Ridiculous U.S. gun laws.

[Deleted member 619]

If I was incompetent I'd know it.

Hahahahahaha!

Dude's clearly never heard of David Dunning and Justin Kruger.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Huh. I had actually interpreted that statement as something like, "I would have been reprimanded/fired".

 

[Deleted member 619]

That would require that his line management were sufficiently competent to be able to accurately assess his competence. You can see where that sort of reasoning leads. Management are, in my not inconsiderable experience, generally considerably less competent than those beneath them.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

Huh. I had actually interpreted that statement as something like, "I would have been reprimanded/fired".

Yea yet its been the opposite. People still go through classes in order to learn firearms topics from me. People still buy firearms from me and there hasn't been negligent discharges after my classes. This means competent student competent teacher. I grow more engagement with people to schedule more classes. If I was incompetent then wouldn't there been some sort of criminal or civil action made against me?

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

Hahahahahaha!

Dude's clearly never heard of David Dunning and Justin Kruger.

View attachment 493

I don't think this is on topic nor respectful. Where's your citation that I am incompetent regarding firearms?

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

That would require that his line management were sufficiently competent to be able to accurately assess his competence. You can see where that sort of reasoning leads. Management are, in my not inconsiderable experience, generally considerably less competent than those beneath them.

Ironically I would consider Biden more competent than his pick of the ATF director. We are talking about the underling responsible for the screw up of WACO as one of the tactical commanders and also the guy that lost his issued firearm out of his private vehicle. That is far more negligent or incompetent than simply being asleep and unable to speak properly.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I couldn't give a flying fuck what you think, and I certainly don't owe or extend you any respect.

Just popping this epistemically incoherent babble here for a laugh, in case you get deleted when your suicide by mod mission is complete.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

The Second Amendment.

So you don't actually ask them? You just read the established law and just assume their statement? Wow. That is ironic considering you try to corner me on confirmation bias. Seems like you would at least base that on statements made relating to their will. That seems so much more reasonable and logical then assuming people automatically agree to whatever law is on the books.

So you base it on confirmation bias.

No I base it on personal experience with actual people and not and not an inference and information I look up that I specifically search for. Pssst that is the opposite of confirmation bias.

Another convenient family member story. Much like your other yarns, I do not believe this one. Even if it were true, the rest of this paragraph is just you demonstrating confirmation bias.

Convenient yes. True yes. My brother owns an alternator manufacturing business and about 8/10 alternators used are featured in hot rod magazine. He uses primarily Hispanics which is also true. They seem to be generally anti gun based on conversations with them when the topic presents itself. For example the last time my brother threw a party for one of his girlfriends.

What am I inferring?

I don't know why don't you actually read what I wrote and quote it and actually address it?

Like what?

My birth Certificate for example.

One has to remember the context of this. I said you have a problem sticking to the OP of other threads, then linked to this thread to prove it. Now, does it make sense to take screenshots or provide a link so people can find your posts and see that they did not stick to the OP? How you think this is vague is beyond me.

That is ironic considering massive stream of screenshots linking the entire context with photos. This cannot be done with simple quoting.

Sure pal.

Literally my job but ok.

That is exactly what an incompetent person would say.

Ah so I wouldn't be fired if I was incompetent with a firearm as an instructor? I wouldn't be fired or my certifications confiscated if I violated state or federal law? Ok then whatever.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

All incompetent people know they're incompetent; that's how competence works.

Hold on, let me just review my private survey of what Asians said to corroborate that.... *reviews substantive polling data*.... yes, that's what Asian people believe.

I can take a screen capture of this post if you don't believe me. That'll solve the problem.

So if you were incompetent wouldn't you get fired at your job? Your argument stinks.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

I couldn't give a flying fuck what you think, and I certainly don't owe or extend you any respect.

Yet you are here and are continually replying. That doesn't sound like someone that doesn't care. If you didn't care you wouldn't be here communicating. And I thought this forum was about reasoning and logic.

Just popping this epistemically incoherent babble here for a laugh, in case you get deleted when your suicide by mod mission is complete.

View attachment 494

Yea where is your citation that I am not a firearms instructor?

 

[Deleted member 619]

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

So you don't actually ask them? You just read the established law and just assume their statement? Wow. That is ironic considering you try to corner me on confirmation bias. Seems like you would at least base that on statements made relating to their will. That seems so much more reasonable and logical then assuming people automatically agree to whatever law is on the books.

So you think using your confirmation bias is more reasonable?

No I base it on personal experience with actual people and not and not an inference and information I look up that I specifically search for. Pssst that is the opposite of confirmation bias.

Yeah, I am pretty sure you do not know how to research things in the first place, based on your gross ignorance of the CoViD vaccines. Beyond that, you are really going to act like you were able to come up with a sample size large enough to tell you anything?

Convenient yes. True yes. My brother owns an alternator manufacturing business and about 8/10 alternators used are featured in hot rod magazine. He uses primarily Hispanics which is also true. They seem to be generally anti gun based on conversations with them when the topic presents itself. For example the last time my brother threw a party for one of his girlfriends.

Keep spinning that yarn.

What am I inferring?

I don't know why don't you actually read what I wrote and quote it and actually address it?

That is all I have done with you. Methinks you actually forgot the context of this little exchange. Your lack of ability to keep up on this simple conversation exposes why your little yarn about your brother and his workforce would be unreliable, as told by you, if it were true.

One has to remember the context of this. I said you have a problem sticking to the OP of other threads, then linked to this thread to prove it. Now, does it make sense to take screenshots or provide a link so people can find your posts and see that they did not stick to the OP? How you think this is vague is beyond me.

That is ironic considering massive stream of screenshots linking the entire context with photos. This cannot be done with simple quoting.

How is that ironic? Also, I did not quote anything now, did I? I linked to a thread. Your actions in that thread are the evidence. Would you please try to keep up?

Literally my job but ok.

Again, sure pal.

Ah so I wouldn't be fired if I was incompetent with a firearm as an instructor? I wouldn't be fired or my certifications confiscated if I violated state or federal law? Ok then whatever.

Oh, you would be. But first, you would actually have to be an instructor or have certifications.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

View attachment 495

Ah bickering and not being very respectful. You have no interest in actually arguing the point. Ironic.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

So you think using your confirmation bias is more reasonable?

So do you think it is more or less accurate to derive will from written law or actually asking people what their opinion is?

Yeah, I am pretty sure you do not know how to research things in the first place, based on your gross ignorance of the CoViD vaccines. Beyond that, you are really going to act like you were able to come up with a sample size large enough to tell you anything?

Better than blindly assuming based on what is written in the law correct? U.S. law states that Mamajuana should be illegal. Therefore people don't want to smoke weed. Actually asking someone and confirming their will is better comparatively full stop.

Keep spinning that yarn.

Its the truth. Again I actually ask people and not rely on what is said in law. Confirm their will don't assume it. You are the one with the confirmation bias problem.

That is all I have done with you. Methinks you actually forgot the context of this little exchange. Your lack of ability to keep up on this simple conversation exposes why your little yarn about your brother and his workforce would be unreliable, as told by you, if it were true.

That is because I am tired of you losing the context and not directly addressing the argument. You are off on a tangent on some random stuff rather than actually addressing the topic of the thread.

How is that ironic? Also, I did not quote anything now, did I? I linked to a thread. Your actions in that thread are the evidence. Would you please try to keep up?

It is ironic because the screenshot keeps the context of what I am replying to and contesting that is the entire point of a screen cap is to have concise proof of something. What do you think photos do? They are show you what happened with x person(s) at x time.

Again, sure pal.

Prove it.

Oh, you would be. But first, you would actually have to be an instructor or have certifications.

How do I teach carry permits and private lessons then?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

So do you think it is more or less accurate to derive will from written law or actually asking people what their opinion is?

Asking people. But please do not act like asking a handful of people allows one to generalize about a whole group. Twas the point I was making, remember?

Better than blindly assuming based on what is written in the law correct? U.S. law states that Mamajuana should be illegal. Therefore people don't want to smoke weed. Actually asking someone and confirming their will is better comparatively full stop.

But, again, do not act like asking a handful of people allows one to generalize about a whole group.

Its the truth.

I doubt it.

Again I actually ask people and not rely on what is said in law. Confirm their will don't assume it. You are the one with the confirmation bias problem.

Again, please do not act like asking a handful of people allows one to generalize about a whole group.

That is because I am tired of you losing the context and not directly addressing the argument. You are off on a tangent on some random stuff rather than actually addressing the topic of the thread.

Exactly, because the OP of this thread was boring, but I found something in your posts worth exploring. However, you missed again the context of my comment there. You were unable to keep up with this conversation, yet you expect anyone to believe that you could accurately recall exchanges with others? This forum has the advantage of being written, so if you did forget the context, you could look it up, yet you did not. So again, your recall of events leaves much to be desired.

It is ironic because the screenshot keeps the context of what I am replying to and contesting that is the entire point of a screen cap is to have concise proof of something. What do you think photos do? They are show you what happened with x person(s) at x time.

And as I pointed out, a screenshot would not be helpful because your actions in that thread are the evidence. What would be the point of screenshots when I can give one link to demonstrate I am correct? Again, this distraction about screenshots came about because you confused our conversation about me sharing a link while discussing the quote function vs. screenshots with another user. Your recall leaves much to be desired.

Prove it.

Prove what?

How do I teach carry permits and private lessons then?

I do not think you do.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

​

 

[Akamia]

It's worth noting that, unless the quote function was mishandled in some way or typed in manually without information in the relevant parameters, each quoted segment or post will link back to the post it was quoted from. Thus, each quote is also a link.

Most forum sites handle their quote functions this way, if they have them at all – and most do. It's rare in my experience to see it doesn't work this way.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

It's worth noting that, unless the quote function was mishandled in some way or typed in manually without information in the relevant parameters, each quoted segment or post will link back to the post it was quoted from. Thus, each quote is also a link.

Most forum sites handle their quote functions this way, if they have them at all – and most do. It's rare in my experience to see it doesn't work this way.

I attempted to quote Dragon in full just now and because the quote required scrolling it didn't quote all of what Dragon said. So I literally just CTRL + C and CTRL + V. It doesn't work as it should or as intended. Even if you click reply and try to get rid of the extra space in order to see what was said concisely you still run the risk of the quote feature not including all of what was said which doesn't fulfill the purpose of the quote feature.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Worth noting that, if you highlight the bit you want, a pair of buttons pops up. Hit that reply button, and it populates the quote box at the bottom of the page with your quote all nicely boxed up. You can do more than one at a time, and just pick out the bits you want to respond to, hitting that reply button after every highlight.

This forum software has a little bit of a learning curve if you're used to basic php tags or the like, but it works quite elegantly with a little patience.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Well only 1 person (greg) actually engaged with the topic specifically and the rest actually involved insults or replies of replies if you look from start to current posts.

Actually, apart from a comment by 21DL [post 10 on page 1], I was the first to actually reply on topic [post 14 on page 1].

Greg didn't really get involved until page 4, which is when you started replying.

Adding qualifiers is being more specific as no one actually asked narrowing questions as to exactly what I was talking about. I was vague because it was a suggestion of who contributes to crime and if they should be here at all to begin with in general. Why because I didn't really hold an interest to it because it doesn't have anything to do with the topic of the thread so with having low to no interest arguments are going to be lazy.

This paragraph is quite telling.

In challenging your basic claim - that immigrants cause (violent) crime - you had an opportunity to clear up what you actually meant. Instead of doing so, you simply added qualifiers. If you didn't mean what you said, why not say so?

So, it appears now - after over 20 pages - that it was a lazy argument.

Such arguments indicate a certain level of prejudice - which can be mistaken for discrimination, in this case, racism.

This forum is called the "League of Reason" for a reason. [Pun intended.]

It's purpose is to discuss topics whilst addressing misconceptions and poor thinking - like lazy arguments.

This is why most here focussed on your claim rather than the topic - particularly since you seemed unwilling and/or unable to acknowledge your error in thinking.

As regards your earlier comments about a combination of genes and culture from their country of origin being a factor, this "deep roots" idea was recently dealt with, and shown to be untrue [1]. The author of the piece also has a booklet [2] that deals with the various myths about immigration.

Do you think they proved their claim of being a racist? I think not.

As I said, it shows prejudice - if you were to implement some of your proposed solutions (executing gang members, etc.), it might lead you to be accused of discrimination, and - possibly - racism.

I think it is more a symptom of lefty victim Olympics who can fain the most offense wins.

Again, there's a certain amount of bias in your statement (and thinking) reflecting a right-left paradigm.

Your "Come at me bros" challenge showed that you thought we'd all be left-wing and universally reject guns. The only one who did that (21DL) was a "drive-by poster" who is no longer here. The rest of us - including your fellow Americans - haven't.

Just because we support various levels of regulation doesn't mean we're against guns.

The proverbial "Anti-vaxxers" are treated as a monolithic block of "nut jobs" but there are those amongst them who have legitimate concerns about vaccine safety.

So it is with us: we have legitimate concerns about guns in civilian environments, and seek to minimise the risks to the public, including ourselves.

If there are no genetic factors based on race then how do people tell race via a blood sample? That is literally a DNA test in order to prove your race. Damn it I am doing it again. What does this have to do with the topic? Its like 20 pages of irrelevant stuff.

What you have is a layer-cake rather than five "races" based on skin colour.

The base-layer is African; then European (including Neanderthal DNA);; then Asian (European plus Denisovan); then Native American.

Whichever ethnicity you are will show the relevant layers.

I'm Caucasian - so, my DNA would show European, of which up to 4% will be Neanderthal. Although you also look Caucasian, because you're American, there's a possibility of Native American ancestry in your genealogy - a DNA test would show this.

Some people are surprised at what their test shows

Years ago, I saw a program on this where various people were given such a test. One British woman, who was a "blue-rinse" conservative who was certain she was "pure English blood" was shocked to find she was 40% Arab - needless to say, she didn't believe the test.

And, yes, this doesn't have anything to do with your OP - it has to do with something more interesting for LoR members: thinking and thinking errors, to wit, your claim(s) about immigrants.

If we are all African then why does it say different on my identification or on your birth certificate?

You're confusing nationality/country of origin with ethnicity - as I'm sure you realise, they're not the same.

My birth certificate indicates I'm Irish, not that I'm Caucasian.

How's that? If you abide by the law how do they prosecute you?

If LEAs implement zero-tolerance policies, laws that haven't been enforced are suddenly enforced with draconian consequences.

Equally, you may find anything they perceive as a indicator of a wrong attitude on your part, etc., can result in your being arrested, and getting a record.

Criminal Noncitizen Statistics

Securing America's Borders

www.cbp.gov

Actually Border Control has a few statistics but they are lacking. As the problem with U.S. statistics is that certain information is not obtainable or you have to extrapolate out results based on the information you do have. This skips quite a few categories for criminal arrests and not all crimes are recorded but we do see a partial picture. Also these figures do not represent the criminal records these illegals had from other countries or convictions that were not illegal considering the laws of the U.S. so that information is entirely absent. Multiple convictions on the same person are also discounted on the totals on the top of the summary.

These figures do include crimes from other countries - from the report:

individuals who have been convicted of one or more crimes, whether in the United States or abroad

And they do show arrests even if they don't show convictions, hence why the former exceeds the latter - as the report notes.

Also, as I've mentioned elsewhere, governments create the need for people-smugglers by imposing restrictions on immigration. The stricter the regulations, the greater the need.

As a result, agents are prone to corruption, as a recent study has shown. [4]

Sure that is an assumption though no one asked to clarify in order to fairly confirm what I am actually meaning which further compounds the intent of not wanting to cite anything or explain things with a finer point as people clearly little interest. Do you think most people would simply roll their eyes and walk away given the same or similar situation?

With all due respect, Bogan, it's up to the speaker to be clear about what they mean, not the listener to keep having to ask questions to find out, otherwise the speaker isn't communicating.

Measuring illegal immigration: How Pew Research Center counts unauthorized immigrants in the U.S.

Jeffrey S. Passel, senior demographer, on the research techniques used to derive the unauthorized immigrant population estimate in the U.S. and the challenges involved.

www.pewresearch.org

About 1/4 of the total immigrant pool are illegal 10.5m

That number hasn't decreased even when programs allowing easier application of being a citizen was extended along with immunity to such undocumented persons. Clearly judging from this they don't want to be citizens not when immigration sanctuaries are established. Why would you pay for the extra cost when you have a state guarantee that you won't be prosecuted?

That would be like me having an unregistered suppressor and being in clear violation of the NFA but I lived in Texas and so state law makes it legal for me to possess said suppressor. Why would I pay the extra funds to be legal federally when I am technically legal in the state in which I reside?

They have a written guarantee in the law granting them citizenship if they passed the full exam just like any other prospective applicant. But they didn't take that opportunity. So I think they should deported if not worse given their willful ignoring of law and the continued ignoring of law when they were given an out.

Why should they be treated special considering other immigrants wait in line and put up with the bureaucracy? The general purpose of having a society is that everyone agrees to comply with the rules of that society. You are sending the message that it doesn't really matter if you wait and do things properly you can get special treatment even if you are literal criminal and we don't prosecute you.

The irony here is that people want verification processes on everything else except granting government funds to literal criminals. Doesn't it make since to vet who you are letting into your society? We don't know these people and the left ironically argues you need to present and be verified to buy a gun but you can enter and be a possible threat in the country. I take huge issue with this.

The figure grew from 1990 until around 2008, then decreased to that figure in 2017. If the downward trend continued, it should be even less today.

One option would be to offer an amnesty for a period allowing unauthorised immigrants to come forward and become citizens. Those who didn't could then be targeted, given that the numbers would have dropped to manageable proportions. Clearly, those who had records elsewhere could be deported under international agreements.

Mexican law is very anti gun. Most places in the world are anti gun. The culture in Mexico is one that is you go to the one authorized dealer of firearms in Mexico or you may not own firearms. The culture in Mexico and in most places have horrible education on firearms and I routinely hear stupid and nonsensical arguments on firearms that have nothing to do with the technical reality of the firearms they are talking about. A MAY issue government simply to possess is inherently tyrannical and anti American.

Certainly, most of the world is anti-gun because they see no need for them in a civilised society, as I said elsewhere. And, of course, the rest of the world isn't America.

A "May Issue" policy is not necessarily tyrannical - if the issuance is based on your not having a history of violence, then that's perfectly understandable.

So keep importing people in here without fixing our own house then? The entire concept I keep saying is to address and focus on the needs of U.S. citizens first and foremost. U.S. politicians have no duty or obligation to go after the needs of anyone else period. The U.S. is vast and complicated and they need to go through system to make it efficient and effective. They shouldn't be kowtowing to people that aren't even citizens and have no right to be here to begin with. No expense should go to those people America needs to get on track and to do that they need fierce focus.

A recent study indicates that reducing the number of alcohol outlets would help reduce crime. [5]

And I've already spoken about programs to reduce gang-related crime, which are not being properly funded.

The so-called "zero tolerance" policies are counter-productive.

Joining the armed forces is the easiest way to become a citizen. However, if you enter the country illegally the basis is you don't care to hold yourself to U.S. law. To enter is a criminal offense. Depending on what you do while being investigated such as lying about your status that would add to the list of crimes.

I don't think the opportunity to be granted citizenship should be offered to illegals. Or joining the military at all if you have repeat criminal offenses that have no been addressed via a pardon or any other status clearing way in the U.S.. Why do we want to arm criminals in the military?

Why should illegals be given citizenship ahead of others that have put up with the system and done so per instruction and the requirements to enter legally? Simply they shouldn't that is totally unfair to the people acting on the level. We should encourage acting on the level and not encourage subversion or encourage dishonesty.

The armed forces do their own background checks with the countries of origin in conjunction with the relevant federal LEAs. Criminals are not being allowed to join.

As I said earlier, not all illegal immigrants have committed crimes - they're just trying to support themselves and their loved ones back home.

If there are too many illegals in the country, it makes it extremely difficult to track them down - you need to minimise the numbers first (through the afore-mentioned amnesty).

A couple of papers were published a few years ago on this that showed one needed to first focus on entry-points, and then offer the amnesty, allowing unathorised immigrants to come forward.

That doesn't tell me if they actually helped the U.S.. They might be encouraging "Chinesium" products. What percentage of them use U.S. labor or do anything to correct the innate problems with a vast majority dependence on imported goods and services? Tax resources don't really help me that much. Getting U.S. production and investing in the U.S. for American services and goods over imports are far more important.

Come now - if you start a business in the US that gives jobs to locals, and contributes revenue to the Treasury, both directly through local/state business and income taxes, and through socio-economic activity, you're helping the US!

Manufacturing has been an issue in recent decades due to companies transferring it overseas - particularly the Far East - due to cheap labour costs. The recent agreement on a global corporation tax should help level the playing field. America really should have been taxing foreign-made income, regardless of whether it was returned to America or left abroad: this was/is a case of American tax policy shooting itself in the foot resulting in manufacturing being transferred abroad.

I advocate for prison reform as well. I don't care if you do drugs in your own house on your own time. Huge plurality of convicts simply have drug charges. I don't care about those.

I agree.

The so-called "War on Drugs" has been a exercise in folly from the beginning.

Years ago, the UN did a report which showed this but, when they found out, the US government threatened to pull the UN's funding, so the UN buried the report. [So much for Americans' claims that the UN is an attempt at a "world government"! ]

There's too much corruption in this (and sex work/prostitution) amongst law enforcement: both need to be decriminalised, so that consenting adults can make their own choices.

I say the people with the most convictions of VIOLENT crimes as it stands now should be executed with delay or appeal right now. Any who have gang affiliations in a leadership role likewise executed.

If you did this you would essentially break the gang and cartel leadership based in the U.S.. Low level thugs that are aiming to get more involved with organized crime which is where the majority of the crime comes from directly or indirectly would be reduced.

Or simply enforce the law. Do not grant programs EVEN FOR ILLEGALS (state). Offer no legal support whatsoever to them and give them warning to begin with. If this fails and they choose to repeatedly break the law then they die. It is no different than trespassing on my property and wanting access to my property. NO one has ANY right. It is entirely a privilege and up to being granted and not taken.

I disagree wit executing gang leaders - these are often the ones who join programs that help divert youth from gang culture.

LEOs simply don't have any respect from gangs, and won't be listened to - only former gang leaders have this respect.

If these programs were properly funded, and supported by LEAs and within stronger communities, this would help reduce crime (along with other policy changes).

Kindest regards,

James