Jump to content

Mrs. Peel

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


Everything posted by Mrs. Peel

  1. I'm at TTC once a month anyway for The Well-Armed Woman (TWAW) chapter meeting... sometimes there a 2nd time for a different ladies event, and the other weeks get filled in when my uncle guests me into his range (Philipsburg). It's a cobbled together schedule at the moment... and probably not the wisest use of my money. I just haven't had time to set up a more budget-conscious plan. For instance, I really need to start getting to the outdoor range I already belong to before it gets too miserably cold, which will happen quickly. And, to boot, I never even looked at the "deal" that TTC was offering SCFGPA members while the range is closed... maybe it's good? I should look that up, as I may be throwing my money away (stupidly) by paying full price at TTC... I mean it's a nice range, but certainly not cheap!
  2. I'm moving in the opposite direction... getting more and more consistent with my shooting schedule. When I first started, I'd shoot every 4-8 weeks or so, now I rarely miss a week... usually shooting once per week, sometimes twice. I even had a day not long ago where I hit 2 ranges in one day, lol... that was a "personal best". That said, you need to give yourself a real "pass" when you've got young kids as you do. Those little ones will suck up your time like little Hoover vacuum cleaners, lol. Forgive yourself! That said, now that you've noticed the big time-gap... you need to get to the range... STAT!
  3. Mrs. Peel

    Ham radio

    My cupboards are still pretty empty. My normal M.O. is a well-stocked wine and liquor cabinet, but not enough food or bottled water in the house to even get through a day, lol. But I won't lie... reading even the first few chapters of that book has prompted me to start building up a modest stash of food and H2O. I figure, it couldn't hurt to adhere (at least a little bit!) to that "Be Prepared" scouting motto! I'm really thinking that having a 2-week supply of those basics in the house is really a bare minimum. But, I'm not building a bunker or anything... yet. (Let's see how I feel when I finish the whole book. )
  4. Mrs. Peel

    Ham radio

    I know NOTHING about ham radio. But what you're saying sounds slightly different than what the article is claiming. And I'm curious to know which is the truth. Your comment implies that the state was somehow actually providing funds... the article implies the state was merely letting private owners put this equipment on public land for free (but weren't laying out any funds per se). I think it's a distinction with a difference. If it was literally costing the state NOTHING... then this new policy is really short-sighted thinking. I've recently been reading that book (loaner from @Zeke) "Lights Out" by journalist Ted Koppel which gives a fairly chilling look at the vulnerability of our power grid, for instance. Yikes, it's pretty eye-opening! And then when you consider the history of natural disasters in California alone - what with the earthquakes, wildfires, mudslides, etc. - I guess my question is: why would the state go out of its way to dismantle any proven back-up systems that might proven helpful in local, regional or even national emergencies? Especially if they're not paying for it? And even if the technology is old (but proven)? It really does seem to be an incredibly bizarre policy! But, then again... California!
  5. OMG, I lived at that place! Good times, good times. We may have passed like ships in the night, lol.
  6. No! But I saw the Blue Sparks at another venue... which sadly I can't recall. Senior moment?
  7. Thank you for partly agreeing with me... now I just need to push you the rest of the way --- proportionality is the ONLY rational way to view this! When you say "angry white men" are committing these mass murders, you are purposefully - or unwittingly - creating a "profile" based on incorrect analysis and feeding a false narrative. In other words, you're disseminating "fake news" that also happens to be racist. Don't do that! Eh, or am I just behaving like a typical woman... refusing to let the man get the last word in...? Discuss amongst yourselves!
  8. That's a very fair point! One I should have considered myself. That said, the data - over a number of years - does still show that these horrible crimes are not at all unique to "whitey". I'm beginning to think @AVB-AMG has "bought lock, stock and barrel" into garment-rending guilt over his white privilege... so much so that he's seeing data patterns where they don't even exist! He needs to have a nice glass of port....
  9. OK, now you're just "gaslighting" me. I already responded to that. White men do not commit that crime "more so than other races" - they commit it at the same rate as other races. Where is that damn bottle?? I'm signing off before my head explodes. I hate when a bright person such as yourself is either unwilling or unable to understand what - to me anyway - is an obvious point. It makes me bonkers!
  10. I'm astounded. Truly! I know you understand math and proportionality. The facts show that race is STATISTICALLY IRRELEVANT as a factor in mass murders - IAW, race makes NO DIFFERENCE. People have committed these rare, horrific crimes IN PROPORTION to their percentage of the population. That means it's a statistically INSIGNIFICANT factor. OMG! I need a drink... and it's only 10:30 a.m! Why are you not getting this? They have committed mass shootings IN PROPORTION to their population... so NOT "more so than other races" - exactly "the SAME as other races." Where's my merlot?
  11. You're smarter than that! Your chart shows the same as mine. My point is... the media has been trying oh-so-hard to infer that "mass shooters" are disproportionately white... and further linking with "structural racism", "white supremacy" - building a myth that mass shootings are a white guy's crime. Why do you even say "angry white male", for instance? "Angry" and "male" may be relevant factors - youth is definitely a factor - but race is statistically irrelevant. It's put in there to shape a narrative that isn't true. Labels matter. Language matters. Facts matter. White males are no more liable or prone to commit a mass shooting than a Hispanic male, a Black male or an Asian male. And your own statistics prove that. THAT is my point! Edit: our responses crossed. We agree that youth is another big factor. Race, though, is not. You're an architect - you have an analytical mind. You know my point is correct! In today's hyper-sensitive racial times, it's unfair to stick "white" into your label - you're just playing into the hands of this new breed of activist who want to turn people against each other over skin color. Our society is taking a HUGE step backwards in that regard. Martin Luther King Jr must be rolling over in his grave to see all this focus on skin color rather than character!
  12. Thank you for this! I didn't realize this was just published. Nice to see that the rate is trending down again - the direct opposite of the "epidemic" some people call it. (If a disease was at near 30+ year lows, would anyone in their right mind call it an "epidemic"? Of course not! That's the most obvious spin!) Exactly. Anytime I see blatantly false info on these forums about gun crime and closely related topics, I feel compelled to challenge it... because far more people read these forums than post to them. Related to that point, AVB also mentioned another common myth in one of his posts - that of the "angry white male mass shooter" - the belief that white men specifically are over-represented among mass shooters. How this myth got started, I'll never know... but it is false! Now, it's true that men in general are overrepresented in that crime category, but mass shooters do NOT skew white - they closely match their racial percentage in the general population. (The white shooters tend to get WAY more media coverage...which probably fuels this myth). Anyway, here's a chart of mass shootings by race. https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/ - as you'll see, white shooters perpetrated 65% of the mass shootings turning the time period shown - but racially, the country is about 62% white - so that is directly proportional. Of course, if you expand to include other types of gun crimes, then white men are actually greatly under-represented in gun crimes. But, does the race of the shooter even matter? I would say NO. But, it's important that we don't promulgate common myths about gun crime when they're demonstrably false ---- on a gun forum, for goodness sakes!!
  13. @AVB-AMG - your latest posts mention the increase in gun violence. Though every death matters tremendously, the fact remains that the US is still in a long-term "trough" in terms of gun violence - far below the last peak in and around 1992, and even 92 was lower than the worse peak in 1974. Specifically: There were 4.6 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2017, far below the 7.2 per 100,000 people recorded in 1974. And the rate of gun suicides – 6.9 per 100,000 people in 2017 – remained below the 7.7 per 100,000 measured in 1977. Check out the FBI and the CDC for actual facts about death by guns. Don't get pulled in by the Trace, or Giffords or the other activist sites. Here are the facts: We're at near 30-year lows in our rate of per capita gun death. We've had a slight uptick in the last 2 years, ALL of it accounted for by increases in a few major cities - with many criminologists attributing it to a specific issue in those cities - the growing pushback against police, and in turn, the police then being "less enthusiastic" about rushing into known gang territory to be surrounded by hostile people with smart phones (or worse, throwing rocks, tossing unknown liquids at them, etc., etc.) Our rate of MASS murders has definitely ticked up, after remaining virtually the same for many decades. Though, that said, it is still an exceedingly rare crime (again, using the credible FBI definition and stats). One likely cause that too few focus on: for years, experts on these issues have asked repeatedly that the media stop publishing the photos and manifestos of mass killers. Most of these experts (criminologists, forensic psychologists and the like) believe strongly that the media is complicit in spurring copycats/contagion effect when they do that. And yet, with rare exception, the media has refused to comply. They want their advertising dollars - bodies be damned! So, they glamorize these crimes, create copycats, and then rail against the "increase in mass murders". Do you see the irony/pattern of bias there? At the same time, they virtually refuse to give Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) the same kind of national-level breathless coverage given to mass shooters. Again, recognize a pattern here? If you wonder "what can we do" as a society to stop mass shootings in particular, well... we'll never stop all acts of madness... but it seems wise to heed expert advice. We should begin by pressuring our media to work with these experts to develop and then voluntarily sign on to new industry standards on how to cover these atrocities in a way that doesn't create more of them!
  14. Oh... where to begin?! Point-by-point, I guess... I'll hit a few that jumped out at me. (Boldface added by me). @voyager9 and @Old Glock guy are quite correct, AVB. And you, in this instance, are so very wrong. Sorry!... but, the PLCAA law protects manufacturers from being sued when someone uses their product for criminal purposes. It's a pretty narrowly defined exception. It does NOT protect them from being sued over, for instance, defective parts that cause injuries - or - any other type of negligence! The ONLY reason the law was passed was because the industry was unique... in that it was under attack with nuisance lawsuits coordinated by activists who wished to bankrupt the industry. The analogy to suing a car manufacturer for the actions of a drunk driver is EXACTLY spot-on! If indeed, car manufacturers were regularly facing lawsuits (coordinated by MADD, for instance) holding them accountable for the actions of drunk drivers, we'd need to pass a law to stop that as well. I suggest you go read the PLCAA directly - the number is: 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903. The person to be blamed for the shooting is, first and foremost... the SHOOTER! Victims suing "whomever they can in an effort to get something for their loss" is a symptom of our sick, litigious society. As though getting a "cash settlement" somehow makes losing your loved one... better? Yikes. We need to re-think that. And Schiff?! Good god, AVB, he's an extremist. As stated, responsible manufacturers were being besieged with nuisance lawsuits promulgated by activists - THAT'S why the law was passed in the first place! You accuse @Sniper of "just reading and accepting the right-wing spin on Joe Biden’s stand on guns from Breitbart" - and yet, in your passage above, you directly link to information from The Giffords Law Center, a site of left-wing spin. Pot... meet Kettle! And, oh, btw, shootings deaths by AR-15s (and rifles of all types) are also very rare in this country, despite not being under the NFA. You're about as likely to be struck dead by lightning as you are to be killed by an AR-15... you're MORE likely to be beaten to death by someone's bare fists. You're buying into obvious "spin", AVB. You should be smarter than that! I suggest you avoid Giffords (and all other political sites), and go straight to credible sources (like FBI crime stats) for a clearer picture. You're getting hoodwinked, my friend! Maybe YOU don't have a problem with this... but I think you should! A number of leading organizations (including those that defend the rights of people with disabilities) certainly did! They saw it for what it was... a sneaky way to strip people of their Constitutional rights without due process. Those decisions were being made by bureaucratic administrators, not judges (based on expert testimony and all the other hallmarks of due process). Hell, it was such an egregious overstep that even the ACLU (no fan of guns!) came out strongly against it, and in fact, was one of the main plaintiffs. Judging from your political slant as expressed on these forums, I'm guessing you respect the ACLU, right? Eh, I agree with that... to a point. I enjoy Greenday's shooting threads - because frankly, I like to see people with a left-leaning slant enjoying firearms and seeing the ridiculousness of punishing legal gun owners for the actions of criminals - and he seems to "get" that point! (Progress?!) But, on most of the political threads, I suspect he's in it more for the sly fun of trolling and watching other posters' heads explode. And that's just mean-spirited... and as a result, people are now openly mean and hostile to him, too. It's a real shame. Whereas in AVB's case, agree with him or not, he actually "debates" - he builds his argument, he stays and defends it (and doesn't scamper off to another thread), and he's shown he's capable of changing his position when others present enough opposing information. At least I can respect his process, even at those times when I wholeheartedly disagree with his positions. And he also participates by bringing in other interesting threads, on any number of topics. I consider him, in that respect, a good contributing community member! Some folks on here simply can't tolerate opposing views... I'm not of that mindset myself. I personally think there's something inherently useful in hearing opposing viewpoints.
  15. Some information coming to light on that police station knifing. What a horrible situation! https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/paris-police-attacker-had-radical-vision-of-islam/ar-AAIjKdZ?ocid=spartanntp It's a bit hard for me to understand how this might have missed scrutiny in the midst of seasoned cops. A guy within your own department who gathers data on Islamic terrorism, suddenly converts to Islam... but with some definite red flags that hint he may have joined one of the radical sects (like he's swapped to a whole new wardrobe, is avoiding interaction with women, etc.) None of that says "moderate" to me... and this didn't raise a flag? I wonder if anyone thought to ask questions... do a little digging? Or was it political correctness run amuck? I would think if any employee in a police station went through a really noticeable behavioral change (religious or not!), it would raise eyebrows and generate questions. I mean, it's a high-risk workplace in terms of being a target to begin with. What a terrible missed opportunity regardless... and 4 people are dead as a result. Diabolical of the killer... and very, very tragic for all concerned. Sad. THIS IS A PUBLIC-FACING FORUM - so watch the language on your replies, pls! Thx.
  16. Nope, it's real! They've had a minimal age limit on purchasing cutlery sets (in London anyway) for quite some time, because so gangbangers where stabbing themselves and others. (Awhile ago, London actually surpassed NYC's murder rate for the FIRST time, but mostly because all the fatal knife and machete attacks). It just goes to show you... you have to go after the root cause, not the tool. These people are idiots!
  17. Yeah, I was very impressed with this young man. OTOH, not to be a cynic, or to be disagreeable with your main point (which is a valid one), but I can't help but think that he's also WELL AWARE that this woman did not maliciously or purposefully gun down his brother! One could argue that her situational awareness was simply terrible (exhausted or not). One could even say her behavior was reckless... but MURDER? Murder - as I understand the law - requires premeditation. I saw NOTHING that made me think she had any plan to kill this guy. Frankly, I don't think murder should even have been allowed to stand as a charge. So, yes, I do wonder if this young man would be able to forgive her if she had actually murdered his brother (as opposed to what I think this really is --- manslaughter). Yeah, yeah, I know... I'm no lawyer! And the man killed would still be gone from this world either way... and the brother's loss is equally real... but I still think it's far more difficult to forgive when someone cruelly plans to take your loved one's life as opposed to a tragic accident even if it was careless or reckless.
  18. FYI, we don't delete sales ads (in case a reader saw it once... and is then looking for it again, we don't want to confuse people). Instead we "lock" them, so no one can post to it, but everyone can see the item was sold. So, I'm locking this down! Congrats on the sale.
  19. No, I haven't seen it... but now I'd like to! Good write-up, AVB. Burns is a terrific filmmaker. So thorough and such a magical story-teller... he could make the history of … MUD... sound utterly fascinating IMO. I'm not a big country music fan. It's just not my genre. That said, there are a few classic country singers that I think were just great - Johnny Cash and Patsy Cline at the top of that list. And I always thought Willie Nelson's voice had a beautiful and unique quality and he was a wonderful songwriter to boot. And though there are also some that I'm not crazy about their singing per se - like Dolly Parton (too high-pitched and squeaky for me) or Loretta Lynn (too twangy) - my god, it's hard not to appreciate their amazing, prolific song-writing skills! Those last 2 have been cranking out songs (including many hits) for themselves and other singers for 60 years! Lots of talent. I'll add that series to my "must see" list... I have Amazon Prime.
  20. Yeah, I must say, those are gorgeous. I love a natural material for grips - either hardwood with a great grain or something like this. Those materials just have such a rich, organic vibe - as opposed to something rubberized/plastic-y. Classy touch, Bob. Enjoy!
  21. Oy... that IS sad! Those shows with the old planes always bring so much joy. A shame to see this happen.
  22. Hill Street Blues was one of the bestest TV shows EVAH!! It was right up there with The Avengers. There was another show I used to love from roughly the Hill St Blues era... The Equalizer. I was obsessed with it, lol. It was about a retired agent available for hire - had kind of a "film noir" vibe to it and the lead actor was sooo excellent.
  23. Well, if I'm part of that "jury" (lol), I already disagree with the fundamental premise of these laws. For me, the glaring problem is that they focus on the "tool" while seeming to give little attention to the underlying criminal intent and/or mental illness that would theoretically (and logically) be the "root cause" of the violence they claim to fear. My common sense (and understanding of human nature) tells me that seizing someone's legally purchased, legally owned property because you think they pose a threat, and then sending that (justifiably?) ticked-off person home where they can then access any NUMBER of destructive, murderous plans (using other tools like box trucks, explosives, gasoline and matches, etc.) is just DUMB. I don't need several years worth of studies to tell me there's a serious breakdown in logic with this approach.
  24. Other folks here have more intimate knowledge of the law.. they will weigh in. But, I am "pretty sure" that if you own the gun, then you're allowed to have it in your home - OR - at a business that you own. As I said, others will weigh in with more detail, I'm sure. Mainly though, I just wanted to say thank you for the sentiment! We should all - as gun owners - regularly support fellow gun owners in neighboring states. I recall someone on here recently posted something about an upcoming event in Harrisburg that he planned to attend - so, it's a 2-way street!
  • Create New...