NationStates Jolt Archive

He used "could have", basically it's a fact if there's a chance of it occurring, it doesn't necessarily have to be a reasonable one.

That's not a "fact", that would be a "hypothesis".

To Americans it is, whether you think it should be or not is another matter entirely

Even to Americans it's not a "fundamental human right".

In any case, a CCW could not have stopped either of them, because they did not. THAT is factual.

:confused:


So, since it was not possible for someone with a CCW to be there, then that means that if the laws preventing someone with a CCW to carry there didn't exist, there still would be no way for said person to have affected the outcome?

You don't seem to really get it. It doesn't matter. The argument exists in one place and one place only. If there is a compelling public interest for the removal of firearms, your desire to shoot targets takes a back seat.

The second amendment was never intended to protect your "right" to shoot targets. It was very clearly created for self-defense against enemies both foreign and domestic. The argument is going to be won or lost on whether or not that right outweighs public interest. So far, I've not seen it demonstrated that there is a public interest in denying people pistols. However, talking about how you wish to collect guns or use them for recreation has naught to do with the second amendment.

Yes, actually it does, if the 2nd Amendment is repealed then he would no longer have the right to keep and bear arms, thusly making his hobby illegal.

A condition where more strict gun laws WOULD have prevented the loss of life at vt/niu is known to have existed. You keep the argument on these grounds and you lose.

Can you say with 100% certainty that if the shooters at Virginia Tech and NIU would not have been able to get their weapons illegally? This is the level of proof you seem to be asking for from NG and Trollgaard.

Even to Americans it's not a "fundamental human right".

OK, to some Americans...

I would of course maintain that it is not I, but Cho Sung Hui and whatever other scumbag was responsible for NIU who have shown the problem inherent in gun-free zones.


I would argue that Steve and Cho have shown the problem inherant in our lack of gun control, as their guns were obtained legally.



You can read these situations however you like, just dont expect others to agree with your reading.

In recent years?

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1024078861416

"The students, Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross, had worked as police officers in North Carolina before moving to Grundy. Both said they ran to their cars and grabbed weapons when the shooting started on the second floor of the law school.

They, along with two other students, approached Odighizuwa in front of the law school. Bridges and Gross both told reporters that they raised their guns at Odighizuwa and he dropped his weapon, after which the group tackled and handcuffed him. "

Don't you think it's pretty obvious why these stories are hard to find? It doesn't exactly enforce the viewpoint the media wants. It's incredible that this didn't get more coverage.



This article doesnt show that CCW would help. It shows that people with police training help. The reason they were effective Id wager is because they had worked as police officers, and therefore their training is what helped.

If everyone had police training, CCW would be fine. But everyone doesnt.

I also like your "teh ebil liberal media" comment you slipped in at the end. Bravo.

Yes, actually it does, if the 2nd Amendment is repealed then he would no longer have the right to keep and bear arms, thusly making his hobby illegal.

You miss the point. The actually freedom it guarantees has naught to do with collecting or hunting. The right's purpose is clear, and, frankly, how useful it is for hunting or how valuable to collect would not be balanced into the right versus compelling public interest equation.

I can say it's a certainty that the shooter would not have had legal weapons. That I can say. Until you can show that he had the ability to acquire guns on the black market, it's logical to assume that making it impossible for him to go into a store and buy it would have deterred him.

I'm asking? Where? I'm saying they are wildly speculating. Point to where I asked them to prove that someone would have stopped the massacre if the laws were different. I didn't ask for it, because it's impossible. All things being equal, we have plenty of reason to assume the massacre would still have occurred if guns were allowed on campus. All things being equal, we have plenty of reason to assume the massacre would not have occurred if guns were illegal in the US.

He acquired nothing on the black market. It is nothing but wild speculation to assume that he would have had access and used it. Frankly, if you like losing arguments, keep arguing on these terms. There is no rational way to argue that allowing weapons on campus was more likely to have prevented the shooting than completely outlawing guns. Arguing otherwise requires unsupported and wild claims.

My apologies then, I read into your posts that which was not there.

Can you say with 100% certainty that if the shooters at Virginia Tech and NIU would not have been able to get their weapons illegally? This is the level of proof you seem to be asking for from NG and Trollgaard.

I can say it's a certainty that the shooter would not have had legal weapons. That I can say. Until you can show that he had the ability to acquire guns on the black market, it's logical to assume that making it impossible for him to go into a store and buy it would have deterred him.

I'm asking? Where? I'm saying they are wildly speculating. Point to where I asked them to prove that someone would have stopped the massacre if the laws were different. I didn't ask for it, because it's impossible. All things being equal, we have plenty of reason to assume the massacre would still have occurred if guns were allowed on campus. All things being equal, we have plenty of reason to assume the massacre would not have occurred if guns were illegal in the US.

He acquired nothing on the black market. It is nothing but wild speculation to assume that he would have had access and used it. Frankly, if you like losing arguments, keep arguing on these terms. There is no rational way to argue that allowing weapons on campus was more likely to have prevented the shooting than completely outlawing guns. Arguing otherwise requires unsupported and wild claims.

I'm saying that there was time between the periods where he fired the gun and then again before he surrendered while still moving in the complex, he didn't just empty his gun and run away, he might not have known it was empty. Even if he did, it doesn't change the fact that they would have simply killed him if hadn't surrendered and the gun was still loaded.

So basically, you can actually show a case where armed men were able to stop one of these massacres. Stopping it after it happened is, well, a confusion of terms. They stopped him from, uh, firing the lack of bullets he had. Yay.

I love when gun nuts refuse to actually fight on the grounds they can win on, instead choosing to just completely obscure the truth.

And the whole thing about not knowing the people he surrendered to were armed is just ridiculous. Unidentified witnesses indeed.

And you tell me why this school shooting, unlike the others was not all over the national press and it's hard to even find a source that reported on it? You tell me why?

Yes, it's a giant conspiracy against all that you love. Obviously.

Jacobia, being evasive and trying to change the subject doesn't work with me, ask KOL.

Why do you think it didn't make national news? I'd like to hear that.

Jacobia, being evasive and trying to change the subject doesn't work with me, ask KOL.

Why do you think it didn't make national news? I'd like to hear that.


No one is being evasive and changing the subject.


But Joc, I can tell you that reasoning, logic, and asking for sources for outragious claims doesnt work with him.

Jacobia, being evasive and trying to change the subject doesn't work with me, ask KOL.

Why do you think it didn't make national news? I'd like to hear that.

Hehe. Hmmm... must be a conspiracy. Or it could be that your entire premise based on ignorance.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/16/national/main324588.shtml

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00EEDC1F38F93BA25752C0A9649C8B63

http://media.www.michigandaily.com/media/storage/paper851/news/2002/01/17/News/Angry.Law.Student.Kills.3.In.Virginia-1404965.shtml

http://media.www.michigandaily.com/media/storage/paper851/news/2002/01/17/News/Angry.Law.Student.Kills.3.In.Virginia-1404965.shtml

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,43254,00.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/16/law.school.shooting/

http://www.nigeriamasterweb.com/NigerianKills3.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1764964.stm

Oops, those last two are international. Yeah, it's probably a conspiracy. Put back on the tinfoil hat. There's nothing to see here.

So, now we've adequately established that you cannot cite a case where a private citizen prevented or stopped a massacre with a gun. Not only have established that, but we've also established that it's my job to discover for you whether or not something made national and even international news. Anything else you need me to establish?

This was just one case. I already said to do the research yourself. If you think that has never been an armed gunman who was stopped by an armed citizen, there's nothing more to discuss. See the signature.

And notice how in the BBC article they don't mention that he was stopped by armed citizens, but just mention that he was "tackled." I don't think that was done on purpose.

This was just one case. I already said to do the research yourself.





But Joc, I can tell you that...asking for sources for outragious claims doesnt work with him.

I warned you Joc.


And notice how in the BBC article they don't mention that he was stopped by armed citizens, but just mention that he was "tackled." I don't think that was done on purpose.
And I like how he still puts a conspericy spin on it. Youre right man, teh ebil liberal media is out to destroy everything you love. They want your guns, women, property, and manhood.

This was just one case. I already said to do the research yourself. If you think that has never been an armed gunman who was stopped by an armed citizen, there's nothing more to discuss. See the signature.

And notice how in the BBC article they don't mention that he was stopped by armed citizens, but just mention that he was "tackled." I don't think that was done on purpose.

Pardon me? You want me to do what research? I have to find every case of a massacre and show it wasn't stopped. You can't find a case, so now you claim it's my problem? How very sad.

If there has ever been a case where an armed gunman was stopped while on a killing spree, simply find it. Show me a massacre that was averted or stopped due to the presence of another gun. It's a simple request.

And, no, not your strawman claim. No one here claimed a gun has never stopped an armed gunman. Several people said that this case proved that gun laws were the problem. If this is true, show ANY case where an armed citiizen stopped one.

By the way, the change of goalposts is beautiful. Just pretend like you never said it wasn't reported nationally. No one will notice you're lying.

Pardon me? You want me to do what research? I have to find every case of a massacre and show it wasn't stopped. You can't find a case, so now you claim it's my problem? How very sad.

If there has ever been a case where an armed gunman was stopped while on a killing spree, simply find it. Show me a massacre that was averted or stopped due to the presence of another gun. It's a simple request.

And, no, not your strawman claim. No one here claimed a gun has never stopped an armed gunman. Several people said that this case proved that gun laws were the problem. If this is true, show ANY case where an armed citiizen stopped one.

By the way, the change of goalposts is beautiful. Just pretend like you never said it wasn't reported nationally. No one will notice you're lying.

I know there have been plenty of cases where an armed citizen has stopped criminals, I'm simply not going to spend hours of my day doing research to prove what I already know and anyone that enters a discussion on this subject should already. Hence why I say that I'm not going to list sources to prove it gets dark at night.

You are accusing me of trying to strawman you?

Honestly, you had never heard of the shooting I mentioned right? You can find millions of pages on Virginia Tech, Columbine, Jonesboro, NIU now and the other school shootings, but not this one in particular, what makes it so different? The fact that gunman was subdued by armed citizens? I wonder why it didn't get anywhere near the same coverage?

And I never said it wasn't reported nationally at all in some obscure articles, I meant it wasn't all over the news and you can't find endless sources about it.

To Americans it is, whether you think it should be or not is another matter entirely
Americans have a right to forming state militias, just in case the big old bad federal government starts to hurt the wee little states.

I don't believe (although I could be wrong, and would welcome any proof that I am) the Supreme Court has ever ruled that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own firearms. There's one that could change this, District of Columbia v. Heller or someone with a name like Heller which is on the docket. The only other case I can think of, United States v. Miller, said it was not unreasonable for the federal government to regulate firearms sales.
At the same time, I am very sure that the Court has never said, "we should ban firearms," or even "it is not unconsitutional to ban firearms." The case coming up may change that.

Yes, the Second Amendment is about the people being allowed to have militias.

As I said before, the very idea of actually having to make a law saying you could own a firearm in the 18th century would be as ridiculous as writing an Amendment that says you have the right to own a chair. It would never even occur to them that people would be stupid enough to think that guns are responsible for their owners actions and punish other people because of the criminals who use them. That's why there was no gun control at all for over 150 years. Yeah, the founding fathers and their disciples were really anti-gun.

Yes, the Second Amendment is about the people being allowed to have militias.

As I said before, the very idea of actually having to make a law saying you could own a firearm in the 18th century would be as ridiculous as writing an Amendment that says you have the right to own a chair. It would never even occur to them that people be stupid enough to think that guns are responsible for their owners actions. That's why there was no gun control at all for over 150 years. Yeah, the founding fathers and their disciples were really anti-gun.

Oh, I'm very sure the Founding Fathers were not anti-gun, or even for gun control. But I do think it is wrong to use what is the closest thing to America's Ten Commandments as a reason for, say, giving AK-47s to preschoolers. (I'm exaggerating, but you get the point. The Second Amendment is irrelevant for the most part when discussing gun control.)

I wasn't addressing your post with the second paragraph, I was agreeing with you that the Amendment wasn't written specifically about individual gun ownership. However, many that believe that seem to automatically assume that the government has the right to disarm people because an 18th century document doesn't give you the right. Or vice-versa. People saying you have a right to own a gun because of the constitution. That's ridiculous. You have the right to own a gun in the same way that you have the right to own anything, it's common sense that a person has a right to defend their home and themselves.

:confused:


So, since it was not possible for someone with a CCW to be there, then that means that if the laws preventing someone with a CCW to carry there didn't exist, there still would be no way for said person to have affected the outcome?
No, the fact of the case is that a CCW did NOT stop them, why that might be or what might have happen if that why was different is speculation. The first part can be answerable should we ever find someone who was a CCW and actually there, they could give their reason be it the gun free zone laws, being asleep in class, getting a blow job behind the bushes, whatever. What might have happen however is ONLY speculation.

I might ask if Hitler's art was liked and he became a respectable artist, could WWII have happen then, but that does not make my speculation a fact by any means, just a what if.

I know there have been plenty of cases where an armed citizen has stopped criminals, I'm simply not going to spend hours of my day doing research to prove what I already know and anyone that enters a discussion on this subject should already. Hence why I say that I'm not going to list sources to prove it gets dark at night.
Translation: I don't know and I'm not going to show it.

Missed the whole water boarding discussion did we? I spend 5 pages arguing that I don't have to provide sources for something they should already know, then I get pissed and actually do it and conversation dies and it comes right back up on the next subject. It's simply not going to happen again as I said then. You should know the times when an armed citizen has prevented a robbery or a shooting if you are going to discuss the subject, not just sit back and believe what you want.

It just amuses me that ignorant people want others to spend hours on a computer to prove something that they should already know.

The LCD in force.

Missed the whole water boarding discussion did we? I spend 5 pages arguing that I don't have to provide sources for something they should already know, then I get pissed and actually do it and conversation dies and it comes right back up on the next subject. It's simply not going to happen again as I said then. You should know the times when an armed citizen has prevented a robbery or a shooting if you are going to discuss the subject, not just sit back and believe what you want.

It just amuses me that ignorant people want others to spend hours on a computer to prove something that they should already know.

The LCD in force.
Well I KNOW that Bigfoot works at the school I teach. I'm not going to show any evidence for this because you should already know about it. And since I know it, it's the TRUTH!

Please, you attempt at dodging the issue because you cannot find evidence is very transparent.

And amusing.

Missed the whole water boarding discussion did we? I spend 5 pages arguing that I don't have to provide sources for something they should already know, then I get pissed and actually do it and conversation dies and it comes right back up on the next subject. It's simply not going to happen again as I said then. You should know the times when an armed citizen has prevented a robbery or a shooting if you are going to discuss the subject, not just sit back and believe what you want.

It just amuses me that ignorant people want others to spend hours on a computer to prove something that they should already know.

The LCD in force.


First, of all, it didnt prove anything during that discussion. It was one CIA guy admitting that we waterboarded someone and he told us things. No where did it say if these things were accurate, which is exactly what we were debating. The conversation never died down, we just didnt buy your BS and you left, as you always do when the opposition gets too tough.

Second of all, the point stands that the burdon of proof is on the person making the claim. Especially when their claim is bullshit.

Missed the whole water boarding discussion did we? I spend 5 pages arguing that I don't have to provide sources for something they should already know

By this reasoning:

You are a pedophile, a rapist, a terrorist, and a peddler of drugs. I need not provide evidence or sources because everyone should know.

You cannot argue otherwise, because everyone should know it to be true.

Unless of course, you're a hypocrite and a liar.

Ummmm No.

You disagree that a person should possess a certain amount of knowledge about something before joining a discussion about it?

I mean if I showed up in a discussion about Cuba and started asking people to prove that Cuba is communist, that Castro is a dictator, that the Soviet Union made favorable trade deals with them and that they had strict control over the media, would you just start spending hours doing research on something that I already know before giving an opinion?

If you honestly believe that an armed citizen has never prevented a crime or stopped a gunman, then there's nothing to discuss really, because you know nothing about the situation.

Yes, actually it does, if the 2nd Amendment is repealed then he would no longer have the right to keep and bear arms, thusly making his hobby illegal.

That's not the point of the second amendment though, the fact that the hobby of gun collecting and target shooting would be outlawed if our right to bear armed were infringed is not the crux of the issue.

Each American could be issued a semiautomatic handgun and an m16 rifle and all other firearm ownership could be banned, which would not, in my opinion, infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, even though it would destroy the hobby of gun collecting.

The second amendment gives us the right to have deadly weapons for the purpose of killing people, to protect and secure our freedom.

Hunting isn't mentioned, neither is target shooting.

Candy-coating it doesn't help, the fact is that the law protects deadly weapons designed specifically to kill, both the right to keep them and the right to bear them, to use them against people who threaten our lives.

If you're looking for that, get an Olympic model then. Like I said, target practice is a weak-argument to lean on.


Where's that damn fish? :p

Yes, I KNOW it's a pistol, a rather large one at that. That's the point, the Desert Eagle was designed with one thing in mind, killing someone else. A Winchester .30-30 however is aimed (if you'll pardon the pun) at deer hunting. Now one CAN attempt to kill a man with a .30-30, and you COULD go after deer with a Desert Eagle, but that's not what they were meant for, which is what I was after in my def of hunting rifle.

Target shooting isn't a weak argument at all. Many people do it, and it's an enjoyable sport. Also, IIRC Olympic model target firearms are .22 LR, and that really doesn't have the range necessary for longer distance target shooting (.22 LR wouldn't be useful at longer ranges at the local private range, as it has a 400 yard backstop).

Americans have a right to forming state militias, just in case the big old bad federal government starts to hurt the wee little states.

I don't believe (although I could be wrong, and would welcome any proof that I am) the Supreme Court has ever ruled that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own firearms. There's one that could change this, District of Columbia v. Heller or someone with a name like Heller which is on the docket. The only other case I can think of, United States v. Miller, said it was not unreasonable for the federal government to regulate firearms sales.
At the same time, I am very sure that the Court has never said, "we should ban firearms," or even "it is not unconsitutional to ban firearms." The case coming up may change that.

Until the DC ban case is settled in the Supreme Court, I guess we'll have to go with the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and by the US Department of Justice article. BTW, both state that the second amendment applies to individuals.

I'm simply not going to spend hours of my day doing research to prove what I already know and anyone that enters a discussion on this subject should already.
If it would really take you "hours" to find a single instance of what you are talking about, then obviously, it is not so common that you should expect everyone to have heard about it. (Personally? I wouldn't be surprised if such a thing as an armed bystander stopping one of these rampage-gunmen had occurred, at least once; but no, I have never heard of such a thing, and don't think it at all unreasonable to ask you to come up with an instance, if you claim it is real.)

If it would really take you "hours" to find a single instance of what you are talking about, then obviously, it is not so common that you should expect everyone to have heard about it. (Personally? I wouldn't be surprised if such a thing as an armed bystander stopping one of these rampage-gunmen had occurred, at least once; but no, I have never heard of such a thing, and don't think it at all unreasonable to ask you to come up with an instance, if you claim it is real.)

Whatever the number might be the number of murders with guns is much higher i'm sure.

You disagree that a person should possess a certain amount of knowledge about something before joining a discussion about it?

No. A person should back up any claims they make with evidence and proof.


I mean if I showed up in a discussion about Cuba and started asking people to prove that Cuba is communist, that Castro is a dictator, that the Soviet Union made favorable trade deals with them and that they had strict control over the media, would you just start spending hours doing research on something that I already know before giving an opinion?

This is a pathetic dodge. You make a claim, it is up to you to prove it, not make other people do so.


If you honestly believe that an armed citizen has never prevented a crime or stopped a gunman, then there's nothing to discuss really, because you know nothing about the situation.

You know nothing about the ethics of debating, and dare to demand that others back up your claims?

Pedophile rapist. That is what you are. I need not back any this claim with evidence as it is by your definition, "common knowledge".

Take your pick. Either you are a pedophile rapist, because no one needs to back a claim with evidence under the claim of "common knowledge" of which the definition belongs solely to the claimant, or you are a hypocrite and a liar.

Until the DC ban case is settled in the Supreme Court, I guess we'll have to go with the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and by the US Department of Justice article. BTW, both state that the second amendment applies to individuals.

I don't think anything short of the Supreme Court is final. Those cases can certainly be used as precedent for other cases, but I don't believe anyone outside of D.C. is required to listen to the appeals court of D.C. I don't think the Dept. of Justice article can be used for anything, except evidence the executive branch interprets the second amendment this way.
But I don't know. Could someone more versed in the law (The Cat-Tribe, perhaps) tell me whether the decision of lower courts affects laws outside of their district?

Second of all, the point stands that the burdon of proof is on the person making the claim. Especially when their claim is bullshit.
Yes, the burden of proof is on the person who is making a claim. The rebels of the Revolutionary war could not have won our freedom without guns and a .38 slug in the brain stops rape in an instant. Going to tell me that's bullshit?

Let's have a looksee at what the Second Amendement to the United States Constitution actually says.

"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."

That's it, not a lot of words, just very specific ones. It does not mean that the states have a right to maintain a well-regulated militia. Look at the words.

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."
Sure, you need an organized military force to defend your country but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This is the people in contrast with the militia. It doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" it says "the right of the people". Now why the word people? Because the people who wrote this had just fought a war for 2 years against a tyranical state militia. They knew the time might come when they'd have to do that again so they made the posession of weapons a right that the militia could never take away. It's the same people in the first amendment, the fourth, ninth, and tenth. Incidentally you'd have to toss out the first and the fourth to effectively enforce getting rid of the second because they protect the free speech needed to spread the information needed for the assembly of improvised firearms and the privacy needed to produce them.

Missed the whole water boarding discussion did we? I spend 5 pages arguing that I don't have to provide sources for something they should already know, then I get pissed and actually do it and conversation dies and it comes right back up on the next subject.Then you would already have the sources handy and could bring them up again the next time.

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."
Sure, you need an organized military force to defend your country but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This is the people in contrast with the militia. It doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" it says "the right of the people". Now why the word people? Because the people who wrote this had just fought a war for 2 years against a tyranical state militia. They knew the time might come when they'd have to do that again so they made the posession of weapons a right that the militia could never take away. It's the same people in the first amendment, the fourth, ninth, and tenth. Incidentally you'd have to toss out the first and the fourth to effectively enforce getting rid of the second because they protect the free speech needed to spread the information needed for the assembly of improvised firearms and the privacy needed to produce them.
The state militias were not created to protect the country, they were created to protect the states against the country. The Constitution was created after the Articles of Confederation, which basically made each state an independent sovereignty. Even after the Constitution, plenty of politicians saw nothing wrong with a state going against the federal government; Jefferson, I believe, even wrote a resolution proclaiming the states could nullify federal laws they didn't like. If the situation came to blows, the states could protect themselves.
The idea lost steam when the situation actually came to blows. The Civil War was an instance of the government, eh, "settling out of court."

Yes, the burden of proof is on the person who is making a claim. The rebels of the Revolutionary war could not have won our freedom without guns and a .38 slug in the brain stops rape in an instant. .



Except when the rapist is also packing heat.

CCW advocates seem to forget that it wont only be the good guys carrying guns.

Except when the rapist is also packing heat.

Hrm.. I don't know about anyone else, but I read that in a very twisted way.

Yes, the burden of proof is on the person who is making a claim. The rebels of the Revolutionary war could not have won our freedom without guns and a .38 slug in the brain stops rape in an instant.

Rebels of the American Revolutionary war and .38 slug in the brain != armed citizen stopping robbery/shooting.

Hypothetical situations are not fact.

Target shooting isn't a weak argument at all. Many people do it, and it's an enjoyable sport. Also, IIRC Olympic model target firearms are .22 LR, and that really doesn't have the range necessary for longer distance target shooting (.22 LR wouldn't be useful at longer ranges at the local private range, as it has a 400 yard backstop).
But it is not one where a fully powered rifle or pistol is needed. If I may quote Major Kusanagi, if you want to target practice, hunt elephants over the horizon with a cruise missile. That's where it becomes a weak argument for needing anything other than an Olympic rifle or rubber band gun.

No, they don't in that a decision of the 9th Circuit would apply to state laws in Virgina. However, such decisions are usually referenced in other courts as reasons for their own judgments or for AG opinions.

For example, when the 9th declared that the Pledge violated the 1st Amendment, it only applied to the western states that are covered by the 9th.

That's what I thought, thank you.

Except when the rapist is also packing heat.

CCW advocates seem to forget that it wont only be the good guys carrying guns.
Right. Unless guns are outlawed; then, as the NRA says, "only outlaws will carry them." It's hard to argue with a tautology.

You know you are the liar here and you know it. Yeah, I'm sure you heard of that shooting and just wanted me to find it for you. Yeah.

Once again, about 5 spaces from the last post. Needs fixed.

But I don't know. Could someone more versed in the law (The Cat-Tribe, perhaps) tell me whether the decision of lower courts affects laws outside of their district.
No, they don't in that a decision of the 9th Circuit would apply to state laws in Virgina. However, such decisions are usually referenced in other courts as reasons for their own judgments or for AG opinions.

For example, when the 9th declared that the Pledge violated the 1st Amendment, it only applied to the western states that are covered by the 9th.

The bad guys already have guns. If they obeyed the law, they wouldn't be bad guys.

CCW by definition only arms additional law abiding citizens.



This is what makes me laugh. The solution to guns is more guns. So every crime has the potential to become a shoot out.

Target shooting isn't a weak argument at all. Many people do it, and it's an enjoyable sport. Also, IIRC Olympic model target firearms are .22 LR, and that really doesn't have the range necessary for longer distance target shooting (.22 LR wouldn't be useful at longer ranges at the local private range, as it has a 400 yard backstop).

That could be an argument to bring down range lengths rather then more powerful guns

Sports are a game of arbitrary rules which can be changed why not use a shorter range and a weaker gun to keep the ratio simmilar?

You know you are the liar here and you know it. Yeah, I'm sure you heard of that shooting and just wanted me to find it for you. Yeah.

Once again, about 5 spaces from the last post. Needs fixed.

I can assure you, to those of us on the sidelines, Joc is not the one who looks like the liar. The one who looks like the liar is the same guy who has managed to consitantly look like a liar.

Be a man and admit you were wrong. Saying the article was in fact nationally talked about does not invalidate your CCW arguement, just your "teh ebil liberal media" one.

Yes, because no one ever loses a gun? No one ever steals a gun? No one ever takes a gun from their parents, right? Where do you think criminals are getting these guns? Most of them are taken from law-abiding citizens.


Or they are guns that were gotten by them when they were law abiding citizens and then used towards unsavory means (the NIU shooter for example).

Except when the rapist is also packing heat.

CCW advocates seem to forget that it wont only be the good guys carrying guns.

The bad guys already have guns. If they obeyed the law, they wouldn't be bad guys.

CCW by definition only arms additional law abiding citizens.

I know there have been plenty of cases where an armed citizen has stopped criminals, I'm simply not going to spend hours of my day doing research to prove what I already know and anyone that enters a discussion on this subject should already. Hence why I say that I'm not going to list sources to prove it gets dark at night.

You are accusing me of trying to strawman you?

Yup. Except it's not a verb, but a noun. Apparently, you don't know what that is. We're not talking about criminals. We're talking about stopping a shooting spree. It shouldn't take "hours of your day" if it's so apparent. You don't provide evidence because there isn't any. What you provided so far is that armed men managed to arrive after the shooting was done. Yay, they prevented a bunch of clicking by the shooters gun.


Honestly, you had never heard of the shooting I mentioned right? You can find millions of pages on Virginia Tech, Columbine, Jonesboro, NIU now and the other school shootings, but not this one in particular, what makes it so different? The fact that gunman was subdued by armed citizens? I wonder why it didn't get anywhere near the same coverage?

Honestly? Yes, I've heard of it. Honestly? I proved it was in national news. Honestly? You were arguing from ignorance and I proved it. You still want to keep making the vast media conspiracy argument? Put your tinfoil hat back on.


And I never said it wasn't reported nationally at all in some obscure articles, I meant it wasn't all over the news and you can't find endless sources about it.

You're a liar. You said it wasn't reported nationally and challenged me to prove you wrong. I did. MEN admit when they're wrong.

Ummmm No.

You disagree that a person should possess a certain amount of knowledge about something before joining a discussion about it?

Nope. But you don't. You've been proven wrong repeatedly in this discussion. So with shot credibility, the burden of proof is on you, Bubba. So put up or shut up.


I mean if I showed up in a discussion about Cuba and started asking people to prove that Cuba is communist, that Castro is a dictator, that the Soviet Union made favorable trade deals with them and that they had strict control over the media, would you just start spending hours doing research on something that I already know before giving an opinion?

If you honestly believe that an armed citizen has never prevented a crime or stopped a gunman, then there's nothing to discuss really, because you know nothing about the situation.

No one said that, liar. That's a strawman. Now, how about you try providing evidence for what YOU said which is that an armed person has stopped a shooting spree. That's what was claimed. That's what you attempted to prove. And you were proven wrong. Changing the claim is an admission that you're wrong.

But it is not one where a fully powered rifle or pistol is needed. If I may quote Major Kusanagi, if you want to target practice, hunt elephants over the horizon with a cruise missile. That's where it becomes a weak argument for needing anything other than an Olympic rifle or rubber band gun.

I've never trusted anime as a good source of information or policy (it is, after all, fiction). If you're basing your stance about target shooting on something an anime character said, then I think it's your argument that's weak.

Both true. Finally, we're NEAR the heart of the issue. However, if you're going to claim that guns prevent crime, please prove it. The evidence is not on your side.

The Revolution example is kind of funny: according to the laws of the time, the revolt was a crime. It can go either way.

Once again, I'm reduced to playing gopher for the ignorant.

You have already been provided with the source about the VA Law shootings, so how about another one recently that made some press?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/index.html

Now tell if you feel like a drooling idiot for making me do research for you again? Or would you rather just claim you knew about this too?

Once again, I'm five spots from the bottom. Come on now.

The bad guys already have guns. If they obeyed the law, they wouldn't be bad guys.

CCW by definition only arms additional law abiding citizens.

Yes, because no one ever loses a gun? No one ever steals a gun? No one ever takes a gun from their parents, right? Where do you think criminals are getting these guns? Most of them are taken from law-abiding citizens.

That's not the point of the second amendment though, the fact that the hobby of gun collecting and target shooting would be outlawed if our right to bear armed were infringed is not the crux of the issue.

Each American could be issued a semiautomatic handgun and an m16 rifle and all other firearm ownership could be banned, which would not, in my opinion, infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, even though it would destroy the hobby of gun collecting.

The second amendment gives us the right to have deadly weapons for the purpose of killing people, to protect and secure our freedom.
Hunting isn't mentioned, neither is target shooting.

Candy-coating it doesn't help, the fact is that the law protects deadly weapons designed specifically to kill, both the right to keep them and the right to bear them, to use them against people who threaten our lives.

Yay, someone was paying attention in constitution class. Nice, NG.

Yes, the burden of proof is on the person who is making a claim. The rebels of the Revolutionary war could not have won our freedom without guns and a .38 slug in the brain stops rape in an instant. Going to tell me that's bullshit?

Both true. Finally, we're NEAR the heart of the issue. However, if you're going to claim that guns prevent crime, please prove it. The evidence is not on your side. Not that you need to make that claim, which is why gun advocates shouldn't. It's a stupid argument for them to make. As long as gun advocates don't make claims, the burden of proof lies on those who want to infringe on your rights. Unfortunately, many, many gun nuts like Eric don't understand that if you claim guns stop shooting sprees, then you have to provide evidence.

That could be an argument to bring down range lengths rather then more powerful guns

Sports are a game of arbitrary rules which can be changed why not use a shorter range and a weaker gun to keep the ratio simmilar?

Because what happens when a hunter needs to make a 350-400 yard shot in order to bag that deer, elk, moose, antelope, bighorn sheep, etc. If they can't practice at the distances they're likely to shoot animals at, then any practice they do get isn't as beneficial. Since I have to use the same ranges as the hunters, I have to be able to hit the targets out to that range as well (since I can't move forward to compensate for a weaker firearm, as that would lead to an unsafe condition of shooters firing behind me in my general direction).

The state militias were not created to protect the country, they were created to protect the states against the country. The Constitution was created after the Articles of Confederation, which basically made each state an independent sovereignty. Even after the Constitution, plenty of politicians saw nothing wrong with a state going against the federal government; Jefferson, I believe, even wrote a resolution proclaiming the states could nullify federal laws they didn't like. If the situation came to blows, the states could protect themselves.
The idea lost steam when the situation actually came to blows. The Civil War was an instance of the government, eh, "settling out of court."

Yes, exactly. The problem becomes that it's no longer possible for the second amendment to truly protect the people from the state. A well-armed militia is totally impossible. Therein lies the rub with the US having such a powerful military.

Once again, I'm reduced to playing gopher for the ignorant.

You have already been provided with the source about the VA Law shootings, so how about another one recently that made some press?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/index.html

Now tell if you feel like a drooling idiot for making me do research for you again? Or would you rather just claim you knew about this too?

Once again, I'm five spots from the bottom. Come on now.



Ok, there are two problems with that...

One, it was a security guard, so that doesnt apply to your claim that average citizens stop crimes, just like in your earlier example they were former cops with police training.

Secondly, this was all over the fucking news for several weeks after the fact. At least in the Chicagoland area. I know exactly what story it is, and all I read was the title. It was a few days after some guy and shot the hell out of a school for youth missionaries and there was speculation over whether they were connected or not.


So, you still havent proved that average joe gun nut could stop crimes when packing heat, and your media conspirecy theory fails again. We're still waiting.

Yes, because no one ever loses a gun? No one ever steals a gun? No one ever takes a gun from their parents, right? Where do you think criminals are getting these guns? Most of them are taken from law-abiding citizens.

Would you agree that guns are more likely to be stolen from a home or car than from a holster concealed on someone's person?

If this is indeed the case, then ccw, which does not necessarily imply that more people buy guns, only that more people carry them, should lead to a decreased chance of guns being stolen by criminals, by virtue of guns spending more time safely concealed and less time laying around unattended in a home or car.

At any rate, a lot of criminals get guns via straw-purchase or private sales where no background check is required.

At any rate, your response doesn't address my claim per se, which is that any increase in people carrying guns as a result of CCW is going to be among the law-abiding population, since CCW removes a disincentive for law abiding people to carry guns but does not remove a disincentive for people who ignore the law.

It is possible that more criminals would carry guns because they were afraid of their victims being armed, but this possibility has to be balanced against the possibility that fewer criminals would risk armed robbery to begin with, on account of the same fear of armed victims.

Because what happens when a hunter needs to make a 350-400 yard shot in order to bag that deer, elk, moose, antelope, bighorn sheep, etc. If they can't practice at the distances they're likely to shoot animals at, then any practice they do get isn't as beneficial. Since I have to use the same ranges as the hunters, I have to be able to hit the targets out to that range as well (since I can't move forward to compensate for a weaker firearm, as that would lead to an unsafe condition of shooters firing behind me in my general direction).

The second amendment doesn't mention hunting, it mentions the right to keep and bear arms, with a rather awkwardly worded justification of securing and maintaining freedom.

We don't have a constitutional right to hunt, we have a constitutional right to own and use deadly weapons designed for the purpose of killing people, particularly people who threaten our security and freedom.

KOL, that is utterly ridiculous.

She was a volunteer from the church with a concealed weapons permit who was acting as a security guard that day. She wasn't law enforcement or any kind of real security.

You are just nitpicking and it's ridiculous. And these are just two cases in the past 5-6 years, there are others and once again, you should already know about them if you want to debate it.

And yes, it was all over the news, that's the point about me asking why I have to bring up these cases that should be public knowledge? Yet, I get accused of lying and being full of shit for not breaking up things and then when I do, oh I already knew about that. Then why do you need more evidence about these?

And hello? A lot of the people, including myself who have concealed weapons have military and/or police training.

So basically you want me to go back and find a shooting prevented by a citizen with a CCW, but zero military or law enforcement training? Because that really matters?

People with CCW know how to use weapons, that's the whole point.

Utterly ridiculous. I'm sorry I even bothered.

Once again, I'm reduced to playing gopher for the ignorant.

Ah, yes, like I did for you when you claimed that your story didn't make national news. Only that time it was your claim. If you don't like backing up your claims, don't debate. Right now, you're only embarrassing yourself.


You have already been provided with the source about the VA Law shootings, so how about another one recently that made some press?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/index.html

Now tell if you feel like a drooling idiot for making me do research for you again? Or would you rather just claim you knew about this too?

Once again, I'm five spots from the bottom. Come on now.

Okay, see how easy that was. Now, perhaps you can tamp down those flames. Supporting your claims is YOUR research. If you don't know how to debate, then don't. See, you make a claim. You support.

So? Now that you've supported it. Let's examine this case.


She was a volunteer from the church with a concealed weapons permit who was acting as a security guard that day. She wasn't law enforcement or any kind of real security.

Speaking of ignorant.

From your source, "a church security guard with law enforcement experience".

She was security. And former law enforcement. She wasn't acting a citizen at the time any more than any other security.

So now, for all us "drooling idiots", wanna support your claim. That's twice you couldn't do it. First, they "stopped" a person who was already out of bullets and, second, security stopped the shooter. Great. You have one where Joe Blow with a CCW did it. I mean, they're OH so easy to find and all.

Meanwhile, I'm gonna bold those flames to make them more noticeable if any mods care to stop by. Or you could act like we're reasonable people and stop pointing out how "drooling idiots" are slaughtering you in debate.

The second amendment doesn't mention hunting, it mentions the right to keep and bear arms, with a rather awkwardly worded justification of securing and maintaining freedom.

We don't have a constitutional right to hunt, we have a constitutional right to own and use deadly weapons designed for the purpose of killing people, particularly people who threaten our security and freedom.

My post that you quoted was in response to a suggestion to reduce the distances a firearms range has, so we can use weaker powered firearms for target shooting. But let's throw it in the direction you want to bring it. What happens when a person has to drill (practice) in order to make that 350-400 yard shot on an enemy of the US (invading army, dictator controlled US military, etc), that's in the US. Practicing at 100 yards won't do much good, as the shot is different at 100 yards than it is at 350-400 yards.

Jacobia, I want you to prove to me that there has never been a mass shooting that was stopped by a citizen with no police or military training.

Please take all the time you want and provide clear evidence that such a thing has never happened.

Oh and crying for the moderators? Just plain pathetic.

You are just going way too over the top.

Both of these cases just mentioned involve citizens with concealed weapons who helped to stop a gunman.

Now you are saying they don't count because the people who had the balls to do it were former cops? That's just utter nonsense.

KOL, that is utterly ridiculous.

She was a volunteer from the church with a concealed weapons permit who was acting as a security guard that day. She wasn't law enforcement or any kind of real security.

You are just nitpicking and it's ridiculous. And these are just two cases in the past 5-6 years, there are others and once again, you should already know about them if you want to debate it.

And yes, it was all over the news, that's the point about me asking why I have to bring up these cases that should be public knowledge? Yet, I get accused of lying and being full of shit for not breaking up things and then when I do, oh I already knew about that. Then why do you need more evidence about these?

And hello? A lot of the people, including myself who have concealed weapons have military and/or police training.

Hmmmmm.... let's continue to pick apart your claims.

"She attends one of the morning services and then volunteers as a guard during another service."

So not just that day. In fact, she was the one who came up with the idea of having security and the church has about a dozen security guards each service as a result. She didn't just jump up and take the position.

Now is she "real security" as you put it? Hmmm...

"Assam worked as a police officer in downtown Minneapolis during the 1990s "

Well, she's a former cop.

"Assam was one of about a dozen volunteer security guards at the church, half of whom are armed, Boyd said. The guards are licensed, trained and screened, and are church members, not "mercenaries," he said."

Hmmm... not real security. You know, because generally people who are screent, trained, licensed and chosen for security aren't "real security". Come on, call me a drooling idiot again. Maybe no one will notice that the articles completely refute your claims.

Jacobia, I want you to prove to me that there has never been a mass shooting that was stopped by a citizen with no police or military training.

Please take all the time you want and provide clear evidence that such a thing has never happened.

You want me to prove it never happened? How? Provide EVERY case of a shooting that ever happened? If you are making this request then you don't understand the first thing about evidence, science, or logic. I'll take this an admission you cannot provide evidence of your claim.

This was security doing what security is for. Not some random citizen, but a screen, trained and license security person. A citizen is not someone acting as security.

Oh and crying for the moderators? Just plain pathetic.

Amusing. I'm not crying for them, but I like a clean site. There are rules. They exist so we can have reasoned discussions. All you do by flaming is show that reasoned discussion is out of your reach.

Oh and crying for the moderators? Just plain pathetic.



Whats pathetic is your inability to defend your weak arguements and are resorting to calling those who are destroying you "drooling idiots".


But whatever. CCW would save America but teh ebil liberal media is out to get you by not ever reporting cases of CCW saving lives.

Those people would be just as much affected by a gun ban, which you want to ignore.

And yes, unusual cases. Mass shooting seem to have happened a lot recently, but it's not exactly like parking tickets yet.

You are just going way too over the top.

Both of these cases just mentioned involve citizens with concealed weapons who helped to stop a gunman.

Now you are saying they don't count because the people who had the balls to do it were former cops? That's just utter nonsense.

No, one of those case involved someone stopping a gunman. The other case involved stopping a guy that maybe could have thrown the gun at someone. Should they be lauded? Sure. But they could have stopped the guy with a shoe.

Second, all of them were professionally trained. All of them. One of them stopped an unarmed man and one was acting as security backed up by 10 others among which SEVERAL were armed.

You keep citing really unusual cases. Really unusual. Do you normally travel around with a half dozen friends all with guns, all trained and acting as security? Cuz, when that's the general case for CCW then we'll talk. K? K.

I fully support the existence of armed security. Good job pointing out their usefulness. Yay. Anyone here have a problem with armed security.

So Jocabia would you agree with following the program put in place by the town of Netcong, NJ?

Tuesday, January 04, 2005....
...given that it's a well settled point of law that police have no specific duty to protect individuals, and the fact that NJ almost universally disarms its "citizens", what, pray tell is a law abiding person, say, a shop keeper, to do when running the day's reciepts over to the bank's night deposit box?

Simply sigh, accept that he is unable to erect any sort of meaningful defense against a garden variety goblin, and dutifully trudge to the bank, with his eyes cast down and his money bag well hidden?

Of course not!

The enterprising town of *Netcong, NJ cares about it's citizenry!

For a small fee, the town will gladly dispatch a police officer (pending manpower and availability) to provide a Money Escort Service!

Why should a citizen skulk, flitting furtively from one well lit area to another when for a few coins from his bag he can walk proudly, with his head held high, escorted by one of Netcong's finest?

Quote:
--------------
A. The Director of Public Safety, or his designee, at his discretion and to the extent manpower is available, may, upon request, provide for a money escort within the Borough of Netcong. A fee of $25 shall be charged for each money escort service provided by the Borough Police Department. The fee shall be payable to the Borough of Netcong and shall be collected by the Borough Clerk. Said fee shall be waived for all nonprofit agencies utilizing said service.
--------------

I wonder how many other towns have caught onto this scam wonderful idea?

The Enterprising State of New Jersey: turning your legislatively mandated defenselessness into a revenue opportunity.


After all, citizens don't need guns. They've got the police...


link (http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2005_01_02_geekwitha45_archive.html#110481805621151167)

And yes, unusual cases. Mass shooting seem to have happened a lot recently, but it's not exactly like parking tickets yet.
That's true, and it's easy to forget incidents such as those as NIU and Virginia Tech are the exception. But there are plenty of less extreme instances of gun violence that happen much more frequently.

Oh, I'm very sure the Founding Fathers were not anti-gun, or even for gun control. But I do think it is wrong to use what is the closest thing to America's Ten Commandments as a reason for, say, giving AK-47s to preschoolers. (I'm exaggerating, but you get the point. The Second Amendment is irrelevant for the most part when discussing gun control.)

:confused:

:confused:

I think I understand what NL meant.
Maybe that controlling guns and how to obtain them is not the same as outright banning them, so the second amendment is not wholly relevant.

Americans have a right to forming state militias, just in case the big old bad federal government starts to hurt the wee little states.

I don't believe (although I could be wrong, and would welcome any proof that I am) the Supreme Court has ever ruled that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own firearms. There's one that could change this, District of Columbia v. Heller or someone with a name like Heller which is on the docket. The only other case I can think of, United States v. Miller, said it was not unreasonable for the federal government to regulate firearms sales.
At the same time, I am very sure that the Court has never said, "we should ban firearms," or even "it is not unconsitutional to ban firearms." The case coming up may change that.

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.
How is that not giving the people the right to own firearms?

No, the fact of the case is that a CCW did NOT stop them, why that might be or what might have happen if that why was different is speculation. The first part can be answerable should we ever find someone who was a CCW and actually there, they could give their reason be it the gun free zone laws, being asleep in class, getting a blow job behind the bushes, whatever. What might have happen however is ONLY speculation.

You have no argument from me there, that is not, however the implication of the phrasing that I was responding to.

I've never trusted anime as a good source of information or policy (it is, after all, fiction). If you're basing your stance about target shooting on something an anime character said, then I think it's your argument that's weak.
No, I am using the quote to illustrate my point, not as the base of it. Target practice is a weak argument because what you are in fact saying is that you want to hit a piece of paper. Well, there's many ways to do so, why do you need a fully powered gun beyond I want one?

To change venues, look at it this way, fencing is also an international and Olympic sport that is enjoyed by many (Including myself). Many people practice it, and many people have equipment for it. Said equipment includes specially made and blunted blades with the mandatory button on the tip. It would be a very stupid argument for me to say, "Well, because lots of people fence, I should be able to have and use a fully dressed out katana". People would rightly point out that I don't NEED a real katana to fence with and therefore my argument doesn't make sense.

It's the same with target practice, in terms of needing a fully powered gun to hit a sheet of paper, there are other methods available, why then should you have to have a fully powered gun for them?

I don't think anything short of the Supreme Court is final. Those cases can certainly be used as precedent for other cases, but I don't believe anyone outside of D.C. is required to listen to the appeals court of D.C. I don't think the Dept. of Justice article can be used for anything, except evidence the executive branch interprets the second amendment this way.
But I don't know. Could someone more versed in the law (The Cat-Tribe, perhaps) tell me whether the decision of lower courts affects laws outside of their district?

Yes and no, they can be used as a precedent.

No, I am using the quote to illustrate my point, not as the base of it. Target practice is a weak argument because what you are in fact saying is that you want to hit a piece of paper. Well, there's many ways to do so, why do you need a fully powered gun beyond I want one?

To change venues, look at it this way, fencing is also an international and Olympic sport that is enjoyed by many (Including myself). Many people practice it, and many people have equipment for it. Said equipment includes specially made and blunted blades with the mandatory button on the tip. It would be a very stupid argument for me to say, "Well, because lots of people fence, I should be able to have and use a fully dressed out katana". People would rightly point out that I don't NEED a real katana to fence with and therefore my argument doesn't make sense.

It's the same with target practice, in terms of needing a fully powered gun to hit a sheet of paper, there are other methods available, why then should you have to have a fully powered gun for them?

Maybe someday in the future, I'll also want to take up hunting. The target practice I do now (with my full power rifle) will help with that. Target practice with a weak firearm won't help me in hunting, if I'm using a full power rifle to hunt with.

My post that you quoted was in response to a suggestion to reduce the distances a firearms range has, so we can use weaker powered firearms for target shooting. But let's throw it in the direction you want to bring it. What happens when a person has to drill (practice) in order to make that 350-400 yard shot on an enemy of the US (invading army, dictator controlled US military, etc), that's in the US. Practicing at 100 yards won't do much good, as the shot is different at 100 yards than it is at 350-400 yards.
That's even a weaker argument. Where, exactly, is the enemy going to come from to invade the US (Canada perhaps)? Can you really conceive of a notion where the US is so badly pressed that its own military cannot repel an invasion, and one that has not already fully mobilized every man in the US and given them military training ala WWII?

As for having to fight our own military, I've always loved the image of a bunch of gun nuts toting their rifles and going after an aircraft carrier. Because that's exactly what you'd be doing.

My turn.

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/010908/met_234272653.shtml

http://www.team4news.com/Global/story.asp?S=6050863&nav=0w0v

Yep, all responsible trained gun owners, right?

Gosh, let's keep comparing cases. Anecdotal evidence is clearly going to help you here.

I think I understand what NL meant.
Maybe that controlling guns and how to obtain them is not the same as outright banning them, so the second amendment is not wholly relevant.

That I can agree with.

I think I understand what NL meant.
Maybe that controlling guns and how to obtain them is not the same as outright banning them, so the second amendment is not wholly relevant.

Exactly, sorry if I was unclear.
It's like when the FCC is deciding how it will regulate what radio and television stations can say. No one brings up the First Amendment as a reason the FCC should be dismantled, because we all realize there are reasonable limits to any right. We argue over what's on the banned list, not the list itself.

Maybe someday in the future, I'll also want to take up hunting. The target practice I do now (with my full power rifle) will help with that. Target practice with a weak firearm won't help me in hunting, if I'm using a full power rifle to hunt with.
Maybe, someday in the future I'll want to become a samurai so I need my katana to fence with...

Argument is still weak.

How is that not giving the people the right to own firearms?
The Supreme Court has never interpreted it this way. I agree that taken word for word, it does seem to give us all the right to carry guns. But not only do I trust the interpretation of the Court, the law does whether I want to or not.

Those people would be just as much affected by a gun ban, which you want to ignore.

And yes, unusual cases. Mass shooting seem to have happened a lot recently, but it's not exactly like parking tickets yet.

So would the shooters who legally acquired weapons. See how that works? That's why this is really poorly-chosen ground to argue from if you advocate gun ownership.

I'm not saying you can't choose to argue from a place you cannot win if you like, but since you could easily argue from a place you can win, you might consider it.

So Jocabia would you agree with following the program put in place by the town of Netcong, NJ?




link (http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2005_01_02_geekwitha45_archive.html#110481805621151167)

Frankly, I support an armed citizenry as long as we have a second amendment and a compelling public interest to abridge that right has not been shown.

However, this isn't a new thing. Every night clerk knows to give cops coffee. The more they're there, the safer you are. Cops can't escort every money drop. It's impossible. I don't think it's unreasonable to pay a small fee for the service. We pay for ambulances.

My turn.

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/010908/met_234272653.shtml

http://www.team4news.com/Global/story.asp?S=6050863&nav=0w0v

Yep, all responsible trained gun owners, right?

Gosh, let's keep comparing cases. Anecdotal evidence is clearly going to help you here.

By the way, these cases appeared only locally. I found a number of them and none of them appeared other than locally. Ebil conservative media at work, no doubt.

You know you are the liar here and you know it. Yeah, I'm sure you heard of that shooting and just wanted me to find it for you. Yeah.

Once again, about 5 spaces from the last post. Needs fixed.

Dude, if you don't understand that you have to support your claims, then I can't help you. There are books on debate, logic, rational discussion. Read ANY of them. The burden is on you to provide evidence.

Meanwhile, your evidence is wildly poor. You've demonstrated the value of security guards. And you've shown that with a gun, I can stop someone who also has a gun and no ammo.

Good job.

Jacobia, I want you to prove to me that there has never been a mass shooting that was stopped by a citizen with no police or military training.

Please take all the time you want and provide clear evidence that such a thing has never happened.

Oh and crying for the moderators? Just plain pathetic.

Did you seriously just ask him to prove a negative?

You're funny. :p

My turn.

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/010908/met_234272653.shtml

http://www.team4news.com/Global/story.asp?S=6050863&nav=0w0v

Yep, all responsible trained gun owners, right?

Gosh, let's keep comparing cases. Anecdotal evidence is clearly going to help you here.
That's 2 incidents. How many permit holders are there? 2 out of thousands.

Exactly, sorry if I was unclear.
It's like when the FCC is deciding how it will regulate what radio and television stations can say. No one brings up the First Amendment as a reason the FCC should be dismantled, because we all realize there are reasonable limits to any right. We argue over what's on the banned list, not the list itself.
The FCC should be dismantled because it infringes on people's first amendment rights. I'm not the first person to say this and I sure as hell will not be the last.

That's 2 incidents. How many permit holders are there? 2 out of thousands.

Those aren't all the incidents. However, thank you for pointing how anecdotal evidence doesn't actually prove anything. Kind of made my point for me. Thanks for that.

Maybe, someday in the future I'll want to become a samurai so I need my katana to fence with...

Argument is still weak.

If you, someday, want to become a samurai, more power to you (although ninjas are cooler :p ).

And my argument isn't weak. Tell me how shooting a .22 lr or rubber band gun will prepare me for shooting a .30-06, when the .22 lr and rubber band gun have little or no recoil compared to a .30-06, nowhere near the range of the .30-06, and nowhere near the ballistic trajectory of the .30-06.

If you, someday, want to become a samurai, more power to you (although ninjas are cooler :p ).

And my argument isn't weak. Tell me how shooting a .22 lr or rubber band gun will prepare me for shooting a .30-06, when the .22 lr and rubber band gun have little or no recoil compared to a .30-06, nowhere near the range of the .30-06, and nowhere near the ballistic trajectory of the .30-06.
The weakness in the argument is that you admit that it is a maybe, someday, possibility. Maybe, somedays just don't cut it in terms of actual planning and policy, we need to deal with what is and what is very likely to occur, not what you might, someday, possibly, do. You also leave open a wide door to say, well, since you want to practice for hunting needs... why do you need that rifle you posted earlier?

That's where the argument for target practice becomes weak. There are MUCH stronger arguments than target practice that would be better to use.

The weakness in the argument is that you admit that it is a maybe, someday, possibility. Maybe, somedays just don't cut it in terms of actual planning and policy, we need to deal with what is and what is very likely to occur, not what you might, someday, possibly, do. You also leave open a wide door to say, well, since you want to practice for hunting needs... why do you need that rifle you posted earlier?

That's where the argument for target practice becomes weak. There are MUCH stronger arguments than target practice that would be better to use.

Actually, no the argument isn't weak... What use is the weapon going to be if you don't know how to use it? It takes time and effort to become skilled with a firearm, you're not going to pick up a weapon for the first and be a expert marksman (at least not generally).

Actually, no the argument isn't weak... What use is the weapon going to be if you don't know how to use it? It takes time and effort to become skilled with a firearm, you're not going to pick up a weapon for the first and be a expert marksman (at least not generally).

Dude, that's not the point. It's like saying the purpose of a driver's license is so you can learn how to drive better. Yes, you can learn how to drive better with a license. But the point of the license, like the point of the second amendment, is not so you can practice. The point of the second amendment is so you can protect yourself, which is why you would practice. That you want to practice means nothing without the true point, protecting yourself.

What is so damn complicated about that?

The weakness in the argument is that you admit that it is a maybe, someday, possibility. Maybe, somedays just don't cut it in terms of actual planning and policy, we need to deal with what is and what is very likely to occur, not what you might, someday, possibly, do. You also leave open a wide door to say, well, since you want to practice for hunting needs... why do you need that rifle you posted earlier?

That's where the argument for target practice becomes weak. There are MUCH stronger arguments than target practice that would be better to use.

The rifle I posted a picture of can be used for hunting (AR-15s make excellent varmint rifles, and contrary to what Connecticut thinks, the .223/5.56mm cartridge is powerful enough for deer). Also, I am not the only firearms owner in the world. Many people target practice knowing they WILL hunt later on. My brother in law had regular target practice when he was growing up. IIRC he started hunting at 12-13, and he still hunts to this day.

Dude, that's not the point. It's like saying the purpose of a driver's license is so you can learn how to drive better. Yes, you can learn how to drive better with a license. But the point of the license, like the point of the second amendment, is not so you can practice. The point of the second amendment is so you can protect yourself, which is why you would practice. That you want to practice means nothing without the true point, protecting yourself.

What is so damn complicated about that?

So training and experience with a weapon (which is what makes you effective with it) is not and can not be a factor in the argument? That rather naive of you Joc, I'd have expected better. :(

And for the record, I carry a concealed weapon and I would absolutely go after a gunman in that situation.

Ah yes, another internet hardman who has never had the experience of being shot at.

Would you be going after the gunman before or after you shat your pants?

So, we just had another shooting at NIU. I'm not going to count the number of people killed in the US in killing sprees like this since 2001, but I think it is rather greater than the number killed by terrorists in the same area over the same time period.

The average American seems to be a lot more likely to get shot by some other American with issues than be killed by someone with a bomb.

So is it time for a "declaration of war" against the school/mall shooters? What would you say are some good policy responses to this sort of thing? Is there something that can be done, or are you happy to just accept it as a part of life?

PS: Gun control is of course a relevant issue, but try not to make it the only topic of the thread, okay? There's another one for that around right now.

All public buildings will have incredibly powerful magnets built into the floor. At the first sign of trouble, they will be activated, ripping any guns from the hands of criminals, redirecting any bullets already in the air, and giving everyone with fillings a very bad day.

The rifle I posted a picture of can be used for hunting (AR-15s make excellent varmint rifles, and contrary to what Connecticut thinks, the .223/5.56mm cartridge is powerful enough for deer). Also, I am not the only firearms owner in the world. Many people target practice knowing they WILL hunt later on. My brother in law had regular target practice when he was growing up. IIRC he started hunting at 12-13, and he still hunts to this day.

Suggestion: Find some kind of weapon that can kill deer without being practical for a shooting spree.

Suggestion: Find some kind of weapon that can kill deer without being practical for a shooting spree.

Halberd.

Halberd.

I was thinking some kind of spike-laden hat, but that works too.

So training and experience with a weapon (which is what makes you effective with it) is not and can not be a factor in the argument? That rather naive of you Joc, I'd have expected better. :(

That would depend. Training in the use of a firearm provides one with proficiency in its use, much like driving lessons provides one with proficiency in driving. But likewise, firearms training does not give on crisis situation experience or conditioning, and driving lessons doesn't mean you've suddenly become a stunt driver in a destruction derby.

So training and experience with a weapon (which is what makes you effective with it) is not and can not be a factor in the argument? That rather naive of you Joc, I'd have expected better. :(

Dude, no one is saying that people shouldn't have training and experience. I also encourage people who drive to take driving courses on occasion and constantly work to be better with it. It's still not the point of driving. The point of the second amendment is not target practice or hunting. It doesn't mean you shouldn't or should be allowed to do either of those. It just means that arguing about them DOES NOT address the second amendment at all.

What is so complicated about that?

How many times do multiple have to explain that you're wagging the dog? It's like saying the reason there are footballs is so you can have football practice. It's not true. They're used for football practice or playing catch, but there reason there are footballs is so you can play football. Now practicing and playing catch will clearly make you better at playing football, but arguing that footballs should exist so you can practice football, rather than arguing that footballs should exist so you can play football is just inane. Get the point, now?

Surely it is a lot easier to scan people for guns when they enter a school or university building than it is to scan the mental health of a lot of people carrying concealed guns to see if any of them are likely to start a massacre.

Suggestion: Find some kind of weapon that can kill deer without being practical for a shooting spree.

The second amendment doesn't give guarantee the right to hunt deer, it guarantees the right to own deadly weapons and to use them.

Suggestion: Find some kind of weapon that can kill deer without being practical for a shooting spree.
Here's a suggestion: grow some fucking balls and deal with the fact that some people want, and will legally have guns.

Here's a suggestion: grow some fucking balls and deal with the fact that some people want, and will legally have guns.

Almost as good as wrecking balls.

Here's a suggestion: grow some fucking balls and deal with the fact that some people want, and will legally have guns.

What a rational and well thought-out response. I can see you debate regularly, what with the level of eloquence on display here. After all, there is nothing more 'ballsy' than quietly accepting a majority you don't agree with instead of standing up for what you believe in.

The second amendment doesn't give guarantee the right to hunt deer, it guarantees the right to own deadly weapons and to use them.

Yes. Thank god you have that clause to protect you from the inevitable British re-invasion.

What a rational and well thought-out response. I can see you debate regularly, what with the level of eloquence on display here. After all, there is nothing more 'ballsy' than quietly accepting a majority you don't agree with instead of standing up for what you believe in.
If you don't like guns then don't get one, just don't try to take away my right to own a weapon.

We're fragile creatures, it takes less than a pound of pressure to cut human flesh and just about any object, if used creatively enough, can be made into a deadly weapon. Many of those improvised weapons would be suitable for massacres.

Also, explosives, were behind the worst school massacre in American history and explosives were behind the worst act of domestic terrorism. Bombs, not guns, are the weapon of choice for most domestic and foreign terrorists because they can kill large numbers of people at once whereas a gun requires that you put at least one bullet in each victim.

Finally, the 2nd Amendment was for more than just protecting the nation from future foreign threats, it was to ensure the government would respect the other rights. What is liberty if you have nothing but your words backing it up? Government big enough to provide everything you need is big enough to take everything you have, including your rights.