifically defined under federal law, and it IS A CRIME. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuring If the subject comes up whether “structuring” is or is not a crime, obviously, what matters is how that is defined in law, not in the dictionary.

                      So it goes with brandishing.

                      Obviously.

                      But, since you are a troll, it is to your advantage to conveniently locate trivial points against which you can attack. It hasn’t happened yet, but I fully expect you to remark some day, if it is mentioned how odd it was that 20 people were killed in Chicago in one day, “No, you idiot, 20 is even, not odd. You embarrass yourself! Seriously! Stop trying!!”

                      But, so it goes in the life of a troll.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      ““Brandishing” a gun is already defined as a criminal misuse, so you are (intentionally?) conflating “pointing a gun at another” (which may or may not constitute a criminal act) with “brandishing” which is defined in many states as a criminal act.”

                      That is what you said. It was incorrect and I fixed it for you. That’s it.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      You haven’t fixed anything. You’re just trolling, trying to score troll points. Many places _define_ “brandishing” as the criminal act of threatening others with a gun. But, you can lawfully point a gun at another, and it isn’t “brandishing” if it is done in self-defense. Then it’s just self-defense, not the crime called Brandishing. You are, of course, simply being intentionally obtuse here, for no purpose other than to troll. No important issues are at stake here, it’s just a semantic argument. Which you find great value in having. Except when you can’t tell the difference between my wanting to kill “all” criminals, and my wanting to kill “violent” criminals, who were killed in the act of committing grave or imminent threats against others. Then, it’s convenient for you to not understand gross distinctions, or worse, to misattribute what I said so as to invoke a semantic argument over something I didn’t even say.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      ” “Brandishing” under the law, is a crime in many places.”

                      Still don’t get it. Here, let’s use your example:

                      Michigan Penal Code 750.234e:

                      Brandishing firearm in public; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not knowingly brandish a firearm in public.

                      (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:

                      (a) A peace officer lawfully performing his or her duties as a peace officer.

                      (b) A person lawfully engaged in hunting.

                      (c) A person lawfully engaged in target practice.

                      (d) A person lawfully engaged in the sale, purchase, repair, or transfer of that firearm.

                      Do you see the subpoints (a) through (d)? The ones that are brandishing but NOT considered criminal offenses? They are clearly (well, not for everyone) drawing a distinction between LAWFUL brandishing, and UNLAWFUL brandishing.

                      Which goes against your point that “Many places _define_ “brandishing” as the criminal act of threatening others with a gun.” No, they define brandishing with the intent of threatening/assaulting/intimidating as a crime. They don’t define brandishing for subpoints (a) through (d) as a crime.

                      Always glad to clarify these difficult concepts for you.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Brandishing – “wave or flourish (something, esp. a weapon) _as_a_threat_or_in_anger_or excitement. (Google)

                      http://www.thefreedictionary.com/brandishing‎: 1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) _menacingly_.

                      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brandish‎:1. to wave or swing (something, such as a weapon) in a _threatening_ or excited manner.

                      https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/brandish‎: Definition of brandish : To brandish something is to wave it about _aggressively_, as one might brandish a sword or tennis racket (if it’s a particularly intense game).

                      http://www.ask.com/question/meaning-of-brandishing The meaning of brandishing is showing or waving something _in_a_threatening_manner_ or in excitement. If it is said that someone has brandished a weapon, it means they were_menacingly_holding_it_in_the_air or holding it visibly_to_caution_someone_. To brandish something virtually always means to show off a weapon.

                      It appears that many online dictionaries show that a key element of “brandishing” is a threatening or aggressive component, which would meet your own definition of “for the purpose of intimidation.”

                      Something that you conveniently left off of your own definition when you gave it.

                      Typical deceit, as expected, coming from you. Lie by half-truths, even as you claim the moral high ground. Troll.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Federal law defines brandished as, “with reference to a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) means that all or part of the weapon was displayed, or the presence of the weapon was otherwise made known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the weapon was directly visible to that person. Accordingly, although the dangerous weapon does not have to be directly visible, the weapon must be present.” (18 USCS Appx § 1B1.1)” http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/brandished/

                      Once again, slowly:

                      “… in order to intimidate that person …”

                      Federal law, definition.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Oh Bruce, you make it so easy. Remember saying this?

                      “There are other states which use the term “brandishing” to DEFINE A CRIME. It doesn’t matter what the dictionary says, it matters what the law says, when talking about crimes. “Brandishing” under the law, is a crime in many places.”

                      Let’s break that down. “It doesn’t matter what the dictionary says, it matters what the law says, when talking about crimes.” And then you go and link a bunch of definitions (like one isn’t enough). Did you forget what you wrote? Maybe there actually are multiple people posting under your name. What other explanation can there be for such contradictions in your posts? Help me understand.

                      Then you say: “It appears that many online dictionaries show that a key element of “brandishing” is a threatening or aggressive component, which would meet your own definition of “for the purpose of intimidation. Something that you conveniently left off of your own definition when you gave it.”

                      Conveniently left out? Do you read my posts at all? Maybe that explains the disconnect in your arguments. To refresh your always stellar memory, this is what I said in my first post on this issue:

                      “bran·dish:

                      wave or flourish (something, esp. a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement. ”

                      Something that you conveniently didn’t read, didn’t remember, or….not sure. Maybe just dumb?

                      And to the actual point, nothing you said countered anything in my last post to you. The law CLEARLY draws exceptions for brandishing, showing that some examples are lawful and some are unlawlful. Consider that most DGUs involve brandishing the weapon. Meaning you are claiming self defense is a crime. All that, and you are STILL trying to disagree by linking all this garbage. None of that refutes my point. Not all brandishing is a crime. The laws you linked prove it since they have obvious exceptions (points a through d). It’s right there in your face. Yet you waste your time linking 5 or 6 links of one definition as a counter argument? When I already defined it for you in the first post? How do you not understand this?

                      I honestly feel like I’m talking to a 5th grader when I respond to you. Please try and step it up. At least to the high school level.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Did you bother to look up 18 USCS Appx § 1B1.1? Of course not. Had you done that, you would have realized that definition came from sentencing guidelines. Meaning that definition applies to cases where it was already determined that the brandishing that occurred was indeed criminal in natural.

                      Bruce. Think. You can do it.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      “The following are definitions of terms that are used frequently in the guidelines and are of _general_ _applicability_ (except to the extent expressly modified in respect to a particular guideline or policy statement):”

                      [brandishing definition already given follows, no express modification is given].

                      You imply the meaning of the words is restricted to sentencing guidelines only. The above text taken from the relevant section of law, refutes that contention.

                      Once again you seek to deceive through half-truths. Stop lying. You can do it.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Can I Be Found Guilty Of Brandishing A Weapon Charges In San Bernardino If I Acted In Self Defense?

                      [Note – not “illegal brandishing” – just “brandishing.”]

                      You will be given a certain amount of leeway if you can establish that you were not the initial aggressor, meaning you did not start the fight or was the first to draw a weapon. However, you can still face criminal charges if you continued to exhibit aggression or use force after the threat is over or neutralized. This ironically turns you into the initial aggressor. This could be true even if you acted to protect yourself or others.

                      Arguing self defense is the best defense when you are facing allegations that you either exhibited force or used force against another. The law does not require that you render yourself helpless and subject to whatever threat comes your way. However, if you choose to use force to defend yourself or defend others, you need to be sure that you act within certain boundaries.

                      If you can successfully show that you reasonably believed that you or another person was in danger of suffering imminent harm and that you did not use more force than was necessary to defend against that harm, you would not be convicted of brandishing a weapon pursuant to Penal Code Section 417. Therefore, arguing self-defense or the defense of others within these constraints can protect you against a conviction. Any deviation from these constraints can result in an imperfect self-defense argument that can only act as a partial defense that still exposes you to some criminal penalties.”

                      http://www.wklaw.com/questions/can-i-be-found-guilty-of-brandishi ng-a-weapon-charges-in-san-bernardino-if-i-acted-in-self-defense/

                      “Brandishing Firearm Or Deadly Weapon To Resist Arrest

                      In California, a defendant is guilty of brandishing [note: not “illegal brandishing”] a firearm or deadly weapon to resist arrest where he drew or exhibited a firearm or deadly weapon, and, when he drew or exhibited the firearm or deadly weapon, intended to resist arrest or to prevent a peace officer from arresting or detaining him or someone else. A deadly weapon is any object, instrument or weapon that is inherently deadly or capable of causing and likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Great bodily injury is harm that is substantial or significant and not minor or moderate injury. The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.”

                      http://www.attorneydickinson.com/2013/11/brandishing-firearm-or-d eadly-weapon-to.html

                      “Brandishing Weapons.

                      Any person who displays in a menacing fashion, any firearm, knife, club,
                      chain, rope or other object capable of producing, with the intent to intimidate,
                      harm or threaten harm to another shall be guilty of Brandishing Weapons.
                      Brandishing Weapons is a major crime.”

                      [note – not “illegal brandishing”]

                      [This is from Tribal Indian Code, not US law, but this law applies within the lower 48 States, and is one of “many places” in which “brandishing” is a crime. In fact, in this locale, it’s a major crime.

                      http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/sauk/locode.pdf

                      “Alleyne v. United States

                      United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
                      A jury found Allen Alleyne guilty of robbery under a federal statue, but the jury did not find him guilty of brandishing a weapon during the robbery. [Note: this wording implies that “brandishing” is a crime, which he was found not guilty of committing.] A federal criminal statute provides that a judge can raise the mandatory minimum sentence for robbery with a finding that it was more likely than not that the defendant brandished a firearm. Thus, a judge’s finding can raise the mandatory minimum prison sentence even when a jury was unable to come to that same conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court allowed such findings from judges in Harris v. United States. Now, the court will reconsider that position or have the opportunity to further clarify how much sentencing discretion can be given to judges under federal statutes.”

                      http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-9335

                      There might well be “many places” where brandishing may or may not be a crime, but, in any case, there are “many places” where brandishing is defined in law as a crime, which was my initial claim.

                      How much more research will you engage in to try to score those #winning points there, on a trivial semantic point?

                      I honestly feel like I’m talking to a psychopathic serial killer when talking to you. Like you have slowly and methodically killed dozens of people, and yet you can’t understand, can’t fathom, why anyone, anywhere, would *ever* doubt you or hesitate to place their deepest trust in you. Even as the life drains from yet another of your many victims. While the thing most on your mind at the moment, is the exact definition of a particular word.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “You imply the meaning of the words is restricted to sentencing guidelines only.”

                      I didn’t imply anything. I told you directly that your definition came from federal sentencing guidelines. There is no implication. Do you know what the word “imply” means?

                      “There might well be “many places” where brandishing may or may not be a crime, but, in any case, there are “many places” where brandishing is defined in law as a crime, which was my initial claim.”

                      Might well be? Hahaaha. You mean in every city and state in America? Where we have cops, defensive gun uses, people hunting, people selling weapons, etc? Might well be? Hahahahaha

                      This was your original claim:

                      ““Brandishing” a gun is already defined as a criminal misuse, ”

                      And that is wrong, like I have shown and like you have shown. With every response you make, you solidify my position. Let’s see what great new links you came up with.

                      1. ““Can I Be Found Guilty Of Brandishing A Weapon Charges In San Bernardino If I Acted In Self Defense?

                      [Note – not “illegal brandishing” – just “brandishing.”]”

                      Not illegal brandishing? Are you kidding? Here, let me help you think. Can you be found guilty of a legal act? No, you can’t. So, to any non retard, this obviously means illegal brandishing. Good start.

                      2. ““Brandishing Firearm Or Deadly Weapon To Resist Arrest”

                      Uhh….what’s your argument here? Do you even know or are you just randomly copying and pasting? Yes, it is illegal to resist arrest by brandishing a firearm. Thank you for your excellent research into that.

                      3. “Brandishing Weapons is a major crime.” Again, illegality is implied to any non-idiot. Saying illegal brandishing is a major crime is redundant. I guess not to you. You already linked California’s brandishing law, so why are you linking some random lawyers page? Here, let’s look at California’s law on unlawful brandishing:

                      California Penal Code 417 (a)(2): Defines “brandishing” a firearm as follows:

                      (2) Every person who, except in self-defense, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any
                      manner, unlawfully uses a firearm in any fight or quarrel ….

                      Do you see the word except? Do you see the word unlawfully? Good. How does your foot taste? What’s that? It’s permanently stuck in your mouth?

                      3. Ah, again with the very brilliant argument you like. Since the law doesn’t say illegal when talking about a crime, it must mean all brandishing is illegal? Is that your argument? Or do you even have one?

                      4. “[Note: this wording implies that “brandishing” is a crime, which he was found not guilty of committing.] ”

                      How does it imply that? It doesn’t imply anything. It says he was not found guilty of brandishing. What are you even saying here? We know that unlawful brandishing is a crime, and this person was found not guilty of that. So what are you actually saying? Nothing at all.

                      “How much more research will you engage in to try to score those #winning points there, on a trivial semantic point?”

                      I don’t have to engage in much research at all to make that point. It’s absolutely obvious that not all brandishing is a crime. It isn’t a trivial point, you made a mistake and you couldn’t admit it, so you went on for pages and pages saying absolutely nothing and more often than not, arguing against yourself. Most of the brandishing laws you have given show obvious exceptions, that for whatever reason, you don’t want to concede. Which is actually quite funny, because if you are claiming that there are so many DGUs, close to 3/4 of them, according to the best pro gun DGU research we have, involve brandishing of a weapon. Not only can you not follow simple concepts like the many exceptions to unlawful brandishing, you can’t follow the bigger picture regarding the argument (DGUs) that you claim to support.

                      “I honestly feel like I’m talking to a psychopathic serial killer when talking to you. Like you have slowly and methodically killed dozens of people, and yet you can’t understand, can’t fathom, why anyone, anywhere, would *ever* doubt you or hesitate to place their deepest trust in you. Even as the life drains from yet another of your many victims. While the thing most on your mind at the moment, is the exact definition of a particular word.”

                      Like I’ve said many times, you are -such- a drama queen. It’s funny to watch. Yea, big time serial killer because I corrected your statement that brandishing is a crime, when in fact most of the occurrences are lawful. I am methodical, that’s the only part you got right.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      ““You imply the meaning of the words is restricted to sentencing guidelines only.”

                      I didn’t imply anything. I told you directly that your definition came from federal sentencing guidelines. There is no implication. Do you know what the word “imply” means?”

                      You implied that, because it comes from sentencing guidelines, it somehow doesn’t pertain to what we were discussing. Otherwise, why would you mention it. (You don’t exactly go out of your way to do me any favors.)

                      “This was your original claim:

                      ““Brandishing” a gun is already defined as a criminal misuse, ””

                      And that is wrong, like I have shown and like you have shown. With every response you make, you solidify my position. Let’s see what great new links you came up with.

                      1. ““Can I Be Found Guilty Of Brandishing A Weapon Charges In San Bernardino If I Acted In Self Defense?

                      [Note – not “illegal brandishing” – just “brandishing.”]”

                      “Not illegal brandishing? Are you kidding? Here, let me help you think. Can you be found guilty of a legal act? No, you can’t. So, to any non retard, this obviously means illegal brandishing.”

                      But the term term isn’t “illegal brandishing,” it’s just “brandishing” – so, that’s the crime.

                      It appears necessary for me to enter, once again, the realm of _NOT_ROCKET_SCIENCE.

                      Driving is legal, in general, although there are exceptions. “Drunk driving” is not. “Driving without a license” is not. “DUI” is not. “Reckless driving” is not.

                      But as for plain, simple, driving, nobody is ever charged with just plain old “driving.” Therefore, nobody is convicted of “driving.” Because it isn’t a crime. (And, _this_isn’t_rocket_science_)

                      People can be charged with reckless driving, or driving under the influence, or driving without a license. People can also be charged with murder, or rape, or arson. There is no “illegal reckless driving” because “reckless driving” is already a crime. There is no “illegal driving without a license” because that, too, is already a crime. There is also no “illegal murder” or “illegal rape” or “illegal arson” because those too are already, on their face, crimes. (Note that even if someone is found “not guilty of murder,” it doesn’t mean that murder isn’t a crime – obviously – it just means that the person in question didn’t commit that particular crime, according to the judge or jury in question.

                      Now we come to the question of brandishing. First, the cases I cited concern just plain old “brandishing.” Not “brandishing with intent to ____” nor “brandishing without a license” nor “brandishing without lawful authority to do so”. Just plain old “brandishing.” That’s the crime. Here it is again, since you’re slow. Brandishing is THE CRIME.

                      Some people were found guilty of “brandishing.” Which, first, (like “murder”) means that plain old brandishing is a crime. And second, that those people, did indeed commit that crime (according to the judge or jury). Other people were found not guilty of brandishing. It is oh, so, entertaining that you somehow think you can score #winning points against me, because an article I cited says that someone was found “not guilty of brandishing,” and, therefore, brandishing isn’t a crime. On the contrary, it means they didn’t do that crime.

                      Arguing with you like arguing with a five year old. You’re not very good at it.

                      In fact, stop. Babooshka, just stop. You’re embarrassing yourself. It’s painful to watch. Have you no shame whatsoever?

                      “3. “Brandishing Weapons is a major crime.” Again, illegality is implied to any non-idiot. Saying illegal brandishing is a major crime is redundant. I guess not to you.

                      You are making it up as you go along. There is no definition of legal brandishing in what I linked. They don’t say illegal murder, they just say murder. They just say brandishing. Not_Rocket_Science.

                      “You already linked California’s brandishing law, so why are you linking some random lawyers page? ”

                      I guess you have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the reason I posted it is, if someone is charged with the crime of “brandishing,” here’s a lawyer who might be able to help you, *to get out of the criminal charge of brandishing*. Which means, “brandishing” is a crime. Not like “driving,” but like “murder.”

                      “Here, let’s look at California’s law on unlawful brandishing:

                      “California Penal Code 417 (a)(2): Defines “brandishing” a firearm as follows:

                      “(2) Every person who, except in self-defense, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any
                      manner, unlawfully uses a firearm in any fight or quarrel ….”

                      “Do you see the word except?” Yes, that means that when you do whatever you do “in self defense” – IT ISN’T BRANDISHING. That is what “except” means. But, if *not* done in self-defense, i.e. OTHERWISE, that same act *would be* brandishing, and it’s a crime.

                      “Do you see the word unlawfully?”

                      Why, yes, that means that every other thing which follows pertains to criminal acts. Brandishing = criminal. Good. How does your foot taste? What’s that? It’s permanently stuck in your mouth? It means that “brandishing” is either (this type of stuff, which is illegal) OR (this other type of explicitly unlawful stuff). Which means that brandishing, not otherwise specified, is explicitly meant to refer to unlawful acts.

                      Let’s see here, “”This was [my] original claim: “Brandishing” a gun is already defined as a criminal misuse, ””” Hmmm. Yep.

                      Three dudes. Dude #1 points a gun at a banker and tells her to hand over the money. He’s “drawing a gun in a threatening manner.” Brandishing. Crime.

                      Dude #2 Gets into a non-life threatening argument, and then reveals a gun under his jacket, implying the other guy to back off or he may get shot. Brandishing. Crime.

                      Dude #3 is accosted by robbers, who demand his wallet or they will kill him. He produces his gun instead, and tells them to flee. Self-defense. Hmmm. “Any person who _except in self defense_ draws a weapon …” Not “brandishing.” Not a crime.

                      Pity there.

                      “4. “[Note: this wording implies that “brandishing” is a crime, which he was found not guilty of committing.] ”

                      “How does it imply that? It doesn’t imply anything. It says he was not found guilty of brandishing. What are you even saying here? We know that *unlawful* [added by Babs the Troll] brandishing is a crime, and this person was found not guilty of that.”

                      Now you’re just lying. You’re sticking the word “unlawful” into the text, so that the result comports with your position in this argument. He wasn’t found not guilty of “unlawful brandishing,” he was found not guilty of plain old brandishing, i.e. “the crime of brandishing.” Just like someone being found “not guilty of murder.” Murder is still a crime, he just was found to not have done it.

                      It is obvious that the word “brandishing,” just plain old brandishing, is commonly used to connote a criminal act, as in the many examples which I posted. Especially in the California law which you so helpfully (1) emphasized and (2) tried to score more #winning points from, and (3) tried to condescend to me using. Yeah, you’re methodical all right. You hit all the key items.

                      You’re not very good at this. Troll.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Needless to say, I am forced to use concrete examples, such as “driving” or “driving with a suspended license” or “murder” or Dudes 1-3, because you’re not very good at abstract thought.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “But the term term isn’t “illegal brandishing,” it’s just “brandishing” – so, that’s the crime.”

                      The term is brandishing. There is unlawful and lawful brandishing. Hence the exceptions.

                      “There is also no “illegal murder””

                      Illegal murder is an oxymoron. Now if you were honest in this discussion, you would know that murder is defined as unlawful homicide, hence all murder is illegal. What you should have been saying, if you weren’t too stupid to grasp it or too dishonest to admit it, is the parallel between homicide and brandishing. There is lawful and unlawful homicide. Same goes with brandishing.

                      “Now we come to the question of brandishing. First, the cases I cited concern just plain old “brandishing.” Not “brandishing with intent to ____” nor “brandishing without a license” nor “brandishing without lawful authority to do so”. Just plain old “brandishing.””

                      There is no “plain old brandishing”. There is lawful brandishing and unlawful brandishing. Would it be easier for you to understand if there were two different terms for unlawful vs lawful brandishing? Like with homicide and murder? Would that make it easier for you to understand this rather simple concept? Do you need two different words to help you understand?

                      “You are making it up as you go along. There is no definition of legal brandishing in what I linked. They don’t say illegal murder, they just say murder. ”

                      Again, you don’t understand the definitions of words (again with the illegal murder false argument). There absolutely IS a legal definition of brandishing in what you linked, and that would be the EXCEPTIONS listed in the brandishing laws. Exceptions like: police use of firearms, self defense, hunting, selling of firearms. Those are all brandishing, based on the legal definition, but are NOT considered criminal acts.

                      ““Do you see the word except?” Yes, that means that when you do whatever you do “in self defense” – IT ISN’T BRANDISHING. That is what “except” means. But, if *not* done in self-defense, i.e. OTHERWISE, that same act *would be* brandishing, and it’s a crime.”

                      Bruce. Step back and think for a second. Really try to think. Why would they put an exception for self defense in the brandishing laws if it had nothing to do with brandishing? Except means, yes, it IS brandishing, but NO, it is not criminal. Here, let me draw the parallel for you.

                      Murder is homicide. Homicide is not murder if it is justifiable. Brandishing is justifiable if you meet the exceptions. Most brandishing is not a crime.

                      ” It means that “brandishing” is either (this type of stuff, which is illegal) OR (this other type of explicitly unlawful stuff). Which means that brandishing, not otherwise specified, is explicitly meant to refer to unlawful acts.”

                      But the laws explicitly draw the difference between lawful and unlawful acts of brandishing. Your either or statement is saying the same thing. Illegal and unlawful are synonymous. Dumbass.

                      “Now you’re just lying. You’re sticking the word “unlawful” into the text, so that the result comports with your position in this argument. He wasn’t found not guilty of “unlawful brandishing,” he was found not guilty of plain old brandishing, i.e. “the crime of brandishing.” Just like someone being found “not guilty of murder.” Murder is still a crime, he just was found to not have done it.”

                      Uh….you’re arguing against yourself. I didn’t stick the word unlawful into the text, it is implied. You can be only found guilty of things that are unlawful. Dumbass. And the “crime of brandishing” and “unlawful brandishing” are the same thing, which for whatever reason, you are trying to claim are different. Because you are a dumb fuck.

                      “It is obvious that the word “brandishing,” just plain old brandishing, is commonly used to connote a criminal act, as in the many examples which I posted. Especially in the California law which you so helpfully (1) emphasized”

                      Really?

                      ““(2) Every person who, except in self-defense, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any
                      manner, unlawfully uses a firearm in any fight or quarrel ….””

                      Notice the word except. Notice the words unlawfully. If all brandishing were unlawful, why would they put that in there?

                      Bruce, you’re really, really, really stupid. Really

                      You might be interested in looking at the statistics in the Kleck and Gertz study. I imagine you’ve heard of it, right? It’s the 2.5m DGU study, in case you didn’t know and I can save you from embarrassment.

                      TABLE 3: “THE NATURE OF DEFENSIVE GUN USE INCIDENTS[a]

                      A. What the Defender Did with the Gun [b]

                      Brandished or showed gun 75.7

                      Verbally referred to gun 57.6

                      Pointed gun at offender 49.8

                      Fired gun (including warning shots) 23.9

                      Fired gun at offender, trying to shoot him/her 15.6

                      Wounded or killed offender 8.3”

                      http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm

                      So I guess all those DGUs are criminal?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      ““There is also no “illegal murder””

                      [Babs The Troll] Illegal murder is an oxymoron.”

                      No it isn’t, it’s a pleonasm. “Jumbo shrimp” is an oxymoron, because they seemingly contradict. There is no contradiction in “illegal murder,” but it is redundant. Are you going to batten down the hatches and get into another huge semantic argument with me, that you will also lose, in this case (too)?

                      “Now if you were honest in this discussion, you would know that murder is defined as unlawful homicide, hence all murder is illegal. What you should have been saying, if you weren’t too stupid to grasp it or too dishonest to admit it, is the parallel between homicide and brandishing. There is lawful and unlawful homicide. Same goes with brandishing.”

                      No, that is your position, which is mistaken at least in some places. For example, in the tribal code that I linked, for example. There are others. See below.

                      ““Do you see the word except?” Yes, that means that when you do whatever you do “in self defense” – IT ISN’T BRANDISHING. That is what “except” means. But, if *not* done in self-defense, i.e. OTHERWISE, that same act *would be* brandishing, and it’s a crime.”

                      “Bruce. Step back and think for a second. Really try to think. Why would they put an exception for self defense in the brandishing laws if it had nothing to do with brandishing? Except means, yes, it IS brandishing, but NO, it is not criminal. Here, let me draw the parallel for you.”

                      Why do they put in an exception for self-defense in defining murder? Hmmm? “The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.” Which means, except those cases in which there is justification or excuse.

                      I see by your condescension that you are doubling down on stupid. Which is your right. Have at it. It would appear that you are the one who can’t understand what the word “except” means, so I’ll try your own example on you. It’s nice and concrete (because evidently you can’t understand abstract concepts).

                      Suppose, for the sake of argument, that murder is defined as the act of deliberately and intentionally killing another person, *except in self defense*. (Do you dispute this definition? Shall we make it “except in self-defense or for other lawful purpose, such as, but not limited to, a police officer acting lawfully, or an executioner following lawfully issued orders, or a soldier carrying out his duty under and within the rules of engagement, etc” ? Ok? )

                      Now. Buckle your mental seatbelt. Or, child seat in your case. Maybe ask someone to help.

                      Presented here before the court is Mr. Jones, who intentionally shot Mr. Smith at point blank range with a 12 gauge shotgun. Double barrel. Both barrels. Who he knew was not wearing ballistic armor as the latter was topless. As a firearms expert, hunter and marksman, Mr. Jones could reasonably be expected to know that such a shot would kill Mr. Smith, and yet he did it anyway. Intentionally. Deliberately. The question presented before the court is: Is Mr. Jones guilty of murder, or is he not? Well, that depends on whether his action was conducted in self defense. If it was, then, according to the exception, *his action was not murder*. If it was, then *his action _was_ murder*, at least under the given definition of murder. So the key fact to establish at trial, is whether self-defense could reasonably be found within Mr. Jones’s actions. In which case, one would then ask, what was Mr. Smith doing at the time? Suppose Mr. Smith had a knife to Mr. Jones’s chest, and demanded his wallet and his daughter. Hmmm. “By reason of self-defense,” this act would *not* be murder, according to this definition of murder.

                      Are you with me? Do you dispute any of the above? It’s not rocket science. (Although that’s not much of a consolation.) Not murder.

                      Presented now is another case, of Mr. Apple and Mr. Baker. Mr. Apple waved a gun at Mr. Baker. Shoved it in his face, as a matter of fact. Didn’t shoot it, though. The question before the court is whether he brandished the gun, under CA law. [Every person who, except in self-defense, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any manner, unlawfully uses a firearm in any fight or quarrel …] Well, well, well. What are the elements of brandishing? “Every person who, *except in self defense*, [waves a gun, etc].” The “waves the gun part” is a given. Definitely.

                      Now to the next question. Was his action conducted for reason of self defense? Well, that also depends on whether Mr. Baker had a knife in his hand, and told Mr. Apple to hand over his wallet and his daughter, at the time, or not. If, as it happens, Mr. Baker did exactly that, then it would appear, at first glance, that Mr. Apple’s actions *were* in self defense, and therefore, by reason of _exception_ (there’s that word you think I don’t know the meaning of, but my oh my how suddenly the tables turn!), his actions were not brandishing. Remember the murder case just above? Well well well. Same thing! With the result that one Mr. Apple would be found *not guilty* of “brandishing.” Full stop. Not otherwise qualified. Why isn’t he guilty of the crime? Because he *didn’t do it.* Because he fell into an exception. Do you know what exception means? It’s sort of like “justifiable homicide” not being “murder” under the law. Because justification amounts to exception.

                      Except that it’s “waving a gun” that isn’t “brandishing” under the law. Every person who [waves a gun] *except for those people who act in self defense*. Not them, only the other folks who *didn’t do it in self defense*. Those other people who did it *for unlawful purpose*. *Those* are the ones who can be charged with the crime of brandishing, because they waved their guns for a bad reason, and *that’s* “brandishing” under the law. There is no more “lawful brandishing” under CA law than there is “lawful murder.” It isn’t “murder” if an intentional killing was lawful, and it isn’t “brandishing” if a waved gun was lawful. Justifiable homicide isn’t murder. Self-defensive gun presentation isn’t brandishing (under CA law).

                      My, my. How the tables turn. Shall I accept your concession and apology now?

                      No, not yet.

                      Maybe you don’t even get it yet. And I’m a kind soul.

                      “Penniless” potentially applies to every single person on this Earth, except those who have a net worth of one penny or more. Those who have more than one penny, aren’t “moneyed penniless” people, they simply aren’t penniless. They are something else, but they are not penniless. “Girls” are all people on this earth, everybody, except those who have Y chromosomes in their DNA. The ones who do have Y chromosomes aren’t “y-bearing girls,” they’re “boys”. (Setting aside chimeras for the time being, and sex-change operations, etc.) “Murder” is the act of killing people with deliberate intent, except when done in self-defense or otherwise lawfully. Those who act in self defense don’t commit “lawful murder”, rather, instead they don’t commit murder at all. Something else, but not murder.

                      Maybe even these examples are too complicated. How about one down at your level? “Arachnids” are creepy-crawly things, most of them, in fact, except for those with only 6 legs. 6-legged creepy crawlers aren’t “6-legged arachnids,” they are something else. Insects, perhaps, but not arachnids. Because they, the 6-leggedy ones, have been excepted out of the category. Do you know what except means? It means that if a creepy-crawly has 6 legs, it isn’t an arachnid, because it’s the exception. That’s what it means. Did you know that? (Millipedes are a red herring, they don’t have only six legs and aren’t a member of the set of the relevant exception. But you knew that, right? And you weren’t going to raise the objection to get into yet another losing argument, were you?)

                      Ok, now make sure your mental child seat is all snugged up tight. Snuggy snuggy!

                      “Brandishing” is defined in CA law as the act of showing or waving a gun at another person, *except in self defense*. Those who do so in self defense haven’t done “lawful brandishing,” they haven’t brandished at all. They’ve done something, certainly, but not “brandishing.” One more time: [Brandishing is committed by:] “Every person who, *except in self-defense*, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any manner, unlawfully uses a firearm in any fight or quarrel …”

                      Hopefully these concrete examples are simple enough for you to grasp. And that there are enough of them. But I have my doubts. Maybe you will triple down on stupid and claim that the brandishing example is somehow different from all the other examples I so kindly provided. “Yeah, the murder and girl and arachnid and penniless and whatever are all ok, but there’s lawful and unlawful brandishing, because __[insert Babs The Troll’s new world record stupidity here]___” I’ll be interested to see just how obtuse you will have to be, to do this. Maybe you’ll surprise even yourself and quadruple down on stupid. Triskadecatuple down. Perhaps you are truly gifted in this department. The world has many wonders. I may be so lucky as to brush against such exceptional people as yourse… wait, no, I shouldn’t use that word, “exceptional” because you might take the wrong way, and think I’m actually saying … ah, nevermind.

                      ““[me]Now you’re just lying. You’re sticking the word “unlawful” into the text, so that the result comports with your position in this argument. He wasn’t found not guilty of “unlawful brandishing,” he was found not guilty of plain old brandishing, i.e. “the crime of brandishing.” Just like someone being found “not guilty of murder.” Murder is still a crime, he just was found to not have done it.”

                      “[Babs The Troll] Uh….you’re arguing against yourself. I didn’t stick the word unlawful into the text, it is implied.”

                      So … you did stick the word in. And lied about it. Troll. Anyone can verify that the word wasn’t in what I linked. Even you. Words have meanings. Changing the words might very well change the meaning. Such as in this case. Troll.

                      Plus, it isn’t implied. But it *is* necessary for your position. The word brandishing is used like “murder” but not like “driving” in the usages I quoted. “Driving” needs other qualifications to make it criminal; “brandishing” and “murder” do not. By inserting the word “unlawful” into the text, you convert it from being like “murder” to being like “driving”, which is to say, you are changing the data to fit your position. It is like you are inserting an uncle into an historical photograph in which he didn’t used to appear. And claiming he was there all along, or at least implied. That’s unethical. But then, you’re a troll. So that has to be expected. Changing data. Then dissembling about it. Let’s see, who else does that?

                      How many lawyers advertise that they can help you beat a criminal charge of “driving?” Zero, because it isn’t a crime. How many lawyers advertise that they can help you beat a criminal charge of murder? I don’t know the answer, but OJ Simpson seems to know one, and probably as far as you’re concerned, George Zimmerman knows another. Alas. But how many advertise that they can help you beat a criminal charge of “brandishing?”

                      At least one, because I posted it.

                      Most entertainingly, this action on my part utterly bewildered you. In fact, it drove you to the point of insulting me, you were so at a loss to comprehend why I could have possibly done such at thing. After getting the abuse out of the way, you then had to ask, and kindly disregarding the abuse, I then obliged you with an answer. An answer you apparently didn’t grasp, so here I am graciously answering yet again. Brandishing is a crime, and here’s a guy who might be able to help defend you from being alleged to have done it.

                      “You might be interested in looking at the statistics in the Kleck and Gertz study. I imagine you’ve heard of it, right? It’s the 2.5m DGU study, in case you didn’t know and I can save you from embarrassment.”

                      The fact that some people, including people on ‘my side’ use “brandishing” to mean legal *or* illegal acts does not disprove my contention that, in many places, brandishing is defined as a crime. Showing a white crow does not disprove the contention that “many crows are black.”

                      “So I guess all those DGUs are criminal?”

                      Doesn’t follow logically, thanks to the good, solid, and concrete white crow example above. Which I used because you’re not so good at abstract concepts.

                      Let’s see here now, what am I supposed to say? Is it “You’re not very good at this?” Or maybe it’s “Stop. Just stop. Really. You’re embarrassing yourself.” Or maybe it’s “Babs The Troll, you’re really, really, really stupid. … Dumb fuck.” It’s hard to be sure. I’m not a troll so I don’t know all the proper etiquette. But you evidently went to troll finishing school. You’ve probably aced Trollology 101, 201, *and* 301. Maybe even did your senior thesis on it. But it’s not enough to save you here. Lying might, if I didn’t catch it. But I did. Twice. Troll.

                      But in any case, I will graciously accept your concession and apology now, followed by your assurance that you will cease the abuse and begin showing some respect.

                      Or better yet, maybe you could just leave. Begone. This discussion board, at least, would be better off without you. Troll.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Why are you still looking at murder when its very definition says it is an unlawful act. The exceptions to murder equate to homicide. So look at homicide. Why aren’t you doing this? Because you are dishonest. Are there legal and illegal versions of murder? No, there are not. There is only one definition of murder and that is the unlawful act of killing someone. Killing someone in self defense is justifiable homicide. You know this. I know this. So why are we talking about murder and not homicide? Because you are dishonest.

                      “Suppose, for the sake of argument, that murder is defined as the act of deliberately and intentionally killing another person, *except in self defense*.”

                      Or, how about we use the real definition that we have available to us. Why are you trying to invent definitions for this conversation when we have ones ready, that we use in the real world. I don’t get it. Do you just wanna play make-believe or something? There are no exceptions for self defense in murder laws. There are in homicide laws. See, look at you making shit up and actually asking me to play along for “the sake of the argument”.

                      “The fact that some people, including people on ‘my side’ use “brandishing” to mean legal *or* illegal acts does not disprove my contention that, in many places, brandishing is defined as a crime. Showing a white crow does not disprove the contention that “many crows are black.””

                      Who should we believe here? Should we believe a couple of criminologists who wrote one of the biggest DGU papers for your side? Should we believe the laws that show a clear distinction between unlawful and lawful brandishing? Or should we believe you, who likes to make up stories to satisfy his need for dramatics?

                      If your only point is that “in many places brandishing is a crime”, then you were done a long time ago. We both obviously know this because of the laws that we have gone over in the first posts. So is that your point? That in some places brandishing is a crime? And you are writing all of this to prove that?

                      No, the point you are trying to make is that all brandishing is a crime and that my claiming that there is such as thing as lawful brandishing is wrong. These two points are completely unrelated yet for whatever reason, you try and argue that they are connected. You say that my claim of legal brandishing does not disprove the fact that brandishing is defined as a crime. Do you see the disconnect? Both are true statements. And legal brandishing couldn’t possibly disprove that brandishing is defined as a crime. Just like justifiable homicide couldn’t disprove that homicide is defined as a crime.

                      ““So I guess all those DGUs are criminal?”

                      Doesn’t follow logically, thanks to the good, solid, and concrete white crow example above”

                      So then you’re saying the study is wrong? Or the author doesn’t know how to use the proper term? White crow example? My god, the amount of shit you throw in the air in hopes of distracting is just amazing. What are you saying then? Nothing.

                      “Mr. Apple would be found *not guilty* of “brandishing.” Full stop. Not otherwise qualified. Why isn’t he guilty of the crime? Because he *didn’t do it.* Because he fell into an exception.”

                      Uh, he did do it. But he fell under the exception. He brandished his gun, but since it was in self defense, he wasn’t found guilty of breaking the law. THAT is what you are saying. And THAT is what the exception means. It doesn’t mean he didn’t brandish his gun, it means that since he did it for the right reasons under the law, he won’t be charged with committing a crime. The exception excuses him from an otherwise criminal act. It doesn’t say he wasn’t brandishing, which is what you try and claim the exception means. He WAS brandishing at the time of the incident but was excused because it was in self defense. Which means that there is lawful and unlawful brandishing, depending on the reason you do it. Which is what I said 10 posts ago.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Here, look at one of the laws you linked earlier on to try and prove your point:

                      Virginia Code 18.2-282:

                      It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable of justifiable self-defense.

                      The exception is to the fact that it is unlawful to brandish. Which then means the exception shows when it is legally justifiable to brandish. This shows that there is a clear difference between lawful and unlawful brandishing.

                      And you linked it at the beginning of this discussion.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      I note you haven’t responded to the oxymoron/pleonasm item. I take it that amounts to a tacit concession, not that you will ever openly concede anything whatsoever to me. Because you are a troll, and trolls never, ever do that. Right? I’m not a troll, so I wouldn’t know.

                      Meanwhile. Babs The Troll sez: “Why are you still looking at murder when its very definition says it is an unlawful act. The exceptions to murder equate to homicide. So look at homicide. Why aren’t you doing this? Because you are dishonest.”

                      No, because I’m trying to make an analogy that you simply can’t comprehend. My mistake. (Forgive me for overestimating your mental capability.) Fortunately, I planned for this contingency by making up a number of analogies, at a variety of mental-capacity target levels. In particular, I sincerely hope that at least one is within your grasp, namely, the one about 6-leggedy creepy crawly things. Are they arachnids, yes or no?

                      You see, it seems like the key word in the CA is “except” (as you have so condescendingly lectured and insulted me). You think I don’t know what it means. So we need to dwell on that point a bit. It becomes important to clear up what “except” means, first in the case of 6-legged creepy crawlies, and then perhaps we can move on to acts of “waving a gun *except in self-defense*.” Or, if that is too much of a leap, maybe we can go on to “girl” or “penniless” or maybe I can make up some more, until such time as you are ready to face the “waving a gun except in self defense” question.

                      [me]”Suppose, for the sake of argument, that murder is defined as the act of deliberately and intentionally killing another person, *except in self defense*.”

                      [Babs The Troll] “Or, how about we use the real definition that we have available to us. Why are you trying to invent definitions for this conversation when we have ones ready, that we use in the real world. I don’t get it. Do you just wanna play make-believe or something? There are no exceptions for self defense in murder laws. There are in homicide laws. See, look at you making shit up and actually asking me to play along for “the sake of the argument”.”

                      Yes, I have already admitted fault in making use of an analogy beyond your grasp. Worse, why, it even has a *hypothetical* in it, gasp!! Seeing your shortfalls in abstract thought, I shall abandon that particular line of argument, and go directly to the non-hypothetical, the concrete, 6-leggedy creepy-crawlies. Arachnids, yes, or no?

                      [me] “The fact that some people, including people on ‘my side’ use “brandishing” to mean legal *or* illegal acts does not disprove my contention that, in many places, brandishing is defined as a crime. Showing a white crow does not disprove the contention that “many crows are black.””

                      [Babs The Troll] “Who should we believe here? Should we believe a couple of criminologists who wrote one of the biggest DGU papers for your side? ”

                      White crows. A whole bunch of them, admittedly, but having no bearing on whether there are many black crows or not. Since you are so well versed in logic and particularly logical fallacies, it would seem apropos to make simple statements of logic with the expectation that you would grasp them. This, too, might amount to an error on my part.

                      “If your only point is that “in many places brandishing is a crime”, then you were done a long time ago.”

                      What you do mean, “I was done?” You mean you’re conceding the argument? Retroactively? And taking back your insults? Instead, you have used this disagreement as a vehicle to launch a vast array of personal attacks against me. Because you are a troll.

                      “We both obviously know this because of the laws that we have gone over in the first posts. So is that your point? That in some places brandishing is a crime? And you are writing all of this to prove that?”

                      You might consider looking at your own motivations for making this thread as lengthy as it has been. You came to me with blood lust on your hands. You could have written, against my opening position something like “well, a lot of places define it as either legal or not” or “are you sure about that? That it’s only criminal? Where?” Or any of a hundred other responses. But no. Not you. Not now. Not here. No, you obviously have something to prove.

                      “No, the point you are trying to make is that *all* brandishing is a crime and that my claiming that there is such as thing as lawful brandishing is wrong.” [emphasis added]

                      Straw man, it’s not what I’m arguing. You even know this, because you so helpfully reposted my own position a few posts ago. Namely, that in “many places” it is defined that way. So now you’re lying again, this time about my position. (I notice you simply cut out the part about your deceitfully inserting the word “unlawful” into text I linked from elsewhere, then denied doing so, then stated it was “implied.”

                      I will admit, and indeed have admitted, that there are some places in which it is not defined as a crime. By calling Kleck’s usage a “white crow,” I have already admitted that he uses the word in the same way you do. But for some reason, you could not bring yourself to tolerate any remaining ground on my position, and came in for the kill. “So it has come to this.” You now have the uncomfortable choices of conceding this entire argument, which will be especially painful given the abuse you have heaped upon me, questioning my intelligence and motivations, comparing me to a fifth grader and calling me really, really, really, stupid, dumb fuck, etc., or you refuse to address the 6-leggedy creepy crawly analogy in some sort of obtuse-a-thon, or you leave. I’ll leave it up to you, but you brought yourself here to this position.

                      [me]”Mr. Apple would be found *not guilty* of “brandishing.” Full stop. Not otherwise qualified. Why isn’t he guilty of the crime? Because he *didn’t do it.* Because he fell into an exception.”

                      [Babs The Troll] “Uh, he did do it. But he fell under the exception. He brandished his gun, but since it was in self defense, he wasn’t found guilty of breaking the law [nope]. THAT is what you are saying. [No, it isn’t.] And THAT is what the exception means. [No, it doesn’t.] It doesn’t mean he didn’t brandish his gun, it means that since he did it for the right reasons under the law, he won’t be charged with committing a crime. [Incorrect.] The exception excuses him from an otherwise criminal act [that it does, by removing him from the definition of “brandishing” altogether]. It doesn’t say he wasn’t brandishing, which is what you try and claim the exception means. [yes it does] He WAS brandishing at the time of the incident but was excused because it was in self defense. [not under the law] Which means that there is lawful and unlawful brandishing, depending on the reason you do it. [not under CA law] Which is what I said 10 posts ago [and it was also wrong then].”

                      Incorrect. No, he wasn’t brandishing, because his justification excepts him out of the definition. That’s what the exception means. This is where we disagree, and where the need for analogies arises. Hopefully you are up to the task. Obviously, we need to settle the 6-leggedy creepy crawly question first. To learn what an exception is and means. Arachnids are *almost every* creepy-crawly thing, *except those with 6 legs* (and a few other exceptions that aren’t important, because I will restrict discussion to 6-legged creatures). Here’s an ant; it has 6 legs. Is it an arachnid, yes or no? According to me, it isn’t, because it has been excepted out of the category altogether. But according to you, it must be a “6-legged arachnid” “because that’s what the exception means.” According to you, it’s still inside an aspect of the category (creepy-crawly things / waving a gun) and therefore is still inside the overarching definition (arachnid/brandishing). But I think the definition isn’t overarching, because the exception means the definition doesn’t apply.

                      ((Brandishing a gun: every person who, *except in self defense* waves a gun in a threatening manner [is doing this criminal act…] ))

                      Your move. Preferably away from this board.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      I see you are trying to desperately grasp onto CA law since the other laws you linked at the beginning of this discussion clearly show (or more clearly show, to those with reading comprehension problems) that Nevada, Michigan, Arizona, Montana, etc don’t consider brandishing in self defense a crime. Here, Montana even spells it out for you in a way that you can’t deny, even with your problems:

                      “(Montana approved legislation says simply that brandishing a firearm in self defense is not a crime.)”

                      You linked these. You proved that lawful brandishing exists. Yet here we are 20 posts later.

                      Alright, you want to only look at California. Sure. Let us look at the text of the law again:

                      “(2)EVERY PERSON WHO, except in self-defense, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any manner, unlawfully uses a firearm in any fight or quarrel IS PUNISHABLE AS FOLLOWS:”

                      (emphasis added for the grammatically impaired who can’t comprehend sentence structures)

                      Now, let us use some basic reading comprehension and analyze this. Let’s break it down:

                      Every person who, except in self defense, does xyz, is punishable as follows.

                      The exception deals with whether the action is punishable or not. It does not say that person did not “draw or exhibit a firearm in a rude/angry/threatening matter”. That is obvious to anyone that is not you. The exception says that if they do act in the ways described, and it is in self defense, they are not punishable.

                      Yet you claim this:

                      ““Brandishing” is defined in CA law as the act of showing or waving a gun at another person, *except in self defense*. Those who do so in self defense haven’t done “lawful brandishing,” they haven’t brandished at all. They’ve done something, certainly, but not “brandishing.”

                      No, it says nothing about whether they brandished or not. It says whether they are punishable or not. So what is the action then if not brandishing? Something?

                      and this

                      “Incorrect. No, he wasn’t brandishing, because his justification excepts him out of the definition. That’s what the exception means. This is where we disagree, and where the need for analogies arises”

                      No, the justification excepts him out of being criminally punished. Yes they have lawfully brandished because the law says they are not punishable if they brandish in self defense. Plain as day. No examples of spiders or crows required. Every DGU study has brandishing/displaying the gun as the top action committed with the gun. Not just Kleck. So I guess that makes you the odd one out.

                      Another way to disprove your point is the logic of your argument. If a person didn’t brandish, it would make no sense that brandishing laws would apply to them. Right? Do you see the lack of logic in your argument? They would have had to brandish for brandishing laws to apply to them. Think Bruce.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Don’t get ahead of yourself, tiger.

                      Answer the arachnid question first.

                      It should be *really easy* for you to do.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      I don’t need an example to understand your position. You think the law says that those who brandish in self defense did not actually brandish. It’s hard to even write without thinking it makes no sense. I understand you think that and I appreciate your love for arachnids. Maybe you can tell me where in the law it says what you claim.

                      “(2)EVERY PERSON WHO, except in self-defense, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any manner, unlawfully uses a firearm in any fight or quarrel IS PUNISHABLE AS FOLLOWS:”

                      Where does it say that what you claim? I see where it says “those who do xyz, except in self defense, are punishable as follows”. Where does it say those who do xyz, except in self defense, have not done xyz.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Come on, tiger, answer the question. Don’t read too much into it, and certainly don’t present straw men or attribute my likes and dislikes.

                      Oh, I forgot, you’re a troll.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Is this you practicing your “broken record” fallacy? I am answering as to why your analogy is not needed and why it is false.

                      Here are your positions. Why are you trying to deny them when you wrote them? Are multiple people posting on your account?

                      You: ““Brandishing” is defined in CA law as the act of showing or waving a gun at another person, *except in self defense*. Those who do so in self defense haven’t done “lawful brandishing,” they haven’t brandished at all. They’ve done something, certainly, but not “brandishing.”

                      You: “No, he wasn’t brandishing, because his justification excepts him out of the definition. That’s what the exception means.

                      That’s great. Now show us where in the law it excepts him out of the definition of brandishing. Use words and put it into a sentence. Subject, verb, object. You know?

                      “(2)EVERY PERSON WHO, except in self-defense, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any manner, unlawfully uses a firearm in any fight or quarrel IS PUNISHABLE AS FOLLOWS:”

                      Then when you’re done with that, explain this sentence that you linked:

                      “Montana approved legislation says simply that brandishing a firearm in self defense is not a crime.”

                      Do you have any spider anologies for that one? Or would you like to argue there isn’t lawful brandishing in Montana?

                      Thanks!

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      No, the broken record fallacy is when someone continuously repeats their position while ignoring valid arguments that have just been made against that position, especially after also having been called on the repetition. But I’m not stating my position, I’m asking you a question. (Is a 6-leggedy creepy-crawly an arachnid or not?) You, however, are repeatedly and pointedly evading the question. You, for some reason, really don’t want to answer it, notwithstanding the fact that you have compared my intellectual abilities to a fifth grader. You question my motives, ask or answer many other questions (including the present question whether my line of argument constitutes a broken record fallacy), insult or attack me, lie, engage in other fallacies, or explain things I haven’t asked you to explain, but in any case you won’t answer the question. The fact you repeatedly refuse to answer a question I repeatedly put to you does not constitute a broken record fallacy on my part. All it indicates is evasiveness on your part.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Incidentally, a reasonable line of questioning would be to discover the reason(s) for your evasion. Are you starting to sense the checkmate destined to arrive several moves later? So your only hope is sophistry? Lucky for you it is an option here, but not in chess. I suggest you don’t answer the question. Even though it’s *so* simple.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Although I suppose not answering it amounts to resignation. So there seems to be a dilemma. Answer and face checkmate, or don’t answer and resign. Time to throw more sand in the oncoming bull’s eyes.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “No, the broken record fallacy is when someone continuously repeats their position while ignoring valid arguments that have just been made against that position, especially after also having been called on the repetition.”

                      Great, then you admit you are using your made up fallacy in hopes of trying to get out of this. Your analogy which I have said multiple times, is not relevant to the law. Show me how it’s relevant as I asked you to. You want to talk about what is or isn’t a spider. I want to talk about brandishing laws. Clearly you don’t, probably because at some point you realized that you were absolutely wrong about your claims. You’ve looked stupid before Bruce, don’t worry, this won’t be a first for you. You don’t have to worry about saving face.

                      The check mate has been in front of your face the whole time, and that is the text of the CA law.

                      “(2)EVERY PERSON WHO, except in self-defense, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any manner, unlawfully uses a firearm in any fight or quarrel IS PUNISHABLE AS FOLLOWS:”

                      Which you somehow forgot to properly quote in your opening post:

                      You said: “California Penal Code 417 (a)(2): Defines “brandishing” a firearm as follows:

                      (2) Every person who, except in self-defense, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any manner, unlawfully uses a firearm in any fight or quarrel ….”

                      How come you didn’t finish the sentence? Did you not notice that you were missing the verb for the main clause? Why did you use those ellipses instead of finishing the compound sentence? Oh. Maybe it would have made it clear that the law isn’t “defining” brandishing. It is stating who is punishable for brandishing and who isn’t.

                      Of course, that’s not counting you check mating yourself in your very first post in this discussion:

                      “Montana MCA 45-3-111:

                      (Montana approved legislation says simply that brandishing a firearm in self defense is not a crime.)

                      Your very first post. How stupid does that make you feel? I can’t imagine.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      More evasions.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Since you repeatedly refuse to answer an easy question, it appears that you are resigning.

                      So I’ll have to try a different tack:

                      Iowa:

                      “Brandishing a dangerous weapon” means the display or exhibition of a dangerous weapon, with the intent to use, intimidate, or threaten another person without justification, or the actual use of the dangerous weapon in a manner which is intended to or does cause serious injury or death without justification.”

                      http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/cool-ice/default.asp?category=billi nfo&service=iowacode&ga=83&input=723A

                      Since both elements contain “without justification” then brandishing is always criminal, and in particular self-defense is not “brandishing.” There is no legal act implied by the term “brandishing” under Iowa law. “Brandishing” is always illegal under Iowa law.

                      Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe Law and Order Code

                      Section 11 Crimes Involving Weapons
                      Brandishing Weapons.

                      5.11.000
                      “Any person who displays in a menacing fashion, any firearm, knife, club,
                      chain, rope or other object capable of producing, with the intent to intimidate,
                      harm or threaten harm to anothershall be guilty ofBrandishing Weapons.
                      Brandishing Weapons is a major crime.”

                      http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/sauk/locode.pdf

                      This is the given definition of “brandishing weapons.” It is not only criminal, it is a “major crime.” There are no exceptions to this definition, there is no legal act defined by the term. Self-defense is not given as an exception to this crime. “Brandishing” is always illegal under this Tribal code.

                      Michigan: (Opinion of Attorney General)

                      “A reserve police officer, by carrying a handgun in a holster that is in plain view, does not violate section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code, which prohibits brandishing a firearm in public.”

                      This one is more complicated, because the term “brandishing” is not explicitly defined, although there is a section that says brandishing, whatever it is, is prohibited. So the question goes to how the word is used. In fact, the AG cites the dictionary.

                      “Section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code does not define the crime of brandishing a firearm in public. The Michigan Criminal Jury Instructions, published by the Committee on Standard Criminal Jury Instructions, does not include a recommended jury instruction on brandishing a firearm. Research discloses that while the term “brandishing” appears in reported Michigan cases,2  none of the cases define the term.
                      In the absence of any reported Michigan appellate court decisions defining “brandishing,” it is appropriate to rely upon dictionary definitions. People v Denio, 454 Mich 691, 699; 564 NW2d 13 (1997). According to The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition (1982), at p 204, the term brandishing is defined as: “1. To wave or flourish menacingly, as a weapon. 2. To display ostentatiously. –n. A menacing or defiant wave or flourish.” This definition comports with the meaning ascribed to this term by courts of other jurisdictions. For example, in United States v Moerman, 233 F3d 379, 380 (CA 6, 2000), the court recognized that in federal sentencing guidelines, “brandishing” a weapon is defined to mean “that the weapon was pointed or waved about, or displayed in a threatening manner.”
                      Applying these definitions to your question, it is clear that a reserve police officer, regardless whether he or she qualifies as a “peace officer,” when carrying a handgun in a holster in plain view, is not waving or displaying the firearm in a threatening manner. Thus, such conduct does not constitute brandishing a firearm in violation of section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code.
                      It is my opinion, therefore, that a reserve police officer, by carrying a handgun in a holster that is in plain view, does not violate section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code, which prohibits brandishing a firearm in public.”

                      http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/2000s/op10176.htm

                      So then we go to the law itself.

                      750.234e Brandishing firearm in public; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.

                      Sec. 234e.
                      (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not knowingly brandish a firearm in public.
                      (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:
                      (a) A peace officer lawfully performing his or her duties as a peace officer.
                      (b) A person lawfully engaged in hunting.
                      (c) A person lawfully engaged in target practice.
                      (d) A person lawfully engaged in the sale, purchase, repair, or transfer of that firearm.
                      (3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both.
                      http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(2aneax55ksyw0x45ppdyri45))/print Document.aspx?objectName=mcl-750-234e&version=txt

                      Note that definitions (b) through (d) lack the “menacing” element which is part of the dictionary definition. Also note that self-defense is not mentioned as an exception to the law against brandishing. Therefore, “brandishing” is defined as a crime, and in particular, lawful self-defense is not “brandishing” under MI law.

                      As for element (a) police are routinely exempted from the very same laws they enforce against us, so exploring the nuances of the exception applying to them isn’t important.

                      In any case, even though the one-sentence summary specifically refers to “officers,” the AG specifically disregarded the “peace officer” element, and instead cited on the “waving or displaying the firearm in a threatening manner” aspect in coming to the decision. So it would appear the AG also finds the officer nuance unimportant.

                      “Brandishing” is always illegal under MI law.

                      Arizona: Compliment of Brandishing. “Defensive display”

                      13-421. Justification; defensive display of a firearm; definition
                      A. The defensive display of a firearm by a person against another is justified when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.
                      B. This section does not apply to a person who:
                      1. Intentionally provokes another person to use or attempt to use unlawful physical force.
                      2. Uses a firearm during the commission of a serious offense as defined in section 13-706 or violent crime as defined in section 13-901.03.
                      C. This section does not require the defensive display of a firearm before the use of physical force or the threat of physical force by a person who is otherwise justified in the use or threatened use of physical force.
                      D. For the purposes of this section, “defensive display of a firearm” includes:
                      1. Verbally informing another person that the person possesses or has available a firearm.
                      2. Exposing or displaying a firearm in a manner that a reasonable person would understand was meant to protect the person against another’s use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.
                      3. Placing the person’s hand on a firearm while the firearm is contained in a pocket, purse or other means of containment or transport.

                      http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00421.htm&T itle=13&DocType=ARS

                      This is a complementary case. I did not find the term “brandishing” in AZ law. A “defensive display” of a firearm as defined by AZ law is a *lawful* act, including self-defense. What is excepted from the definition of “defensive display” are criminal misuses of a gun.

                      So consider the set of all “threatening displays with intent” = “brandishes[Babs]”. Remove the ones which are lawful “defensive displays.” The remaining, necessarily criminal, ones are “brandishing”[Bruce].

                      If the word “brandishing” is used in an arrest report or legal case (in which a law was violated, or at least suspected of being violated), it can’t possibly be referring to a “defensive display” because that’s legal. It must be referring to an action that was illegal, or at least suspected of being illegal. Therefore, the word “brandishing” when used in official or legal documents in AZ always refers to a crime or suspected crime.

                      Gun Rights Internet forums.

                      It is easy to find examples from within the gun culture which go beyond with what I understand the word to mean, i.e. brandishing is *always* criminal. (Fun fact: this was a strawman you erected in my name; I can allow “brandishing” to mean legal acts in some cases, but I maintain that it sometimes means only criminal acts. In “many places.”)

                      Rick Lee: “Brandishing is not the same as defensive display and is always illegal. Defensive display is not illegal.”

                      http://www.city-data.com/forum/phoenix-area/902830-brandishing-cr imes-felony-law.html#ixzz2rKVpwaUZ

                      Tattedupboy: “So I guess that the subject of this thread should be, “When is it legal to to point a firearm at someone?”, since we all agree that “brandishing” is never legal, although pointing it to stop an attacker is.”

                      and

                      gdcleanfun “Brandishing is not legal. Using a weapon in self defense is.”

                      http://www.usacarry.com/forums/deadly-force-law/307-when-legal-br andish-firearm-11.html

                      So at least in the gun culture the usage is often that “Brandishing” is defined as *always* a crime. (Stronger than my position.) Logically, if there were any dispersion whatsoever in that culture about the meaning of the word, more would agree with my position, that in “many places” it refers to a crime, than would agree with the absolute position that it *always* refers to a crime, because my claimed definition allows exceptions that the absolute position does not.

                      So we have: IA law, Sauk Tribal Code, MI law, AZ official communication, & the gun culture. Defined as a criminal act. Many places.

                      It is interesting to observe that you are willing to engage in such hostility, insults, and denigration, just over differences in definition of a single word.

                      It shows your true nature.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      I see you’ve abandoned the CA law. Add that to the list of Virginia, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and Montana which you brought up and then abandoned.

                      I find it funny that you bring up Michigan. It has clear exceptions that are written in the English language, but you claim these are not actual exceptions.

                      You claim: “Brandishing” is always illegal under MI law.

                      Sec. 234e.
                      (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not knowingly brandish a firearm in public.
                      (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:
                      (a) A peace officer lawfully performing his or her duties as a peace officer.
                      (b) A person lawfully engaged in hunting.
                      (c) A person lawfully engaged in target practice.
                      (d) A person lawfully engaged in the sale, purchase, repair, or transfer of that firearm.

                      Looks like the law says that A through D are NOT illegal forms of brandishing. The law refutes your claims, sorry.

                      But you still want to claim that there are places that criminalize defensive brandishing. Even though those places have laws that protect you if you kill a person in self defense, you think that brandishing the gun used to kill someone in self defense is criminal. But the killing aspect is justified and lawful. Absolutely nonsensical. You lack any form of basic common sense.

              • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                “You guys have a fixation with doing illegal things. Might want to get that checked out.”

                so,when an armed citizen helps a thug achieve room temperature,and the grand jury or district attorney’s office(those are elements of the criminal justice system),rule it justifiable homicide,how is it an “illegal act”?

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  “so,when an armed citizen helps a thug achieve room temperature,and the grand jury or district attorney’s office(those are elements of the criminal justice system),rule it justifiable homicide,how is it an “illegal act”?”

                  So when an armed citizen intimidates a citizen in order to get their way and the grand jury or district attorney’s office(those are elements of the criminal justice system), rule it an assault, how is it a “legal act”?

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    Answer: the presumption of innocence. People are presumed innocent of breaking laws until convicted in court by a jury of their peers. George Zimmerman got indicted, charged, and tried, by a rather slanted process, I might add, but he was found Not Guilty which means he committed no crime, i.e. his acts were legal. That’s how.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Zimmerman wasn’t convicted of an assault. Bringing more straw men to the party I see.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Oh, I forgot, this is still Florida where popcorn throwing is considered assault.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Mark The Troll, you are truly desperate to attach any logical fallacy you can grasp to my posts. The answer I gave applies to *all crimes*, notably, *including assault*. That’s how big the answer “the presumption of innocence” is. It applies to everyone (in America), and to all criminal accusations.

                      I cited George Zimmerman as an example of my answer, which is completely general, and yet you pathetically accuse me of a straw man because the example I gave wasn’t the one exact crime in particular you were asking about. I could have given an example of any crime at all. My only purpose in picking his accused crime was because I was sure you and the others here knew about it and it’s resolution.

                      So, what logical fallacy is it when one’s debate opponent just shouts out logical fallacies at random, hoping that maybe the opponent in particular, and the audience in general, is unaware of their meaning and can’t detect the desperation in the other’s strategy, but instead scores a #winning point for the one employing the tactic?

                      After all, with all your schooling, and indeed condescension, on the subject of logical fallacies, anyone would think, wouldn’t one, that you of all people would know what a straw man argument is, and isn’t, and that you wouldn’t so carelessly throw out such a charge in such a truly pathetic and transparent way.

                      “Stop. You’re embarrassing yourself. Really. Just stop.”

                      (I learned that from another troll here. How’d I do?)

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      No, you brought up Zimmerman because you are uncomfortable talking about the propensity of gun worshipers to confuse assaults with self defense. Some of those escalate to murder…except in Florida where popcorn is considered a deadly weapon.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      First, no I didn’t, and by the way don’t try to read my thoughts or attribute my motives. (Or, I would be forced to admit that the reason you come here is as a distraction against your urges to rape children.) Second, you failed to acknowledge that, irrespective of my reasons, the fact remains that “the presumption of innocence until proven guilty” in any case answers your question. But of course you will never admit that, because you’re a troll.

                    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                      Answer: the presumption of innocence. People are presumed innocent of breaking laws until convicted in court by a jury of their peers. George Zimmerman got indicted, charged, and tried, by a rather slanted process, I might add, but he was found Not Guilty which means he committed no crime, i.e. his acts were legal. That’s how.

                      But,Markbabs does’nt agree with the verdict in the self defense/public service shooting in the Zimmerman case,therefore it is’nt valid

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    I’m going to assume that reading is not one of those skills that came easy for you in school.

                  • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                    So when an armed citizen intimidates a citizen in order to get their way and the grand jury or district attorney’s office(those are elements of the criminal justice system), rule it an assault, how is it a “legal act

                    Not the brightest crayon in the box,are you?I was referring to justified self defense shootings,not criminal assault.Please try to pay attention.

    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

      “I am afraid that I can not begin to wrap my head around the concept “making my case” against gun laws, when it is your position that the state has no power, it is really corporations. I must confess that I can simply not understand the concept of the state protecting us via laws, when the state has no power, but corporations have all the power. I think that means that gun laws come from corporations. As I say, I am totally confused. Perhaps you can explain this to simple minded me. Why do corporations want gun laws? Why do they care? If the state has no power and the corporations run things them why do you want gun laws. Again, perhaps you can explain. But from what you have said, your point of view is the offspring of Lewis Carol and Rod Serling”

      Monty Python and Mel Brooks also come to mind

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        ***I can not begin to wrap my head around the concept “making my case” against gun laws, when it is your position that the state has no power, it is really corporations. I must confess that I can simply not understand the concept of the state protecting us via laws, when the state has no power, but corporations have all the power.***
        ***But from what you have said, your point of view is the offspring of Lewis Carol and Rod Serling***
        ***Monty Python and Mel Brooks also come to mind***

        That argument from mark/babs is a bastard son of many fathers.

  5. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    A Christmas incident in Florida. Another mass murder averted by a citizen with a gun. The only fatality was the perp.
    Armed neighbors make good neighbors. Man saves neighbors’ lives instead of waiting for police
    http://bulletsfirst.net/2013/12/27/armed-neighbors-make-good-neig hbors-man-saves-neighbors-lives-instead-waiting-police/

    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

      saved the taxpayers of Florida a bundle

    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

      Well,I told you how our incompetent keystone kops are,when the sheriff’s department,40 miles away,beat them to an armed robbery two blocks away,or when my Legion post got burglarized,and they waited ,not for ONE county to send sheriff’s deputies,but TWO counties,and the guy was long gone.Fortunately,I’ve got a direct link with the alarm company,living only a few blocks away,and they’ve been instructed to call me,rather the cops if the alarm goes off.

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        Not happy with the local constabulary, are you?

        • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

          one of the best arguments in favor of abolishing standing police forces that I’ve ever seen

          • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

            The Sheriff should arrest them.

            • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

              I’ve advocated for years that in most places,you would need only the sheriff and at best,a handfull of deputies.When Ed Gein was arrested in 1957,Waushara County only had the sheriff,and a single deputy.Somehow they managed to get him.

              • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                An elected Sheriff has to be more attuned and work with the people of his county, whereas a hired police chief and his deputies serve the political establishment, often enough to the detriment of the people.

                • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                  An elected Sheriff has to be more attuned and work with the people of his county, whereas a hired police chief and his deputies serve the political establishment, often enough to the detriment of the people.

                  Well,the Sheriff in Athens,TN certainly found that out,as he cowered in the jail surrounded by armed citizens on election day

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      From the article: ***A return towards traditional social structures and values would perhaps help more than politically motivated, lobbyist driven, misdirected legislation touted by the left as “gun control.”***
      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/01/mass_shootings_and_th e_left.html#ixzz2puTcgKNR

      But that would mean the “great socialist experiment” has been a total failure, as if we didn’t know that already.

      • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

        But that would mean the “great socialist experiment” has been a total failure, as if we didn’t know that already.

        Such a failure that Ray Charles can see it,but lefttards can’t

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          Ray Charles doesn’t wear those special “reality filter” glasses that libs use to make the real world more acceptable to them.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      A couple of things to correct:
      Prices for the rifle now are now about $125, and ammunition is now being imported from Romania @ slightly less than $0.23/round, You can find it cheaper but ya got to clean the dirt off yourself.

  6. cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/jennifer-cruz/it-was-him-or-me  /

    yet another thug removed from the gene puddle

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      A promising criminal career cut short! He should have been expected to contribute at least another ten years of criminality and thuggish behavior before he was likely to have either overdosed, been shot in a drive-by shooting, or been sent to prison for life.

      • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

        “A promising criminal career cut short! He should have been expected to contribute at least another ten years of criminality and thuggish behavior before he was likely to have either overdosed, been shot in a drive-by shooting, or been sent to prison for life.”

        too bad armed citizens who perform civic services and urban renewal such as this don’t get paid bounties

  7. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    Mark says:
    January 9, 2014 at 12:20 pm

    ***I have no agenda. I expect no change in attitudes. I do have my reasons for participating and if I told them to you I’m sure you’d accuse me of lying.***

    Only because you’ve been caught so often.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      It’s because you don’t like to hear the truth. It’s why you have to resort to insults so much.

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        Intelligence analyst by training. I have no problem hearing and understanding truth. I don’t have any difficulty spotting duplicity and agenda.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          You must gave sucked at it.

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            What was your purpose for posting that?

            Mark The Troll: you must have been, continue to be, and will forever remain a terrible example of and sorry excuse for a human being.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              An observation of poor performance. Wrong on nearly every count.

              • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                No, a vicious ad hominem attack. You even lie about that. “You must suck at …” is not an observation, it’s a negative judgement concealed as a speculation.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  I find that accusation coming from you to be quite ironic. You’re not very good at this are you?

                • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                  “No, a vicious ad hominem attack. You even lie about that. “You must suck at …” is not an observation, it’s a negative judgement concealed as a speculation.”

                  that’s all the radical left vermin know

          • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

            Spit on any GIs recently? Has that gone out of style with the left since VN?

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Why no, should I? What does being a GI have to do with any thing other than a appeal to emotion.

            • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

              Haup, spitting on soldiers as a sign of one’s disrespect is probably overdoing it. That is not to say that one should respect a soldier. We do not respect the crooks who were part of Murder Inc. I see little dilfference practically between them and soldiers. Both are hired thugs. Just most soldiers are suckered by patriotic appeals and are thus more pathetic than the crooks who are at least in it for individual gain and do not pretend to “higher” motives.

              • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                I will kindly invite you to back off.

              • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                “Both are hired thugs. Just most soldiers are suckered by patriotic appeals and are thus more pathetic than the crooks who are at least in it for individual gain and do not pretend to “higher” motives.”

                How much time do you have in a combat zone,putting an end to nonsense?Some of my guys liberated victims of a rape room at an Iraqi police station-were they “thugs”?I suppose my Uncle was also a thug when he helped liberate a nazi death camp in 1945,and I was one as well when my unit helped drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait City-and an old commander of mine was clearly a thug as he led his tank platoon into a Bosnian village,ending genocide by the Serbs.

                • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                  I was smart enough to avoid the draft. Kuwait was definitely BS. One can always make cases for interfering with other people’s lives “for their own good”. I say stop with foreign interventionism. If we keep any standing army let it protect the US people inside our borders and fuck the rest of the world. You mistakenly think that militaries exist to protect their peoples. They exist to protect and perpetuate the power and perqs of the ruling elite. Until you get that on a gut level you will be susceptable to militaristic propaganda and a willing slave to the ruling ellite.

            • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

              well,I certainly got a wonderfull reception from the smelly hippies at Seat-Tac upon my return from OIF1,but they knew better than to spit

              • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                The cops kept us from appropriate retaliation at the Oakland terminal.

                • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                  “The cops kept us from appropriate retaliation at the Oakland terminal.”

                  While traveling home on emergency leave in early ’91,one of the guys on my flight was a marine corps gunny who had laid out a few hippies in Oakland upon his return from VN

        • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

          “Intelligence analyst by training. I have no problem hearing and understanding truth. I don’t have any difficulty spotting duplicity and agenda.”

          just remember that “military intelligence” is an oxymoron.That affirmative action G-2 Major we had at Lewis comes to mind

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      It’s a start. My cousin taught me that the first round goes into the groin, and then walk the remainder up the torso to the head. Very effective.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      Wait for it. mark gonna say it was an assault with a deadly weapon.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        It doesn’t surprise me that you don’t know what assault with a deadly weapon is. Goes right along with the rest of your misunderstandings.

        • BruceNo Gravatar says:

          … coming from a troll who has a sufficiently broken moral compass to be unable to distinguish murder from lawful killing in self defense. In fact, coming from someone who jokes about the former.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Assault isn’t killing either. Your ignorance is showing again.

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              I didn’t say that assault was killing, oh great master of Straw Man arguments. I merely said you were unable to distinguish them. (As evidenced by your past history on this board.) As a clue to this fact, you also didn’t joke about murder in your last post, but it is something else you have done in the past.

  8. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    MarkNo Gravatar says:
    January 12, 2014 at 11:10 pm
    ***So brandishing a gun takes you into the bad guy category. Thank you.***

    No.

  9. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    MarkNo Gravatar says:
    January 12, 2014 at 11:14 pm

    ***Often necessary when one attempts to dodge the question. I think you referred to it as duplicity.***

    We’ve caught you at both.

  10. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    By M. Alex Johnson, Staff Writer, NBC News

    A retired cop, irked that the couple in front of him were texting at a Mark Wahlberg war movie, opened fire in a Florida theater Monday, killing the man and wounding his wife, authorities said.
    Curtis Reeves Jr., 71, was charged with second-degree homicide in the death of Chad Oulson, 43, Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco said late Monday afternoon. The theater was evacuated and remained closed after the shooting, which occurred about 1:20 p.m. ET.
    Oulson was shot in the chest after a verbal and physical confrontation with Reeves, and his wife, Nichole Oulson, was shot in the hand. Chad Oulson was pronounced dead at a hospital, and his wife was treated for non-life-threatening injuries.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      I suppose you bring this up to illustrate the effectiveness of no gun signs? What? There were no signs? Was Oulson black? Will we have another screaming monkey circus by the race hatred pimps?

      Does “physical and verbal altercation” mean that Reeves was attacked? I guess we’ll have to wait on the trial to get all the evidence.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Guns empower to the point of abuse.

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          Good also for putting down thugs who think they can beat old folks.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Reeves went to his car to get his gun. Sounds pretty premeditated to me.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Actually it appears he already had the gun.

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              So which story is it? One is obviously a lie.

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                Need your facts spoonfed to you again danny?

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  Its best to not descend to their level of reasoning (if you can call it that). Instead of debating against straw men, appeals to authority, appeals to emotion, personal attacks, rejecting anything less than perfection, “you too”, and flat out lies, I’d show them reality (they call this spam) and if they can’t or won’t understand then its their own hell they get to live in. Just keep your substitute penises to your self or I’ll have you in jail on assault charges.

                  • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                    You’ve been invited to make your absence many times. Now you threaten? This does nothing to bolster any argument you’ve made, rather it illustrates the bankruptcy of your position(s).

                    ”An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.” ~Col. Jeff Cooper

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Evil will exist until it’s root causes are addressed. Treating the symptoms does little long term good. You people just like righteous indignation and fear acknowledging powerlessness. Fear and money, the two great motivators of the ignorant.

                    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                      ”An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.” ~Col. Jeff Cooper

                      another gem from the good colonel

                    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                      “The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”
                      ― Jeff Cooper, Art Of The Rifle

                      another good one from Cooper

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “…they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”

                      Not to mention over correction…

                      http://www.herald-dispatch.com/x1781485358/Building-owned-by-vict im-of-shooting

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                They say he might invoke stand your ground as a defense. Should be interesting! FoxNews even invented a new term when trying to excuse the killer. It’s called “data rage”. Kinda like road rage, you see? But I guess with cell phones. Poor guy just couldn’t control himself. If only more people had guns in that theater, they probably would have stopped this, right? Hahahaha.

                Guns don’t gun guns. Guns gun guns.

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  Regarding a SYG defense, from a lawyer’s perspective:

                  “Many factors could come into play, he said.

                  For one, when Oulson threw popcorn, that was technically assault under state law. Was it reasonable to respond with deadly force simply because of the popcorn? No, Rose said.

                  However, if Reeves considered the popcorn throwing to be one step in an escalating response from Oulson — and if the 71-year-old man feared that Oulson would come over the movie theater seats and physically attack him next — and if Reeves felt he wouldn’t be able to handle such an attack from a younger man, then jurors might consider deadly force reasonable, the attorney said.

                  “Here’s the problem: We’re trying to look into the mind of the defendant and posit what the thought was happening,” Rose said.”

                  Two points:

                  1. It is possible that throwing popcorn will officially be punishable by getting shot and possibly killed.
                  2. They make the obvious point that SYG laws try and determine what the person thought at the time when that is obviously impossible. At the time of trial, if SYG is invoked, of course the defendant will say he feared for his life.

                  Oh man, I hope he uses SYG as his defense.

                • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

                  I think that some people here might enjoy reading about this

                  dunning – kruger effect

                  and imagine to whom it applies. I am not pointing any fingers

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  Some people might just benefit from such knowledge.

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    Surely not people who know so much that they also happen to be such experts on Tribal Code that they even know, for certain, about unwritten exceptions within the Code. Which is far beyond my limited knowledge base. I have much to learn. Although I do happen to already know about the D-K effect.

      • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

        I suppose you bring this up to illustrate the effectiveness of no gun signs? What? There were no signs? Was Oulson black? Will we have another screaming monkey circus by the race hatred pimps?

        If race was’nt a factor,the silence from Jesse Jackass and Al Charlatan willl be deafening,but if it was,and IF the cop acted in self defense,which is possiblthey won’t shut up for a second.Remember,there were over 11,000 black on black homicides between the time of the justified self defense shooting by Zimmerman,and his aquittal,and not a peep from the race pimps.

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          Blacks get a pass for killing blacks, dontchaknow.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Our self appointed theatre cop was certainly emboldened by possession of his gun. He was even on the board of a neighboring county’s Crime Stoppers organization.

          Got any other straw men to set up?

  11. cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

    http://thearmedcitizen.com/38-special-vs-steak-knife/

    Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      When he gets turned loose, he’ll get another knife…

      • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

        hopefully,the next guy is’nt quite as forgiving.That little pissant that pulled a knife on me got a free pass,having only to change his drawers when I laid a pistol on the bridge of his nose.If he wants another go-round,I might not feel so forgiving.

  12. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    A dispute over background checks is preventing a Texas county from hosting a long-running gun show at its Exposition Center.

    Travis County commissioners did not renew a lease for the controversial event, according to the Austin American-Statesman.

    Saxet Gun Shows has hosted a show nearly every month since 2010, but when county officials wanted the company to require background checks for all firearm transactions, Saxet refused.

    Weeks of discussions ensued, but both sides could not come to an agreement. Now the show will likely have to find another venue.

    The background checks would only have affected about 10 percent of gun show sales. Federally-licensed firearms sellers are already required to implement background checks to ensure buyers are not felons or prohibited from owning a gun.

    But, according to the paper, different rules apply to private sales. Travis County officials wanted background checks for those sales when someone wants to sell a gun from a personal collection, as well. Saxet would not comply.

    Only one county commissioner, Gerald Daugherty, was willing to propose signing the $114,000 contract with Saxet. But when no other commissioners supported his move, negotiations were at a standstill.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      Cherish it!

      • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

        Well,Oklahoma tends to have a bit more sense than many states.While I was at Sill for a week prior to deploying to Iraq in ’03,there was an attempted robbery of a 7-11,and the clerk shot the guy,and he was sent off to the Commanche County morgue,where he belonged,and the deputies who responded helped the clerk hose down the blood after they filled out the report.

  13. cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

    http://bulletsfirst.net/2014/01/14/gov-cuomo-endorses-actions-ret ired-co
    p-killed-rude-movie-theater-patron/

    more on theater shooting

  14. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Another situation stopped, not by guns. Fortunately the 12 year olds second amendment rights were in full force. Thank you NRA.

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/14/22302153-12-year-old-i n-custody-after-2-students-shot-at-new-mexico-middle-school?lite

    • KorruptorNo Gravatar says:

      Hardly, the only sawed-off shotgun one’s going to pull from a bag is a 2 or 3 rounder.

      The teacher talked a kid down with an empty gun.
      Not brave at all.

  15. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    http://nocera.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/13/weekend-gun-report-jan uary-10-12-2014/?_r=0

    This week’s NRA Young Patriot for Liberty™ is a 3-year-old boy who was shot in the head and killed by a relative at a home in Arkansas Saturday afternoon. The NRA will honor his sacrifice by giving his parents a free one-year membership and a coupon for discount ammo at Cabela’s.

  16. Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

    This is kind of off topic but I am curious about the response that I will get. From what I can tell, about 10 to 20% of the posters demonstrate the ability to follow a complex argument and can respond without resorting name calling.

    Most of the rest of the posts appear to me to be a variation of “Posters name” is a _____tard, and his arguments are “pejorative word of the day”. I have not done an analysis, but I have not seen that this distribution skews to either conservative or liberal.

    I would like to know the reaction to this: which I sent out under the title “defeating obamacare”

    Exposing the delusion of anarchist viewpoints and the alleged lack of need of some centralized state.

    That presumes that people like you are actually capable of cooperation on large scale projects. Here is your opportunity to demonstrate that. I have little doubt that you will almost all fail miserably. I really do wish that were not the case.

    I am sure that you are all aware that these are some of the issues you will have to work out.
    how will money be handled?
    What medical issues will be covered?
    How will preventive care be handled?
    How much more will a lazy fat smoker who lives at McDonalds be charged over
    a lean athletic farmer who grows their own organic food?
    What procedures will be covered? What “alternative” treatments will be covered? homoeopathy? various electrical cures?
    Will you cover vaccines?
    If someone chooses to not get vaccinated and gets that disease and runs up a 1/2 million in medical bills from, say, encephalitis due to measles will you cover that?

    I am sure that there are many other issues. Here is where idealism and purity meats your wallet 🙂

    If you are correct, than given your combined networking ability you should be able to form some sort of health network, or a network of networks that would be able to address all of your health needs. It could also be a sharp stick in the eye of Obamacare and a demonstration how people can solve their problems without government.

    Here is the model http://www.npr.org/2013/09/28/227238887/the-religious-alternative -to-obamacares-individual-mandate

    Surely with all of your smarts (You know that you are smart don’t you), and resources, and desire to get out from under obamacare you can pull this off 🙂

    Here is my excuse for not joining. I am 67, and my domestic partner is a teacher so I am covered until she retires. then it is off to medicade. But if you guys are still running in 5 years, then I will probably sign up. Assuming that I am still alive and did not ski into a tree — again 🙂

    ps. there are a few atheists who do not worship the state as god. You might want to market to them also
    =========================
    If I have annoyed to many by posting here, please accept my apologies, and move the comment to an appropriate venue.

    Thanks, in advance, for your responses.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      I would entertain discussing this on a more appropriate discussion group.

      I’m trying to see how yielding to a Christian collective for help in times of need is different than one of elected officials. The fact remains that there are objectives that an individual cannot achieve.

      At the moment you seem rational.

      • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

        Why, exactly, would it be a “Christian Collective”. It could be Islamic, Buddhist, atheist or any group who just want to do their own thing.
        Bruce: “The Christian Collective is a partial response to that, but the fact is, even they have to deal with vast distortions. ”
        Yes. But it is a first step. And a large collective would have buying power, similar to insurance companies. Also, because of their very nature, they would be much more inclined to encourage real health maintenance among their members. It would be like a network, and networks are almost always better than hierarchies. Certainly it would be better than just sitting around and complaining. And it may serve as a model for cooperative action.

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking for. The medical market as we have it now in this country is greatly distorted by regulations and mandates, and Obamacare on top of that is a huge additional market distortion. The Christian Collective is a partial response to that, but the fact is, even they have to deal with vast distortions. (Why does being in IC for a few days cost $70,000?) I guess my overall reaction is, the system is so very, badly, desperately broken, that it almost needs to be redone from scratch.

      • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

        Bruce, the health care system is a government protected monopoly and as such does exactly what it is suppossed to do. It takes money and power from the populace and puts it into the hands of the ruling elite. Most professions do this same thing to one extent or another. That is why I say that libertarian economic theory ala Von Mises is incorrect in that it supports government as necessary to enforce contracts. Government always supports the ruling elite. You can’t have free enterprise and government simultaneously. That is why the corporate “free enterprise” of today is really corporate tyrrany.

        • BruceNo Gravatar says:

          I not only understand your argument, I completely agree with it. But if Mark The Troll can’t see the difference between free market decisions and the coercive power of The State, I have little hope of convincing him that corporatism is evil.

          • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

            Bruce, no you will not convince Mark of much of anything I fear. Too bad for he is half correct on a number of issues. His basic problem is that he has an inherant trust of government. It is an apriori assumption on his part and thus not very amenable to change. Those of us with an inherant distrust of government (or other collectlivist organizations) would rather trust individuals even knowing they will fuck up sometimes over trusting a never ending beauracracy. Thus I much prefer guns in the hands of the people rather than in the hands of government stooges like cops or soldiers.

  17. BruceNo Gravatar says:

    “I’m trying to see how yielding to a Christian collective for help in times of need is different than one of elected officials. The fact remains that there are objectives that an individual cannot achieve.”

    It is not surprising that you can’t see the difference. Yielding to a Church for help (1) is something one does voluntarily and which (2) the others must be then be willing and able to provide out of the goodness of their own hearts and pocketbooks. Elected officials, acting through The State, will come “help” you whether you want it or not, if they decide you ‘need’ their help, and (2) use coercive methods to fund whatever it is they they decide to do for you, whether it is to pay you a monthly check, or house you in one of the local institutions, or relocate you to a trailer, or force you to take medication, or whatever The Law dictates Must Be Done under the circumstances.

    If you can’t discern the difference between charity and the coercive power of The State, it’s not clear that arguing finer details of or nuances about health care could possibly go anywhere useful at all.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      You have trouble with abstract thought and often resort to jumping to concrete examples to make what you think is a point. You should try and figure out why your analogies fall flat so often.

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        You have trouble with morality and often confuse the locations of events on the good/evil axis. You should try to figure out the difference between coercing others to do something, vs. cooperation in which all participants of a voluntary transaction benefit.

  18. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Electing representatives is a cooperative effort.

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      No, it is a collective effort. There may be many participants, but thee are winners and there are losers. In particular, there are losers. They get to have the will of the majority inflicted upon them, often at gunpoint. White KKK members were elected to positions of political power in the South a few decades ago, and the result was anything but “cooperative” to the blacks who also lived there, notwithstanding your so-called ‘cooperation’. You demonstrate in your short post how utterly you fail to grasp the coercive power of the state, and the difference between such power and voluntary cooperation.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        “No, it is a collective effort. ”

        My point exactly.

        • BruceNo Gravatar says:

          A majority of people running roughshod over the others is a far cry from a group of people deciding that they will voluntarily work together. The difference is the presence or absence of coercion. The fact you write “my point exactly” means you don’t get the coercive aspect at all. You might want to look into that.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Your religious group will have coercive aspects as well. If we are talking about healthcare you have to abandon you hatred of government because “they tell you to do stuff” that is not part of the health care issue. Do you think your religious group will support abortions? This is not a rule-free situation in either case.

            In fact, I *do* understand the coercive nature of any group of two or more people.

            Thank goodness I don’t have to rely on a religious group for healthcare. They might start boring holes in my head.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Btw, I would prefer to take this discussion somewhere else of mutual agreement rather than pollute this discussion.

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              Mark The Troll writes: “Your religious group will have coercive aspects as well.”

              Yep, you don’t understand coercion at all. You have the freedom to not join the religious collective. But there is a law that forces you to buy healthcare. (Among rather quite a few others.)

              “If we are talking about healthcare you have to abandon you hatred of government because “they tell you to do stuff” that is not part of the health care issue. Do you think your religious group will support abortions? This is not a rule-free situation in either case.”

              The fact they have conditions is not the same as the coercion of government. You don’t have to accept their conditions, you can just walk away. But it doesn’t matter whether you accept the government’s conditions or not. Either you comply, or you can expect to be fined, jailed, or killed, depending on what conditions are not being met. That’s worlds different from “we don’t do abortions.”

              “In fact, I *do* understand the coercive nature of any group of two or more people.”

              You haven’t demonstrated it yet. Furthermore, one person can force you to do something against your will too. It’s just that he won’t be acting with the air of legitimacy if he’s acting alone, as opposed to “with the approval of” or “on behalf of” 51% of registered voters. It seems the concept of the Tyranny of the Majority entirely escapes you. Maybe it’s too abstract for you. Perhaps I should be more concrete so as to better be able to reach you. Imagine a government comprised of half white racists and half black “community activists.” Depending on which side got power, laws would be changed that would largely pertain to how to oppress or destroy the other side, and in particular, how to ensure that future elections had ‘desirable’ outcomes. There would be no legitimacy to such acts conferred by the fact the victors won any elections. Come to think of it, our present two-party system is quite similar, what with the current president arranging affairs during the sequester shutdown to inflict maximum damage on rural schools, i.e. the children of the other side. http://naturalresources.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?Docume ntID=324873 http://goldrushcam.com/sierrasuntimes/index.php/mariposa-daily-ne ws-2014/169-january/11703-house-natural-resources-committee-repor t-finds-white-house-office-of-management-and-budget-ordered-seque ster-of-secure-rural-school-funds-over-usda-opposition- The fact that someone won an election doesn’t make all his desired actions necessarily moral. But if you have a broken moral compass, you would never realize this.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                “Yep, you don’t understand coercion at all. You have the freedom to not join the religious collective. But there is a law that forces you to buy healthcare. (Among rather quite a few others.)”

                You have the freedom to live in a different country.

          • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

            mark suffers from the ‘progressive myopia’ disease. He sees everything as a problem to be “solved” by governmental authority, whether there is an actual problem or not.

            • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

              mark suffers from the ‘progressive myopia’ disease. He sees everything as a problem to be “solved” by governmental authority, whether there is an actual problem or not.

              The same government who hired “experts” from Texas,to train Yoopers at K.I. sawyer AFB in Da U.P. on snow removal?Or the same one that took over the Mustang Ranch in Nevada and it went broke?How does one go broke,dealing in hookers and whiskey?

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Government solutions have their place. Generally those where individuals are incapable of providing one on their own and are a common good, such as clean air, clean water, safe and efficient highways, airway control, defence, safe food production, safe drugs, disaster relief, and yes… some sort of consistent form of healthcare for people who get sick.

              Places government should not be involved: Religion, marriage, what I put into my body. Generally things of a personal level.

              See the difference?

              • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                1. Broken record fallacy. You have entirely ignored the argument e.g. that medicines kill ~100,000/ year, instead, you simply restate “safe medicines” as if the argument had never been made.
                2. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Even supposing that we have safe roads (actually ~50,000 fatalities/year) or safe medicines (actually ~100,000 fatalities/year) or safe air travel (actually pretty dang safe), and knowing that we have government agencies tasked with ensuring such, you simply state, “therefore, the agencies make them safe and are therefore necessary and proper.” You have made no argument that without the agencies, the roads or medicines or air travel would be any worse, therefore, you have failed to make the argument that the agencies are net benefits.

                Do you really think that, absent the “necessary” FAA, which keeps airplanes from crashing into one another in mid-air, that American Airlines and United and Southwest would find it unnecessary to create some sort of midair traffic management system, and would immediately have many more mid-airs? You don’t think it’s in their interest to keep from hitting each other’s, and their own, airplanes? That without the FAA, disaster would be a weekly or daily occurrence? I personally think that, not only despite, but *because* of the profit motive, airline companies have a very big incentive to not crash airplanes, and if the FAA weren’t around they would take the initiative to ensure that crashes were rare all by themselves, because crashes are expensive. Big passenger jets cost many tens of million dollars, they will have to pay survivors in judgements if it was their fault, and probably worst of all, they will lose future business if the perception becomes that they are cavalier or dangerous, possibly to the extent of going out of business entirely. With market share to be replaced by other firms that are perceived to be more careful.

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  You are using capitalist logic to counter the ravenings of a socialist ocd sophist. He wants you to descend to his level of rant and prevarication.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    If you think Capitalism solves everything then it is you that has the problem.

                    Some things should not be for profit.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Straw man argument. Nobody is claiming that capitalism “solves everything.” I was really hoping to debate with someone who could put forth a logical argument.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “If you think Capitalism solves” is not a fallacy. He is perfectly welcome to define what capitalism solves and does not solve. I’m just pointing out that if he thinks so he is wrong. At this point I have not seen one argument FOR non-profit solutions to problems so I am left to wonder if he thinks anything can be solved by capitalism.

                      You’re not very good at this.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Such as what pray tell? The most efficient projects of all sorts are done for profit. From medical research to rebuilding California’s earthquake damage to managing wildlife refuges, those done for profit are far better managed and the results far eclipse anything run by the government.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    When profit is the only motive you end up with things like 300,000 people without clean water to drink / cook / bathe with.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      1. Profit isn’t the only motive.
                      2. “Profit” is a loaded term, because presumptively government doesn’t seek profit. Except that there’s “revenue” and “revenue enhancement” and taxes fines and civil asset forfeiture and the Kelo decision in which it was decided that governments can seize property from one private entity and give it to another “so as to enhance tax revenue.” But, none of this is “profit.” Take your loaded terminology elsewhere.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      3. When ruling people is the only motive, you end up with hundreds of millions of people killed by their own governments in the last 100 years, for an average death toll of more than a million people per year. Which is well over 100 times the fatality rate of firearms homicides.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      And compensated for their travails.

                      You blame every municipal sewage system for the pollution that results when their equipment fails or there is a flood?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Typical dodge. Redefine terms.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “And compensated for their travails.”

                      I’m sure they were looking forward to getting sick so they could cash in.

                      “You blame every municipal sewage system for the pollution that results when their equipment fails or there is a flood?”

                      To a large extent, yes. Failure should not be rewarded or ignored. The FEMA response to Katrina was a colossal failure.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Freedom Industries, the company that fouled thousands of West Virginians’ water with a chemical leak into the Elk River last week, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Friday.

                      Freedom owes $3.6 million to its top 20 unsecured creditors, according to bankruptcy documents. The company also owes more than $2.4 million in unpaid taxes to the Internal Revenue Service, and the IRS has placed at least three liens on Freedom’s property, demanding payment.


                      One of those for-profit capitalists dumping their losses on tax payers for a social solution to the damage. All hail capitalism.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Mark The Troll sez: “One of those for-profit capitalists dumping their losses on tax payers for a social solution to the damage. All hail capitalism.”

                      1. By going bankrupt, they are very likely to cease existing entirely. Unlike, say, Fannie Mae which was nationalized and continues to drain taxpayers today.
                      2. Their losses will only be dumped on taxpayers if they get bailed out. Otherwise, the losses will be dumped on their creditors (and stockholders, if any).
                      3. They are facing potential criminal charges for various wrongdoings. This can be compared with, e.g. the FBI, which saw its power and authority *increased* when they failed to stop 9-11.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “2. Their losses will only be dumped on taxpayers if they get bailed out. Otherwise, the losses will be dumped on their creditors (and stockholders, if any).”

                      Whose picking up the tab for the damage? Who suffers when a company goes chapter 11?

                      Nice way to defend polluters.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Mark The Troll sez: “Whose picking up the tab for the damage? Who suffers when a company goes chapter 11?”

                      Probably all their assets will be used to pay for cleanup. They might even have some assets left over, I don’t know. But the creditors (and shareholders, if any) are the ones to suffer the most. Unlike when governments screw up.

                      “Nice way to defend polluters.”

                      I’m not defending a polluter, you troll. As a corporation, they are dead, just like a criminal who made an error around armed people and ended up getting shot, and I’m not mourning them. But unlike government agencies who seriously screw up and end up with more power, more money, and more people “so they don’t screw up again.” Exactly the wrong thing to do. (Which I suppose is why you like governments so much. Birds of a feather.) Who pays for Hanford, the government facility that processed nuclear weapons material back during the Manhattan project, and it’s still a radiological disaster area many decades later. Who pays for that? Nice way to defend polluters, blaming it on capitalism while governments skate.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Freedom Industries owes millions in back taxes and has filed chapter 11. Just how deep do you think their pockets are to the tune of 300,000 people with unusable water and disrupted lives?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      I don’t know what assets they have. Do you?

                      Furthermore, I consider it pretty likely that these people are going to end up in jail, and possibly also penniless. And the investors and lenders likely also penniless. Tell me the last time a government agency screwed up like that and ended up with the same fate. At least nobody died, at least not yet.

                      Yet four people were killed in Benghazi, and no one is facing any fines or jail time for that, to my knowledge, despite the deaths, and officials ordering a stand-down and also lying to the public about a youtube video. Oh, my mistake, the maker of the video was imprisoned and might still be so.

                      If it weren’t for double standards, you wouldn’t have any standards at all, Mark The Troll.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Now let’s talk about Mark The Troll’s sacred cow, Regulations. And, Regulators. Regulations and regulators have the duty to ensure health and safety, correct? At least, that is the ostensible purpose for their existence. Either the factory was compliant with regulations, or it was not.

                      If it was compliant with regulations, what culpability should the regulators be held to account for, for allowing such a dangerous operation to take place, jeopardizing hundreds of thousands of people? Is it not possible to at least charge them with gross negligence, or worse, for allowing such a situation? After all, their job, their entire reason for existing, was to prevent things like this from occurring. I’m speaking here of those who wrote the regulations, that “should” have prevented this, but didn’t. They have utterly failed, and many have suffered as a result.

                      Then again, maybe the factory was not compliant with regulations. In which case, one of the following must be true: (1) regulatory inspectors failed in their duty to detect non-compliance, (2) regulatory inspectors knew about the deficiencies, but failed to act appropriately, or (3) company officials were successful in covering up deficiencies or otherwise deceiving the inspectors so as to get a clean bill of compliance. (Are there any other possibilities?)

                      If the situation is either (1) or (2), to what extent should the inspectors be held criminally culpable for their failure to do their job? Once again, their entire reason for existence is to ensure health and safety, etc. If something like this can happen on their watch, they are failing every bit as much as the company has, and they should share responsibility. If they didn’t notice, or didn’t act, what are they being paid to do? (Note that, since they are a government agency, they are more likely to have *increased* funding or authority in light of such a failure, rather than facing consequences as the company will. This is called, by Mark The Troll, as a “failure of *capitalism* (!)”)

                      On the other hand, if (3) is the case, then the company officials can additionally be charged with fraud and possibly other criminal charges, adding to their already considerable woes. At least doing so drives another stake into the heart of this company, making it likely not only that it will never do this again, but also that other companies, especially those contemplating fraudulent actions to deceive regulators, are given warning to not do this.

                      But, except in the case of willful deception on the part of the company, what price should the regulators pay? Under all the above scenarios except one, regulators bear some culpability for the disaster. Either the company was compliant, in which case the regulations were deficient, and its authors are therefore culpable, or the company was noncompliant, but the inspectors either failed to notice or failed to act, and are in either case culpable.

                      Of course, the official way of handling this is to grant sovereign immunity to the regulators and inspectors, and wash their hands of the whole mess. With dirty water that they probably helped contaminate.

                      Mark The Troll: What is your position on sovereign immunity? What culpability should the regulators or inspectors face, assuming that an elaborate fraud is not proved?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      By the way, how much deception is even possible if there’s a 1,000 gallon catchment area around a 100,000 gallon tank? Which is not to say this is the case here, just that if it were, even a child would be able to see that such an area couldn’t possibly hold the entire contents of a tank that big, if it leaked. IF that were the case, either the regulators signed off on unsafe situation and should share culpability, or they were negligently unable to detect an obvious deficiency that couldn’t possibly be successfully concealed.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Apparently Freedom Industries doesn’t have enough to pay their creditors, those would be the first in line with their hand out. So it’s not so much how much they have as how much they don’t have.

                      “Freedom Industries”, how ironic.

                      It takes a collective to repair damages of this size. And what for-profit entity is going to do so without a profit motive?

                      Do you think your taxes do no good whatsoever?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Mark The Troll: What is your position on sovereign immunity? What culpability should the regulators or inspectors face, assuming that an elaborate fraud is not proved?”

                      That’s easy, jail.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  “1. Broken record fallacy. You have entirely ignored the argument e.g. that medicines kill ~100,000/ year, instead, you simply restate “safe medicines” as if the argument had never been made.”

                  There is no fallacy called the “Broken Record Fallacy”. But what you are participating in is the Nirvana Fallacy. When profit is the only motive for medicine you end up with drugs like this that used to be legal and prescribed.

                  Opium, Methamphetamine, Cocaine, LSD, GHB, Ecstasy, Heroin.

                  “2. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Even supposing that we have safe roads (actually ~50,000 fatalities/year) or safe medicines (actually ~100,000 fatalities/year) or safe air travel (actually pretty dang safe), and knowing that we have government agencies tasked with ensuring such, you simply state, “therefore, the agencies make them safe and are therefore necessary and proper.” You have made no argument that without the agencies, the roads or medicines or air travel would be any worse, therefore, you have failed to make the argument that the agencies are net benefits.”

                  Are you seriously arguing that traffic engineers, and the agencies that set those rules are ineffective? I worked for a traffic control company and the rules are quite rigid, and enforced for the utmost in safety. They go through rigorous testing and surveys before being deployed. Without those you’d end up with things like driving on the right side of the road in Kansas and driving on the left side of the road in Nebraska. You’d have traffic controls that had RED as GO and GREEN as YIELD because Texas had their infrastructure built up before some other states rules went into effect. Traffic controls came AFTER traffic accidents started. Your “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” is bullshit.

                  “Do you really think that, absent the “necessary” FAA, which keeps airplanes from crashing into one another in mid-air, that American Airlines and United and Southwest would find it unnecessary to create some sort of midair traffic management system, and would immediately have many more mid-airs?”

                  AA doesn’t give a shit about your private airplane and would welcome the chance to insist that you fly on their planes rather than have your own, merely for a profit motive. They have no interest in making your private plane or military planes safe. They’d rather they didn’t exist.

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    ““1. Broken record fallacy. You have entirely ignored the argument e.g. that medicines kill ~100,000/ year, instead, you simply restate “safe medicines” as if the argument had never been made.”

                    There is no fallacy called the “Broken Record Fallacy”. But what you are participating in is the Nirvana Fallacy. When profit is the only motive for medicine you end up with drugs like this that used to be legal and prescribed.”

                    Actually there is, as I’ve said many times before. I had to invent it to characterize your style. So, now it exists. We’ve been through this before. How many times will you continue to deny it? (A: Infinity. Because you’re a troll.)

                    “Are you seriously arguing that traffic engineers, and the agencies that set those rules are ineffective?”

                    No, that’s another straw man argument. I made the case that you haven’t shown these vaunted government agencies are superior to (1) doing nothing, or (2) whatever the free market would come up with if the government weren’t there.

                    Please stop using logical fallacies.

                    “I worked for a traffic control company and the rules are quite rigid, and enforced for the utmost in safety. They go through rigorous testing and surveys before being deployed.”

                    Super. Still doesn’t prove it’s better than what the free market would do.

                    “Without those you’d end up with things like driving on the right side of the road in Kansas and driving on the left side of the road in Nebraska.”

                    Doubtful, it’s in people’s interest to have certain conventions, such as driving on the right, even without governments.

                    “You’d have traffic controls that had RED as GO and GREEN as YIELD because Texas had their infrastructure built up before some other states rules went into effect. Traffic controls came AFTER traffic accidents started. Your “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” is bullshit.”

                    On the contrary, it still stands. Traffic accidents have been with us since Roman times. Life isn’t safe. Never has been, and never will be – not without a billion more regulations than we already have. Not even when 99.999% of the country’s entire GDP is spent on promulgating and enforcing regulations. Such as requiring background checks for every firearms transaction.

                    ““Do you really think that, absent the “necessary” FAA, which keeps airplanes from crashing into one another in mid-air, that American Airlines and United and Southwest would find it unnecessary to create some sort of midair traffic management system, and would immediately have many more mid-airs?”

                    [F]AA doesn’t give a shit about your private airplane and would welcome the chance to insist that you fly on their planes rather than have your own, merely for a profit motive. They have no interest in making your private plane or military planes safe. They’d rather they didn’t exist.”

                    That’s nice, but it doesn’t address my question whatsoever. Do you think that absent the FAA, airliners would find it in their interest to suddenly start crashing, or do you think they would find it in their interest to come up with a way to avoid that?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Actually there is, as I’ve said many times before. I had to invent it to characterize your style”

                      Actually you can’t invent your own fallacies and consider them valid.

                      “No, that’s another straw man argument. I made the case that you haven’t shown these vaunted government agencies are superior to (1) doing nothing, or (2) whatever the free market would come up with if the government weren’t there.”

                      You have not shown them to be inferior. The burden of proof lies with you to prove that the free market can do better.

                      “Super. Still doesn’t prove it’s better than what the free market would do.”

                      The free market only cares about profit. If sticking a sign in the middle of Podunk Kansas doesn’t make them any money they won’t do it. The burden of proof lies with you to prove that the free market can do better.

                      “Without those you’d end up with things like driving on the right side of the road in Kansas and driving on the left side of the road in Nebraska.”

                      “Doubtful, it’s in people’s interest to have certain conventions, such as driving on the right, even without governments.”

                      Let’s see what history has to say about your “doubtful” assertions.

                      http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/93fall/p93au1.cf m

                      “On the contrary, it still stands. Traffic accidents have been with us since Roman times.”

                      And the response to accidents was to formulate rules. The rules did not spring from nothingness. You don’t understand post hoc egro propter hoc.
                      Show me one driving rule that does not exist because of a consensus about how traffic should operate.

                      [F]AA doesn’t give a shit about your private airplane and would welcome the chance to insist that you fly on their planes rather than have your own, merely for a profit motive. They have no interest in making your private plane or military planes safe. They’d rather they didn’t exist.”

                      “That’s nice, but it doesn’t address my question whatsoever. Do you think that absent the FAA, airliners would find it in their interest to suddenly start crashing.”

                      Straw man. The crashing is in their profit motive but who got to land where and when and with what priority would fall into the same infighting as communications providers who fight over who uses the tower or pole. Airspace is a common good as much as the radio spectrum. Those spaces are used by both for-profit non-profit and defense entities. It sounds like you are saying that if profit isn’t a motive you don’t get a say.

                      Is United Airlines going to tell the military when and where they can fly and land? Is KXXY going to tell other radio stations where they can broadcast on the spectrum?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      ““Actually there is, as I’ve said many times before. I had to invent it to characterize your style”

                      Actually you can’t invent your own fallacies and consider them valid.”

                      Actually, I can. If I, or anyone else, is able to show that an argument is both fallacious and also not captured by the existing fallacies, then a new fallacy must therefore be, at that moment, brought forth from nothingness into existence. Which is exactly how the other ones came about also.

                      If you assert something without evidence, or with faulty evidence, and you are challenged about it, that is one thing. But if you then ignore the challenge and simply restate your position as if nothing had happened, that is another thing, which is not the same as the first one, because it has the additional element of repetition that was not present before. Particularly after a few repetitions, and having them pointed out, a still new element is presented, namely, continuing the mindless repetition after already being called on it. *That* is the broken record fallacy, and (1) it has not been previously identified to my knowledge, and (2) it is one of your favorites, seeing how often you use it.

                      “Crows, unlike other birds, are actually space aliens.”
                      “But their DNA is nearly identical to that of related birds.”
                      “Crows are space aliens.”
                      “You said that, and I refuted it. What is your response to the DNA issue?”
                      “Crows, unlike other birds, are space aliens.”
                      “That doesn’t address the DNA question!”
                      “But it does; as I said, crows are space aliens.”
                      “Broken record fallacy!”
                      “There is no such fallacy, and besides, crows are space aliens.”

                      (As a humorous aside, it is also instructive to see you continually deny the existence of the Broken Record fallacy. I suppose you will continue to do so after this example. Since you are, after all, Mark The Troll.)

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Shall I remind you if the number if times you have repeated yourself. Repetition makes something neither false nor true. Your so-called fallacy has no legs nor has it been defended in any form of peer review. I’m thinking your insistence on its continued misuse constitutes a refutation of your own made up fallacy.

                      Now go away or I shall taunt you for a second time,

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      I repeat myself because you fail to respond to my arguments. Just as the person mentioning crow DNA repeated himself. He is in a different position than the one claiming that crows are space aliens in that hypothetical argument, in the same way that my position is different from yours.

                      P.S. You’re the troll here, you go away, Mark The Troll.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Cuts both ways Mr. Repeater.

                      Funny how you didn’t get the Monty Python And The Holy Grail reference.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Mark The Troll sez: “Cuts both ways Mr. Repeater.”

                      While you might argue that the crow person and the DNA person are in the same boat with respect to repetition, I don’t, and I don’t think anyone else would either. (Except maybe Babs the Troll.)

                      “Funny how you didn’t get the Monty Python And The Holy Grail reference.”

                      I got it, I just didn’t think it was funny coming from you. Meanwhile, as long as we’re attributing thoughts to one another, I wish you’d stop thinking about raping children.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “Actually, I can. If I, or anyone else, is able to show that an argument is both fallacious and also not captured by the existing fallacies, then a new fallacy must therefore be, at that moment, brought forth from nothingness into existence. Which is exactly how the other ones came about also.

                      If you assert something without evidence, or with faulty evidence, and you are challenged about it, that is one thing. But if you then ignore the challenge and simply restate your position as if nothing had happened, that is another thing, which is not the same as the first one, because it has the additional element of repetition that was not present before. Particularly after a few repetitions, and having them pointed out, a still new element is presented, namely, continuing the mindless repetition after already being called on it. *That* is the broken record fallacy, and (1) it has not been previously identified to my knowledge, and (2) it is one of your favorites, seeing how often you use it.”

                      Stupidest thing I have ever read. Sure Bruce, make up whatever you want. We’re with ya.

                      ” it has not been previously identified to my knowledge”

                      Yes, and we know how expansive that is.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Coercion.

            “Health-care sharing ministries aren’t for everyone. In general, members must be practicing Christians — attested to by their pastor in some cases — and abstain from tobacco and illegal drug use. They must agree not to have sex outside marriage — and typically cannot seek help for any medical expenses that arise from such sexual activity.”

            There is probably quite a long list of things the majority of this group decide are not covered. So much for your tyranny of the majority.

            http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/features/insuring-your-health/mic helle-andrews-on-health-care-religious-cooperatives.aspx

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              You just don’t get it. The majority of the religious group has decided what the group gets or doesn’t get. *People not in the group are not affected by this decision.* It is easy for a splinter group to separate and form their own group. You can do it in a day, and it doesn’t cost a dime. In a democracy, the majority decides what will or won’t happen *and this decision affects everybody in the country whether you like it or not*. When you study different cars, and you decide which car you want, and you “vote” with your money which car you will get, you get *that car*. When you study politicians and decide which politician you want and you vote, you get *the politician that the majority voted for*.

              You say people can “simply leave,” but that is false. Many people, for example in Colorado, have voted to form their own state, i.e. to leave, but that *has to be approved by the rest of Colorado*. It’s not likely to be approved, because there is tax money at stake that Colorado probably wants to keep, or possibly for other reasons. So states are more like cults, once you join, you’re in for life, at least at the county level. If it were easy for people, or counties, to leave, you might have a case. But it costs thousands of dollars to uproot and change domiciles, hardly the same as going to the church across the street, with a different health plan, instead of the one you used to be going to. You utterly neglect the cost to change or move, and instead simply say “you’re free to move.” There are significant barriers to change within the coercive realm, barriers which keep people from being “free to ____”. It costs you literally nothing at all to decide to buy Pepsi instead of Coke, or Coke instead of Pepsi. Or iced tea. This is how the free market works. This is not how government works. Philip Morris is a multi-billion dollar, multinational corporation. They have exactly zero power over me, because I’m not addicted to, nor even a user of, their products or any other tobacco products. But the local government can force me to do a lot of things, and can prohibit me from doing many others. Either way, if I fail to comply, they can and will take my money, my house, my freedom, and/or my life, depending on my level of insistence at refusing. Philip Morris can’t lift a finger against me. Except perhaps by lobbying for some sort of regulation that, through government, then forces me to do something. But then, that’s government again, not (only) Philip Morris.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                “You just don’t get it. The majority of the citizens decided what the group gets or doesn’t get. *People not in the country are not affected by this decision.*

                “It is easy for a splinter group to separate and form their own group.”

                And that splinter group will form its own rules that the individual must comply with. The Seventh Day Adventist insurance plans say you can’t have blood transfusions. The Catholic insurance plan says they won’t pay for birth control pills and condom use invalidates you plan…

                “When you study politicians and decide which politician you want and you vote, you get *the politician that the majority voted for*.”

                How is that different than getting what the religious group agreed to as a consensus based on costs, beliefs, etc…?

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                By the way, I have some free-market water for you from West Virginia.

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  hah

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  And since there is a free (to some extent) market, I can choose not to purchase what you proffer. Rather than a single source or provider (government) there are multitudes of sources to choose from. Everything from gasoline to groceries.

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          The difference being that this cooperative effort by people who are free to decline signing on or remove themselves from the group later, not an inflexible mandated directive by governmental authoritarians.

          • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

            The difference being that this cooperative effort by people who are free to decline signing on or remove themselves from the group later, not an inflexible mandated directive by governmental authoritarians.

            much like public school teachers here who are now free to leave the union,since the implementation of Act 10?Along with the ability to decertify said unions?Our Teacher’s Union local got decertified a few months ago,and now tenured teachers are scared shitless that they might actually have to produce,rather than draw a paycheck,regardless of performance

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            You are free to live in a different country.

            Would the religious group be willing to cover health costs if people only joined when they became sick? Would they be willing to cover those who did not pay? Will you be allowed to remain in the church if you don’t participate in the healthcare system? The church group could enforce rules on all of these things.

            We have a collection of people who.

            A) may freely choose to stay or leave
            B) must follow certain rules in order to benefit

            This describes what? A company? A religious group, a nation, a union? Seems as though you guys think the size of the group or enforcement methods makes a difference.

            Governments become bad because they are run poorly and full of corrupt people, not because they are governments. Businesses and religious groups suffer from the same effects.

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              1. Americans are not “free to leave” this country, they must ask for permission and pay a fine. Democrat Charles Schumer proposed making the fine 55% of one’s total net worth at one point, IIRC. (The same as the inheritance tax.)
              2. You obviously do not understand the nature of coercion if you compare companies and religious groups to government as apples to apples. Only psychopaths would be unable to discern them.
              3. “Governments become bad because they are run poorly and full of corrupt people, not because they are governments. Businesses and religious groups suffer from the same effects.” First, you admit they are bad, or that they may be bad. (a) to the extent they are bad, what should be done about it? My answer: limit their power and jurisdiction as much as possible. (b) Businesses and religious groups

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              1. Americans are not “free to leave” this country, they must ask for permission and pay a fine. Democrat Charles Schumer proposed making the fine 55% of one’s total net worth at one point, IIRC. (The same as the inheritance tax.)
              2. You obviously do not understand the nature of coercion if you compare companies and religious groups to government as apples to apples. Only psychopaths would be unable to discern them.
              3. “Governments become bad because they are run poorly and full of corrupt people, not because they are governments. Businesses and religious groups suffer from the same effects.” First, you admit they are bad, or that they may be bad. (a) to the extent they are bad, what should be done about it? My answer: limit their power and jurisdiction as much as possible. (b) Businesses and religious groups don’t possess coercive power, at their worst they can’t be as bad as governments can.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                1) you need to quote a source on thus one. Fines for leaving the U.S? 55%? Where did you come up with that?

                • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                  http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Expatriati on-Tax Note that this is for people who expatriate “for tax purposes.” Of course, if the IRS says you’re doing it for tax purposes, what exactly could you to do oppose them?

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-PATRIOT_Act says “The law would automatically classify all people who lost citizenship or permanent residence in the decade prior to the law’s passage or any future year as having “tax avoidance intent” if they met certain asset or tax liability thresholds or had failed to file any required federal tax forms within the preceding five years.” So if you make more than a certain amount, it can simply be assumed that you are leaving for tax avoidance reasons. “The land of the free.”

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                2) become bad… Not necessarily ARE bad. I’m guessing you like to live on a deserted island.

  19. BruceNo Gravatar says:

    Jackson: Gun owner unarmed, unwelcome in Maryland

    [[Behold the beneficence of The State.]]

    HUDSON – John Filippidis, silver-haired family man, business owner, employer and taxpayer, is also licensed to carry a concealed firearm.

    He’d rather he didn’t feel the need, “but things aren’t like they used to be. The break-ins, the burglaries, all the crime. And I carry cash a lot of the time. I’m constantly going to the bank.

    “I wanted to be able to defend my family, my household and the ground I’m standing on. But I’m not looking for any trouble.”

    Filippidis keeps his gun — a palm-sized Kel-Tec .38 semiautomatic, barely larger than a smartphone in a protective case — in one of two places, always: in the right-hand pocket of his jeans, or in the safe at home.

    “There are kids in the house,” Filippidis says, “and I don’t think they’d ever bother with it, but I don’t want to take any chances.”

    He’s not looking for any trouble, after all.

    Trouble, in fact, was the last thing on his mind a few weeks back as the Filippidises packed for Christmas and a family wedding in Woodridge, N.J., so he left the pistol locked in the safe. The state of Florida might have codified his Second Amendment rights, but he knew he’d be passing through states where recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions affirming the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms have been met by hostile legislatures and local officials.

    “I know the laws and I know the rules,” Filippidis says. There are, after all, ways gun owners can travel legally with firearms through hostile states. “But I just think it’s a better idea to leave it home.”

    So there the Filippidises were on New Year’s Eve eve, southbound on Interstate 95 — John; wife Kally (his Gulf High sweetheart); the 17-year-old twins Nasia and Yianni; and 13-year-old Gina in their 2012 Ford Expedition — just barely out of the Fort McHenry Tunnel into Maryland, blissfully unarmed and minding their own business when they noticed they were being bird-dogged by an unmarked patrol car. It flanked them a while, then pulled ahead of them, then fell in behind them.

    “Ten minutes he’s behind us,” John says. “We weren’t speeding. In fact, lots of other cars were whizzing past.”

    “You know you have a police car behind you, you don’t speed, right?” Kally adds.

    Says John, “We keep wondering, is he going to do something?”

    Finally the patrol car’s emergency lights come on, and it’s almost a relief. Whatever was going on, they’d be able to get it over with now. The officer — from the Transportation Authority Police, as it turns out, Maryland’s version of the New York-New Jersey Port Authority — strolls up, does the license and registration bit, and returns to his car.

    According to Kally and John (but not MTAP, which, pending investigation, could not comment), what happened next went like this:

    Ten minutes later he’s back, and he wants John out of the Expedition. Retreating to the space between the SUV and the unmarked car, the officer orders John to hook his thumbs behind his back and spread his feet. “You own a gun,” the officer says. “Where is it?”

    “At home in my safe,” John answers.

    “Don’t move,” says the officer.

    Now he’s at the passenger’s window. “Your husband owns a gun,” he says. “Where is it?”

    First Kally says, “I don’t know.” Retelling it later she says, “And that’s all I should have said.” Instead, attempting to be helpful, she added, “Maybe in the glove [box]. Maybe in the console. I’m scared of it. I don’t want to have anything to do with it. I might shoot right through my foot.”

    The officer came back to John. “You’re a liar. You’re lying to me. Your family says you have it. Where is the gun? Tell me where it is and we can resolve this right now.”

    Of course, John couldn’t show him what didn’t exist, but Kally’s failure to corroborate John’s account, the officer would tell them later, was the probable cause that allowed him to summon backup — three marked cars joined the lineup along the I-95 shoulder — and empty the Expedition of riders, luggage, Christmas gifts, laundry bags; to pat down Kally and Yianni; to explore the engine compartment and probe inside door panels; and to separate and isolate the Filippidises in the back seats of the patrol cars.

    Ninety minutes later, or maybe it was two hours — “It felt like forever,” Kally says — no weapon found and their possessions repacked, the episode ended … with the officer writing out a warning.

    “All that time, he’s humiliating me in front of my family, making me feel like a criminal,” John says. “I’ve never been to prison, never declared bankruptcy, I pay my taxes, support my 20 employees’ families; I’ve never been in any kind of trouble.”

    Face red, eyes shining, John pounds his knees. “And he wants to put me in jail. He wants to put me in jail. For no reason. He wants to take my wife and children away and put me in jail. In America, how does such a thing happen? … And after all that, he didn’t even write me a ticket.”

    Now, despite having fielded apologies from the officer’s captain as well as from a Maryland Transportation Authority Police internal affairs captain, John is wondering if he shouldn’t just cancel his CCW license.

    For a guy who’s not looking for trouble, that’s not an unreasonable conclusion. And it would please fans of gun control by any means. But let’s hope John Filippidis, American family man, taxpayer and good guy, doesn’t cave, because it would be a sad statement about the brittleness of our guarantees — some would call them sacred — under the Constitution.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      One must wonder if there was not a directive to single out and intimidate law abiding gun owners. If the victim in this incident was not violating traffic laws, why was he stopped? From that comes a collection of police state thug activities that are common pattern in dictatorships.
      Mr. Filippidis should not even consider surrendering his carry license. He should be engaged in a campaign of retribution against the government “employees” who violated his Constitutional rights.

      • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

        He needs to bankrupt that town.I chuckle every Time that Wisconsin Carry gets another municipality to write out a check for harassing law abiding gun owners,and they’ve got a 100% track record.You’d think that the People’s Soviet of Milwaukee would have figured out by now,that they lose,100% of the time,when it gets to court,but they keep writing out those settlement checks for illegal acts committed by their cops.

  20. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    NeighborhoodScout’s ®
    Top 25 Most Dangerous Neighborhoods
    in America
    http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/25-mos t-dangerous-neighborhoods/
    ***using exclusive data developed by NeighborhoodScout, and based on FBI data from all 17,000 local law enforcement agencies in America, we here report those specific neighborhoods in America that have the highest predicted rates of violent crime per 1,000 neighborhood residents of all. Violent crimes include murder, forcible rape, armed robbery, and aggravated assault. These neighborhoods are the epicenters of violence in America, where social issues are likely to ignite into violence and spread. See our FAQ on how we rank the most dangerous neighborhoods***

    Rank Neighborhood Violent Crime Rate
    (per 1,000) My Chances of Becoming a Victim Here
    (in one year)
    25 Chicago, IL
    (S Indiana Ave / E 60th St) 65.77 1 in 15
    24 Tulsa, OK
    (E Apache St / N Quaker Ave) 66.88 1 in 15
    23 Memphis, TN
    (Saint Paul Ave / Walnut St) 67.26 1 in 15
    22 St. Louis, MO
    (Cass Ave / N 9th St) 67.75 1 in 15
    21 West Memphis, AR
    (E Broadway St / Stuart Ave) 68.9 1 in 15
    20 Indianapolis, IN
    (North Indianapolis) 69.02 1 in 14
    19 Flint, MI
    (Chambers St / Stonegate Dr) 70.05 1 in 14
    18 Nashville, TN
    (8th Ave S / Wedgewood Ave) 70.59 1 in 14
    17 Indianapolis, IN
    (N Meridian St / E 34th St) 72.71 1 in 14
    16 Chicago, IL
    (S Ashland Ave / W 76th St) 73.05 1 in 14
    15 Houston, TX
    (Sauer St / Mcgowen St) 75.89 1 in 13
    14 Rockford, IL
    (Kishwaukee St / Grove St) 77.6 1 in 13
    13 Chicago, IL
    (S Homan Ave / W Roosevelt Rd) 80.17 1 in 12
    12 St. Louis, MO
    (Delmar Blvd / N Euclid Ave) 82.76 1 in 12
    11 Memphis, TN
    (E Eh Crump Blvd / S 4th St) 82.91 1 in 12
    10 Saginaw, MI
    (E Holland Ave / E Genesee Ave) 85.64 1 in 12
    9 Atlanta, GA
    (Hopkins St SE / Adair Ave SE) 86.14 1 in 12
    8 Greenville, SC
    (Woodside) 86.38 1 in 12
    7 Detroit, MI
    (Wyoming St / Orangelawn St) 90.82 1 in 11
    6 Houston, TX
    (Scott St / Wilmington St) 91.27 1 in 11
    5 Spartanburg, SC
    (Washington Heights) 96.55 1 in 10
    4 Chicago, IL
    (S Halsted St / W 77th St) 116.56 1 in 9
    3 Detroit, MI
    (Gratiot Ave / Rosemary) 123.93 1 in 8
    2 Detroit, MI
    (Mack Ave / Helen St) 145.29 1 in 7
    1 Detroit, MI
    (W Chicago / Livernois Ave) 149.48 1 in 7

    Want to take a SWAG at how many of these municipalities are run by Republicans and how many by democrats? How many of these mayors are members of blomberg’s maig bunch?

  21. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    BruceNo Gravatar says:
    January 15, 2014 at 10:01 pm
    ***Once again you seek to deceive through half-truths. Stop lying. You can do it.***

    Bruce, ya have to understand. They don’t lie for a purpose. They’re not even habitual liars. They’re compulsive liars. They cannot stop.

  22. BruceNo Gravatar says:

    Former candidate guilty of brandishing weapon
    Tuesday – 11/19/2013, 8:32am ET
    JENNIFER AGIESTA
    Associated Press

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — A former candidate for Alexandria’s city council and school board has been found not guilty of impersonating a police officer but convicted of brandishing a weapon.

    http://www.wtop.com/41/3508063/Former-candidate-guilty-of-brandis hing-weapon

    Being found “guilty of brandishing” means that brandishing is a crime, at least in Alexandria, VA.

    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

      Yep. It’s a crime, unless done in self defense. Then it’s not a crime. Don’t remember linking the law?

      “Virginia Code 18.2-282:

      It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another being shot or injured.

      However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense.”

      Notice the exception? What does that exception mean Bruce? Whatcha say? The law clearly states that it is lawful for any person to point, hold, or brandish if that person is engaged in excususable or justifiable self-defense.

      Which clearly shows a difference between LAWFUL and UNLAWFUL brandishing. And you linked the law in your first post.

      Feel pretty dumb? Why do you constantly present evidence that contradicts your positions? It’s baffling. The stupidity must be overpowering. An all consuming, clinical diagnosis type of stupidity.

      Fear not, pre-existing conditions are covered under Obamacare.

  23. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    “Unintended Consequences”

  24. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Must be another one of those gun-free zones shooters love so much.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-indiana-sup ermarket-shooting-20140115,0,2911223.story

    By Adam Sege Tribune reporter

    6:53 a.m. CST, January 16, 2014

    A shopper, an employee and a gunman are dead after a shooting at an Indiana supermarket Wednesday night, according to the Indiana State Police.

    Just after 10 p.m., police in Elkhart, Ind. received calls of a man with a gun at a Martin’s Super Market on East Bristol Street, Sgt. Trent Smith of the Indiana State Police said.

    Two officers were in the area and rushed to the supermarket, Smith said.

    Related
    3 Dead in Indiana Grocery Store Shooting Video: 3 dead in Indiana shooting
    Map: Site of fatal supermarket shooting Map: Site of fatal supermarket shooting

    Inside the store, the officers heard a gunshot and quickly located the gunman, who was pointing a semi-automatic handgun at someone’s head, Smith said.

    The officers opened fire and struck the shooter, later identified as a 22-year-old Elkhart man.

    After shooting the gunman, police found the bodies of two women: a 44-year-old shopper and a 20-year-old supermarket employee, Smith said.

    Both were apparently shot by the gunman, Smith said. They were found about 15 aisles apart.

    All three people died on the scene. Authorities have not released their identities, pending confirmation that family members had been notified.

    Investigators remained on the scene past 6 a.m. collecting evidence, according to police. In addition to the large caliber handgun, police have recovered a large knife the shooter brought to the store.

    Apart from those killed, no other people were injured, something Smith credited to the prompt response by police officers.

    “The quick action of the Elkhart City Police Department responding to this active shooter undoubtedly saved several lives tonight,” he said.

    Indiana State Police are leading the investigation into the shooting. There was no immediate indication that the shooter knew either of his victims, Smith said.

    As news of the shooting spread, Martin’s Super Markets posted the following message on Facebook:
    “Thank you to our community for your thoughts and prayers tonight. We will comment further when we can do so responsibly and appropriately.”
    WGN-TV contributed.

  25. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    MarkNo Gravatar says:
    January 16, 2014 at 9:10 pm

    ***“You blame every municipal sewage system for the pollution that results when their equipment fails or there is a flood?”
    To a large extent, yes. Failure should not be rewarded or ignored. The FEMA response to Katrina was a colossal failure.***

    You do realize that the FEMA response was delayed by the failure of state and local officials to request the help? Do you know that FEMA is secondary to local amd state emergency response, and is mandated to be on scene within 72 hours of the request for aid? This presumes that the local and state authorities can find their disaster plans (or they aren’t utilizing disaster resources to recover their stashed bribe money http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/13/william-jefferson-ex-con g_n_357667.html) and don’t deliberately delay the FEMA response for political theater.

  26. BruceNo Gravatar says:

    Man arrested for warning drivers of speed trap

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/on-trial-over-speed-trap-war nings-161025708.html

    Don’t worry, though. Small-town police DO NOT write tickets for “profit.” Because governments aren’t “for profit” entities*. No, they’re above all that. You can trust them to do the “write” thing. Like having ex-government agents shoot people who text in movie theaters. It’s for your own good.

    *According to section 348972-j/1(3)(a)** of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended.

    **Yes, this is a joke***, for the humor-impaired.

    ***Or is it? Whom is the joke on, exactly?

    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

      LOL, so you want to blame the government for an ex-police officer shooting someone. My god, you drama queen. So pathetic.

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        You want to blame gun owners for an ex-police officer shooting someone. The ex-police officer has a legal exemption not available to the rest of us. Makes him more like a government agent than a gun owner.

        • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

          You want to blame gun owners for an ex-police officer shooting someone. The ex-police officer has a legal exemption not available to the rest of us. Makes him more like a government agent than a gun owner.

          and let’s not forget that more Americans have been killed by thugs with badges since 9/11 than by Al Qaeda

    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

      Maybe this is part of the government trying to push gun control? They used mind control on this ex-police officer to advance their diabolical agenda. I’m telling you, this is all part of the New World Order.

  27. cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/william-norman-grigg/youre-dea d-motherr/

    these are the criminals committing felonies with guns that Markbabs should be concerned about.

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      Wow, that’s really distressing. I’d make it a felony to alter or delete dashcam videos, and furthermore make it prima facie evidence of guilt in subsequent investigations regarding other suspected crimes, such as murder 1 in this case. But, of course, these are the exact people that Mark The Troll and Babs The Troll think should be armed above all else.

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        Maybe they believe that if only the uniformed thugs have ‘legal’ guns, they’d be easier to spot?

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      Somewhat like this incident but there is no criminal history, “just” an execution by cops.

      Gunned Down in Vegas: What Really Happened to Erik Scott?
      An accomplished young man is killed by police outside a Vegas Costco, and bystander accounts starkly contrast with official reports.
      http://pjmedia.com/blog/gunned-down-in-vegas-what-really-happened -to-erik-scott/?singlepage=true

  28. BruceNo Gravatar says:

    Only the police should have guns … because, um …

    “Indiana police chief running for sheriff accidentally shoots himself for SECOND time in career”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2543140/Indiana-police-ch ief-David-Counceller-accidentally-shoots-SECOND-time-career.html

    These are the sorts of people the Mark The Troll and Babs The Troll should be trusted with guns, above the rest of us. In fact, these are the people who they think should be sent to the homes of people who transacted guns – Gasp! – privately. Never mind those who own normal capacity magazines.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      “Accidents” like that are pure carelesness. I carry with a round chambered, but my handguns have both a grip safety and a trigger block safety (1911 style).

      • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

        “Accidents” like that are pure carelesness. I carry with a round chambered, but my handguns have both a grip safety and a trigger block safety (1911 style).

        I don’t carry one in the spout-it only takes a second to rack the slide

  29. BruceNo Gravatar says:

    http://news.yahoo.com/calif-transit-officer-fatally-shot-colleagu e-031925086.html

    By the way, when mere civilians kill police officers, even accidentally, they often face the death penalty.

    But, in any case, this is why only the police should have guns. Only they can be trusted to handle them safely. /liberal

  30. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:
    January 24, 2014 at 12:50 am
    ***from what you have said, your point of view is the offspring of Lewis Carol and Rod Serling***

    Don’t forget the contributions from tim leary and jack kerouac.

    Our favorite trolls were losing ground in the ‘debate’ so they dump in more irrelevant garbage in order to obfuscate the discussion.

  31. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    BruceNo Gravatar says:
    January 24, 2014 at 12:51 am

    ***More evasions.***

    Like nailing Jello to the wall.

  32. cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

    Like nailing Jello to the wall.

    or roping smoke

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      That is a mis-characterization of my view on cops. Most think they are somehow above the law. I’m thinking it’s hard for them to avoid. Kind of like gun nuts who think guns are the answer to social interactions they disapprove of.

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        “Kind of like gun nuts who think guns are the answer to social interactions they disapprove of.”

        By the way, that’s a mischaracterization of our views. (Hypocrite.) Guns are to deter or halt “grave, imminent threats” which is a far cry from all interactions we “disapprove” of.

        Do you, personally, by chance, happen to approve of grave imminent threats against others? Maybe that’s the misunderstanding right there. It would make sense.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          “Kind of like gun nuts who think guns are the answer to social interactions they disapprove of.”

          Bruce, this only applies to you if you think it. Are you saying you are in that group? No hypocrisy there but thanks for that additional mis-characterization.

          • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

            Kind of like gun nuts who think guns are the answer to social interactions they disapprove of.”

            Well,as a rule,conservatives tend to dissaprove of rape,robbery,murder,home invasion etc……guns tend to quell those things nicely

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          “Guns are to deter or halt “grave, imminent threats” which is a far cry from all interactions we “disapprove” of.”

          Tell that to the dead popcorn assailant.

  33. BruceNo Gravatar says:

    It’s hard for them to avoid being above the law? So they hypocritically enforce laws it’s too hard for them to follow? Is that your position? If not, what is it?

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      In case you missed it. I’m agreeing that there are problems with cops.

    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

      o they hypocritically enforce laws it’s too hard for them to follow? Is that your position? If not, what is it?

      I asked the head keystone kop here why his minions routinely violated traffic laws-he was’nt happy that a mere citizen would question him

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      I’m sure gun and ammo manufacturers get a hard-on every time there is a tragedy bad enough to call for a re-evaluation of gun policy.

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        Actually I think it’s the gun grabbers who get hard-ons every time there is a tragedy bad enough to make them try “to not let a crisis go to waste” and try yet one more time to push through their disarmament agenda before the blood dries and rationality returns.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          And it’s good the willing dupes continue to escalate the problem by purchasing more guns. Profiting off a tragedy is so much more noble.

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            It’s certainly more noble than incrementally enslaving a formerly free people by enacting more of the policies that encouraged the mass shootings in the first place. School shootings remained about as frequent if not became slightly more frequent, but certainly became a lot more deadly, after passage of the SAFE Schools act banned guns there.

            You have criticized me in the past for trying to put a dollar value on life, and yet here you are arguing that the profit opportunities of gun companies in times of tragedy is somehow worse than the increased death toll caused, or at least enabled, by bad legislation. Which sure sounds like the dollars are more important to you than the lives are/were.

            Then again, if not for double standards, you wouldn’t have any standards at all.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Wow, just wow. You’ve shocked me before but this one takes the cake. You really *are* not worth my time.

              • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                Wow, just wow. You’ve shocked me before but this one takes the cake. You really *are* not worth my time.

                Does that mean that you’ll slither back underneath whatever rock you crawled out from under?

                • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                  I was wondering the same thing, although it’s hard for me to tell if he’s more distraught at seeing his own position reflected back at him, or at my shredding of Babs The Troll and the exposure of his abusive, petty and morally deficient character in the course of so doing.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  Slither? Why would I do that?

                  I cannot believe that this rambling hyperbole is being presented as some form of reasoning. You’ve outdone yourself Bruce. I guess I shouldn’t be so surprised, you’ve been practicing for quite a while.

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    The reason you might ‘slither’ away is, well, hmmm, you were *so* generous in giving me a nickel so I could go buy a clue. I feel like returning the favor. Here’s a million dollars; go buy yourself a conscience. Oh, wait, that’s right, they can’t be bought at any price. Here’s a million dollars; just plain go.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Obviously you bought bubble gum instead of a clue.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Obviously you still lack a conscience. (And are still here.) Will you be blaming today’s Columbia Mall shooting any aspect of guns, the gun culture, ‘easy availability’ of guns, or the lack of background checks in locales far outside of MD, while minimizing if not ignoring the fact it was a ‘gun-free’ zone? Are you going to count these deaths as part of ‘gun violence’ which needs to be reduced by further restrictions on guns or gun owners, notwithstanding the fact that guns were already banned at that mall to ordinary citizens?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Instead, data clearly show that a killer’s motives are reliably tethered to the source of their grievances and prejudices: workplaces, schools, religious institutions, and so forth. Mass shooters are simply not the calculating, death-optimizing machines that gun proponents depict them to be. Twelve of the sixty-two mass shootings surveyed took place at a school, and in all but one of them, the killer had direct ties to the school they targeted. Twenty of the sixty-two mass shootings occurred at the workplace, and each involved disgruntled employees taking their grievances out on employers and colleagues. And according to a study done by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, in 57% of mass shootings, the shooter targeted a former or current intimate partner.

                      These statistics seriously challenge the case that mass shooters dispassionately pursue vulnerable, target-rich environments to maximize their number of fatalities, and are instead shaped by motives directly related to their past.”

                      http://www.armedwithreason.com/the-gun-free-zone-myth-no-relation ship-between-gun-free-zones-and-mass-shootings/

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      There are comments below your linked article that challenges its author’s (and your) position. If you think you can explain the overwhelming majority of mass shootings taking places at disarmed locations by sheer coincidence, then you must not be acquainted with the notion of probability. Furthermore, John Lott has already investigated John Holmes’s choice of theaters to commit a shooting in, and he found that Holmes neither chose the closest, most convenient theater, nor did he choose the largest one, in which he could potentially rack up the most victims. Instead, he chose the *only* theater in his vicinity that banned guns. You can’t just dismiss that fact out of hand, like the author of your linked study does as follows:

                      “Mass shooters are completely unconcerned about whether or not an area is a “Gun-Free Zone.” A study conducted by Mother Jones found that, in 62 mass shootings over 32 years, there were exactly zero instances of a killer targeting a place because of a gun ban. New data from Mayors Against Illegal Guns confirm this point, by showing that in all 56 mass shootings between 2009 and 2013, “no more than one quarter of the shootings occurred in public spaces that were so-called ‘gun-free zones.” Neither the motive nor the location of a mass shooting, therefore, have anything to do with ‘gun-free zones.’”

                      There are, of course, other instances (like a Jewish day-care center in LA, IIRC) where a mass shooter left one day care because it allowed guns, and arrived at another one to shoot it up, which didn’t allow guns. Of course if you ignore or change data, you can get any result that you want. That’s another aspect of insanity, ignoring reality.

                      For anyone to make the case that ‘gun-free’ zones have zero to do with the reason shooters choose particular locations have to come up with a reason that such sites are actually targeted at a rate many, many sigma away from randomly.

                      Furthermore, whether or not the study’s proposition is true, there is nevertheless a separate point, which is that the fatality count when shootings are stopped by police is far higher than the count when they are stopped by civilians. Therefore, *even if it were true* that mass shooters were utterly indifferent to whether a certain targeted location was a ‘gun-free’ zone or not, the fact remains that, in the interest of saving lives, it would be better for civilians to be in a position to stop such shootings than not, which is the point of the OP here. I.e. that gun-free zones do not accomplish the goal of harm-reduction and should be eliminated anyway.

                      (However, one has to be non-insane to accept and comprehend reality.)

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Of course if you ignore or change data, you can get any result that you want.”

                      Same to you buddy, same to you.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      By the way, the fact that Mother Jones “didn’t find any evidence” that shooters targeted ‘gun-free’ zones doesn’t prove they didn’t, it just means they didn’t find any evidence. So the MJ reference is illogical. Furthermore, I have already picked apart the MAIG study, which for example mischaracterized places where only police could carry (a cafe in WA, IIRC) as not a ‘gun-free’ place, which mischaracterized domestic mass shootings as public mass shootings, etc. The fact that you cite something that depends on a study that I have already refuted (1) speaks to your dishonesty, and (2) is yet another case of the broken record fallacy on your part.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      I cited evidence, you haven’t. Either back up your charge of “you too” or retract it.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      You cited evidence? Haha. You cited one mass shooting, Holmes, and “like a Jewish day-care center in LA, IIRC”. One shooting where it’s possible he may have chosen that theater for the reasons you claim and another example which you can’t even fully articulate. That’s your mountain of evidence. Mark doesn’t have to cite evidence, he isn’t the one making the claim that gun free zones are to blame.

                      I noticed you cited Jon Lott. Interesting that you did. Do you know what his principle claim is?

                      “98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to BRANDISH a weapon to break off an attack.”

                      Pretty neat huh?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Babs The Troll sez: “You cited evidence? Haha. You cited one mass shooting, Holmes, and “like a Jewish day-care center in LA, IIRC”.”

                      Another lie by half-truth by a proven troll. I also cited a past discussion on this very board, which was a whole lot longer than just those two examples. Actually, they were cited only to jog the memory of that discussion. You really do have an honesty problem. (Not to minimize your many others.)

                      “I noticed you cited Jon Lott. Interesting that you did. Do you know what his principle claim is?

                      “98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to BRANDISH a weapon to break off an attack.”

                      Pretty neat huh?”

                      It’s particularly ironic that you bring back the brandishing argument after being destroyed by me in it. You still show your face after that, incredibly.

                      But, to address your #winning allegation, the fact that John Lott uses the word ‘brandish’ like you do (1) does not alter the value of his evidence in addressing Mark The Troll’s claims here, (2) does not and can not disprove my claim that in many places, the word is used to refer to specifically criminal behavior, and (3) seems highly unwise for you to ever bring up again. Unless, of course, my sense of #winning isn’t quite grand enough to encompass the totality of your intentions.

                      Are you back for more? Shall we talk about oxymorons, now? (Which for some reason you have never even mentioned or acknowledged yet, after your last erroneous use?) Or should you just go away and not post to me ever again, as you once promised to do? But I guess that was a lie, too. Sigh.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      I was a part of that discussion. Holmes was the only evidence you brought up.

                      So that’s Jon Lott and Kleck & Gertz. The two biggest pro gun DGU studies that claim the same thing about brandishing in self defense and use the same language. But you say that they are wrong. I guess we should just believe you then. Those guys have no idea what they’re talking about. But you, no, you clearly do. And you say that brandishing in self defense is criminal, but shooting someone in self defense is not. Because that makes so much sense.

                      You talk a a lot and don’t say much Bruce. Just a bunch of bullshit masquerading as substance. Sad to watch.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Babs The Troll sez: “I was a part of that [MAIG] discussion. Holmes was the only evidence you brought up.”

                      Lie.

                      I brought up multiple points. Page 6, comment 262310. http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-st atistics/comment-page-6/

                      “So that’s Jon Lott and Kleck & Gertz. The two biggest pro gun DGU studies that claim the same thing about brandishing in self defense and use the same language. But you say that they are wrong.”

                      Lie & straw man. I’m not saying they’re wrong, I’m saying they use the word like you do. I’ve said this three times. Are you dense? How many more times will you misrepresent my position or misconstrue the significance of their word usage? Citing their word usage does not refute my position that the word is defined as I stated in many other places. Even if they’re “on my side.” No difference.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:


                    “To be ignorant of one s ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.
                    AMOS BRONSON ALCOTT.”

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    “It’s particularly ironic that you bring back the brandishing argument after being destroyed by me in it.”

                    Hrm, I don’t remember that, did I fall asleep? Are are you referencing your first post where every single example of brandishing law that you gave showed exceptions for self defense and directly contradicted your claim. Did you get that? Your evidence proved my point. Is that what you mean by destroying me? Or are you just acting all crazy like this because you’ve been so humiliated.

                    Let’s take a gander at your first post:

                    http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-st atistics/comment-page-21/#comment-621663

                    California – exception for self defense
                    Virginia – exception for self defense
                    Utah – exception for self defense
                    South Carolina – exception for self defense
                    Nevada – exception for self defense
                    Montana – exception for self defense
                    Arizona – exception for self defense
                    Michigan – exception for self defense

                    Every single example that you provided disproved your claim. Is that you destroying me?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      We never established what “except” means, because you repeatedly evaded my line of questioning to do so, so, contrary to your assertion, it remains to be shown whether the exceptions for self defense that you cite means that the brandishing in each of those cases is lawful, or isn’t brandishing at all. Sorry, though.

                      But no, you are mistaken, your destruction was later. I can see how you might be confused. Or wish to misdirect.

                      Is it a #winning tactic to go through a debate and, near the end of it, recall an earlier line of argument? Is that like some high school ninja debating trick, or something? Ignoring everything else that was said after that? Completely ignoring it?

                      Or are you just reminiscing about old times, when things were better for you? Before the tide turned?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Oh – and by your own standard I see you’ve abandoned the Iowa law case, the Suak-Suiattle Tribal Code, Arizona official communications, and two different internet gun forums. Which still amount to “many” without the MI case, which, however, I still maintain. So your position has still been destroyed.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Of course! Completely ignoring everything I said after an early post amounts to the *devastating* “Fa la la la la la la la la la la la” “I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!” #winning refutation. Well played, well played.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      We don’t establish anything. The law establishes it. You just say it’s not true. It’s in plain English and there is nothing to argue.

                      Example (VA law):

                      “It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another being shot or injured.

                      However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable of justifiable self-defense.”

                      This says two things. The relevant part is that IT IS NOT UNLAWFUL TO POINT, HOLD, OR BRANDISH a firearm if that person is engaged in self defense.

                      How do you deny this?

                      “But no, you are mistaken, your destruction was later.”

                      Really? Where? Like I said, I must have dozed off. Go ahead, point it out.

                      “Is it a #winning tactic to go through a debate and, near the end of it, recall an earlier line of argument?”

                      So then the beginning of your argument which framed the rest is wrong? And you are admitting it?

                      Yes, I do feel it compelling to point out when someone produces 6-7 different laws trying to argue a position when the evidence provided argues for and proves the opposite position. I mean that is just plain embarrassing. Like you can’t read or you can’t comprehend the words.

                      “Is that like some high school ninja debating trick, or something? Ignoring everything else that was said after that?”

                      Remind me, what did you say that was of any substance and that would have negated you check-mating yourself with your first post?

                      “Oh – and by your own standard I see you’ve abandoned the Iowa law case, the Suak-Suiattle Tribal Code, Arizona official communications, and two different internet gun forums.”

                      Arizona clearly mentions that defensive displays of firearms are justified in self defense. That includes all ways of handling the gun in self defense.

                      Do you think that in Iowa, if you are to brandish a weapon to fight off an intruder in your home, that is a criminal offense? Say so if you do because you are implying it. I want to hear you say it.

                      I didn’t look much into tribal law. I’m sure that defensive gun uses are all permissible and lawful. Anything done defensively is. Obvious to anyone that is not you. Bruce the retard king.

                      In regards to Lott and Kleck&Gertz, are their studies accurate? Because you seem to disagree with their main claims, that brandishing a firearm in self defense makes up 90+% of DGUs. So what is your position on this? Are they wrong?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Babs the troll:

                      “Example (VA law): [omitted] How do you deny this?”

                      I don’t need to deny it, as I already wrote (can you read?) that I could abandon any individual claim without jeopardizing my claim of “many places define it to mean a criminal act.”

                      [me]“But no, you are mistaken, your destruction was later.”

                      “Really? Where? Like I said, I must have dozed off. Go ahead, point it out.”

                      If you couldn’t grasp it then, I’m sure you can’t grasp it now.

                      ““[me]Is it a #winning tactic to go through a debate and, near the end of it, recall an earlier line of argument?”

                      “So then the beginning of your argument which framed the rest is wrong? And you are admitting it?”

                      No and no. Thanks for asking. Your “Fa la la la la la la” “I can’t hear you!!” refutation was brilliant, though. I can see now why you compare my debating skills to that of a fifth grader, the “fa la la” tactic being worthy second graders.

                      ““Is that like some high school ninja debating trick, or something? Ignoring everything else that was said after that?”

                      Remind me, what did you say that was of any substance and that would have negated you check-mating yourself with your first post?”

                      Many cases, each comprising a plurality of individual locations, in which the word “brandishing” is used to refer always and only to criminal acts.

                      “[me]Oh – and by your own standard I see you’ve abandoned the Iowa law case, the Suak-Suiattle Tribal Code, Arizona official communications, and two different internet gun forums.”

                      “Arizona clearly mentions that defensive displays of firearms are justified in self defense. That includes all ways of handling the gun in self defense.”

                      Yes indeedy, and those wouldn’t be called “brandishing” in official communications, but rather “defensive displays” because that’s the legal term for them.

                      “Do you think that in Iowa, if you are to brandish a weapon to fight off an intruder in your home, that is a criminal offense? Say so if you do because you are implying it. I want to hear you say it.”

                      Complex question. In Iowa, brandishing is defined as a criminal act. So if you *lawfully* fight off an intruder, you by definition of the law, did not legally “brandish” the weapon. You might well have shoved it in his face with a menacing intention, but irrespective of the dictionary definition, the *legal* definition is that this is not considered “brandishing,” which is always and only a crime under Iowa law. If you ask a police officer if such an act would be “Brandishing under Iowa law” he would say no, that word only applies to unlawful acts. (If were to be accurate.)

                      On the other hand, it might be theoretically possible to *unlawfully* fight off an intruder. In that case, you might indeed be charged with *the crime* of brandishing as part of your unlawful effort. In which case, here’s your answer you wanted to heat. But my point stands. “Brandishing” under the law is always and only criminal.

                      “I didn’t look much into tribal law. I’m sure that defensive gun uses are all permissible and lawful. Anything done defensively is. Obvious to anyone that is not you. Bruce the retard king.”

                      More insults. Plus, your statement is not supported by the language of the law. You might be right, you might be wrong, but either way you will engage in childish taunts. I bring out the second grader in you. Other acts have the language “… without lawful authority …” but the Brandishing law does not. So either self defense isn’t ‘brandishing’ or self-defense isn’t legal. I can allow that question to remain unresolved without making either assumptions or insults. You, apparently, can’t in either case.

                      “In regards to Lott and Kleck&Gertz, are their studies accurate? Because you seem to disagree with their main claims, that brandishing a firearm in self defense makes up 90+% of DGUs. So what is your position on this? Are they wrong?”

                      Asked and answered. But, for the dense: They appear to use the word the same way you do. But their doing so doesn’t make me disagree with their claims, only (at worst) with their word usage. In fact, I can allow that some people and in some places, but at least you and Lott, employ the term to mean both legal and illegal acts. I understand what they (and you) mean by the term. That doesn’t lessen their claims, and it also doesn’t strengthen yours or lessen mine, either; That point is no big deal, it is worth zero #winning points for me to grant it. In fact, I already did. Do you need to collect an additional zero #winning points, after the first zero #winning points the last time? I’m sure you can come up with other people, places and things that employ the term in the same way. Doing so does not refute the many cases I have shown which *do* employ the term to always and only connote unlawful acts. Which establishes my proposition. You can find as many white crows as you want without damaging the claim “many crows are black” in the least. Oh, sorry, I forgot again that you didn’t grasp that analogy of your illogical argument at all.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “I don’t need to deny it, as I already wrote (can you read?) that I could abandon any individual claim without jeopardizing my claim of “many places define it to mean a criminal act.””

                      Then why did you link them originally? And by many places, you mean….tribal law?

                      “Yes indeedy, and those wouldn’t be called “brandishing” in official communications, but rather “defensive displays” because that’s the legal term for them.”

                      Really? What evidence do you have of this? Absolutely zero. And why are you talking about official communications now? LOL. The question is whether people can brandishing a gun in self defense and it be lawful. The clear answer is yes, that state, just like every state, considers brandishing a gun in self defense as LAWFUL. But you want to talk about what’s in official communications? Hahahaha.

                      “If you ask a police officer if such an act would be “Brandishing under Iowa law” he would say no, that word only applies to unlawful acts.”

                      Hahahahahah. Oh really? Is that so? Oh man, I love your mental gymnastics. So they brandish in self defense, but the police would say that is not brandishing. It is……what?

                      “On the other hand, it might be theoretically possible to *unlawfully* fight off an intruder.”

                      Really? Can you describe a scenario in which self defense is not self defense? Fighting off intruder = self defense.

                      ““Brandishing” under the law is always and only criminal.”

                      So people who brandish in self defense are criminals. You said it.

                      “Asked and answered. But, for the dense: They appear to use the word the same way you do. But their doing so doesn’t make me disagree with their claims, only (at worst) with their word usage.”

                      Look at you pussy footing around. If you’re going to say something, just say it. You disagree with their word usage. Why? Because you think it’s incorrect. Don’t you think it’s a big deal that their principle claim has a word that you think is incorrect? One that you spent so long saying was not proper? But yea, they are just using it incorrectly.

                      Alright, so to recap, you have Iowa and tribal law that don’t specifically state that brandishing in self defense is lawful. Out of 10 states that you tried to argue your position, you’re down to 1 state, 1 tribal law (lol). Well, great evidence you got for your theory. You must be right. It must be illegal to brandish a gun in self defense in those places. You convinced me.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Babs The Troll: “Then why did you link them originally?”

                      Because I thought you would be able to follow a line of reasoning, like in CA. “But I had to try a different tack” because you couldn’t answer a simple question. So, adapting to your obstinacy or deficiency, I moved on. Have you?

                      “And by many places, you mean….tribal law?”

                      The law and the area under the jurisdiction of that law.

                      “Yes indeedy, and those wouldn’t be called “brandishing” in official communications, but rather “defensive displays” because that’s the legal term for them.”

                      “Really? What evidence do you have of this? Absolutely zero. And why are you talking about official communications now? LOL.”

                      If you could read, you would know that with respect to AZ, I have always been talking about official communications. It has taken pretty long for you to figure this out, however.

                      “The question is whether people can brandishing a gun in self defense and it be lawful. The clear answer is yes, that state, just like every state, considers brandishing a gun in self defense as LAWFUL. But you want to talk about what’s in official communications? Hahahaha.”

                      You still can’t grasp the concept that a dictionary definition and a legal definition can be different. Remember “structuring?” No, probably not.

                      [me]“If you ask a police officer if such an act would be “Brandishing under Iowa law” he would say no, that word only applies to unlawful acts.”

                      “Hahahahahah. Oh really? Is that so? Oh man, I love your mental gymnastics. So they brandish in self defense, but the police would say that is not brandishing. It is……what?”

                      “Defensive display.” Defined under the law. Explicitly. Which I cited. And linked. And explained. And gave examples about. Mental gymnastics indeed.

                      [me]“On the other hand, it might be theoretically possible to *unlawfully* fight off an intruder.”

                      “Really? Can you describe a scenario in which self defense is not self defense? Fighting off intruder = self defense.”

                      First, I have to congratulate you on this particular question. This might very well be the first time ever, that I have stated something and you merely ask me to give an example of what I mean, while clarifying your own belief about the answer to the question, implying that you think I’m mistaken, without name-calling, insults, denigration, judgement, or any of a hundred other offensive behaviors that you so very commonly use elsewhere. So, in all sincerity, thank you for asking. This is the way a debate between people who disagree might actually be able to go, if the parties are willing. I would like to think you would prefer this, although there certainly exists some evidence that you don’t. But, I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt this one more time.

                      Now to answer your question. First, “self-defense” means, (obviously) defending your *self*. If there’s an intruder in your home, he might not be posing any threat to your person at all. In fact, he might have expected you to not be there, and you surprised him, and he wishes nothing more than to simply escape. Under the circumstances, it could easily become the case that you use excessive, i.e. unlawful, force, to fight him off.

                      Then there’s the case of actual self-defense. Which means he actually physically harms you, or threatens to harm you. In some states, there is a “duty to retreat,” which if you don’t do it, you could be charged with failure to retreat. In that case, your fight could very well be unlawful. There is also the possibility of excessive force here too. Suppose the intruder is actually a child, punches you in the thigh, and tries to run off. But you catch him by the collar. It’s the child of a neighbor who doesn’t like you, and you don’t like him. But it’s a child. Notwithstanding if the child (1) entered illegally, and (2) attacked you, do you think that if you beat the kid senseless, the DA wouldn’t want to charge you with something? Do you think if you produced a gun and shoved it in the child’s face and then warned him that if you ever saw him again you would blow his head off, especially after first beating him senseless, that there isn’t a DA in the country who wouldn’t try to press charges for brandishing? Or do you instead think this would be a case of lawful “brandishing” in self-defense, in every single jurisdiction? (Keeping in mind that only one single case would serve as the counterexample you requested, and that some states impose a duty to retreat before use of deadly force, even within your own home, is lawful.)

                      So that’s my answer to your question, but I’d like to editorially add that, if, and to the extent that, you agree with and accept this answer, I’d like you to consider the possibility that I have responded to other questions of yours with hypotheticals and contingencies like this one in mind when formulating my answer, but, instead of asking about them in the manner here, your response has been to call me really, really, really stupid, a dumb fuck, and a retard king, “you’re embarrassing yourself,” etc. Those with decency would find it in their hearts to apologize. Whether this applies to you is another question.

                      [me]““Brandishing” under the law is always and only criminal.”

                      “So people who brandish in self defense are criminals. You said it.”

                      See above.

                      [me]“Asked and answered. But, for the dense: They appear to use the word the same way you do. But their doing so doesn’t make me disagree with their claims, only (at worst) with their word usage.”

                      “Look at you pussy footing around. If you’re going to say something, just say it. You disagree with their word usage. Why? Because you think it’s incorrect. Don’t you think it’s a big deal that their principle claim has a word that you think is incorrect? One that you spent so long saying was not proper? But yea, they are just using it incorrectly.”

                      Are you familiar with the concept of dialects? People in different parts of the country, or from different cultures in the same region, use words differently. That doesn’t mean that each person necessarily thinks all the others are *wrong*, just that they have differences. Only an extremely belligerent and hostile person would ever want to hurl insults and denigration at others who use words differently from how they do, instead of clarifying the differences and proceeding. As well as lying, misrepresenting my position, and other such things. Look in the mirror.

                      “Alright, so to recap, you have Iowa and tribal law that don’t specifically state that brandishing in self defense is lawful. Out of 10 states that you tried to argue your position, you’re down to 1 state, 1 tribal law (lol). Well, great evidence you got for your theory. You must be right. It must be illegal to brandish a gun in self defense in those places. You convinced me.”

                      3 states, tribal law, and at least two internet sites. I could find more. I could still go after CA but you were unwilling to be led there. I’m sure there are many others, it is just not necessary to claim more of them with as many as I already have. I have proved my case.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “Because I thought you would be able to follow a line of reasoning, like in CA.”

                      There is no simple line of reasoning required. The law is clear in that it states who is legally justified in brandishing. And you moved on from that as well as the other handful of examples because they do the exact same thing; they clearly show in the text of the law that brandishing in self defense is not a crime.

                      “If you could read, you would know that with respect to AZ, I have always been talking about official communications. It has taken pretty long for you to figure this out, however.”

                      You claim that in Arizona, the word brandish never gets used in official communications. You have no evidence of this. You claim, falsely, that since they use the term “defensive displays” in the law, that must mean that they don’t use the word brandishing in “official communications”. I’m sorry, but your claim is not supported by your evidence. Not in the least.

                      “You still can’t grasp the concept that a dictionary definition and a legal definition can be different. Remember “structuring?” No, probably not.”

                      Sure I remember your awful example. You compared “structuring”, as in the verb “to structure” to “Structuring”, also known as smurfing in banking industry jargon, is the practice of executing financial transactions. I’m guessing you were trying to make a point that words can have different meanings. The problem is that whenever brandishing is used in the text of the law, it always matches with the dictionary definition. Brandishing is brandishing is brandishing.

                      What you don’t understand is that the law is charged with is specifying legality, not telling us whether if someone waves their gun menacingly, that it is brandishing, or a defensive display, or as you like to call it “something”. When you say “it isn’t brandishing under the law”, you aren’t really saying anything. If you said, the person can’t be charged with brandishing, that’s ok, that would make sense. But the law has no power to say what his actions were, only whether they are criminal or not. But you think the law has the power to say what his action actually was (dictionary definition), which makes no sense.

                      Here’s another example of your flawed thinking:

                      “If you ask a police officer if such an act would be “Brandishing under Iowa law”. Iowa law doesn’t define what brandishing is. The law defines what can happen if you brandish. It doesn’t say whether waving a gun menacingly should have this term, that term, or the other.

                      Regarding your awful example:

                      “Do you think if you produced a gun and shoved it in the child’s face and then warned him that if you ever saw him again you would blow his head off, especially after first beating him senseless, that there isn’t a DA in the country who wouldn’t try to press charges for brandishing?”

                      That obviously isn’t self defense any more. Obviously. Why did you waste your time writing all that?

                      “(Keeping in mind that only one single case would serve as the counterexample you requested,”

                      I didn’t request one, it was a rhetorical question. When is self defense not self defense, and you answered?

                      “Are you familiar with the concept of dialects? People in different parts of the country, or from different cultures in the same region, use words differently.”

                      This is my all time favorite line. Thank you for all of its glory. Yea, that must be the problem. Those silly criminologists and their peer reviewed journals, if only they could get their dialects under control! Then they wouldn’t make you look so bad. Really, their dialects. Hahahaha. Dialects! I can’t believe it.

                      “3 states, tribal law, and at least two internet sites.”

                      Hahahaha. Oh man. You add two internet sites to your mountain of evidence (that slowly gets chipped away, sorry about that), and you do this based on a comment that someone makes on an internet forum. And then, the cherry on top, you then claim that those comments represent not only the entire website, but the “gun culture.”

                      So Rick Lee, Tattedupboy, and gdcleanfun are experts on what is or isn’t brandishing, and they make up the gun culture. Based on their expert posts on an internet forum you claim:

                      “So at least in the gun culture the usage is often that “Brandishing” is defined as *always* a crime.”

                      That is truly, excellent, rock solid evidence you have collected.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      You’re wasting your time with him. He’s not interested in learning anything. His mind is already made up.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Babs The Troll,

                      It is illuminating that you ignore an olive branch. But instead simply return to insults.

                      Your nature has been not only fully revealed, but confirmed. You are a troll.

                      Be gone.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      I didn’t insult you one time in that post. What is this false victim act? I’m not interested in olive branches, I’m interested in the arguments at hand. And you seem to have run out of them.

            • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

              By the way, the fact that Mother Jones “didn’t find any evidence” that shooters targeted ‘gun-free’ zones doesn’t prove they didn’t, it just means they didn’t find any evidence. So the MJ reference is illogical. Furthermore, I have already picked apart the MAIG study, which for example mischaracterized places where only police could carry (a cafe in WA, IIRC) as not a ‘gun-free’ place, which mischaracterized domestic mass shootings as public mass shootings, etc. The fact that you cite something that depends on a study that I have already refuted (1) speaks to your dishonesty, and (2) is yet another case of the broken record fallacy on your part.

              So,Mother Jones could’nt see what Ray Charles or Stevie Wonder easily could?

        • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

          We never established what “except” means,

          possibly akin to “it depends on what the definition of “is” is”

  34. LandonNo Gravatar says:

    If you are going for best contents like myself, only pay a
    quick visit this web site everyday as it presents quality contents, thanks

  35. BruceNo Gravatar says:

    3 Dead in Shooting After Shooting in Columbia Mall

    http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2014/01/25/police-investigate-repor ts-of-shooting-in-columbia-mall/

    The mall prohibits firearms:

    Examples of specific activities that are prohibited include,
    but are not limited to:

    Disruptive profanity, vulgar or
    threatening language
    Unnecessarily blocking walkways,
    roadways or storefronts
    Running, horseplay or disorderly
    conduct of any nature
    Excessive loitering
    Operating unauthorized recreational
    and/or personal transportation
    devices in the shopping center
    *No* *firearms* *or* *illegal* *weapons*

    http://www.themallincolumbia.com/content/pdf/code_of_conduct.pdf

    Here’s some more blood for the gun grabbers to (1) embolden others to cause to be shed, and (2) to then stand in and call for still yet more restrictions on firearms elsewhere. (Because, obviously, they can’t be banned any more than they are already banned at the Columbia Mall.)

    (This is original research on my part. Sincerely, Bruce.)

  36. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    “By the way, the fact that Mother Jones “didn’t find any evidence” that shooters targeted ‘gun-free’ zones doesn’t prove they didn’t, it just means they didn’t find any evidence.”

    Like all conspiracy theorists. “You just didn’t look hard enough”.

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/17/the-growing-myth-of-mass- shootings-and-gun-free/195927

    “By suggesting guns are banned at the Navy Yard, gun advocates want to paint the picture of an utterly defenseless, almost pacifist, facility; one where a gunman will have free reign over a completely unprotected community.

    News reports from the Navy Yard clearly debunk that claim.

    Speaking to reporters yesterday, Washington, D.C. police chief Cathy Lanier detailed how local police officers arrived at the Navy Yard within two or three minutes of the first shots ringing out, and that even before that, “internal security” at the Navy Yard was firing at the gunman.

    Does that sound like gun-free facility to you? Does that sound like the gunman didn’t have to worry about anybody shooting back, as the Daily Caller absurdly claimed?”

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      “Lanier detailed how local police officers arrived at the Navy Yard within two or three minutes of the first shots ringing out”

      When seconds count, the police are just minutes away. A hell of a lot of bad things can happen in a two or three minutes. This claim does nothing to address whether the area in question was a “gun-free” zone or not.

      ‘and that even before that, “internal security” at the Navy Yard was firing at the gunman.’

      “Does that sound like gun-free facility to you?”

      Actually, it does, although the statement does not prove it. The operative question is whether the rank-and-file ordinary people who worked or were at the location were permitted to carry guns for their own defense, or not. The fact that “internal security” was firing back, with no mention of the regular folks there, indicates circumstantially that the regular folks were not firing back, and therefore, possibly, were not allowed to carry guns. It is my understanding that soldiers are *not* allowed to carry guns with them even on army bases. For example, at the Ft. Hood shooting by Mr. Hassan, the people in that conference room were prohibited from carrying. That makes both those places a “gun-free” zone under my definition.

      “Does that sound like the gunman didn’t have to worry about anybody shooting back, as the Daily Caller absurdly claimed?”

      On the one hand, he was mentally unstable, so it might be taking dangerous ground to speculate what he was thinking. (Although, it takes one to know one, so maybe you would be in a better position to assess this than I can know.) But on the other hand maybe he did believe it was a ‘gun-free’ zone according to my definition, he did target it for that reason, and he didn’t think (armed) internal security would arrive as quickly as it did.