The mask drops

Posted on by

So, my Former Classmate I talked about the other day came back and posted a rant on Facebook:

Personally I don’t like guns and superbly do not agree that there is any NON military need for many types of guns available to just anyone.
But what I am absolutely sick to death of is the flaccid guns laws in place. And just as sick of the blockade the criminally financed fucking NRA puts up against any laws that would make harder to buy a gun.

If you are TRULY a responsible gun owner what is your big bitch with doing what CAN be done to mitigate murder by gun?

Your …crappy example of what happened in Paris ( sad as it was) is poor at best when you look at ALL the stats. Gun ownership and gun murders by country.

The USA has the highest gun ownership AND the highest death by gun.
IF IF IF you are a responsible gun owner then keep your bloody masterbatory toys but you MUST know the ease with which you bought them was just wrong. And you know you have gun owning friends that pushed just a tad would roll a full bubble out of plumb.

If if if you want to be a responsible gun owner then support laws that might make it a modicum harder for assholes like the Orlando murderer to get guns.

Oh……and my heartfelt condolences to the “responsible” gun shop owner that offered conceal and carry and gun handling classes. He was shot to death by one of his students because some “responsible” person loaded live vs rubber bullets into the students gun.

I found this very telling. The insults, the demands that gun owners “MUST know” things which she believes. She has an extremely low opinion of gun owners and demands control over them. The mask dropped. She wants to be a tyrant and she is dehumanizing gun owners to justify whatever “whatever it takes” to get her way.

I responded with:

Do you really want to have this conversation with me?

Her response:

No. I did not.

Mine:

You have some options to consider because I won’t be quiet while you insult the nation’s oldest and (probably largest) civil rights organization, the NRA and their 5+ million members. And “bloody masturbatory toys”? Really? You think 100+ million men and women have exercised their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms for masturbation? I think it’s very telling you use insults instead of facts and logic.

As I see it you have the following options available to you.

1)    You can unfriend me. This, of course, would mean that you know your stated beliefs cannot stand up to scrutiny.
2)    You do not bring up the topic again. This probably means you don’t have confidence in your position.
3)    You engage me in a civil discussion on the topic. As someone told me recently, “Rare on FB”.
4)    You ignore me as I dissect your hateful rants.
5)    You research the facts and admit you were wrong.

Your choice. What’s it going to be?

I waited a couple days and then yesterday she made another post, addressed to no one in particular, apologizing for being so hateful.

I responded to that post, thanking her for saying that. I also responded to her rant:

I’m tired of the gun laws in place as well. What part of “…shall not be infringed” don’t people understand?

But beyond the snark let’s think about this some.

Terilyn wants to make it more difficult to buy guns so there would be less “murder by gun”. This motive is either deliberately deceptive or naïve. The method of murder is irrelevant. What matters is the total murder rate and, more broadly, the violent crime rate.

Private ownership of guns makes self-defense against a younger and stronger attacker feasible. Guns are an equalizer. If criminals have difficulty acquiring guns they will substitute other weapons or chose easier victims. And let’s imagine making guns the most difficult to acquire as possible. Let’s imagine banning them completely. Would that prevent criminals from getting them?

We know the answer to this. How difficult was it for people to get alcohol during prohibition? Or how difficult is it for the average high school drop out to get recreational drugs? That’s right, they can probably score whatever they want within an hour 24x7x365.

Banning guns will be no different. And the harder you make it to obtain guns the less likely innocent people will go though the effort to purchase them and become skilled in their use. And that means they will be less likely to have a gun to defend themselves when they really need one.

So how can anti-gun people claim gun restriction are a good thing? It’s by being deceptive or naïve and only talking about “gun murders” or “gun crime”.

When comparing violent crime of ALL TYPES in other countries to the US we get a much different picture:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html.

The violent crime rate per 100,000 in a few other countries (from the late 2000s) is as follows:

UK: 2,034
Austria: 1,677
South Africa: 1,609
Sweden: 1,124
Belgium: 1,006
Canada: 935
Finland: 738
Netherlands: 676
Luxembourg: 565
France: 504

So care to guess where the U.S. fits in there?

….

According to the article I linked to it’s 466. You can verify the US numbers with the FBI here: https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html

We have still further means of verifying that private gun ownership in the U.S. is not a problem. Look at the rate of gun sales (millions per year) compared to homicide, violent crime, and accident gun deaths in the attached picture.

CllsSS-WYAAjBsc

Correlation does not prove causation. But a negative correlation certainly proves that “easy access to guns” cannot be blamed for murder and violent crime.

We have still other means to test the claim that “flaccid gun laws” are a problem. I have been asking a question for over a decade now. And many others, including the CDC and the Department of Justice, have been asking it in slightly different forms without being able to find an answer that agrees with those who want more repressive gun laws. The background for the question can be found here: https://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/14/just-one-question/

The question is, “Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?” The answer turns out to be, “No.”

That question is so popular among gun rights activists that I was asked to put it on a t-shirt (available here: http://www.cafepress.com/theviewfromnorthcentralidaho ).

So the final question one has to ask is, “Since we know private gun ownership does not make violent crime more likely, what is the real reason so many people want to restrict gun ownership?” I’ve been working on the problem for over 20 years now and it’s clear the answer is complicated and not very pretty. I’ll leave that for everyone else to think on and we can discuss it another time and place if desired.

I checked Facebook this morning to see if there was any response. There was. I’m glad I kept a copy of almost everything because I no longer have access to her posts on gun control.

Terilyn Reber, Orofino Idaho High School, class of 1973, chose option 1). Reasoned Discourse.

Share

69 thoughts on “The mask drops”

  1. Well done!

    Facts are inconvenient things when they refute all of your arguments.

    These people will not stop and we will have to make the choice of defending our rights (and selves) or submitting to living as serfs.

    • Exactly.

      And I experienced first hand several days ago how they will absolutely lose their $#!^ when challenged with facts. Had one tell me to $&^% off and that I was a prime example of why people shouldn’t have “military” weapons. All because I remained calm, rational and factual and didn’t accept her arguments from emotion in my disagreement with her.

  3. You asshole. She just wants to have a conversation about gun control! WHY WON’T YOU CONVERSATE WITH HER?!?!!?!?!?!?

    Conversation is hard. It means you have to listen to what the others are saying and, ya know, think about that. This is easier.

    #NoBillNoBreak

    Imma sit right down right here, until you do as I say. Maybe even gonna hold my breath until I turn blue. You tiny-penis, cousin-humping, red-neck, old, fat white guy. WHY WON’T YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

    Crap. For. Brains. All of them.

    • I see what you did there. I like it. But according to the liberals we are just a bunch of big doody heads. LoL liberal morons.

    • REALLY!
      IF your queen in waiting wins, within the year, you WILL realize that that your the one that screwed up, not us “horrible” firearm owners…

  4. I can’t see the future. I’m forced to look back at history for guidance & lessons learned by those who came before me.

    The disarming of a population rarely results in a better situation for those disarmed. I’d be stupid to believe anything would be different here.

    • Rarely? NEVER…unless you can find data supporting otherwise, the answer is NEVER.

  5. Most people really, REALLY don’t want to hear the truth, or even a well-supported contrary opinion. They want confirmation of what they already believe. When you challenge them with hard-to-dispute facts and logic, they shut it out as much because of fears about what else they might be missing out on as because of the logical consequences of the facts that they do not wish to face.

    Most of it stems from two things:

    They want to live in a universe where the “rule of man” trumps all, and there are no natural laws or unintended consequences they have to concern themselves with. It’s a control thing. They crave control (or at least the illusion of control) of all things about them, and if something goes wrong it must be someone else’s fault.

    The second thing is they crave social approval for their own choices. They ask you to go out drinking with them not because they want you to get drunk, but because then they can look at you and say “see, I’m a good person, because everyone I know goes out and gets drunk, too. Everyone else does it! and if everyone does it, and because I think they are good people, it must be OK to do!” They seek not just tolerance for their actions (even the self-destructive ones), they seek active approval, support, and acclamation.

    Back in college I got a fair bit of push-back when I told people I didn’t drink because they obviously took it as my being judgmental and disproving of their drinking.I didn’t really understand it until later, I just learned that the “I’m the designated driver” sort of line gave me an out they were willing to accept.

    • It’s an allegiance. She’s aligned (bonded, committed, emotionally connected) with the cult of the omnipotent state. In thinking like Americans, we’re infidels. Notice she said so, essentially, in calling the NRA “criminal”.

      If you stand in opposition to the vision of the glorious omnipotent state, i.e. if you’re an American, you’re criminal. It’s as simple as that. You “shall be reckoned among the transgressors”.

  6. A few years ago I came across a document called “Crime victimization study”, published by some arm of the UN. (Not exactly a gun-friendly organization.) It showed the rate of crime as reported by the victims — so murder was omitted, but other violent crimes like robbery and rape, as well as non-violent ones line burglary and car theft, were included.
    I’d have to dig to find the details, but the overall picture was similar to what you discuss here. The US was clearly in the middle of the pack. Not the most law abiding, not the most lawless. And, unlike many other countries, the US trend was downward. That’s a point you didn’t mention (at least not here): not only are many “civilized” countries more dangerous than the US, but their crime rates are on a different trajectory than ours. As I recall, both the UK and Australia experienced an increase in violent crime when the subjects were disarmed. No surprise to us, but I guess some people were surprised, or pretended to be. There was a story that this prompted the Australian government to stop reporting the statistics rather than have reality be exposed.

  7. One might as well try to get a Jehovah’s Witness to understand that the book they hold was written by men, edited, and (mis)translated numerous times. Not gonna happen. Ever.

    It is useful for any lurkers who have an open mind.

  8. It must be the personality type.

    I was an anti-gun person, and I came by it honestly, I wanted less violence and danger.

    When I saw data like presented above (as well as learned what it takes to actually buy a gun, and what guns are legal, and what aren’t…and note my conversion was during the federal Assault Weapon Ban) and I really converted very quickly.

    Of course three factors might be different. Somebody took me shooting, and while that didn’t convert me, it did give me a deep desire for a 1911 pistol, turning me into a “gun owner but” essentially. That was what turned me on to researching . Two, I’m a scientist, so I know how to REALLY research, and how to spot bad data or analysis. Three, I’m from New England, and the Graves of British soldiers are EVERYWHERE here. So while I was anti-gun my understanding of the 2nd Amendment has remained unchanged…I guess my youthful thinking of it was a lot more fanciful.

    It seems that 90% of the committed antis out there are of this other variety, choosing an ideology over realty.

    Sad

    • Weerd, I hope you can help me.

      Can you reach back into the memories of your youth and tell me how you were able to reconcile the 2nd Amendment, being reinforced with the visuals of British graves, with your feelings for gun control?

      • Not Weerd, but I grew up in the same region. Its actually a not uncommon POV for the area and it is odd.

        The area “gets” the revolutionary war. Its practically poured down our throats as children. We FOUGHT FOR OUR FREEDOM DAMMIT!!

        But godforbid you want to actually own a gun…

        Not sure I can explain it……

        • Is it as simple as “We had to fight back then, but now we are enlightened and have left our barbaric past behind us?”

          • You might be right. But there are overtones of “we could do it again!!”, which make zero sense when you think about it logically and consider local gun laws. I donno……

  9. I’ve had a few people induce me to pay attention to Facebook. In several cases, those same people unfriended me as soon as they realized that I disagreed with them on something. It’s nice for keeping up with old friends, but I mostly stay away from it. I get tired of finding out that people I’ve known for decades are either fools or fascists, or both.

    • That is one of the mixed blessings of the internet. You can find like minds even if you are surrounded by your antithesis in the close physical world, and you can also see just how loony some of your “friends” really are when they post things they think everyone agrees with.

      I’m amazed by how many people are offended by reality; it doesn’t speak well for the future.

  10. It interesting that you feel the need to use her name as a link to her pages.
    I too was involved in that so called conversation the other day and advised her to unfriend you. Trust me, she will debate the issues if you treat her with respect. She wasn’t even going to do it until she went to your pages and looked at your ramblings on about sexual matters among other things. Just so you know, her opinion of you is that you are a “tool”. I suggest you look the term up. Do yourself a favor and undo the link on her name.

    • I treated her with great respect on Facebook. I gave her far more respect than she gave me and gun owners in general.

      Thank you very much for your advice. However, I think it is important to make it well known those who conspire to infringe upon the rights of the innocent. She, and many others, are dangerously close, if not over the line of committing felonies. And even if she hasn’t committed a felony it is abundantly clear she is prejudiced, ignorant, and a bigot.

      I haven’t looked at my logs for last night but from today’s logs it appears she didn’t look at the sex stuff until starting at 12:11 PM PDT. She unfriended me before 8:00 AM. And what does that have to do with the present topic or even anything?

      I don’t care what people like her “think” of me. I don’t believe she even has the mental capacity to think as I know the meaning of the word. She feels and emotes. But she has great difficulty with facts and rational thought.

      What sort of “favor” would I be doing myself by undoing the link to her name?

  11. Joe,

    Did you create the graph, or find it somewhere? I’d like to use it in a discussion, and need to know who gets the credit for assembling it.

    Thanks!

    Kathy

    • I did not create it. I think I pulled it from my Twitter feed. I’ll go looking and update the post the credits for if I can find it.

    • I downloaded it last night from someplace. I thought it was Twitter or maybe Facebook. I looked back through my timelines for as far as Twitter would let me and two days for Facebook without finding it. I also searched the web for the file name. No luck.

      I did find it here, apparently from 2014, under a different name but I was unable to find the text to say where it came from.

      Sorry.

      Had I spent that time just recreating the image from the FBI data I would be in bed with Barb by now… 🙁

  12. “So the final question one has to ask is, “Since we know private gun ownership does not make violent crime more likely, what is the real reason so many people want to restrict gun ownership?” I’ve been working on the problem for over 20 years now and it’s clear the answer is complicated and not very pretty.”

    Agreed on not pretty. Not sure about ‘complicated’. Most advocating for gun control are some combination of ignorant or disbelieving of the facts you and others like you present.

    A very few are stringent and patiently working towards gun control to join a very exclusive club. Previous members include
    * Stalin
    * Hitler
    * Mao Tse Tung
    * Khmer Rouge
    Etc.

    • It’s complicated by the fact there are so many different reasons. And some of those reasons include the psychological trauma of being threatened with a gun, shot themselves, or losing a loved one to gunfire. Other reasons are that some politicians have a large number of criminals as their constituents and the politicians are “just” trying to make their “working” environment safer. Others want to change the culture of independence into one of dependence on the government.

      Explaining and demonstrating these things to skeptical people is somewhat difficult and “complicated”.

      • Are there really many fundamentally different reasons? One explanation I’ve seen (from ether Neil Smith or Oleg Volk, probably) is “so they can do things to you that they would not be able to do if you were armed”. What, precisely, those “things” are may vary, but the principle is straightforward.

        • At a high level that probably would be a valid answer in nearly all cases. I’m not sure it would be correct in the case of someone who is grieving from the loss of a loved one.

          Furthermore at that high of a level I suspect many people won’t be able to extrapolate to some individual cases such as the person that believes it will reduce crime.

          • Fair enough. But I think it is a valid answer in the case of politicians (as opposed to victimized individual citizens).

  13. Terilyn’s stuck in what I shall refer to as “guncog”.

    Guncog = Cognitive dissonance relating to guns.

    • In other words, living life via emoticons and feelz rather than data and reason. If she’s like most anti-gunies, guns are not the only place where there are total logic fails.

  14. Terilyn is a Mark One Mod Zero troll. You should leave it at that, Joe.

  15. Pingback: Sharp as a Marble - Facts are pesky things

  16. Joe, I “unfriended” you from a SOCIAL media site because after reviewing your website your blog and another of your websites, it is clear you and I have nothing in common and I do not consider you a friend. That is it.
    Your stance on guns is the very least of our differences.

    • More reasoned discourse. She can now lecture to you without having to worry about listening to your response. This is the sign of a weak mind and a weak argument- silence the opposition.

      This is also what will happen if we are disarmed- participate in the groupthink, or be punished. We are already seeing this in public discourse. This is why trigger words and safe spaces were invented.

    • Wow, an anti-gun leftie who is not interested in actual diversity or celebrating meaningful differences. Whoever would have thought?

      Just remember – facts don’t care if you believe them or not. The pesky little things will keep exerting their influence with ever-greater persistence until the cost of deliberate ignorance is shatteringly high.

    • I think the fact that she came all the way to your site and read your post shows that YOU won Joe. Good job – excellent post.

    • I think the fact that she came all the way to your site and read your post shows that YOU won Joe. Good job – excellent post.

  17. Pingback: GUNCOG | The View From North Central Idaho

  18. If you really want to see a lefty-tool’s head spin, point out that if you remove a crimes and deaths committed by a certain demographic(one not all that common in other western countries) from the US stats, the US stats become much lower.

  19. Loved your post here and the way you approached the topic intelligently.
    Sadly, when arguing with those opposed to 2A rights, intelligence takes a back seat to emotion. I’ve seen some fairly intelligent people become jibbering fools once the topic comes up. This is my way of saying don’t think the other person isn’t intelligent. It’s just that there’s not enough brain function to deal with logic and emotion at the same time.

    I found that it’s best to start with a few questions or responses based on statistics or facts to gauge their response. The faster they resort to emotional arguments or rhetorical exaggerations (“You’d arm CHILDREN with nuclear weapons!”) the less likely it is they know anything about the subject that isn’t very biased.

    I had one woman berating gun rights, its followers and especially the NRA in the same manner. I found that by shifting to their more emotional point of view you can often crack their shells. When she claimed she wanted to ban “all semi-automatics” instead of arguing with reason, I shot back …

    “Why do you hate my grandmother? She’s a nice old widow of 75. She maintains her independence by living alone in her own home. She doesn’t live in fear, like so many seniors do because she keeps her little 14-shot Beretta .380 handy at night. She calls it her ‘Italian boyfriend’ who will deal with any intruders. Take it away from her and she has to rely on others if there’s a bump in the night or someone trying to get inside. Worse, she knows she’s helpless if someone actually gets inside before help arrives. Do you understand what your policy would mean to millions of seniors? Or to the disabled living alone? Why do you hate these people?”

    What it does is personalize the issue in a way they can understand. It lets them see how their choices can be a serious negative to the quality of life for people they don’t think of as gun owners. I suspect if you try to educate them on other topics they do best when you explain it with examples they can emotionally relate with.

    I’m sure I’m not alone in noticing one phenomena that is prevalent in their arguments. Usually the more liberal they are, the sooner you hear negative sexual comments, usually related to the size of sexual organs or alleging you have disgusting homosexual tendencies. It’s amusing when that happens and you ask “are you homophobic?” then they try to deny it while you point out that it’s dangerously close to “hate speech”.

    Thanks for reading

    • In other words, you can’t fight rhetoric (appeal to emotion) with dialectic (logical argument based on facts). You must counter with stronger rhetoric. Very sad, but very true. And good to remember, because we live in a very emotionally-driven society.

      • I suspect these people don’t actually understand or process statistics or facts very well. But it you tell them a story involving people they personalize it quickly — which is how you have to communicate to them.

        So you paint the picture for them, ideally from a perspective they have never considered. The pretty young woman confined to a wheelchair who can’t fight or run from a mugger or rapist. What about the 50-ish mother of three with arthritis in her knees or hips?

        To counter idiots who suggest learning karate skills, what about the father protecting his kid(s) who is home fighting off bronchitis or recovering from some surgery?

        Usually these concepts break through to let them see a positive sign of having a firearm around.

      • This is one reason why Oleg Volk’s work is so valuable. He creates images that make these points. An old man with a cane who says “My karate is weak…” A young man in a wheel chair. A young woman with her leg in a cast. All armed, all ready to practice self-defense.

        Then there’s this quote:
        “Victim disarmament types are sick, sick people, who’d rather see a woman raped in an alley and strangled with her own pantyhose than see her with a gun in her hand.” — T. D. Melrose

  20. Refreshing to read such an objective response to the predictable ‘nuke’ of being ‘unfriended’ or blocked by someone because they don’t have the ability or refuse to acknowledge a position they hold has more holes than Swiss cheese!

    Nicely done!

  21. Japan. Almost no guns and lowest crime rate of industrial countries.

    • Irrelevant. Correlation =/= causation. They are a highly homogenous culture with no history of private arms ownership.

      Point to some time-series data of a place where a restriction in arms ownership was then causally followed by a falling of the violent crime rate.

  22. Japan. Almost no guns and lowest crime rate of industrial countries.

    Site says duplicate comment?

  24. Whoever made that graph does NOT know the difference between NCIS (Naval Criminal Investigative Service) and NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System)

  25. Four elements are required before you can have a conversation.

    1. Sender
    2. Receiver
    3. Message
    4. Feedback

    If any one of those four elements are missing you are NOT having a conversation.

    The “Antis” want to have a “conversation on guns”.

    Yet, the very instant someone provides “feedback” to them about their “message” they ignore that feedback. Not a “conversation”. Or, they do not accept the feedback. Again, not a conversation. It’s a Speech, a Briefing, or, in the case of the “Antis”, it’s a Sermon.

    If the “Receiver” is persistent in trying to give feedback, then the “Anti” will ignore the “Receiver” in an attempt to muzzle them and to prevent the “feedback” from contaminating the flock. Again, you weren’t having a conversation.

    “The “Antis” want to have a conversation on guns” is a big fucking lie. They want you to sit down, shut up, and feel blessed because they’ve told you what your opinion is.

  26. This article by the Skeptical Libertarian seems to dampen your statistics based argument by quite a bit. Then destroys it completely.
    http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/
    Thoughts?
    Choice quotes to reflect on:
    “Due to fundamental differences in how crime is recorded and categorized, it’s impossible to compute exactly what the British violent crime rate would be if it were calculated the way the FBI does it, but if we must compare the two, my best estimate‡ would be something like 776 violent crimes per 100,000 people. While this is still substantially higher than the rate in the United States, it’s nowhere near the 2,034 cited by Swann and the Mail.”

    “But he neglects to mention that Britain doesn’t just have fewer gun-related homicides–it has a dramatically lower murder rate all around. In 2010, the US had an average murder rate of 4.8 murders per 100,000 people—4 times higher than the UK’s rate of 1.2 per 100,000, and, coincidentally, the exact opposite of the impression that Swann gives viewers.

    • You are correct that it is difficult to compare between different countries for various reasons. The reason I didn’t compare murder rates is because that last time I checked in the U.K. it’s not considered a murder until there is a murder conviction. While in the U.S. a determination is made during the initial investigation and if it is believed to be a murder it goes in the statistics even if they don’t have a suspect, let alone a conviction. This difference makes it essentially impossible to compare murder rates between the U.K. and the U.S.

      • Does that not further diminish your point because you readily admit the statistics come from non-convicted offenders vs. convicted ones?

        • That only applies to murders which I did not compare. It was my understanding that the violent crime statistics were much closer to an “apples to apples” comparison. I did not know the definitions of “violent crime” were significantly different. But even if we accept the suggested correction the numbers show the access to firearms in the U.S. cannot be claimed to result in higher crime rates. At best it can be claimed they don’t have a significant impact in reducing crime. And when the numbers start getting close other factors have to be taken into account such as number of police officers per 1000 residents, poverty, social programs, etc. to eliminate them as the reason for the differences.

          And we have just been talking about the U.K. Are the number for the other countries generated like those in the U.K.? Or like those in the U.S.? Or something else?

          It is far better to compare U.S. states and cities with relatively free gun laws with those which are highly restrictive. Or a time based comparison where the laws were changed from free to restrictive or the reverse and looking at crime rates. A number of these studies have been done and the DOJ and CDC have ended up concluding no clear conclusion can be drawn. Hence one has to conclude that guns are not a significant contributor to violent crime rates. And given that gun ownership is a specific enumerated right the government cannot make the claim of some compelling interest to justify a restriction upon that right.

  27. who said it was so easy right now to buy guns? You cant just walk in and buy an AR-15 today or order it off the Internet either. There are already good checks and balances in place.Whats so stupid about libtards is criminals dont follow laws
    they get their guns off the streets. There is as many killed every week in Chicago who already have the toughest gunlaws in the country so theres that…

    • The argument that people have “easy access” to guns is specious at best.

      Before 1968, I could have purchased a Reminton Nylon 66 .22 rifle for less than $70 at a local retail store. At the time I was only 16 years old, but there was no law prohibiting the sale to me. The sales clerk was nice enough to remind me to bring extra money for sales tax.

      No paperwork. No background check. Not even a government issued ID card was required. Just a bill of sale with the serial number.

      It was almost as easy as buying a fishing rod, which I did several times.

  28. Pingback: More reasoned discourse | The View From North Central Idaho

Comments are closed.