NationStates Jolt Archive

Noticed this a short time ago on my Firefox BBC headlines RSS feed.

A manhunt is underway in Dover, Delaware, after two students were shot by an unknown gunman at Delaware State University. All classes have been cancelled for the day and the entire campus is apparently locked down.

http://www.desu.edu/advancement/pr/press_release.php?article_id=291

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7006505.stm

Is the Second Amendment really still necessary in America?

Noticed this a short time ago on my Firefox BBC headlines RSS feed.

A manhunt is underway in Dover, Delaware, after two students were shot by an unknown gunman at Delaware State University. All classes have been cancelled for the day and the entire campus is apparently locked down.

http://www.desu.edu/advancement/pr/press_release.php?article_id=291

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7006505.stm

They will catch the gunmen. My prayers go out to the victims.

Is the Second Amendment really still necessary in America?

Yes.

:( Not again.

Can we at least keep the "Hurrrrr, more guns now!/ Hurrrrr no guns evar!" until we get the whole story?

Is the Second Amendment really still necessary in America?

Is the Rheinheitsgebot really necessary in Germany?

I'll give you a hint, it begins with a y and ends with an s, and there's only one letter betwixt the twain

Is the Rheinheitsgebot really necessary in Germany?

No! More less laws yesterday!!

:( Not again.

Can we at least keep the "Hurrrrr, more guns now!/ Hurrrrr no guns evar!" until we get the whole story?

I second this.

Is the Second Amendment really still necessary in America?

Not in the least. This doesn't mean I want guns banned, I just think that this amendment makes it much too easy to acquire the arms, even with limitations in place (recall the VT Shootings and the subsequent report (http://www.vtreviewpanel.org/report/index.html), how it details a person is able to acquire arms despite certain limitations and restrictions).

Is the Second Amendment really still necessary in America?
Of course, Americans hold the belief that if they had guns, they could magically stop all shootings by the simple act of keeping one with them.

The 2A wasn't in effect at the school.

Of course, Americans hold the belief that if they had guns, they could magically stop all shootings by the simple act of keeping one with them.


Ah, the smell of fresh strawmen in the morning.

We need look no further than the attempted shooting at Case Western a few years back to see that this belief is not entirely unfounded. An off duty sheriffs deputy was carrying his personal sidearm, which he used to stop the shooter dead in his tracks, without firing a single shot.
You miss the point. The pro-gun crowd thinks guns emit a magical aura that will stop any and all gun attacks anywhere in the vicinity - without even drawing the weapon. That's why they are all sexually aroused over concealed carry laws.

Of course, Americans hold the belief that if they had guns, they could magically stop all shootings by the simple act of keeping one with them.

To the max (http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/images/strawman.jpg)

You miss the point. The pro-gun crowd thinks guns emit a magical aura that will stop any and all gun attacks anywhere in the vicinity - without even drawing the weapon. That's why they are all sexually aroused over concealed carry laws.
Ah, you mean sort of like how the pro-gun control crowd thinks gun control laws emit a magical aura that will stop any and all gun attacks anywhere in the country - without even requiring enforcement, and that's why they are all sexually aroused over gun bans?

You miss the point. The pro-gun crowd thinks guns emit a magical aura that will stop any and all gun attacks anywhere in the vicinity - without even drawing the weapon. That's why they are all sexually aroused over concealed carry laws.


Trolling trolling trolling,
keep them posts a' trolling
keep them posts a trolling
rawhide

Ah, you mean sort of like how the pro-gun control crowd thinks gun control laws emit a magical aura that will stop any and all gun attacks anywhere in the country - without even requiring enforcement, and that's why they are all sexually aroused over gun bans?

TPH believes that "assault weapons" include a "pat'e" feature.

O just send him to Iraq. he'll fit right in.

Just over one page and we're already up to our eyes in the usual gun debate. NSG works fast.

This person was obviously defending his oppressed 'rights' and 'freedom' from the overbearing totalitarian feds, Seung-Hui Cho was also defending his rights.

OH MY GOD!!!!

This person was obviously defending his oppressed 'rights' and 'freedom' from the overbearing totalitarian feds, Seung-Hui Cho was also defending his rights.

It is the humble opinion of this court that AP suffered from 'Ostrich Syndrome'.

I second that.

This person was obviously defending his oppressed 'rights' and 'freedom' from the overbearing totalitarian feds, Seung-Hui Cho was also defending his rights.

It is the humble opinion of this court that AP suffered from 'Ostrich Syndrome'.

Did you know that my coffee tastes tangy today?

Is the jar nearly empty?

This person was obviously defending his oppressed 'rights' and 'freedom' from the overbearing totalitarian feds, Seung-Hui Cho was also defending his rights.

Did you know that my coffee tastes tangy today?

Ah, you mean sort of like how the pro-gun control crowd thinks gun control laws emit a magical aura that will stop any and all gun attacks anywhere in the country - without even requiring enforcement, and that's why they are all sexually aroused over gun bans?
I have no reason to think gun control laws will stop gun crime, but given the fact that concealed weapons don't emit constant "Calm emotions" and "Disable other guns" spells, I don't see how it could make anything worse.

Is the jar nearly empty?

Unfortunately, no. It's nearly full. I got the third cup out of a 20 cup pot.

Unfortunately, no. It's nearly full. I got the third cup out of a 20 cup pot.

Theres something badly wrong with the world. Badly,badly wrong.

I have no reason to think gun control laws will stop gun crime, but given the fact that concealed weapons don't emit constant "Calm emotions" and "Disable other guns" spells, I don't see how it could make anything worse.
I have no reason to think guns will stop gun crime, but given the fact that legislation doesn't emit constant "Calm emotions" and "Disable other guns" spells, I don't see how it could make anything worse.

Actually most universities in the U.S. have specific rules saying the only people to carry firearms anywhere on campus would be campus police (the rules doesn't actually say that, but that's the effect it boils down to). So it's safe to say that DSU has the same rule. So here is this gunman (student or not, I don't know) flouting the rule of no firearms on campus. So the argument that the Second Amendment is bad is not applicable. That is if you tie the argument to this event. As a standalone argument, well... have fun.

I have no reason to think guns will stop gun crime, but given the fact that legislation doesn't emit constant "Calm emotions" and "Disable other guns" spells, I don't see how it could make anything worse.
In case your not getting my point: I'm highlighting the stupidity of your argument by demonstrating that it could be used by either side simply by replacing a few words.

Actually most universities in the U.S. have specific rules saying the only people to carry firearms anywhere on campus would be campus police (the rules doesn't actually say that, but that's the effect it boils down to). So it's safe to say that DSU has the same rule. So here is this gunman (student or not, I don't know) flouting the rule of no firearms on campus. So the argument that the Second Amendment is bad is not applicable. That is if you tie the argument to this event. As a standalone argument, well... have fun.

Theres a person here who may be stuck drinking tangy coffee for the day, and you're going about firearms and "campus shootings"? Wheres the humanity?

All he needs to do is double brew it. Then it will be so strong that he won't notice any tangyness.

Of course then that will force his coworkers to triple brew theirs in response.

Will the madness never end?

Not unless they enforce the sanctions, no.

Theres a person here who may be stuck drinking tangy coffee for the day, and you're going about firearms and "campus shootings"? Wheres the humanity?

It's absolutely horrifying, the callousness of some people, isn't it?

Theres a person here who may be stuck drinking tangy coffee for the day, and you're going about firearms and "campus shootings"? Wheres the humanity?

All he needs to do is double brew it. Then it will be so strong that he won't notice any tangyness.

Of course then that will force his coworkers to triple brew theirs in response.

Will the madness never end?

All he needs to do is double brew it. Then it will be so strong that he won't notice any tangyness.

Of course then that will force his coworkers to triple brew theirs in response.

Will the madness never end?

Oh, we went all the way once. Filled the entire filter up for a quintuple brew. It was uniquely horrifying.

Although it was nowhere near as bad as when we actually ran out of coffee. The entire incident evoked Lord of the Flies.

TPH believes that "assault weapons" include a "pat'e" feature.

They... they don't? Fuck that street merchant, he promised me pat'e...

Did you know that my coffee tastes tangy today?

Semen.

All he needs to do is double brew it. Then it will be so strong that he won't notice any tangyness.

Of course then that will force his coworkers to triple brew theirs in response.

Will the madness never end?

Oh god. Do we not learn the lessons from history?! That which we have wrought, will we not seek to mend the idiocies that caused such atrocious actions such as the Great Brew Race of '96?!

Something I found last time around
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/fitzsimmons.jpg

Something I found last time around
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/fitzsimmons.jpg

I lol'd. That's pretty accurate.

I have no reason to think guns will stop gun crime, but given the fact that legislation doesn't emit constant "Calm emotions" and "Disable other guns" spells, I don't see how it could make anything worse.
Superfluous demagoguery.
Explain to me then how a concealed weapon, ie a weapon that other people do not know you have, protects you from some one else with a gun or discourages any one from attacking you.

PS. I know what you are trying to do and it is absurd because I am making fun of the position of pro-concealed weapons more than advocating gun bans.

Superfluous demagoguery.
Explain to me then how a concealed weapon, ie a weapon that other people do not know you have, protects you from some one else with a gun or discourages any one from attacking you.

PS. I know what you are trying to do and it is absurd because I am making fun of the position of pro-concealed weapons more than advocating gun bans.

I believe the basis of the theory is that if a sufficient percentage of the population were to partake of CCW, then there would be a deterrent factor towards criminals looking to carry out random crimes on the street. Unfortunately, the percentage threshold required for achieving such a goal is likely so phenomenally high as to be totally unrealistic. To carry out the appropriate certification, training and arming for enough people would take state governments a vast amount of time and resources.

Superfluous demagoguery.
Explain to me then how a concealed weapon, ie a weapon that other people do not know you have, protects you from some one else with a gun or discourages any one from attacking you.


Armed robbery (http://blog.robballen.com/archive/2007/09/21/Why-armed-robbery-is-not-a-good-idea.aspx)

I believe the basis of the theory is that if a sufficient percentage of the population were to partake of CCW, then there would be a deterrent factor towards criminals looking to carry out random crimes on the street. Unfortunately, the percentage threshold required for achieving such a goal is likely so phenomenally high as to be totally unrealistic. To carry out the appropriate certification, training and arming for enough people would take state governments a vast amount of time and resources.
Also, you forget to mention that this also assumes that criminals arn't fucking retarded, which has been proven time and again entirely incorrect. Even if the percent of American with a CCW was to grow to such a size that everyone would know at least some one around has a gun on them, criminals would still pull out a 9 and try to rob some one. As proven by Kecibukia's equally superfluous demagoguery.

Also, you forget to mention that this also assumes that criminals arn't fucking retarded, which has been proven time and again entirely incorrect.

Truth.

Also, you forget to mention that this also assumes that criminals arn't fucking retarded, which has been proven time and again entirely incorrect. Even if the percent of American with a CCW was to grow to such a size that everyone would know at least some one around has a gun on them, criminals would still pull out a 9 and try to rob some one. As proven by Kecibukia's equally superfluous demagoguery.

Even so, there's no way that many people are going to agree to carrying a gun. This argument always boils down to the two extremes arguing pointlessly because America's culture and mindset is such that neither side is ever going to work.

Quite the contrary....

Most gun laws enforced in the nation today are in the District of Columbia.

Highest crime rate in the nation today is in ..one guess here...District of Columbia.

Now, before I voice my objection to this viewpoint, I would add that I am a very strong supporter of gun rights.

I would ask whether the restrictions were the cause of the problem, of if the problem already existed, and they were merely a reaction to the problem.

They were a reaction,but not to the problem. DC crime rates were actually in decline when they passed the laws, bucking the national trend.

Note: Not claiming causality.

Quite the contrary....

Most gun laws enforced in the nation today are in the District of Columbia.

Highest crime rate in the nation today is in ..one guess here...District of Columbia.

Now, before I voice my objection to this viewpoint, I would add that I am a very strong supporter of gun rights.

I would ask whether the restrictions were the cause of the problem, of if the problem already existed, and they were merely a reaction to the problem.

Also, you forget to mention that this also assumes that criminals arn't fucking retarded, which has been proven time and again entirely incorrect. Even if the percent of American with a CCW was to grow to such a size that everyone would know at least some one around has a gun on them, criminals would still pull out a 9 and try to rob some one. As proven by Kecibukia's equally superfluous demagoguery.

Translation: I have nothing but insults and strawmen so I'll just keep repeating what was on my "phrase of the day" calander.

Criminals aren't stupid? (http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=5833)

http://www.dumbcriminals.com/

The second amendment is only as important and necessary as the rest of the bill of rights. No more and no less.

It is vogue for people with a political agenda that exploit tragedy to point out that guns had something to do with this crime.

Considering the college where this happened, does it not seem unlikely that minorities are responsible for this , just like minorities were responsible for VA tech and minorities shot the infant baby in California this past week for fun?

If we are going to pick some group or object and pretend it is responsible for this crime, why pick guns or gun owners when we can pick minorities? The reasoning isn't any different.

The second amendment is only as important and necessary as the rest of the bill of rights. No more and no less.

It is vogue for people with a political agenda that exploit tragedy to point out that guns had something to do with this crime.

Considering the college where this happened, does it not seem unlikely that minorities are responsible for this , just like minorities were responsible for VA tech and minorities shot the infant baby in California this past week for fun?

If we are going to pick some group or object and pretend it is responsible for this crime, why pick guns or gun owners when we can pick minorities? The reasoning isn't any different.

Because it's not PC to blame minorities.

If we are going to pick some group or object and pretend it is responsible for this crime, why pick guns or gun owners when we can pick minorities? The reasoning isn't any different.
"Guns don't kill, dangerous minorities do." ~ Simpsons
"Guns don't kill people, the government does." ~ Dale Gribble, King of the Hill

Superfluous demagoguery.
Now you know how I feel reading your posts.
Explain to me then how a concealed weapon, ie a weapon that other people do not know you have, protects you from some one else with a gun or discourages any one from attacking you.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather that people keep their guns somewhere that they can't be easily snatched by someone else.
PS. I know what you are trying to do and it is absurd
If it weren't absurd, it wouldn't have made any sense to do it.
because I am making fun of the position of pro-concealed weapons more than advocating gun bans.
You're spouting clichéd bullshit that could be used to attack any position. It's arguing with through mad libs, is what it is, and the world has enough of that already.

I find it interesting that everytime there's a tragedy like this, people say "we need gun control." and "Compared to... the USA is more violent with it's 2nd Amendment...

but does Gun Control work?

let's take Great Britian...

2003 BBC Article. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm)

By Joyce L Malcolm
Author and academic

... But despite, or because, of this, violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, even as British violence has been rising. By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape.

You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Much is made of the higher American rate for murder. That is true and has been for some time. But as the Office of Health Economics in London found, not weapons availability, but "particular cultural factors" are to blame.

A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms.

When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest for 100 years the two are on a path to converge.

and here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/0,,178412,00.html)...

and I find this story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,,2158648,00.html)... intersting...
Two year sentence for walking around town with a fake gun going 'bang'.

and yes, this is in Britian (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6960431.stm) where seveal laws were enacted in what... 1997? 1998? and still shows a steady increase in Gun Violence.

so what is the solution. Britian bans gun ownership yet the criminal element will still have their guns.

the US arms their civilians (well, in some areas anyway) and gun violence is still happening.

"Guns don't kill, dangerous minorities do." ~ Simpsons
"Guns don't kill people, the government does." ~ Dale Gribble, King of the Hill

:mp5:WICKED AWESOME:sniper:


:gundge:

I find it interesting that everytime there's a tragedy like this, people say "we need gun control." and "Compared to... the USA is more violent with it's 2nd Amendment...

but does Gun Control work?

let's take Great Britian...

2003 BBC Article. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm)



and here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/0,,178412,00.html)...

and I find this story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,,2158648,00.html)... intersting...
Two year sentence for walking around town with a fake gun going 'bang'.

and yes, this is in Britian (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6960431.stm) where seveal laws were enacted in what... 1997? 1998? and still shows a steady increase in Gun Violence.

so what is the solution. Britian bans gun ownership yet the criminal element will still have their guns.

the US arms their civilians (well, in some areas anyway) and gun violence is still happening.

Not to mention the fact that the Home Office hasn't been recording all crimes:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article2710596.ece

I find it interesting that everytime there's a tragedy like this, people say "we need gun control." and "Compared to... the USA is more violent with it's 2nd Amendment...

but does Gun Control work?

let's take Great Britian...

2003 BBC Article. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm)



and here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/0,,178412,00.html)...

and I find this story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,,2158648,00.html)... intersting...
Two year sentence for walking around town with a fake gun going 'bang'.

and yes, this is in Britian (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6960431.stm) where seveal laws were enacted in what... 1997? 1998? and still shows a steady increase in Gun Violence.

so what is the solution. Britian bans gun ownership yet the criminal element will still have their guns.

the US arms their civilians (well, in some areas anyway) and gun violence is still happening.

I wouldn't know about Britain (not Britian) or the US, but in Australia in the 10 years before our gun buy back in 1996, 112 people were killed in 11 separate mass murders. There have been no mass murders since. After the buy back (and gun ownership reform laws) the average number of gun deaths a year dropped from 521 to 289.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-deaths-in-rapid-decline-since-buyback/2006/12/13/1165685752421.html

I don't know about you, but I'd rather that people keep their guns somewhere that they can't be easily snatched by someone else.
I didn't realize holsters were the equivalent of guns slung over your shoulder on strings.

It is vogue for people with a political agenda that exploit tragedy to point out that guns had something to do with this crime.

That comment, in general tone and specific example, is complete and utter bullshit. Current events dictate social conditions and prompt necessary responses. You wouldn't have a problem with an increase in funding for disaster relief after a devastating hurricane or tornado that emergency services weren't ready for, and gun crime shouldn't be any different.

You're spouting clichéd bullshit that could be used to attack any position. It's arguing with through mad libs, is what it is, and the world has enough of that already.
If arguing logic is arguing "through mad libs," I will be proud to do it any day of the week.

I wouldn't know about Britain (not Britian) or the US, but in Australia in the 10 years before our gun buy back in 1996, 112 people were killed in 11 separate mass murders. There have been no mass murders since. After the buy back (and gun ownership reform laws) the average number of gun deaths a year dropped from 521 to 289.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-deaths-in-rapid-decline-since-buyback/2006/12/13/1165685752421.html

So even though the murder rate remained relatively stable for years afterwards and the "gun homicide" rate had already been dropping for years, you're claiming causality?

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/ECFAF68AB75AE9E3CA256DEA00053A5A

That comment, in general tone and specific example, is complete and utter bullshit. Current events dictate social conditions and prompt necessary responses. You wouldn't have a problem with an increase in funding for disaster relief after a devastating hurricane or tornado that emergency services weren't ready for, and gun crime shouldn't be any different.

Thank you for proving his point.

Some might focus on "crime" instead of just one particular aspect of it.

If arguing logic is arguing "through mad libs," I will be proud to do it any day of the week.

So you're "proud" to throw out ad hominems and strawmen arguments?

So even though the murder rate remained relatively stable for years afterwards and the "gun homicide" rate had already been dropping for years, you're claiming causality?

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/ECFAF68AB75AE9E3CA256DEA00053A5A

The gun homicide rate had been dropping, yes, but there was a sudden sharp drop immediately after the buy back and reform laws, and continued to decline at a steady rate, plus the non-existence of any mass murders after '96 can be directly drawn to the buy back and the reduction of semi-automatic weapons.

Not sure what you were trying to prove with the ABS stats, as it is only from '97, so doesn't really have any context, especially as far as guns were concerned, however it does say:

For those robberies that involved the use of a weapon, the proportion of offences involving firearms decreased from 37% in 1993 to 15% in 2002.

Thank you for proving his point.

Some might focus on "crime" instead of just one particular aspect of it.

Crime is crime. You can address the social conditions that lead to crime in the long term, but in the short term you want to stop people getting shot. Attacking people for using recent gun crimes in anti-gun arguments is absurd, and is like attacking people for using recent sports results for arguing that a team isn't playing well.

The gun homicide rate had been dropping, yes, but there was a sudden sharp drop immediately after the buy back and reform laws, and continued to decline at a steady rate, plus the non-existence of any mass murders after '96 can be directly drawn to the buy back and the reduction of semi-automatic weapons.

Not sure what you were trying to prove with the ABS stats, as it is only from '97, so doesn't really have any context, especially as far as guns were concerned, however it does say:

You can "directly draw" pretty much anything, especially when you have a political goal.

There was a "sharp drop" in an already decreasing trend.


Homicides remained stable for over 6 years after the law passed in '96.
So, by your argument, w/o the numbers of those killed in the massacres, there was actually an increase in the number of homicide cases. Seems the ownership of firearms didn't make that much of a difference.

Crime is crime. You can address the social conditions that lead to crime in the long term, but in the short term you want to stop people getting shot. Attacking people for using recent gun crimes in anti-gun arguments is absurd, and is like attacking people for using recent sports results for arguing that a team isn't playing well.

When you use victims of crime as a political talking point and neglecting the facts of the case is basically like walking on their graves.

The Brady Campaign sent out an e-mail on the day of the VT killings asking for 32 dollars to fight the NRA.

If arguing logic is arguing "through mad libs," I will be proud to do it any day of the week.

Oh, arguing logic. Let's see:

Of course, Americans hold the belief that if they had guns, they could magically stop all shootings by the simple act of keeping one with them.

Your first post here is nothing but a strawman. So you're right that you're arguing with logic....al fallacies.

But maybe you improved throughout the thread:

You miss the point. The pro-gun crowd thinks guns emit a magical aura that will stop any and all gun attacks anywhere in the vicinity - without even drawing the weapon. That's why they are all sexually aroused over concealed carry laws.

Hmm, nope. Another strawman (what "the pro-gun crowd thinks"). Now you're approaching ad hominem territory with this insult about sexual arousal. Two posts in the thread, and according to you anyone who argues "pro-gun" is a sexually aroused delusional idiot. Yeah, that's logic.

But maybe you got better... seemingly unlikely:

I have no reason to think gun control laws will stop gun crime, but given the fact that concealed weapons don't emit constant "Calm emotions" and "Disable other guns" spells, I don't see how it could make anything worse.

This is just a non sequitur. Whether carry-concealed laws give magic spells has nothing to do with whether gun control laws will make anything worse.

It's also building on your rather tiresome strawman from the first post.

Now onward you march with "logic:"

Superfluous demagoguery.
Explain to me then how a concealed weapon, ie a weapon that other people do not know you have, protects you from some one else with a gun or discourages any one from attacking you.

PS. I know what you are trying to do and it is absurd because I am making fun of the position of pro-concealed weapons more than advocating gun bans.


Whether a concealed weapon discourages attacks has pretty much nothing to do with the topic at hand (which is to be expected in a thread like this, of course), more specifically has nothing to do with any argument anyone else is making here.

Making fun of positions - particularly absurd strawmen - does not really constitute argument from logic.

Do what you want, but it's pretty damned clear that what you are doing in this thread so far has very little to do with logic.

The logic is that it doesn't make sense that concealed carry laws are the best deterrents of gun crime.

The logic is that it doesn't make sense that concealed carry laws are the best deterrents of gun crime.

And that statement is made where in this thread?

You can "directly draw" pretty much anything, especially when you have a political goal.

Or you can directly draw links and causal relationships with observations, statistics and rationality as was done in the article I mentioned.

There was a "sharp drop" in an already decreasing trend.

A sharp drop coinciding with the buy back and reform laws... Do you have a problem with this? What is your point?

Homicides remained stable for over 6 years after the law passed in '96.

Yes. Your point? The guns were bought back in '96 so there were less guns and a lower gun-homicide rate...

So, by your argument, w/o the numbers of those killed in the massacres, there was actually an increase in the number of homicide cases. Seems the ownership of firearms didn't make that much of a difference.

Actually no. Though the mass murders were frequent in the decade before the buy back, even taking them into account the rate still dropped "from an average of 521 to 289" (article (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-deaths-in-rapid-decline-since-buyback/2006/12/13/1165685752421.html)).

Also, on suicides:

... in the 18 years before the gun buyback there were an average of 492 firearm suicides a year. After the introduction of the buyback scheme, that figure dropped to 247 in the seven years for which reliable figures are available.

The logic is that it doesn't make sense that concealed carry laws are the best deterrents of gun crime.

That's not logic, that's a statement and it happens to be a strawman. Seriously, no one here was even discussing carry conceal laws, let alone championing them as the best deterrents of gun crime.

When you use victims of crime as a political talking point and neglecting the facts of the case is basically like walking on their graves.

The Brady Campaign sent out an e-mail on the day of the VT killings asking for 32 dollars to fight the NRA.

I'm not saying there aren't some assholes who cross the line on these things, but to suggest you can't use a massacre as part of an argument for gun control is absurd.

Anyway, 3:51AM, bed time.

Of course, Americans hold the belief that if they had guns, they could magically stop all shootings by the simple act of keeping one with them.

I had a ban for less than that:fluffle:

Or you can directly draw links and causal relationships with observations, statistics and rationality as was done in the article I mentioned.

While ignoring the fact that the trend was already decreasing and you can't prove a negative.



A sharp drop coinciding with the buy back and reform laws... Do you have a problem with this? What is your point?

Yes. Your point? The guns were bought back in '96 so there were less guns and a lower gun-homicide rate...

Actually no. Though the mass murders were frequent in the decade before the buy back, even taking them into account the rate still dropped "from an average of 521 to 289" (article (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-deaths-in-rapid-decline-since-buyback/2006/12/13/1165685752421.html)).

Also, on suicides:

*sigh*

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Yes, "gun homicides" and "gun suicides" declined (and already were)while the overall rates stayed the same.

Therefore, the ownership levels did not have an effect on the overall rates as the methods were just substituted. and while the "massacres" stopped, the number of homicides actually stayed level showing an increase in the number of individual incidents.

I'm not saying there aren't some assholes who cross the line on these things, but to suggest you can't use a massacre as part of an argument for gun control is absurd.

Anyway, 3:51AM, bed time.

Here's the point.

W/o knowing any of the facts besides there was a shooting, people are calling for more generic "gun control".

Who did the shooting?
Did he legally own the gun?
What kind of gun was it?
Where did he get it from?
etc. etc.

Here's the point.

W/o knowing any of the facts besides there was a shooting, people are calling for more generic "gun control".

Who did the shooting?
Did he legally own the gun?
What kind of gun was it?
Where did he get it from?
etc. etc.

I think the guy said
Anyway, 3:51AM, bed time.
;)

Anyway, 3:51AM, bed time.Bed time? that's when I'm starting to get up! :cool:

I had a ban for less than that:fluffle:
For what? Hyperbole? :rolleyes:
It is inevitable a shooting thread is going to devolve into pro-gun vs pro-gun control because what else is there to talk about? I was mocking the general pro-gun view on the issue.

Let's not go into the fact I have heard as much alluded to by DK and other pro-gun advocates.

;) :sniper:



:p

Not in the least. This doesn't mean I want guns banned, I just think that this amendment makes it much too easy to acquire the arms, even with limitations in place (recall the VT Shootings and the subsequent report (http://www.vtreviewpanel.org/report/index.html), how it details a person is able to acquire arms despite certain limitations and restrictions).

He managed to buy guns even though he had a history of mental illness. The fault lies with the SYSTEM not the 2nd Amendment.

Cho purchased two guns in violation of federal law. The fact that in 2005 Cho had been
judged to be a danger to himself and ordered to outpatient treatment made him ineligible
to purchase a gun under federal law.

For what? Hyperbole? :rolleyes:
It is inevitable a shooting thread is going to devolve into pro-gun vs pro-gun control because what else is there to talk about? I was mocking the general pro-gun view on the issue.

Let's not go into the fact I have heard as much alluded to by DK and other pro-gun advocates.

So your defense of using strawmen and ad hominems are strawmen and ad hominems.

Crime is crime. You can address the social conditions that lead to crime in the long term, but in the short term you want to stop people getting shot. Attacking people for using recent gun crimes in anti-gun arguments is absurd, and is like attacking people for using recent sports results for arguing that a team isn't playing well.

I agree! Which is why all football events in the world should be banned. All of those riots and fights cause people to get hurt and sometimes even killed. In the long term we can address the social conditions that lead to it, but in the short term, we just want to stop the violence.

BAN ORGANIZED SPORTS NOW! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

A well armed populous is the surest defense against tyranny, however the government is surely better armed than its constituents. People shooting people is more of a social problem than it is a problem with the right to bear. If somebody wants to kill people they can easily make a bomb or grab a big knife. A chip implanted in somebodies trigger finger that can trigger the safety on a gun and have only the registered person able to use a gun might be a nice technology to implement.

You miss the point. The pro-gun crowd thinks guns emit a magical aura that will stop any and all gun attacks anywhere in the vicinity - without even drawing the weapon. That's why they are all sexually aroused over concealed carry laws.

Hey, an ad hominem attack on owners of firearms. Tell me is isn't so, TPH! :rolleyes:

For what? Hyperbole? :rolleyes:
It is inevitable a shooting thread is going to devolve into pro-gun vs pro-gun control because what else is there to talk about? I was mocking the general pro-gun view on the issue.

Let's not go into the fact I have heard as much alluded to by DK and other pro-gun advocates.

A well armed populous is the surest defense against tyranny, however the government is surely better armed than its constituents. People shooting people is more of a social problem than it is a problem with the right to bear. If somebody wants to kill people they can easily make a bomb or grab a big knife. A chip implanted in somebodies trigger finger that can trigger the safety on a gun and have only the registered person able to use a gun might be a nice technology to implement.

Ehh? Go tell that to Iraq.
As for the chip implant, what we're saying is, you have "the right to bear" but not to use? Crack the technology and one could frame the wrong guy.
I'm not a great lover of guns, even in the right hands, a knife is quieter.

A well armed populous is the surest defense against tyranny, however the government is surely better armed than its constituents. People shooting people is more of a social problem than it is a problem with the right to bear. If somebody wants to kill people they can easily make a bomb or grab a big knife. A chip implanted in somebodies trigger finger that can trigger the safety on a gun and have only the registered person able to use a gun might be a nice technology to implement.

What would happen then, if I was to bring my roommate to the range with me when I shoot? Would that mean he wouldn't be able to shoot my rifle? What about another friend? What happens if I sell the firearm to someone else? Do they then need to disable/reprogram the system to their chip? If the system can be disabled or reprogrammed by the user, how will that do anything if the firearm is stolen (because the thief could then disable or reprogram the system)?

Ehh? Go tell that to Iraq.
Yeah, those improvised bomb guns are doing their jobs really well.

I didn't realize holsters were the equivalent of guns slung over your shoulder on strings.
Not even remotely what I said, to restate the obvious: a weapon tucked under one's jacket will be harder for someone else to grab than one that is out on display.
If arguing logic is arguing "through mad libs," I will be proud to do it any day of the week.
If you were arguing from logic, I wouldn't have been able to just swap out a couple of words to make the opposing point. Since I was, you weren't.

Not even remotely what I said, to restate the obvious: a weapon tucked under one's jacket will be harder for someone else to grab than one that is out on display.
I know what you said, but it implied that a weapon in a holster isn't secured, or is somehow inherently less secured than a concealed weapon. A feeling of safety may make some one secure the concealed weapon not as well and it would be easier to take. Besides, a pistol - the weapon of choice - would be just as hard to get concealed as not because holsters are close to the body.

If you were arguing from logic, I wouldn't have been able to just swap out a couple of words to make the opposing point. Since I was, you weren't.
Congratulations, you countered hyperbole with gibbering.

I know what you said, but it implied that a weapon in a holster isn't secured, or is somehow inherently less secured than a concealed weapon.
It is.
A feeling of safety may make some one secure the concealed weapon not as well and it would be easier to take.
"May?" Eating pizza may make gun owners to fat to reach their holsters, thus preventing them from securing their weapons. We must outlaw pizza at once!
Besides, a pistol - the weapon of choice - would be just as hard to get concealed as not because holsters are close to the body.
A concealed weapon will be even closer, as it is under a layer of clothing. Thus, harder to steal and better.
Congratulations, you countered hyperbole with gibbering.
Hyperbole is "humorous exaggeration." There is nothing remotely humorous about wheeling out the same tired clichés and straw men every time you see the word "shooting" or "gun" mentioned in a thread.

My God? When are they gonna start letting teachers carry guns?

Crime is crime. You can address the social conditions that lead to crime in the long term, but in the short term you want to stop people getting shot. Attacking people for using recent gun crimes in anti-gun arguments is absurd, and is like attacking people for using recent sports results for arguing that a team isn't playing well.

If people opposed to gun owners' rights can legitimately exploit a recent tragedy of gun crime, surely people opposed to minorities' rights can exploit recent minority crimes.

This school shooting took place at a predominantly minority college, VA Tech's massacre was perpetrated by a minority, and just last week a couple of minorities murdered a baby in California for fun.

Why should blaming minorities, which are guilty by the same standard as guns, be any different from blaming guns?

A concealed weapon will be even closer, as it is under a layer of clothing. Thus, harder to steal and better.
Then how it is it a deterrent?

My God? When are they gonna start letting teachers carry guns?

Soon as you can prove that would have changed anything.

Is the Second Amendment really still necessary in America?

The Second Amendment does not give people the right to own weapons. It says that the national government cannot disband state militias, the idea being that would give the national government too much power. When the Constitution was written, many Framers were worried about a too strong central government (Anti-Federalists, later called Democratic-Republicans). If the national government started acting the way the British government had before the revolution, the thinking went, the states would have a way to check its power.
After the Civil War, this became less popular because it turned out checking the power of the national government involved killing 600,000+ people. Still, the idea that the amendment means every man, woman, and child should possess an AK-47 is not true.

The Second Amendment does not give people the right to own weapons.

You're correct. The BOR does not "give" any rights. It recognizes natural ones.

It says that the national government cannot disband state militias, the idea being that would give the national government too much power. When the Constitution was written, many Framers were worried about a too strong central government (Anti-Federalists, later called Democratic-Republicans). If the national government started acting the way the British government had before the revolution, the thinking went, the states would have a way to check its power.

And since the militia's were made up of the citizenry , it recognized the fact that the citizenry needed to be armed.
After the Civil War, this became less popular because it turned out checking the power of the national government involved killing 600,000+ people.

Source for this grand bit of knowledge?


Still, the idea that the amendment means every man, woman, and child should possess an AK-47 is not true.

And who here has said that besides you?

Then how it is it a deterrent?


WHo here besides you is arguing that?



Soon as you can prove that would have changed anything.

Not having them hasn't worked.

Then how it is it a deterrent?
When did I say it should be?
I only said that if people must have guns on them, I'd rather they keep those guns concealed so it will be harder for some weirdo to grab it off them.

You're correct. The BOR does not "give" any rights. It recognizes natural ones.
"Natural rights." I always assumed those concerned things that were, you know, natural. Unless you have a gun tree in you backyard, I fail to see how that fits.


And since the militia's were made up of the citizenry , it recognized the fact that the citizenry needed to be armed.
Yes, but there is a difference between being armed in a militia and owning a gun. If tank drivers owned all of their equipment, they would never have to worry about parking.


Source for this grand bit of knowledge?
Gladly, sorry I didn't give it sooner. I heard this bit of knowledge in a interview on Fresh Air. I didn't remember the exact person, but I searched on the website and I'm pretty sure it was Professor Michael A. Bellesiles, who wrote a book about it. There is a link here (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1111545), where you can listen to the interview (no transcript, unfortunately).




And who here has said that besides you?
No one, I was exaggerating. (Although, technically I wasn't wrong.) Because I didn't think this added to my point, I wasn't too concerned with factuality.

When did I say it should be?
I only said that if people must have guns on them, I'd rather they keep those guns concealed so it will be harder for some weirdo to grab it off them.
If they are close enough and quick enough to grab a gun from a holster at your side, having it under your jacket instead isn't going to make you any less fucked.

"Natural rights." I always assumed those concerned things that were, you know, natural. Unless you have a gun tree in you backyard, I fail to see how that fits.

Ah, apparently you are unfamiliar w. the concept and need to make silly comments to cover your ignorance. You may want to look up US v Cruishank:

"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”



Yes. There is a difference between being armed in a militia and owning a gun. If tank drivers owned all of their equipment, they would never have to worry about parking.

Nice slippery slope. Try reading up on what constitutes the militia:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html



Gladly, sorry I didn't give it sooner. I heard this bit of knowledge in a interview on Fresh Air. I didn't remember the exact person, but I searched on the website and I'm pretty sure it was Professor Michael A. Bellesiles, who wrote a book about it. There is a link here (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1111545), where you can listen to the interview (no transcript, unfortunately).

Ah yes, the same Michael Bellesiles that had his Bancroft prize revoked for falsifying most of the data in that book:

http://hnn.us/articles/930.html

http://www.news.emory.edu/Releases/Final_Report.pdf
In summary, we find on Questions 1 and 2, that despite serious failures of and
carelessness in the gathering and presentation of archival records and the use of
quantitative analysis, we cannot speak of intentional fabrication or falsification. On
Question 3, we find that the strained character of Professor Bellesiles’ explanation raises
questions about his veracity with respect to his account of having consulted probate
records in San Francisco County. On Question 4, dealing with the construction of the
vital Table One, we find evidence of falsification. And on Question 5, which raises the
standard of professional historical scholarship, we find that Professor Bellesiles falls
short on all three counts.

Great source. Keep using it.


No one, I was exaggerating. (Although, technically I wasn't wrong.) Because I didn't think this added to my point, I wasn't too concerned with factuality.

That comes across. Trust me.

Ah, apparently you are unfamiliar w. the concept and need to make silly comments to cover your ignorance. You may want to look up US v Cruishank:

"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”
Firstly, I believe the case you know so well is US vs. Cruikshank. Secondly, this case did not concern the second amendment directly. It said the Bill of Rights applied only to governments, not individuals. The individuals in question were part of a mob led by Cruikshank who lynched two blacks for voting. Much of the decision has been overturned in court decisions since.





Nice slippery slope. Try reading up on what constitutes the militia:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Interesting. And the people who define definition here are the same people who mention in the constitution? No? Well...




Ah yes, the same Michael Bellesiles that had his Bancroft prize revoked for falsifying most of the data in that book:

http://hnn.us/articles/930.html

Great source. Keep using it.

Again, seeing as you used the obsolete Supreme Court decision which set a mob free, perhaps I can be forgiven for using a poor source.
Thank you for pointing this out, though. I would much rather have this revealed to me here than in a live debate. And although I now know Bellesiles data was fudged, I think the point is still valid, that the Civil War changed Americans perceptions of guns. Also, upon reading the link you gave, it seems most of the information he made up was about gun ownership, not the second amendment. I still hold that checks and balance was the original purpose of it, not private ownership.


That comes across. Trust me.
Much like the snootiness of your responses. Trust me.

my thoughts for this should be dont take the guns away put a censor on them so if they go through the door of a school campus it goes off and the police are alerted. that way hunters like me arnt denied the 2nd

Firstly, I believe the case you know so well is US vs. Cruikshank. Secondly, this case did not concern the second amendment directly. It said the Bill of Rights applied only to governments, not individuals. The individuals in question were part of a mob led by Cruikshank who lynched two blacks for voting. Much of the decision has been overturned in court decisions since.

Really? SCOTUS has stated that the BOR are granted by the Gov't? I'ld love you to source that one.


Interesting. And the people who define definition here are the same people who mention in the constitution? No? Well...

Wow, answering your own question. And incorrectly at that. Good job. Why don't you try disputing it instead of making inane comments?


Again, seeing as you used the obsolete Supreme Court decision which set a mob free, perhaps I can be forgiven for using a poor source.

nice red herring as that has nothing to do w/ SCOTUS stating the BOR is natural and not granted. Show me any decision that states that the rights are granted. Please. I'll wait.

Thank you for pointing this out, though. I would much rather have this revealed to me here than in a live debate. And although I now know Bellesiles data was fudged, I think the point is still valid, that the Civil War changed Americans perceptions of guns. Also, upon reading the link you gave, it seems most of the information he made up was about gun ownership, not the second amendment. I still hold that checks and balance was the original purpose of it, not private ownership.

Who do you thing provided that "check and balance"? That would be the people who were part of the militia.

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.




Much like the snootiness of your responses. Trust me.

You mean in response to claimed "facts" that have no support?

Try reading this:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

my thoughts for this should be dont take the guns away put a censor on them so if they go through the door of a school campus it goes off and the police are alerted. that way hunters like me arnt denied the 2nd

You mean like a metal detector?

Is the Second Amendment really still necessary in America?

Is it necessary to keep asking that stupid question?

Really? SCOTUS has stated that the BOR are granted by the Gov't? I'ld love you to source that one.
Please do not make up abbreviations. I have no idea what BOR is, so I can't really answer.




Wow, answering your own question. And incorrectly at that. Good job. Why don't you try disputing it instead of making inane comments?
You are claiming that the people who wrote the Constitution also wrote this definition. You have yet to shown that to be true.




nice red herring as that has nothing to do w/ SCOTUS stating the BOR is natural and not granted. Show me any decision that states that the rights are granted. Please. I'll wait.
Again, I have no idea what "BOR" is. I will assume it is a right. You are claiming that this right is natural. Now, the Declaration of Independence (which isn't a law, but a good document all the same) mentions "inalienable rights." The government cannot take these rights away, they are given to man by his Creator (according to the Declaration). I fail to see how the right to bear arms is one of these.



Who do you thing provided that "check and balance"? That would be the people who were part of the militia.

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Not a single one of these documents is a law. As I do not agree with the statements, I am not swayed to believe the second amendment was written to guarantee the right to bear arms. Yes, I see the Madison quote, and I will repeat what I said earlier: the Americans feared a strong central government. By giving an army to the states, this fear was at least partially overcome.






You mean in response to claimed "facts" that have no support?

Try reading this:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf
Disagreeing with my support is not excuse to be pretentious, self-righteous, or rude.
I did not read the entire link, as it is 107 pages, but I read some of it and have come to the following conclusion: I do not agree with this any more than I agree with the quotes you gave. I realize many people share your opinion, that does not change the meaning of the amendment. To quote the document: "The Supreme Court has not decided among these three potential interpretations, and the federal courts are split." The interpretation is left open, at best.

Please do not make up abbreviations. I have no idea what BOR is, so I can't really answer.
FYI BoR= Bill of Rights.

FYI BoR= Bill of Rights.

Okay, thank you. To answer then:
Yes, of course the Bill of Rights is granted by the government. It's ten federal laws. However, the rights in the amendments are not necessarily given by the government, only secured.
To be honest, I'm not sure even all of the rights in the Bill of Rights are natural. Things such as due process exist to insure natural rights are not trampled (again, fear of the central government). However, if the government does not try me by a jury, I am not upset unless I am being arrested, and therefore need due process to insure my rights aren't ignored. If the government does not secure my right to life, I will be unhappy.

Please do not make up abbreviations. I have no idea what BOR is, so I can't really answer.

Bill of Rights. It's a commonly used abbreviation. Just like SCOTUS. (supreme court of the united states)


You are claiming that the people who wrote the Constitution also wrote this definition. You have yet to shown that to be true.

What do you think they based it on? Would it be the Militia act of 1792 maybe?


Again, I have no idea what "BOR" is. I will assume it is a right. You are claiming that this right is natural. Now, the Declaration of Independence (which isn't a law, but a good document all the same) mentions "inalienable rights." The government cannot take these rights away, they are given to man by his Creator (according to the Declaration). I fail to see how the right to bear arms is one of these.

Since you don't know the concept of "natural rights", you need to read up on the concept (John Locke is a good start) and the fact that the founding fathers considered the BOR (see above) a partial list of them.


Not a single one of these documents is a law. As I do not agree with the statements, I am not swayed to believe the second amendment was written to guarantee the right to bear arms. Yes, I see the Madison quote, and I will repeat what I said earlier: the Americans feared a strong central government. By giving an army to the states, this fear was at least partially overcome.

So basically you don't have any evidence to support yourself.

"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. . . . "
--- The U.S. Supreme Court in Cohens v. Virginia (1821)


Disagreeing with my support is not excuse to be pretentious, self-righteous, or rude.
I did not read the entire link, as it is 107 pages, but I read some of it and have come to the following conclusion: I do not agree with this any more than I agree with the quotes you gave. I realize many people share your opinion, that does not change the meaning of the amendment. To quote the document: "The Supreme Court has not decided among these three potential interpretations, and the federal courts are split." The interpretation is left open, at best.

So basically you're making statements about what you believe the 2A means w/o providing any real support or reading the evidence.

The two most recent lower cases on the 2A recognize it as an individual right.

"Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." (U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999))

http://www.dcguncase.com/blog/
Heller v DC is up for cert. The case by DC is so weak that they've abandoned the collective rights argument and are trying to justify that a complete ban on handguns is a "reasonable restriction".

The Second Amendment does not give people the right to own weapons. It says that the national government cannot disband state militias, the idea being that would give the national government too much power. When the Constitution was written, many Framers were worried about a too strong central government (Anti-Federalists, later called Democratic-Republicans). If the national government started acting the way the British government had before the revolution, the thinking went, the states would have a way to check its power.
After the Civil War, this became less popular because it turned out checking the power of the national government involved killing 600,000+ people. Still, the idea that the amendment means every man, woman, and child should possess an AK-47 is not true.

The second amendment is an individual right, not a state or militia right. The paper that was written by the US DOJ on the second amendment states as much.

Okay, thank you. To answer then:
Yes, of course the Bill of Rights is granted by the government. It's ten federal laws. However, the rights in the amendments are not necessarily given by the government, only secured.
To be honest, I'm not sure even all of the rights in the Bill of Rights are natural. Things such as due process exist to insure natural rights are not trampled (again, fear of the central government). However, if the government does not try me by a jury, I am not upset unless I am being arrested, and therefore need due process to insure my rights aren't ignored. If the government does not secure my right to life, I will be unhappy.

No, the rights are not "granted". As you say, they are secured and recognized as not being dependent on the Constitution. Show me one case where the courts say they are granted.

If they are close enough and quick enough to grab a gun from a holster at your side, having it under your jacket instead isn't going to make you any less fucked.

What if they don't know you have it? That's kind of the point of CONCEALED carry.

The second amendment is an individual right, not a state or militia right. The paper that was written by the US DOJ on the second amendment states as much.

He hasn't bothered reading it. He just doesn't 'agree'.

Bill of Rights. It's a commonly used abbreviation. Just like SCOTUS. (supreme court of the united states)
I've never heard of it, or SCOTUS, but I could guess that.




What do you think they based it on? Would it be the Militia act of 1792 maybe?
Now would be a good time to actually take a look at the amendment.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Notice it says well regulated Militia. I doubt my neighbor and I constitute as well regulated.




Since you don't know the concept of "natural rights", you need to read up on the concept (John Locke is a good start) and the fact that the founding fathers considered the BOR (see above) a partial list of them.
I am very familiar with the concept, but a) I had no idea what BOR was and b) do not believe gun ownership to be a natural right anymore than bungee-jumping.




So basically you don't have any evidence to support yourself.
Look here (http://www.gunlawsuits.org/downloads/militiav.pdf).
Every single Supreme Court case argued in favor of collective rights.



So basically you're making statements about what you believe the 2A means w/o providing any real support or reading the evidence.
Yes, so are you.
I am not a constructionist, and don't think the Framers wanted to create a society stuck in the 18th century. When they wrote the amendment, they probably did assume everyone would get to keep their guns, but I don't think they found it important enough to list as a right in the Bill of Rights.

The two most recent lower cases on the 2A recognize it as an individual right.

Again, the other thirty don't.

I don't think banning of all private weapons would be very effective, and so I wouldn't encourage it. However, to cite it is a right makes no sense. Natural rights are large, but few. Unless it is a part of a larger right, I don't see how it can exist.

The second amendment is an individual right, not a state or militia right. The paper that was written by the US DOJ on the second amendment states as much.

I don't see how that paper is definitive. Here is another memorandum (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/dojinterrogationmemo20020801.pdf) from the USDOJ. Perhaps not the best source?

Anothet campus shooting? First I've heard of it. Besides, the second ammendment is kind of neccisary, but tighter control is needed. (Registration of the owner, etc) not banned outright, like our cousins across the pond.

Now would be a good time to actually take a look at the amendment.
Notice it says well regulated Militia. I doubt my neighbor and I constitute as well regulated.

Notice it says "right of the people". Not a right or power of the states.
Now read the DOJ paper and find contradictory evidence.

I am very familiar with the concept, but a) I had no idea what BOR was and b) do not believe gun ownership to be a natural right anymore than bungee-jumping.

Then you aren't familiar w/ the concept.
You may want to read the 9th amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Retained, not granted.


Look here (http://www.gunlawsuits.org/downloads/militiav.pdf).
Every single Supreme Court case argued in favor of collective rights.
I'm quite familiar w/ the Brady Campaign's web site. There are two listed. Why don't you cite the relevant portions?





Yes, so are you.

I've provided no sources. Right. Sure.

I am not a constructionist, and don't think the Framers wanted to create a society stuck in the 18th century. When they wrote the amendment, they probably did assume everyone would get to keep their guns, but I don't think they found it important enough to list as a right in the Bill of Rights.


Even though it's there and they specifically state it.



Again, the other thirty don't.

All based off of selective reading of Miller. Cite the relevant parts please.


I don't think banning of all private weapons would be very effective, and so I wouldn't encourage it. However, to cite it is a right makes no sense. Natural rights are large, but few. Unless it is a part of a larger right, I don't see how it can exist.

It's part of self-preservation.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/lundpol.html

I don't see how that paper is definitive. Here is another memorandum (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/dojinterrogationmemo20020801.pdf) from the USDOJ. Perhaps not the best source?

You don't see how a paper that was produced by a department of the Federal government, whose job is to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States, is definitive? Also, here's the conclusion to the paper that was referenced (since you don't want to look at all 106 pages):

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled the question of whose right is secured by the Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. The text of the Amendment’s operative clause, setting out a “right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution’s structure. The Amendment’s prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England’s Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment’s ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require.

Anothet campus shooting? First I've heard of it. Besides, the second ammendment is kind of neccisary, but tighter control is needed. (Registration of the owner, etc) not banned outright, like our cousins across the pond.

How would registration prevent crime?

How would registration prevent crime?

It wouldn't, it would make it easier to arrest those responsible. (Using a similar law currently under way here which requires the firing pin to have a micro stamper that imprints the serial number on the casing)

I don't see how that paper is definitive. Here is another memorandum (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/dojinterrogationmemo20020801.pdf) from the USDOJ. Perhaps not the best source?

Nice red herring and ad hominem. Dispute the paper, not the source.

It wouldn't, it would make it easier to arrest those responsible. (Using a similar law currently under way here which requires the firing pin to have a micro stamper that imprints the serial number on the casing)

Only if they've registered it and it is recovered.

Microstamping is also an easily defeated technology that will have little bearing on crime.

Now would be a good time to actually take a look at the amendment.

Notice it says well regulated Militia. I doubt my neighbor and I constitute as well regulated.

The phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..." is a prefatory subordinate clause to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Only if they've registered it and it is recovered.

Microstamping is also an easily defeated technology that will have little bearing on crime.

Still better then having an unregistered gun owner shooting up someplace. Besides, the second ammendment has been around since the start of the US, don't think its going to go because of a few campus shootings.

Try it like this:

A well educated Electorate, being necessary to the liberty of a free State, the Right of the People to Keep and Read Books shall not be infringed.


Who are they talking about?

Still better then having an unregistered gun owner shooting up someplace.

As compared to a registered on shooting up someplace?

The biggest problem w/ registration is that , not only does it not reduce crime, it has historically been used as a list for confiscations when further firearm types are banned.

Besides, the second ammendment has been around since the start of the US, don't think its going to go because of a few campus shootings.

Agreed.

As compared to a registered on shooting up someplace?

The biggest problem w/ registration is that , not only does it not reduce crime, it has historically been used as a list for confiscations when further firearm types are banned.



Agreed.

Still, the only way to prevent such crimes is to go against a written law that not even the president can change without overwhelming support from every brach, even then, chances of that are nil to slim. So, the only real solution is increased security and quite possibly, if things get bad enough, checkpoints at all entrances.

Still, the only way to prevent such crimes is to go against a written law that not even the president can change without overwhelming support from every brach, even then, chances of that are nil to slim. So, the only real solution is increased security and quite possibly, if things get bad enough, checkpoints at all entrances.

Not even that would guarantee it. A dedicated nutcase wouldn't be stopped by a checkpoint nor could there be one at every potential target.

Is there a perfect answer? Not that I can see.

They were a reaction,but not to the problem. DC crime rates were actually in decline when they passed the laws, bucking the national trend.

Note: Not claiming causality.
Then what are you claiming? Just throwing a red herring into the mix?

Because it's not PC to blame minorities.

It's also not logical.

..................


http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/303/notagainyz5.jpg

It's also not logical.

It is no more logical to blame guns for crimes committed using guns than it is to blame minorities for crimes committed by minorities.

If there were no minorities, then there would be no minority crime.

If there were no guns, then there would be no gun crime.

What makes these two statements different?

It is no more logical to blame guns for crimes committed using guns than it is to blame minorities for crimes committed by minorities.

If there were no minorities, then there would be no minority crime.

If there were no guns, then there would be no gun crime.

What makes these two statements different?

I love that divisive language you use, and I think that's half of the problem, people like you insist on labeling people as 'blacks, Hispanics, gays' etc and put them into little stereotypical groups, which is a form of subtle segregation. If you ask any of the so called 'minorities' if they want special treatment I doubt they would say yes, they just want to be treated equally to everyone else. That's the key, we are all members of an interdependent society, a community which relies upon it's integral parts for efficient functioning.

I take offense to you or anyone else calling them 'minorities', it's a way for the supposed 'majorities' to think of themselves as superior. Once we think of every one as equal shareholders in our great community, this kind of bigoted divisive talk is seen as what it is, irrelevant.

But to your question, guns are tools and cannot act independent, they are an inanimate object. A person (sorry I am not bowing to using that bigoted word) can act independently.

I have two shotguns, two rifles, and a .45

If you try to take them from me I will fucking shoot you.

I have two shotguns, two rifles, and a .45

If you try to take them from me I will fucking shoot you.

How do we know your not mentally unstable and think everyone wants to take your guns away? Of course I am talking about a cultural mental delusion.

I'm not a great lover of guns, even in the right hands, a knife is quieter.

History has proved that guns have a significant range advantage, the battles that were fought during the introductions of guns were almost comically stupid.

Not having them hasn't worked.

So this argument is black and white is it? "People not having guns isn't working, we need more guns!".

my thoughts for this should be dont take the guns away put a censor on them so if they go through the door of a school campus it goes off and the police are alerted. that way hunters like me arnt denied the 2nd

There'd be nothing to stop it's removal. It wouldn't work.

I have two shotguns, two rifles, and a .45

If you try to take them from me I will fucking shoot you.

What if we sneak into your house when you're not looking? If we have your guns your capacity to shoot will drop to zero. Also I like this post because the mindset it conveys to me more-or-less sums up what the problem is.

I have two shotguns, two rifles, and a .45

If you try to take them from me I will fucking shoot you.

If someone comes to take my rifle away, they'll hear how I lost it in a tragic boating accident.































;)

Interesting, maybe instead they should carpet bomb your house? Sounds like a good idea to me...

Wow, it sounds like someone's begging for a ban. Hope the mods don't see this.

I have two shotguns, two rifles, and a .45

If you try to take them from me I will fucking shoot you.

Interesting, maybe instead they should carpet bomb your house? Sounds like a good idea to me...

I have two shotguns, two rifles, and a .45

If you try to take them from me I will fucking shoot you.

Well said.

Interesting, maybe instead they should carpet bomb your house? Sounds like a good idea to me...

What if they miss and hit your house?

The 2A wasn't in effect at the school.

Can someone spell this out for me, please? The schools can revoke the constitutional laws at will? :eek:

Superfluous demagoguery.
Explain to me then how a concealed weapon, ie a weapon that other people do not know you have, protects you from some one else with a gun or discourages any one from attacking you.

*giggles* You sound like you'd seen the relevant episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit, too... :D

What if they miss and hit your house?

If they can miss by that far they need some target practice, also they'd be quite a long way of course and probably would have noticed the ocean.

Interesting, maybe instead they should carpet bomb your house? Sounds like a good idea to me...

I'm a big fan of Carpet Bombing.

Really, it's a pity that there are so many retards running around with guns both legally and illegally doing stupid stuff and trying to spoil it for law abiding citizens such as myself.

Can someone spell this out for me, please? The schools can revoke the constitutional laws at will? :eek:

Most schools, in fact all schools, forbid students to have weapons on campus. Only campus police are allowed to have weapons.

Then what are you claiming? Just throwing a red herring into the mix?

Maybe you should try reading what I responded to and then use some of that alleged cognitive ability to figure it out what we were talking about.

Interesting, maybe instead they should carpet bomb your house? Sounds like a good idea to me...

Second.

*giggles* You sound like you'd seen the relevant episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit, too... :D
No, I just got tired of all the god damn gun nuts making that very same argument. It's simple fucking logic that an unseen gun is in no way a deterrent unless it can be assured that a percentage of the population approaching 100 is carrying a concealed weapon, and then it is no guarantee because no one ever accused your common criminal of being the brightest bulb in the box.

Though according to Fiddlebottoms, they are all god damn ninjas that can take guns out of visible, closed holsters attached to your hip without you even knowing it.

What if they don't know you have it? That's kind of the point of CONCEALED carry.
If some one can take a gun in a closed holster at your hip without you knowing or with you struggling and use it against you, a concealed weapon isn't going to make you any less fucked because (a) that person is a pick pocket and the gun is useless or (b) they are a god damn ninja and would just snap your neck anyway.

No, I just got tired of all the god damn gun nuts making that very same argument. It's simple fucking logic that an unseen gun is in no way a deterrent unless it can be assured that a percentage of the population approaching 100 is carrying a concealed weapon, and then it is no guarantee because no one ever accused your common criminal of being the brightest bulb in the box.

Even if so many criminals weren't stupid, there's no way that anyone's going to be able to get anywhere near that number of people to agree to carrying a weapon.

I love that divisive language you use, and I think that's half of the problem, people like you insist on labeling people as 'blacks, Hispanics, gays' etc and put them into little stereotypical groups, which is a form of subtle segregation. If you ask any of the so called 'minorities' if they want special treatment I doubt they would say yes, they just want to be treated equally to everyone else. That's the key, we are all members of an interdependent society, a community which relies upon it's integral parts for efficient functioning.

I take offense to you or anyone else calling them 'minorities', it's a way for the supposed 'majorities' to think of themselves as superior. Once we think of every one as equal shareholders in our great community, this kind of bigoted divisive talk is seen as what it is, irrelevant.

But to your question, guns are tools and cannot act independent, they are an inanimate object. A person (sorry I am not bowing to using that bigoted word) can act independently.

You managed to miss the point of the post just about completely.

Blaming crime on "minorities" when it is indeed committed by people who belong to that group, as the term is conventionally used in English - with all the connotations that follow - is no more offensive than blaming it on guns.

Back to the hypothetical though:

Guns are indeed inanimate tools, but they are nevertheless instrumental to gun crimes, and while minorities are people and capable of making decisions, this distinction is moot to the comparison at hand, because minorities are instrumental to minority-perpetrated crime.

The main argument against gun rights is that guns are instrumental to gun crime, and that removing guns would therefore prevent gun crime.

Why can't the same argument be applied to crime perpetrated by minorities? Minorities are instrumental to those crimes- indeed, if there were no black, hispanic or asian people in the country, then all the crimes which would otherwise be committed by those people would not occur.

You might answer that such people have rights, but there is also a right to bear arms. In each example, fundamental rights have to be violated if the respective crimes are to be prevented.

It is more politically and socially acceptable to speak ill of guns though than it is of minorities.

You bristle at the term 'minority,' but people opposed to gun rights are happy to bandy about equally bigoted and senseless terms like "assault weapon."

Why the double standard, why focus on guns when there is an equally relevant feature of crime that we can attack instead?

Though according to Fiddlebottoms, they are all god damn ninjas that can take guns out of visible, closed holsters attached to your hip without you even knowing it.
Whether you know they've snatched it or not is irrelevant, they've already got your gun so you, and everyone around you, are pretty well fucked.

I have two shotguns, two rifles, and a .45

If you try to take them from me I will fucking shoot you.

It is responses like this that makes people want to take them from you.

Maybe you should try reading what I responded to and then use some of that alleged cognitive ability to figure it out what we were talking about.I did and you threw a red herring on top of someone elses red herring. Something smells fishy.

Nice little flame by the way. :p

BTW, what was it that you were claiming?

I did and you threw a red herring on top of someone elses red herring. Something smells fishy.

Your posts.

Why don't you tell me what you think we were talking about then? Enlighten us w/ your wisdom.

Nice little flame by the way. :p

Well, coming from one w/ a history of selective editing and blatantly misstating what is being discussed, that means little.

If some one can take a gun in a closed holster at your hip without you knowing or with you struggling and use it against you, a concealed weapon isn't going to make you any less fucked because (a) that person is a pick pocket and the gun is useless or (b) they are a god damn ninja and would just snap your neck anyway.
I think the point of carry concealed weapons is that if the weapons were carried in the open (hip holster) then criminals would target those that don't carry weapons. making those w/o guns a bigger target.

however those that have concealed weapons (shoulder hosters, guns in purses) now adds an element of risk to the lawbreaker. Is that man carrying a gun? Does that lady have one in her purse? Do the owners of that house have a gun? that lady in her car?

and yes, drawing from a shoulder holster can be done quickly.

Now the idea that a gun will protect one from ALL crimes is a strawman unworthy of you TPH. just like the argument that one gun nut is the same as ALL gun owners.

I think the point of carry concealed weapons is that if the weapons were carried in the open (hip holster) then criminals would target those that don't carry weapons. making those w/o guns a bigger target.
1) No, that's not the point. If it was I would have at least heard it once from the pro-gun crowd.
2) Then everyone should carry guns visibly.
3) Outside holsters are not any more "open" than concealed ones.

however those that have concealed weapons (shoulder hosters, guns in purses) now adds an element of risk to the lawbreaker. Is that man carrying a gun? Does that lady have one in her purse? Do the owners of that house have a gun? that lady in her car?
I am not going to say it again so I will tell you to refer back to the posts in which myself and another poster have addressed the stupidity of that reasoning - three times.

I have two shotguns, two rifles, and a .45

If you try to take them from me I will fucking shoot you.

Once more, I can only applaud the ignorance of the west at large. How terribly cool it is to have a firestick and say "I'm gonna shoot you".

Can someone spell this out for me, please? The schools can revoke the constitutional laws at will? :eek:

Schools, being a private institution, can ban firearms from the campus. Not that that rule would stop someone from commiting violence with one, if that was their intention.

Once more, I can only applaud the ignorance of the west at large. How terribly cool it is to have a firestick and say "I'm gonna shoot you".

dunno, I don't own any 'firesticks' and never say "I'm gonna shoot you."

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff287/johnnybmetal/not_this_shit_again.jpg

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff287/johnnybmetal/not_this_shit_again.jpg

I believe that was already posted in this thread. But I know how you feel.

Once more, I can only applaud the ignorance of the west at large. How terribly cool it is to have a firestick and say "I'm gonna shoot you".

The post wasn't intended to sound cool. The point I was making is that it's a right I intend, like many americans, to protect with my blood. I've had several guns throughout my lifetime. I have never shot a person, I am not a hunter, I have never even shot an animal. I keep them strictly for defense, whether it be from a retarded criminal trying to harm my family, or from my own government.

Having lived in New Orleans for a time I have found that the biggest problem as far as guns go is the illegal distribution and trading of them. It is illegal for a felon or mentally ill person to have a gun, yet in most parts of America it is still far too easy for them to get a hold of them through illegal channels.

The post wasn't intended to sound cool. The point I was making is that it's a right I intend, like many americans, to protect with my blood. I've had several guns throughout my lifetime. I have never shot a person, I am not a hunter, I have never even shot an animal. I keep them strictly for defense, whether it be from a retarded criminal trying to harm my family, or from my own government.

Having lived in New Orleans for a time I have found that the biggest problem as far as guns go is the illegal distribution and trading of them. It is illegal for a felon or mentally ill person to have a gun, yet in most parts of America it is still far too easy for them to get a hold of them through illegal channels.

So, having contended that guns can be acquired with facility, you then suggest they should be easier still to acquire? Why not make the criminal's job easier, plying every half baked gangster and petty theif with the means to make good their threats?

I would imagine that, in comparison to us poor fools in the UK who can do positively nothing to protect ourselves, bereft as we are of guns, you are no safer than we; indeed, homicide rates are higher.

dunno, I don't own any 'firesticks' and never say "I'm gonna shoot you."

No, but you're not a gun nut.

I hope.

Guns, especially machine guns, are remarkably easy to construct. The simplest of the improvised firearms designed to work with today's available ammunition is the slambang shotgun. All you need are two pipes, one fitting into the other and just wide enough to hold a shell; a cap for the wider pipe, a nail, a dowel, and glue. The blowback machinegun, perhaps the simplest kind, uses a couple of springs to reload and fire the weapon; so long as the trigger is pulled the bolt won't catch and cease fire until the magazine is depleted. There are numerous plans available online in print, some better than others, which give detailed instructions on the construction of firearms. Everything from a gun disguised as a pen to a machine shotgun. When you ban guns you have to ban more than just the weapons. You have to ban the knowledge to build them, the materials needed for improvised weapons, and the privacy that some may use to construct them in secret.

It is often said that guns do not kill, people do; that banning guns does not reduce crime. Our nation's capital is the perfect example of this. The crime rate in DC skyrocketted when guns were banned and remains higher than the national average to this day. Laws do not stop crime, they create it. A criminal is someone who breaks the law. How many career criminals do you know that stop at their first offense?

So, eleven pages of debate. I assume mostly about guns. Has anyone asked why this person was shooting others? Has anyone proposed a solution for that underlying cause?

If we deal with that, the point of gun laws, or their lack, is moot.

The 2A wasn't in effect at the school.
Your point?

Your point?

Once again, try reading what it was in response to. I know you seem to have some difficulty w/ that, but try.

Once again, try reading what it was in response to. I know you seem to have some difficulty w/ that, but try.
It was a stand alone response by you. What is your point?

Your posts.

Why don't you tell me what you think we were talking about then? Enlighten us w/ your wisdom.

Well, coming from one w/ a history of selective editing and blatantly misstating what is being discussed, that means little.
Nice justification for flaming another poster and a great way to evade the question that I asked you. See my next post.

Quite the contrary....

Most gun laws enforced in the nation today are in the District of Columbia.

Highest crime rate in the nation today is in ..one guess here...District of Columbia.

Now, before I voice my objection to this viewpoint, I would add that I am a very strong supporter of gun rights.

I would ask whether the restrictions were the cause of the problem, of if the problem already existed, and they were merely a reaction to the problem.

They were a reaction,but not to the problem. DC crime rates were actually in decline when they passed the laws, bucking the national trend.

Note: Not claiming causality.
Now......what are you claiming?

Now......what are you claiming?

Well, since it's apparently complicated enough that I have to walk you through it..

Lugnutz: Gun laws caused crime

ANdaluciea: Did the law cause crime or was the law passed because of crime

Me: The law was passed when crime was decreasing so it was just another political gun ban. the law did not effect crime.

Simple enough or should I use smaller words?

It was a stand alone response by you. What is your point?

So you're claiming the OP didn't state "Is the Second Amendment really still necessary in America?"

Apparently you didn't read the whole thing?

Nice justification for flaming another poster and a great way to evade the question that I asked you. See my next post.

Ah, you mean the question you added when I was already responding? That one?

So, eleven pages of debate. I assume mostly about guns. Has anyone asked why this person was shooting others? Has anyone proposed a solution for that underlying cause?

If we deal with that, the point of gun laws, or their lack, is moot.
You seem to be missing the point, which is I am a genius and therefore everyone must know my thoughts about anything. The real world only hampers that.

..................


http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/303/notagainyz5.jpg

Nice strawman. Sadly, your red herring does little to hide your complete and utter lack of knowledge concerning the truth which happens to be my opinion.

*This was written facetiously. Please, do not argue with it, as it means nothing.*

Nice strawman. Sadly, your red herring does little to hide your complete and utter lack of knowledge concerning the truth which happens to be my opinion.

*This was written facetiously. Please, do not argue with it, as it means nothing.*

GODWIN!

The post wasn't intended to sound cool. The point I was making is that it's a right I intend, like many americans, to protect with my blood. I've had several guns throughout my lifetime. I have never shot a person,I am not a hunter, I have never even shot an animal. I keep them strictly for defense, whether it be from a retarded criminal trying to harm my family, or from my own government.

Why the f*** do you need five guns for self-defence?

Why the f*** do you need five guns for self-defence?

Either he has been abducted by aliens and now needs the guns so he can arm all three of his tentacle arms, or he plans to arm anyone else in the house, including the person attacking.

Why the f*** do you need five guns for self-defence?

"Why the f***" do you need a mailing address, an email address, a forum screen name and a telephone?

A better question: Why is it any of your business?

"Why the f***" do you need a mailing address, an email address, a forum screen name and a telephone?

A better question: Why is it any of your business?

Why is any of this my business. It isn't. But I'm going to get involved anyway because I want to.

And having all those addresses gives me a greater chance of being able to be contacted, owning five guns for defence purposes seems a little extreme to me, you don't need to be armed to the teeth to defend yourself from home invaders.

Can you see why I might find the statements "I have two shotguns, two rifles and a pistol and if anyone tries to take them I'll shoot them" and "They're only for self-defence" just the tiniest bit unnerving?

Well, since it's apparently complicated enough that I have to walk you through it..

Lugnutz: Gun laws caused crime

ANdaluciea: Did the law cause crime or was the law passed because of crime

Me: The law was passed when crime was decreasing so it was just another political gun ban. the law did not effect crime.

Simple enough or should I use smaller words?
So the Washington DC gun ban "law did not effect crime"?

That is not what you have stated in the past:

As for "paranoia", you can look at Washington DC for a prime example. Handguns were banned, crime skyrocketed, and the police were/are not obligated to protect people.

* Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.

Fine, you get those laws passed. Then let's see crime continue to clime as the STILL ARMED criminals know that noone can protect themselves.

Same thing happened in Washington DC and Chicago.
Let's see you wiggle out of this one. :p

Oh god, not another start to the Kecibukia vs CanuckHeaven back and forth argument on firearms. :(


































J/P :D

Simple, do not sell guns to idiots.:)

Sadly, though that is roughly eighty percent of the country including all hicks, most hippies, potheads, gangbangers, rappers, Joe Bobs, drunkards, comedians, Stalinists, French, the people who dare mess with my pointy hat, the people from Canada, the Cossacks, Atilla the Hun's foes, the major football fans, and the list goes on for years.

So the Washington DC gun ban "law did not effect crime"?

That is not what you have stated in the past:

Let's see you wiggle out of this one. :p

None of those are claiming causality, just stating the facts.

Crime DID rise after the ban.

Since you've shown over and over that you can't be trusted to present complete posts and regularly misrepresent other peoples claims, why don't you present links to said quotes so people can see what was being discussed?

Waste some more of our time w/ your nonsense.

I believe that was already posted in this thread. But I know how you feel.

Thanks. I just hate these gun control arguments (No, I'm not gonna call what happens on NS debating) that break out over campus shootings.

None of those are claiming causality, just stating the facts.

Crime DID rise after the ban.

Since you've shown over and over that you can't be trusted to present complete posts and regularly misrepresent other peoples claims, why don't you present links to said quotes so people can see what was being discussed?

Waste some more of our time w/ your nonsense.
Calling you out on your nonsense is hardly wasting time. :p

Your posts clearly indicate that you are claiming causality, yet you deny it. Then you flame those who disagree with you. I am here to keep you honest.

BTW, if you click on that little green arrow beside the posters name, it will take you to the stated quote.

Your posts clearly indicate that you are claiming causality, yet you deny it. Then you flame those who disagree with you. I am here to keep you honest.

To be fair he never explicitly claimed causality, he just very heavily implied it.

Calling you out on your nonsense is hardly wasting time. :p

Your posts clearly indicate that you are claiming causality, yet you deny it. Then you flame those who disagree with you. I am here to keep you honest.

BTW, if you click on that little green arrow beside the posters name, it will take you to the stated quote.

And not a single one had anything to do w/ gun laws causing crime. One in fact was quote from the link that claimed causality of more guns=more crime.

So, once again you selectively edited posts and misrepresented what was said. You've also claimed I support "laissez faire" gun control along w/ other blatant untruths. I "flame" you because you keep doing that.

Thanks for wasting more time CH.

To be fair he never explicitly claimed causality, he just very heavily implied it.

Actually, every single one of those instances were in response to a claimed causality of 'more guns= more crime". Disproving A is not claiming B. CH , however, selectively ignored the numerous other posts on the topic where I specifically say that there isn't a causality including the majority of a previous thread.

And not a single one had anything to do w/ gun laws causing crime. One in fact was quote from the link that claimed causality of more guns=more crime.

So, once again you selectively edited posts and misrepresented what was said. You've also claimed I support "laissez faire" gun control along w/ other blatant untruths. I "flame" you because you keep doing that.

Thanks for wasting more time CH.
You don't know what you stated in your own posts, even after I linked them for you?

Okay, let's play your game:

Florida, which has issued more carry permits than any state (due to its large population and having had an RTC law since 1987) has issued over 1.2 million permits, yet in 2000, Florida had the highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states.

To be fair he never explicitly claimed causality, he just very heavily implied it.
Heavily implied like a sledge hammer to a fly. :D

You don't know what you stated in your own posts, even after I linked them for you?

Okay, let's play your game:

Florida, which has issued more carry permits than any state (due to its large population and having had an RTC law since 1987) has issued over 1.2 million permits, yet in 2000, Florida had the highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states.

How many of those included a weapon?

How many of those included a weapon?
I don't know...you tell me?

Try this on for size:

Gun crimes show sharp increase in Florida as overall crime rate dips (http://tallahassee.com/legacy/special/blogs/2007/06/gun-crimes-show-sharp-increase-in.html)

BROWARD COUNTY - Violent crimes committed with firearms in Florida exploded last year while the state's overall crime rate dipped slightly, according to preliminary statistics posted Monday to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement Web site.

Murders statewide totaled 1,129, a 28 percent increase from a year earlier. The number of slayings with a firearm soared 42 percent. Robberies climbed 13.4 percent and those with a gun rose 20 percent, the data show.

Broward County had 87 homicides in 2006, according to the FDLE Web site, compared to 63 in the previous year.

Law-enforcement officials in Orange County attribute much of last year's violence to street criminals and drug dealers with guns.

"Several gun stores have been robbed here and in the county, and they're being stolen from people's cars and homes," Orlando police Sgt. Barbara Jones said.

Other highlights in the crime report include:

In Central Florida, Volusia County and its cities had the biggest increase in crimes with 9.5 percent. Brevard County was up 7.7 percent; Orange County, 6.5 percent; Lake County, up 3.7 percent; and Osceola County, up 1.2 percent. Seminole County saw the biggest decrease with 1.8 percent, while Polk County was down 1.7 percent.
Mind boggling?

Edit: CRIME IN FLORIDA (http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/UCR/2006/CIF_annual06.pdf)

Note that not only did murder and robbery with firearms increase, so did aggravated assault with a firearm. Also it should be noted that $7,967,751 worth of firearms were stolen, which puts a lot more guns into the hands of criminals.

Try this on for size:

"Violent crimes committed with firearms in Florida exploded last year while the state's overall crime rate dipped slightly"

Mind boggling?

Note that not only did murder and robbery with firearms increase, so did aggravated assault with a firearm. Also it should be noted that $7,967,751 worth of firearms were stolen, which puts a lot more guns into the hands of criminals.

So? Is that not a good thing? Crime in general went down... crime, as a whole, was less. There was LESS crime.

Okay, murder and robbery with firearms increased, but before that it was just murder and robbery without firearms.

I fail to see your point.

Heh. No wonder this was ignored by the news people. A historically black university, created solely as a separate-but-equal school because the U of Delaware's racist founders, suffers a shooting and escapes news coverage?

Shocking.

*snip*

You realize that the bolding that you done just negated your points right? In other words, crimes are being done with stolen weapons. WOW! That's a shocker :rolleyes:

You don't know what you stated in your own posts, even after I linked them for you?

Okay, let's play your game:

Florida, which has issued more carry permits than any state (due to its large population and having had an RTC law since 1987) has issued over 1.2 million permits, yet in 2000, Florida had the highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states.

Sorry CH, you've been caught (again) selectively editing posts and taking them out of context.

Edit: And from one of the same threads CH linked to:

Nice ad hominen. :rolleyes:

You stated:
"guns prevent (depending on who's numbers you use) between 500,000 and 1,500,000 crimes per year"
Even you can't decide which numbers to use, so that is why I asked for a source.
Alaska has zero gun restrictions and a much higher rape rate than Canada. Correlation?

His version of the 'truth'.

Do you still want to play the "let's pull up partial quotes from 2 year old threads" game?


Now you're trying to change the subject. If I had made the claim that CCW reduced crime in Florida, you're post might have some relevance to the discussion. Since I didn't, it's false comparison. You may also notice that you're comparing a city to a state and ownership to CCW. Where are the crimes increasing? What percentage of the populations are CCW holders? Owners? Come on CH. If you're going to make a correlation, provide some better evidence than a crappy news article.

Sorry CH, you've never been caught of selectively editing posts and taking them out of context.

Now you're trying to change the subject, a very glorious if not pretentious move on your part. If I had made the claim that CCW reduced crime in Florida, you're post might have some relevance to the discussion. Since I didn't, it's true allusion. You may also notice that you're comparing a sovereign entity to a sovereign entity and ownership to CCW(whatever CCW is). Where are the crimes decreasing? What percentage of the populations are Carbon Chloride Wives holders? Pwners? Come on CH. If you're going to make a correlation, provide some better evidence than a crappy news article. Like yo.

I can see why he selectively edits posts though, it is much fun.

I can see why he selectively edits posts though, it is much fun.

LOL.

I can see why I masturbate over posts though, it is much fun.

Hey, you're right! :p

So? Is that not a good thing? Crime in general went down... crime, as a whole, was less. There was LESS crime.

Okay, murder and robbery with firearms increased, but before that it was just murder and robbery without firearms.

I fail to see your point.
You fail to see my point, because you missed the point of the article?

Violent crime is increasing and more so with firearms, so no, that is not a good news story, unless of course you like to trade off higher murder, robbery and aggravated assault rates with lower property crime.

Hey, you're right! :p

No, you're right! :D

No, you're right! :D

Well, that goes w/o saying.

Remind me to invest in Windex stock.

Anyway...

My dad really wants the girly AR-15 carbine version instead of the hardcore Israeli made Galil.

It makes me sad. :(

Well, that goes w/o saying.

Remind me to invest in Windex stock.

*reminds you*

*steals your windex*

You fail to see my point, because you missed the point of the article?

Violent crime is increasing and more so with firearms, so no, that is not a good news story, unless of course you like to trade off higher murder, robbery and aggravated assault rates with lower property crime.
I know I rather get shot than have my laptop stolen, well of course I would be shot and have my laptop stolen, but rather that than be alive :rolleyes:

Anyway...

My dad really wants the girly AR-15 carbine version instead of the hardcore Israeli made Galil.

It makes me sad. :(

You never answered my question. What's girly about the AR-15?

Sorry CH, you've been caught (again) selectively editing posts and taking them out of context.
I am not selectively editing your posts. That is against the rules, but I have noticed that you and Bann-ed are quilty of that.

I also do not believe that I have taken your quotes out of context either. You made the statements and I quoted them verbatim, using Ctrl C -- Ctrl V. Nice try. If you don't like what you stated, you can go back and edit those statements if you wish.

Do you still want to play the "let's pull up partial quotes from 2 year old threads" game?
You don't like what you said two years ago? You seem to be repeating the same messages today. Okay, let's try for more:

And yet crime in the US has decreased even though tens of thousands of people carry firearms legally.
And yet violent crime in Florida has increased even though over a million people carry firearms legally.

I am not selectively editing your posts. That is against the rules, but I have noticed that you and Bann-ed are quilty of that.


Oh. Pish-posh.

If you had read the quotes we selectively edited you would see it was meant to be humourous. We didn't do it to gain some underhanded edge in a debate.. we weren't even debating with eachother.

Crime is bad. We should stop crime. Or better yet, stop the reasons crimes are committed.

How it is done isn't all too relevant.

I am not selectively editing your posts. That is against the rules, but I have noticed that you and Bann-ed are quilty of that.
No, we've edited the content as intentional jokes. You just cut out the majority of the posts that don't fit your beliefs and make false claims.

I also do not believe that I have taken your quotes out of context either. You made the statements and I quoted them verbatim, using Ctrl C -- Ctrl V. Nice try. If you don't like what you stated, you can go back and edit those statements if you wish.

Oh, isn't that cute. CH is trying to justify him only using selectively chosen quotes out of entire posts.


You don't like what you said two years ago? You seem to be repeating the same messages today. Okay, let's try for more:
And yet violent crime in Florida has increased even though over a million people carry firearms legally.

That's right. No causality there either. Glad you're willing to admit you were wrong.

And since the poster I was replying to was claiming that more ccw = more crime, my post was accurate. Since I didn't claim CCW decreased crime, your post is another false comparison.

0 for 4 CH.

Hop for us some more as you troll through ancient threads. God you're pathetic.

I am not selectively editing your posts. That is against the rules, but I have noticed that you and Bann-ed are quilty of that.

I always knew you did not have a sense of humor.

And yet violent crime in Florida has increased even though over a million people carry firearms legally.

The fact that crime is down nationwide with an increase in people buying guns legally says alot.

No, we've edited the content as intentional jokes. You just cut out the majority of the posts that don't fit your beliefs and make false claims.

Oh, isn't that cute. CH is trying to justify him only using selectively chosen quotes out of entire posts.
Well of course I am only going to post the relevant statements that you have made. If I post the entire post, the salient point would be lost?

That's right. No causality there either. Glad you're willing to admit you were wrong.
Sorry Kec, but I did not make admission that I was wrong....that is only wishful thinking on your part?

And since the poster I was replying to was claiming that more ccw = more crime, my post was accurate. Since I didn't claim CCW decreased crime, your post is another false comparison.
So instead of proving that the poster was wrong, you threw in your own red herring, which failed to prove your point.

0 for 4 CH.
Your score card is wrong my friend. :D

Can you see why I might find the statements "I have two shotguns, two rifles and a pistol and if anyone tries to take them I'll shoot them" and "They're only for self-defence" just the tiniest bit unnerving?

When a person starts saying things like that, it's completely normal that you'd be worried. Heck, I might even be if I didn't know this was simply a case of internet anonymity + strong opinion = stupid comment.

Comments like this make gun owners sound a lot worse than most of them are, and it's a shame. Not a sensible one among them is any more violent than the norm. Yeah, there are some weirdos who say some pretty messed up things. But it's no different than a PETA member calling for the banning of meat, a fundamentalist damning gays, or a communist calling for a bloody revolution. It's just a general misunderstanding of firearms and the image the US has of them makes the gun nut that much scarier.

If Switzerland can have a gun in every home and still keep its spectacularly low crime rate, then the problem in the US probably lies not in the proliferation of firearms. What we need to do is stop arguing about semantics and spend all that extra hot air figuring out how to solve crime PERIOD.

I always knew you did not have a sense of humor.
My friends tell me that I have a great sense of humour. :)

The fact that crime is down nationwide with an increase in people buying guns legally says alot.
What exactly does it say?

Edit: I am patiently awaiting your reply.

Well of course I am only going to post the relevant statements that you have made. If I post the entire post, the salient point would be lost?

hop
Sorry Kec, but I did not make admission that I was wrong....that is only wishful thinking on your part?

hop

So instead of proving that the poster was wrong, you threw in your own red herring, which failed to prove your point.

hop

Your score card is wrong my friend. :D

hoppity hop hop little bunny.

Go find some more threads to selectively quote from.

Canuck, do you even own a gun?

hop

hop

hop

hoppity hop hop little bunny.

Go find some more threads to selectively quote from.
Interesting......we have you down to 3 letter responses. :p

Never underestimate the bunny (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg)!! :D

Canuck, do you even own a gun?
The short answer is no. The long answer is noooooooooooooooooo.

Interesting......we have you down to 3 letter responses. :p

Any more would be to confusing for you.

Never underestimate the bunny (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg)!! :D

Living in a fantasy. Just what we expected.

My friends tell me that I have a great sense of humour. :)

Judging by what you stated about the edited for humor posts, I doubt it.

What exactly does it say?

Edit: I am patiently awaiting your reply.

Um it says that crime is um well I don know, DOWN?

Any more would be to confusing for you.



Living in a fantasy. Just what we expected.

Zing.
Burn.
Zang..
weee..woohoo..

Alright, I think this topic is officially dead, lets bury it before it spontaneously combusts.

Into flames, if no one got that..

The short answer is no. The long answer is noooooooooooooooooo.

:rolleyes:

Gun control threads need to be left to people who actually own guns but treat them with respect.

Therefore, gun-toting rednecks proclaiming how the 2nd amendment protects freedom and people who are mortified at the mere thought of shooting them need to leave the thread, seeing as how neither would ever be willing to meet some sort of compromise.

Judging by what you stated about the edited for humor posts, I doubt it.
You calling my friends liars?

Um it says that crime is um well I don know, DOWN?
Actually it has started to increase lately, but yeah, crime has been decreasing. Now, exactly what caused the crime to decrease?

:rolleyes:

Gun control threads need to be left to people who actually own guns but treat them with respect.
Then there wouldn't be any gun control threads?

Therefore, gun-toting rednecks proclaiming how the 2nd amendment protects freedom and people who are mortified at the mere thought of shooting them need to leave the thread, seeing as how neither would ever be willing to meet some sort of compromise.
The gun control gang needs to hang in there in order to gain more of a foothold in the quest for security.

You calling my friends liars?


Actually it has started to increase lately, but yeah, crime has been decreasing. Now, exactly what caused the crime to decrease?

I think he is calling you a liar, which may be the same thing. :p

Crime is down because...of guns! Once someone gets killed by a gun, they can't be robbed or killed again, whereas if they are robbed once they can be robbed again and/or killed. Guns reduce crime because guns reduce victims.
How is that for hot and wild speculation? :)

I think he is calling you a liar, which may be the same thing. :p

Crime is down because...of guns! Once someone gets killed by a gun, they can't be robbed or killed again, whereas if they are robbed once they can be robbed again and/or killed. Guns reduce crime because guns reduce victims.
How is that for hot and wild speculation? :)
Speculation? More like your opinion, unless of course you can prove that more guns = less crime. Good luck.

Speculation? More like your opinion, unless of course you can prove that more guns = less crime. Good luck.

No, you see, that was speculation. It is not my opinion. I was speculating.
Therefore, it was speculation.

]Actually it has started to increase lately, but yeah, crime has been decreasing. Now, exactly what caused the crime to decrease?

It could be any number of things. Better police visibility, less people willing to commit crimes, the lunar tides, tea leaves, etc.

So you're admitting that even though there are more CCW holders, crime has been going down until recently (negating the more guns definitely = more crime theory)?

Well some think that you can sort of prove the opposite by citing DC and other cities with similar bans and similar results but I'm whilling to just dismiss that as nothing but correlation and blame the people committing the crimes rather than the wheapon they wheild. I guess I'm just wheird like that.

You confuse me whith you're italicized h's.

Though I agree with you.

Speculation? More like your opinion, unless of course you can prove that more guns = less crime. Good luck.
Well some think that you can sort of prove the opposite by citing DC and other cities with similar bans and similar results but I'm whilling to just dismiss that as nothing but correlation and blame the people committing the crimes rather than the wheapon they wheild. I guess I'm just wheird like that.

Then there wouldn't be any gun control threads?

Well there could be, but it would only be for people who really know what to think of the matter.

No more of, "GUNZ R EVIL!"

"NO THEY'RE NOT, THEY PROTECT FREEDOM!"

And then of course, the thread amounts to nothing short of a war of attrition using words.

The gun control gang needs to hang in there in order to gain more of a foothold in the quest for security.

Gun control will not work in the USA, not now anyway.

Unless of course, people were better understand and respect firearms, but I think that died out somewhere between 1940 and 1959.

It could be any number of things. Better police visibility, less people willing to commit crimes, the lunar tides, tea leaves, etc.
Also longer jail terms, more people in jail, abortion liberalization, the longest consecutive post-war economic expansion in the 90's, instituting background checks, closing down illegal FFLs, an aging population, additions to police forces, etc.

So you're admitting that even though there are more CCW holders, crime has been going down until recently (negating the more guns definitely = more crime theory)?
I have admitted nothing.

BTW, although more guns were sold, I believe that the number of gun owners actually declined percentage wise.

Well there could be, but it would only be for people who really know what to think of the matter.
Only gun owners "really know what to think of the matter"?

Give me a break.

Only gun owners "really know what to think of the matter"?

Give me a break.

Yeah... The responsible ones not in the NRA anyhow.

To understand the problem (deaths caused by guns) you must understand the gun.

Yeah... The responsible ones not in the NRA anyhow.

To understand the problem (deaths caused by guns) you must understand the gun.
So to discuss gun control, then I would have to purchase a gun, so that I can understand the gun and the problem? Ummmm no thanks.

I understand the gun quite well. You put bullets in and squeeze the trigger, and you either kill/wound people/animals or you put holes in little paper targets.

I have admitted nothing.

BTW, although more guns were sold, I believe that the number of gun owners actually declined percentage wise.

You said in your post (that I'd quoted), "Actually it has started to increase lately, but yeah, crime has been decreasing. Now, exactly what caused the crime to decrease?".

That sounds like an admission to me. Also, the rate of increase of gun owners is about 1% annually, and the number of states that have CCW laws has increased as well (bringing more CCW holders).

Again I ask you, are you finally admitting that even though there are more CCW holders, crime has been going down until recently (negating the more guns definitely = more crime theory)?

Yeah... The responsible ones not in the NRA anyhow.

To understand the problem (deaths caused by guns) you must understand the gun.

Hey, I'm one of the responsible ones, but I'm in the NRA.

So to discuss gun control, then I would have to purchase a gun, so that I can understand the gun and the problem? Ummmm no thanks.

I understand the gun quite well. You put bullets in and squeeze the trigger, and you either kill/wound people/animals or you put holes in little paper targets.

Some people that own firearms never fire them. They're called collectors, and if they were to fire certain firearms, the value would actually go down.

Yeah... The responsible ones not in the NRA anyhow.

To understand the problem (deaths caused by guns) you must understand the gun.

I don't follow the mind-numbingly pointless exchanges in all these threads between a certain pair of posters, so I may be misreading what you mean by 'responsible.'

Responsible gun owners, who are concerned with safety and the legitimate, lawful use of firearms are more often than not members of the NRA, and constitute its large base.

People responsible for gun crime are ordinarily -not- members of the NRA.

Your voodoo about "understand the gun" sounds pretty pointless. Are you a gun designer by avocation? A gunsmith?

Perhaps you've spent a long life in the military or in an armed civilian field?

What specifically are you trying to say when you type "understand the gun?"

It could be any number of things. Better police visibility, less people willing to commit crimes, the lunar tides, tea leaves, etc.

So you're admitting that even though there are more CCW holders, crime has been going down until recently (negating the more guns definitely = more crime theory)?

Seems like it to me.

Well some think that you can sort of prove the opposite by citing DC and other cities with similar bans and similar results but I'm whilling to just dismiss that as nothing but correlation and blame the people committing the crimes rather than the wheapon they wheild. I guess I'm just wheird like that.

Exactly. People commit crimes. Not inadament objects.

Exactly. People commit crimes. Not inadament objects.

I don't know corny... they do say that apathy kills.

I don't know corny... they do say that apathy kills.

I'ld reply to that but I don't care eno... URK!!!

You said in your post (that I'd quoted), "Actually it has started to increase lately, but yeah, crime has been decreasing. Now, exactly what caused the crime to decrease?".
I listed several possibilities in my previous post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13078277&postcount=232).

That sounds like an admission to me.
And admission of what?

Also, the rate of increase of gun owners is about 1% annually, and the number of states that have CCW laws has increased as well (bringing more CCW holders).
You have supporting data?

Again I ask you, are you finally admitting that even though there are more CCW holders, crime has been going down until recently (negating the more guns definitely = more crime theory)?
Ummmm.....I am not finally admitting anything of that nature.

Seems like it to me.
Ummmmm......I am still awaiting YOUR reply to this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13078190&postcount=223).

"I have no reason to think gun control laws will stop gun crime, but given the fact that concealed weapons don't emit constant "Calm emotions" and "Disable other guns" spells..."

In a manner of speaking, they do. Criminals readily admit that a perception of an easy mark is part of the mental equation of whether to commit the crime or not. Suspicion that the mark may be armed and/or dangerous, even if that suspicion is only operating at the subconscious level, lessens the probability of an attack.

Dogs have a similar effect.

Ummmmm......I am still awaiting YOUR reply to this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13078190&postcount=223).

Um yea. I already responded. not my fault you ignored it and now, you are trying to move the goalposts. Typical of you CH.

Um yea. I already responded. not my fault you ignored it and now, you are trying to move the goalposts. Typical of you CH.
You responded with rhetoric and zero facts to back your claim. I haven't moved any goalposts....you are evading the answer.

You responded with rhetoric and zero facts to back your claim. I haven't moved any goalposts....you are evading the answer.

Crime is going down nationwide. Is it spiking? That i will wait for the current report to come out. You did admit that crime was dropping and yet, you try to deny it. Admit that crime dropped and I will answer your question.

"I have no reason to think gun control laws will stop gun crime, but given the fact that concealed weapons don't emit constant "Calm emotions" and "Disable other guns" spells..."

In a manner of speaking, they do. Criminals readily admit that a perception of an easy mark is part of the mental equation of whether to commit the crime or not. Suspicion that the mark may be armed and/or dangerous, even if that suspicion is only operating at the subconscious level, lessens the probability of an attack.

Dogs have a similar effect.
Somehow, your analogy fails in regards to the recent (2006) crime increase in Florida (http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/UCR/2006/CIF_annual06.pdf), where residents have been issued over 1 Million CCW permits and also despite the fact that Florida has enacted a "castle doctrine", "Stand Your Ground" law (2005).

Murder increased 28% overall, but with firearms, that increased 42%.

Robbery increased 13.4% overall, but with a firearm it increased 20.2%

Aggravated Assault increased 0.1%, but with a firearm it increased 5.8%

Forced Burglary increased 3.6% and Attemped Entry increased 8.5%, despite the castle doctrine.