We already know that Arizona is the most openly racist state in the union, but things only get worse... to the point that they have become disturbingly hilarious.
Apparently credentials for public office now include marksmanship and assault weapons training.
And if that didn't make you scratch your head, Arizona lawmakers want to legalize gun possession in bars, on university campuses, and in public schools.
Ms. Johnson, a Republican from Mesa, said she believed that the recent carnage at Northern Illinois University could have been prevented or limited if an armed student or professor had intercepted the gunman. The police, she said, respond too slowly to such incidents and, besides, who better than the people staring down the barrel to take action?
She initially wanted her bill to cover all public schools, kindergarten and up, but other lawmakers convinced her it stood a better chance of passing if it were limited to higher education.
“I feel like our kindergartners are sitting there like sitting ducks,” Ms. Johnson said last week when the bill passed the committee by a 4-to-3 vote
imma carry a gat wit me so i can participate in the local gang fights Arizonas laws are pretty fucked up. The no-permit weapon one is funny stupid imo, its like the opposite of gun control. Though don't forget to vote for Prop203 - medical marijuana in November wooo
On July 16 2010 08:09 mint_julep wrote: I have seen the light! I too will now lobby my local department of education to allow guns in elementary schools to keep our kindergartners safe!
fuck yo that is fucked up. i honestly just can't believe this shit would happen in our country.
And I assume whoever is talking in the quote means she wants easy target practice. That kind of insane is more believable than the one who thinks the teachers having guns lying around is a good idea.
Wow, first Palin shooting AR-15's, now this woman. She sounds brain dead based on her sound byte at the end. I like guns, too, but this is a little too much. Arizona seems pretty damn crazy conservative and I live in Kentucky.
I'm all for conceal carry on campus, but there's one glaring issue nobody brings up: If someone starts shooting and you draw to shoot it out with them, what happens when a 3rd person draws or shit goes wild and 1 or more additional people with guns enter the scenario. These people probably won't know friend or foe in a situation like this so innocent people may get shot. But innocent people may will get shot if no action is taken, so hmmm. . . .
LMAO it is unfortunate people get elected because they pose for some shots with a Thompson. Much like that... uh... some South state ad where the guy wanted to be agricultural secretary or some shit. He had a cowboy hat and carried a gun. For no reason.
On July 16 2010 08:09 mint_julep wrote: I have seen the light! I too will now lobby my local department of education to allow guns in elementary schools to keep our kindergartners safe!
fuck yo that is fucked up. i honestly just can't believe this shit would happen in our country.
I honestly can't believe you couldn't detect the sarcasm. o.O
TrySuckingLess: 2 weeks ago Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A conservative Babe (my favorite) who can shoot guns. Sweetie, you should try doing it in a Bikini, I would love it.
That's completely fucking bullshit. This just makes the teachers and staff present at any school a "priority target". Kill them first, add to your weapons cache, then kill some students.
On July 16 2010 08:29 Loanshark wrote: That's completely fucking bullshit. This just makes the teachers and staff present at any school a "priority target". Kill them first, add to your weapons cache, then kill some students.
Isn't that better than having a bunch of lamb ready for the slaughter? Better a few teachers go down rather than a lot of unarmed students. Besides with concealed weapons the teachers might have creative hiding spots for those weapons.
I'd be worried more about deranged and psycho teachers killing co-workers and students rather than someone else trying to take out teachers for their guns.
On July 16 2010 08:29 Loanshark wrote: That's completely fucking bullshit. This just makes the teachers and staff present at any school a "priority target". Kill them first, add to your weapons cache, then kill some students.
This is also a good point what happens if a crazy person with only a knife goes into a school? All he needs to do it attack one of the teachers and then hes got a gun.... GREAT! Now the situation just got even worse an like you said with a little effort he'd have a handful of guns... YEAH! this idea doesn't have an huge flaws at all! /EndSarcasm
"it isn't as exciting as immigration..." WTF? Do these rednecks get a thrill out of shooting illegals or something lol. Another lol at "CO2? POLLUTANT? YOU BREATHE IT HURRR".
I'm fairly sure registered gun owners rarely ever commit crimes. They rarely deter crimes, either, considering 500,000 guns are stolen every year (data from 1980-1990's where gun crime was the highest).
Edit: Oil producing nations are all our enemies? Oh Lord, watching these people talk is painful.
On July 16 2010 08:19 SilverLeagueElite wrote: I'm interested in seeing a study of what percentage of gun related violence are caused by registered gun owners.
Gun control is nonsense. The fact that people believe that the freedom to bear arms will result in war in the streets is a testament to how stupid we have become. Hell, in Switzerland every service-age male has an assault rifle in the home, and they have notoriously low (practically nonexistent) violent crime rates.
I also think it is hilarious that Arizona passes laws that are already on Federal books and they're "openly racist".
On July 16 2010 08:35 Romantic wrote: Edit: Oil producing nations are all our enemies? Oh Lord, watching these people talk is painful.
We all know those Canadians are dying for revenge against the USA. We can only belittle them so much before they can't take it anymore.
Hey man, if I were you I'd worry about the Venezuelan Communist Super-Soldiers coming across the ocean. Iraq might also nuke us!!!! Oh wait, we're occupying them ^.^. We snuffed out that problem quick. Angola is looking mighty threatening.
Meh. I'm not even going to watch that, but I'm all for more freedom for guns. People who want to kill other people will always be able to get their hands on weapons, no matter what. So when someone goes nuts, brings a gun to a public place and starts shooting people, the law-abiding citizens can't do anything about it, because the law says that they can't carry guns. Gun control is practically helping criminals, in that case.
Anyway, Second Amendment says people can carry arms (and actually carry them, not be forced to leave them locked up in their closets at home). I'm sure we can all agree the people behind the Constitution had their heads on straight, and they clearly intended us to be able to carry arms.
To be honest I haven't paid much attention to this Arizona nonsense as it is a circus.
What is not funny, however, is that the states pay hundreds of millions of dollars every year in health care costs, education and other social services for illegal immigrants and the feds basically tie the hands of anyone trying to enforce immigration laws.
If you point out the stupidity of this, you get called a racist. God knows we can't have the arrogance to decide who the hell is in the country.
Meanwhile, Mexico, who is doing everything they can do to dump people they are unwilling and unable to care for, gets a free pass to accuse the U.S. of racism.
On July 16 2010 08:59 Jerubaal wrote: What is not funny, however, is that the states pay hundreds of millions of dollars every year in health care costs, education and other social services for illegal immigrants and the feds basically tie the hands of anyone trying to enforce immigration laws.
There are legitimate complaints to be found in the Tea Party movement(s), but it's lost on their choice of words, imagery, and clumsiness with facts. What's also not funny is that taxpayers pay (read: "borrow") hundreds of billions of dollars every year in illegal war spending and a realpolitik foreign agenda. There's more than enough in there to cover welfare spending and start balancing the budget. But the rule of law shall prevail. "One nation, indivisible."
On July 16 2010 08:02 mmp wrote:And if that didn't make you scratch your head, Arizona lawmakers want to legalize gun possession in bars, on university campuses, and in public schools.
Ignoring the rest of the argument cause I'm not particularly interested in liberal/conservative kneejerk "arguments", but:
What, precisely, is wrong with this? I want to hear the arguments.
[edit] "illegal war" is an oxymoron. Wars are by definition outside the scope of laws.
Btw, the linked article is over two years old, and this sentiment is not limited to Arizona.
I'm really annoyed with the first several posts here. There's this notion that says that more guns = more violence and this seems to be taken by many people as a trivial and self-evident truth. So then, from that belief, it's natural to conclude that people who want fewer restrictions on guns want more violence or at the very least find more violence an acceptable tradeoff for the right to have more guns.
So first, we should acknowledge that on the violence issue, more or less everybody is on the same side: we want less. All of the sarcastic posts and the "omg wtf is America coming to" seem to forget or ignore this. The debate is about what is the best way to achieve less violence, and this is particularly true with the article linked by the OP which specifically calls this out as a primary goal.
Second I'm going to argue that this claim isn't even trivial to make.
Let's acknowledge that making something illegal does not mean people won't do it. There are violators of exactly 100% of every law that's ever been or ever will be written. Writing on paper that you can't bring a gun somewhere doesn't actually prevent someone from bringing a gun there (See: Columbine, VA Tech, etc.). As far as the law is concerned, it's a person's reaction to its existence which impacts whether they will or will not carry out an illegal act. But it's not the law's existence itself. (See: every crime ever).
Murdering, harming, assaulting, robbing, etc., someone is already illegal (so, doing these things with a gun is already covered). Recreational use of a gun in a public place is also already illegal. Gun *use* is already heavily restricted, and rightly so. But the laws in question here are not about use, they are about possession. The people who have made up their minds to attack someone have already made up their minds to break a law about gun use, not about possession.
While it's very easy to show that the restricted types of gun use are dangerous/harmful/etc., it's not quite as straightforward for possession for a couple of reasons.
Take one example (because I'm at work and need to do real things soon), many states allow gun use for self-defense. If you are being attacked by someone, you are allowed to defend yourself with a weapon. Perhaps this is something that people do not support, but arguing against it would also be far from trivial (and I'm not sure you'd have much support). But note that restrictions on possession are also restrictions on your ability to defend yourself in certain locations. Also note that many of these locations have become targets of recent gun violence (school shootings, mall shootings, work place shootings, etc.). I won't be so presumptuous to argue a CAUSAL relationship here because the data aren't sufficient to do that (in particular, there are certainly many other emotional reasons a person might choose to attack a school or workplace). But it's worth pointing out that a restriction on possession in these places is a restriction on self-defense in these places.
Can you still argue that the restriction is worth it? Absolutely, but stop treating it like it's obvious and that people who contend on this point are all crazy gun nuts who just want to shoot shit.
For instance, you could argue that people carrying weapons in these places increases the risk of an accidental shooting. I'd buy that. Argue that it makes people uncomfortable or feel unsafe, I'd be all ears. But the fact of the matter is, it's pretty easy to point out that there are a lot of dead people today (va tech, columbine, NIU, etc.) of which a subset would be alive if they were armed (again, no guarantees about who or how many, but it seems likely that at least some would have survived). Would more *other* people be dead if we allowed guns in those places? Would we all be living in fear anyway? I don't know. Personally, I suspect the answer is yes to both those questions actually. I'm not sure that I support arming people in those settings at all. Maybe the deaths of those people are worth it. But I respect the notion enough to discuss it and give it some thought, and I respect those people enough not to trivially dismiss an idea that could have resulted in them not being murdered. This is a pretty mature forum as far as gaming communities go, and I really expected more people would do the same.
On July 16 2010 08:56 Belegorm wrote: Anyway, Second Amendment says people can carry arms (and actually carry them, not be forced to leave them locked up in their closets at home). I'm sure we can all agree the people behind the Constitution had their heads on straight, and they clearly intended us to be able to carry arms.
I'm fine with people owning guns so long as they have passed reasonable restrictions, like registering, background checks, and training on use of firearms.
However, please don't use the "founding fathers" crap of a defense. The founding fathers didn't have to deal with level of weaponry available today.
One man with a musket couldn't slaughter a whole room of people like an AK47 can do in a few seconds.
On July 16 2010 08:19 SilverLeagueElite wrote: I'm interested in seeing a study of what percentage of gun related violence are caused by registered gun owners.
I'm fairly sure registered gun owners rarely ever commit crimes. They rarely deter crimes, either, considering 500,000 guns are stolen every year (data from 1980-1990's where gun crime was the highest).
I don't think you can measure deterrence since they go unreported. If you stopped a crime by simply showing a gun, you're not going to go to the police station and say, "Yo, I just stopped a crime".
Not to turn this into a gun control thread, but outlawing guns on campuses has 0 effect on school shootings. If someone wanted to shoot someone else at school, they are already planning on committing murder, why should they care about breaking some stupid "no guns on campus" law? These laws are some of the most ass-backwards thinking I've ever seen, and hopefully people will realize that soon.
Well, if you deter crime by owning guns you need to think about the crime caused by your guns being stolen. That is all I was saying, I don't know which is better.
The most striking crime differences from the US and other industrialized nations is amount of homicides\crimes involving guns, for obvious reasons.
Guns in public schools is silly and I'd probably vote against that any day. If they want to force business owners\private schools to allow guns then I would probably reject that too.
Making a law that a congressmen has to have marksmen training is the complete fucking opposite of the conservative view of "Government out of our lives". This is why I can never trust people when they say they're conservative in the US. They don't know what it means and generally just means, "My views are the right views". Neither side of the coin has the right answers to both but conservatives are just plain weird.
If you read the Arizona bill you will see it is not bad. And Arizona is standing up to unconstitutional federal government intervention in protected rights. Allowing guns in schools is overblown, but I have not looked into the circumstances regarding this issue.
On July 16 2010 09:27 Romantic wrote: Well, if you deter crime by owning guns you need to think about the crime caused by your guns being stolen. That is all I was saying, I don't know which is better.
The most striking crime differences from the US and other industrialized nations is amount of homicides\crimes involving guns, for obvious reasons.
Are you saying had the thief not stolen a gun, they would be less apt committing a future crime?
I think the more important number is the overall number of violent crimes, irregardless of method. It's probably true guns represent a disproportionate number as a percentage of crimes in the U.S. Do you have an data that compare countries' crime rates giving details on weapon choice?
It's attitudes like this thats keeps crime rates and "death by firearm" - numbers so high in the US... Thank god you're not all gun loving freaks with paranoia like articles like these suggest you are
Edit: At least this is the impression I get from following this spectacle from over here, I sure TL members are far too intelligent to agree with these laws though.
Why not just ban guns altogether? Wouldn't this make your society a lot safer?
I live in Arizona and I support gun laws but some of the shit that comes out of our government is insane.
Making it so anyone can just grab a gun and conceal it most anywhere is stupid. People should be required to take the normal classes (with shooting time not just videos and paperwork) before they are allowed to conceal and carry.
Giving guns to every ignorant redneck and letting them take them everywhere is not only foolish it isn't necessary to uphold the 2nd imo.
On July 16 2010 10:02 lu_cid wrote: The 2nd amendment really accomplishes nothing now that such sophisticated weapons exist...
The significance is not in the power of weapons, but in who possesses them. In 1766 the British Empire had muskets and rifles and American farmers had... muskets and rifles. Today, the California National Guard, for example, has tanks, armored vehicles, jets, assault rifles, machine guns, etc... And California's citizens are allowed to have handguns with limited magazines, shotguns with limited magazines, some assault rifles with a 10 round maximum magazine capacity, etc. There is no comparison.
When government can deny rights to its citizens and grant them to itself, with virtually no consent of the governed, liberty does not exist.
On July 16 2010 10:02 lu_cid wrote: The 2nd amendment really accomplishes nothing now that such sophisticated weapons exist...
Ok, have fun fighting against the government's tanks and fighter jets with your shotgun.
Typical response- read the rest of my post that I edited in (I hit "submit" prematurely).
Additionally: 1) Under the 2nd Amendment, we don't have to be constrained to shotguns. 2) Government would be far more reluctant to suppress an armed population. Imagine an insurgency led by Americans, instead of uneducated and incompetent Iraqis... 3) The sentiment that "people should not be able to defend themselves because they'd lose a fight with the army" is ridiculous.
I don't see the harm in having a locked up firearm in the main office of the school. That being said, the add is pretty fucking retarded and there are quite a few wingnut policy makers in arizona.
On July 16 2010 10:02 lu_cid wrote: The 2nd amendment really accomplishes nothing now that such sophisticated weapons exist...
Ok, have fun fighting against the government's tanks and fighter jets with your shotgun.
Funny even with all of that we still can't control the afghanis. Those mean nothing, look at Vietnam, Afghanistan when the USSR was attacking and it the US there now. Just because you have the best stuff doesn't mean shit as has been shown again and again.
On July 16 2010 10:02 lu_cid wrote: The 2nd amendment really accomplishes nothing now that such sophisticated weapons exist...
That's not really the problem. The second amendment doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear small and simple Arms, shall not be infringed."
On July 16 2010 09:59 Kalpman wrote: It's attitudes like this thats keeps crime rates and "death by firearm" - numbers so high in the US... Thank god you're not all gun loving freaks with paranoia like articles like these suggest you are
Edit: At least this is the impression I get from following this spectacle from over here, I sure TL members are far too intelligent to agree with these laws though.
Why not just ban guns altogether? Wouldn't this make your society a lot safer?
Maybe. But then you have a monopoly of force in the hands of the government. Our second amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms. Whether that means an organized militia or has an individualist spin is debated.
Not to mention there are a couple hundred million guns in the US. Even if you repealed the second amendment you'd be stuck with the problem of finding all of these guns.
I own multiple guns, but I don't have any issue with businesses or schools banning weapons as they see fit. If there were schools where the students\administration\teachers etc decided in favor of allowing weapons, I'd probably do my best to convince them otherwise if the data supported my point.
I don't see the sense in outright banning or allowing weapons by state decision when it deals with private business, though.
On July 16 2010 10:02 lu_cid wrote: The 2nd amendment really accomplishes nothing now that such sophisticated weapons exist...
Ok, have fun fighting against the government's tanks and fighter jets with your shotgun.
Typical response- read the rest of my post that I edited in (I hit "submit" prematurely).
Additionally: 1) Under the 2nd Amendment, we don't have to be constrained to shotguns. 2) Government would be far more reluctant to suppress an armed population. Imagine an insurgency led by Americans, instead of uneducated and incompetent Iraqis... 3) The sentiment that "people should not be able to defend themselves because they'd lose a fight with the army" is ridiculous.
I never said it should be done away with... but who are you defending yourself against?
I'm all for responsible people being able to carry their weapons when and where they choose. At the same time, we need measures in place to keep weapons out of the wrong peoples hands, which is a more difficult prospect. However, one thing I'm sure of is that restricting gun rights is the wrong way to lower crime.
This was the most awesome ad I have ever seen in my life! There were SIX scenes of her shooting THREE different weapons (and one where her son was shooting)! The only way to improve this ad would have been to have her half-naked holding a heavy machine gun with this year's playmates dancing in the background!
Do people in the US really vote because of stuff like this? Ad included: - pictures of her face - a corny phrase - 7 shooting scenes (with a variety of weapons) - mentions that she is a conservative christian Ad did not include: - what she plans to do in office
But honestly, I am sure this will be one of the very few ads I will NEVER forget!
On July 16 2010 10:21 Chriamon wrote: When are they going to use IQ as a credential for public office? It is really the more deserving attribute to require of those in power.
Oh wait, if they did that we wouldn't have any republicans...(not necessarily a bad thing)
Ya, because one party states have worked out so well before.
On July 16 2010 10:17 Myles wrote: I'm all for responsible people being able to carry their weapons when and where they choose. At the same time, we need measures in place to keep weapons out of the wrong peoples hands, which is a more difficult prospect. However, one thing I'm sure of is that restricting gun rights is the wrong way to lower crime.
You sound like you're a closet libertarian. Come out and enjoy it. We like rational thinkers.
And Arizona isn't insane. I don't think you guys realize just how many illegal immigrants there are along the southwestern border. I work with at least 3 and I'm in Nevada, which doesn't even touch the Mexican border.
[Right wing conservative nutjob]And if everyone carried a gun, the psychos that go on a rampage in a mall or a college campus might think twice if everybody is packing.[/]
These people posting about how the 2nd amendment wasn't made with modern weapons in mind amaze me.
Do you not understand how the Constitution works? Nobody ever claimed that it was supposed to foresee every single issue America encountered and provide the answer. The point is to make sure that the government doesn't turn into a tyranny.
If you think the 2nd Amendment isn't right, and should restrict ownership to certain types of weapons - guess what, there's a method in place by which you can have the Amendment changed. Its called Congress.
But until you pass another amendment, given that this is the USA, the 2nd Amendment says only what it says, and there is no justification for applying interpretations based on what the founding fathers thought or intended or any other bullshit. Its text. It has a precise meaning when read without interpretations. That is the only meaning which is binding.
On July 16 2010 10:17 Myles wrote: I'm all for responsible people being able to carry their weapons when and where they choose. At the same time, we need measures in place to keep weapons out of the wrong peoples hands, which is a more difficult prospect. However, one thing I'm sure of is that restricting gun rights is the wrong way to lower crime.
You sound like you're a closet libertarian. Come out and enjoy it. We like rational thinkers.
LOL, I was told a similar thing in another thread. I'd say it's a pretty accurate summation of my views, though there are crazy libertarians out there like in any other party.
On July 16 2010 10:26 kzn wrote: tl;dr: dont like the 2nd amendment? repeal it.
While I tend to agree that if you don't like something you should go through the necessary steps to remove it, getting any of the Bill of Rights repealed is a laughable cause. And with that in mind, I'd campaign against it, because I like our first 10 so huggy muggy much.
Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
In washington state you can already carry weapons onto university grounds. You just aren't allowed in any buildings with them.
On July 16 2010 10:02 lu_cid wrote: The 2nd amendment really accomplishes nothing now that such sophisticated weapons exist...
That's not really the problem. The second amendment doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear small and simple Arms, shall not be infringed."
I just don't think regular people have the resources to posess anything beyond that...
On July 16 2010 10:26 kzn wrote: tl;dr: dont like the 2nd amendment? repeal it.
While I tend to agree that if you don't like something you should go through the necessary steps to remove it, getting any of the Bill of Rights repealed is a laughable cause. And with that in mind, I'd campaign against it, because I like our first 10 so huggy muggy much.
If thats the case then it shouldn't be repealed.
If you disagree you disagree with more than just the 2nd amendment. You disagree with the fundamental principles of democratic government.
And in that case, you're pretty much as big a wingnut as I am.
I see that some people think that passing a law identical to the Federal law that continues unenforced somehow is linked with the belief that Mexicans are genetically inferior to other races...do you honestly believe this?
Voting for someone b/c they have gun skills may be silly, but likely most people are not voting for a candidate solely for their gun skills. Besides, haven't you seen Napoleon Dynamite? Constituents like candidates with skills!
Also, it is a proven fact that gun control only effects those who obey the law, while gun ownership discourages many crimes.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
A man after my own heart.
I was wondering if anyone else had noticed the massive inconsistency on drug control and gun control.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
If a madman starts shooting in a school and a lot of other students/teachers have weapons as well, wouldn't that cause confusion? It's not like a shootout with a tight group of guys who know each other on one side of the area shooting at the group of uniformed guys on the other side.
If you have a university full of randomly positioned students who barely know each other all pulling out guns and trying to figure out who to shoot, how does something like that not escalate beyond control? You see someone shoot another person, but did they shoot the madman or are they the madman? Is there more than one? Does that other student who I'm pretty sure isn't the madman think I'm the madman? Do I now need to defend myself from an innocent person by shooting them first? If I hesitate will I die?
There are so many things that can go wrong when that many people are scared out of their pants and everyone they look at has a gun that could end their life in a second if they think too long about it. I don't see how that situation is anything close to defending one's home with the use of a weapon.
I won't pretend to be able to predict exactly what would happen, and I likely exaggerated it above, but I honestly can't think of a way it could go down without a megaton of scared students and teachers with guns trying to figure out who to shoot. There's just no way for a situation like that to be clear at all.
On July 16 2010 10:53 G_G wrote: If a madman starts shooting in a school and a lot of other students/teachers have weapons as well, wouldn't that cause confusion? It's not like a shootout with a tight group of guys who know each other on one side of the area shooting at the group of uniformed guys on the other side.
If you have a university full of randomly positioned students who barely know each other all pulling out guns and trying to figure out who to shoot, how does something like that not escalate beyond control? You see someone shoot another person, but did they shoot the madman or are they the madman? Is there more than one? Does that other student who I'm pretty sure isn't the madman think I'm the madman? Do I now need to defend myself from an innocent person by shooting them first? If I hesitate will I die?
There are so many things that can go wrong when that many people are scared out of their pants and everyone they look at has a gun that could end their life in a second if they think too long about it. I don't see how that situation is anything close to defending one's home with the use of a weapon.
I won't pretend to be able to predict exactly what would happen, and I likely exaggerated it above, but I honestly can't think of a way it could go down without a megaton of scared students and teachers with guns trying to figure out who to shoot. There's just no way for a situation like that to be clear at all.
So, option 1 with guns banned:
1 shooter, 30 people in the class, 30 people dead, shooter alive.
Option 2 with guns legal (WORST CASE):
1 shooter, 30 people in the class, 30 people dead, shooter dead.
On July 16 2010 10:55 Megalisk wrote: Does this mean people will stop hating on Texas and start making fun of Arizona? man I hope so .
It's more going in the direction of hating Texas AND Arizona. But you know, I just hate most of the south :D.
I love when blanket statements make you look foolish.Just because some one is born or living in an area does not mean they support the local politicians.
On July 16 2010 10:55 Megalisk wrote: Does this mean people will stop hating on Texas and start making fun of Arizona? man I hope so .
It's more going in the direction of hating Texas AND Arizona. But you know, I just hate most of the south :D.
I love when blanket statements make you look foolish.Just because some one is born or living in an area does not mean they support the local politicians.
Fair enough. I hate the local politicians and a lot of the politics that come from the area. It was kind of implied by my statement (given the subject matter/thread), but whatever.
On July 16 2010 10:53 G_G wrote: If a madman starts shooting in a school and a lot of other students/teachers have weapons as well, wouldn't that cause confusion? It's not like a shootout with a tight group of guys who know each other on one side of the area shooting at the group of uniformed guys on the other side.
If you have a university full of randomly positioned students who barely know each other all pulling out guns and trying to figure out who to shoot, how does something like that not escalate beyond control? You see someone shoot another person, but did they shoot the madman or are they the madman? Is there more than one? Does that other student who I'm pretty sure isn't the madman think I'm the madman? Do I now need to defend myself from an innocent person by shooting them first? If I hesitate will I die?
There are so many things that can go wrong when that many people are scared out of their pants and everyone they look at has a gun that could end their life in a second if they think too long about it. I don't see how that situation is anything close to defending one's home with the use of a weapon.
I won't pretend to be able to predict exactly what would happen, and I likely exaggerated it above, but I honestly can't think of a way it could go down without a megaton of scared students and teachers with guns trying to figure out who to shoot. There's just no way for a situation like that to be clear at all.
Hypothetical school shooting disasters are one thing. Shootings that happen that wouldn't have happened if guns weren't present is another.
Obviously if it is always some foreign invader vs heroic students and there are no police around to be confused at who is who, then yes, maybe armed students is an idea worth trying.
Given I am more afraid of drunk idiots, petty fights, and the possibility of my guns being stolen more than I am crazed shooters, I'd vote to ban guns from my hypothetical college campus that I won't be attending until September (if I lived in an anarchistic world where I could actually decide these things). Would not support a state or federal ban on guns in college campuses based on little to no research and without widespread public debate.
It took me a while after watching the video to decide if it was real or not. I mean, the last 2 seconds where she is just unloading with some machine gun is so ridiculous....
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Tada! Seriously the USA needs to get rid of this problem sooner or later, but there's just too much money involved imo.
On July 16 2010 11:31 jello_biafra wrote: Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Guns have been illegal in the UK for decades, and they're still easy to get if you're happy breaking the law.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Tada! Seriously the USA needs to get rid of this problem sooner or later, but there's just too much money involved imo.
I'd love to live in fantasy land with you, but there's no possible way to remove guns from people in the US. For one, the constitution forbids it; and two, it would be logistically impossible.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
Of course, gun crime exists in every western country, but it's much more difficult to get a hold of a gun in somewhere like the UK so the rate is far lower.
On July 16 2010 11:46 Myles wrote: For one, the constitution forbids it
Amending the constitution would be the first step towards a sensible gun control policy, that part is a relic from revolutionary times and really should have been changed some 150-200 years ago lol.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
Of course, gun crime exists in every western country, but it's much more difficult to get a hold of a gun in somewhere like the UK so the rate is far lower.
On July 16 2010 11:51 jello_biafra wrote: Amending the constitution would be the first step towards a sensible gun control policy, that part is a relic from revolutionary times and really should have been changed some 150-200 years ago lol.
So do it. If you can't, your should statement is flat wrong.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Tada! Seriously the USA needs to get rid of this problem sooner or later, but there's just too much money involved imo.
How do you propose a country with 90 guns per 100 people get rid of this "problem". There is no constitutional means by which you could do this. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2834893820070828 This article is from 2007 so I bet the number is even higher now.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
Of course, gun crime exists in every western country, but it's much more difficult to get a hold of a gun in somewhere like the UK so the rate is far lower.
Not much, I don't really give a damn what goes on down in england but I think it's more a result of the increased activities of african gangs bringing weapons/drugs into the country than anything else, all these illegal firearms have to be coming from somewhere and there are the people (mostly immigrants) who are crazy enough to use them. Also Labour were pretty dumb and I'm glad to see the back of them. Regardless though, ~5,000 to ~10,000 is a small increase considering the large increase in population over the last 10 years and that statistic covers an area with over 50 million people living in it. And finally the article is from the Daily Fail, I wouldn't put too much faith in them.
On July 16 2010 11:51 jello_biafra wrote: Amending the constitution would be the first step towards a sensible gun control policy, that part is a relic from revolutionary times and really should have been changed some 150-200 years ago lol.
So do it. If you can't, your should statement is flat wrong.
So you want me to go back in time, join the US government and change the constitution myself?
I know it would be a next to impossible task because so many people already have firearms but you could at least stop exacerbating the problem by allowing anyone to by them freely now...
On July 16 2010 12:28 jello_biafra wrote: So you want me to go back in time, join the US government and change the constitution myself?
I know it would be a next to impossible task because so many people already have firearms but you could at least stop exacerbating the problem by allowing anyone to by them freely now...
You realize Congress can pass a constitutional amendment that invalidates the 2nd amendment, right?
Just exercise your right to vote.
Nobody has come remotely close to proving that gun ownership is even a problem, so your argument is pretty weak.
I should put those on youtube thread. The states has nominated some strange candidates and some have successfully taken office. But to be fair this exists in many parts of the world.
Ok, first of all, you dont know what the hell you are talking about. Second of all, bad people get guns, no matter what. There is nothing you can ever do to stop that, all you can do is be prepared for the worst. That is why I roll with my AR15 in the trunk and glock 45 in my backpack everywhere, because I dont want some dumb son of a bitch who decides he wants to play real life grand theft auto to be given the opportunity to get away with it. You can believe in whatever non existent liberal fairy tale land you like (where the tooth fairy Obama "HOPES for change", and gets it), but when shit hits the fan and the "right wing nutjob" packing heat kills the guy going on a killing spree, you'll have a change of heart. Unfortunately, you probably wont ever experience that, although you deserve to with your dumb ass ignorant attitude.
According to the U.N. International Study on Firearm Regulation, England's 1994 homicide rate was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. In the United States, the homicide rate was 9.0 (70% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 234, per 100,000. England has strict gun control laws, ergo, the homicide rate is lower than in the U.S. However, such comparisons can be dangerous: In 1900, when England had no gun controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000.
Moreover, using data through 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice study "Crime and Justice" concluded that in England the robbery rate was 1.4 times higher, the assault rate was 2.3 times higher, and the burglary rate was 1.7 times higher than in the U.S. This suggests that lawfully armed citizens in the U.S. deter such crimes. Only the murder and rape rates in the U.S. were higher than in England. The small number of violent predators who commit most of these crimes in the U.S. have little trouble arming themselves unlawfully.
The U.N. study omits mention of Switzerland, which is awash in guns and has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.
Here are the figures: The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that in 1997 there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms. With its population of seven million (including 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, resulting in a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these crimes were committed by non-resident foreigners, whom locals call "criminal tourists."
FOURTH:
I have PERSONALLY, had my retail store robbed, 3 times in the past 6th months. 3 TIMES IN 6 MONTHS. THOUSANDS, of dollars lost, each time. My retail store, is in what by most peoples standards would be considered, located in a middle, to upper class area. DIFFERENT, people each time. First two were white, 3rd time it was one white guy one black guy. I dont cite race as the issue, its all about the character of the individuals, and most of the time you dumb ass liberals like to ignore things like that, and turn things around on the justice system, when in reality the justice system is failing us by giving these people third and fourth and fifth chances...
The thing is, liberals everywhere, sympathize with these people. I can guarantee you, that each one of these bastards shares a common state of mind, THEY THINK THEY, ARE THE VICTIMS, and they use that mentality to justify the terrible crimes they commit. (And the more that people sympathize with people who are breaking the law and escaping our failing system, the more they will continue to do them) -- Things in this country have gotten so ass backwards in sympathy for people who are convinced THEY are the victims, that it is personified in the very personality of the fraud the majority of idiots in this country elected.
MORAL OF THE STORY IS:
Until Americans wake up and realize the justice system and MOST other systems in this country are failing us, good people in this country on BOTH sides will see evil continue to rise steadily, due to the backwards ass tolerance for crime, and the complete and absolute silencing of common sense that has run so rampant ever since Obama weaseled his way into office.
But hey, I guess we could just continue to sit around and "HOPE FOR CHANGE"!
Ham what a damn joke.
[QUOTE]On July 16 2010 08:02 mmp wrote: We already know that Arizona is the most [url=http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=124879]openly racist state[/url] in the union, but things only get worse... to the point that they have become disturbingly hilarious.
Apparently credentials for public office now include marksmanship and assault weapons training.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Tada! Seriously the USA needs to get rid of this problem sooner or later, but there's just too much money involved imo.
How do you propose a country with 90 guns per 100 people get rid of this "problem". There is no constitutional means by which you could do this. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2834893820070828 This article is from 2007 so I bet the number is even higher now.
Many countries have to deal with problems harder to solve, like AIDS and other diseases. Guns in the USA are a disease. People like this lady are trying to cure a wound the easy way and in the long term this method will fail. Oh wait, it already failed.
Oh and FIFTH. Do you know why Afghanistan is in the top 5% of the HIGHEST rate of crime and corruption in the world, where there are more murders and horrendous crimes committed by people than probably any country (excluding Somalia and maybe a couple other African countries), in the world? 1 Reason: The TALIBAN, have all the guns. (Which IS, by the way, our fault, for arming them, and also, another reason we have to be there to clean up OUR mess). The villages are spread so thin and its such a dark ages type situation in most of the areas, that the evil people with guns roll into villages, rape whoever they want, kill whoever they want, take whoever they wants children, and then brainwash them into joining them. (at least, before we entered this last time) -- But if everyone in Afghanistan had a gun, we wouldnt need to be there. Sure, there would be some killing, but probably in the span of a week all of the terrorists would either be dead, or give up fighting, because they are such a small percentage of the population, the problem is LITERALLY NO CITIZENS in afghanistan have guns because they are so poor that they cant afford them. And the government troops are scared as shit of them, because they know just how evil they are. Point is, that is the perfect example of what happens when you take away the option for someone to purchase and carry a gun, the bad people ignore the rules, and then become the ones who make the rules at everyone elses expense.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
Of course, gun crime exists in every western country, but it's much more difficult to get a hold of a gun in somewhere like the UK so the rate is far lower.
On July 16 2010 11:46 Myles wrote: For one, the constitution forbids it
Amending the constitution would be the first step towards a sensible gun control policy, that part is a relic from revolutionary times and really should have been changed some 150-200 years ago lol.
On July 16 2010 12:48 lexusgs430 wrote: Oh and FIFTH. Do you know why Afghanistan is in the top 5% of the HIGHEST rate of crime and corruption in the world, where there are more murders and horrendous crimes committed by people than probably any country (excluding Somalia and maybe a couple other African countries), in the world? 1 Reason: The TALIBAN, have all the guns. (Which IS, by the way, our fault, for arming them, and also, another reason we have to be there to clean up OUR mess). The villages are spread so thin and its such a dark ages type situation in most of the areas, that the evil people with guns roll into villages, rape whoever they want, kill whoever they want, take whoever they wants children, and then brainwash them into joining them. (at least, before we entered this last time) -- But if everyone in Afghanistan had a gun, we wouldnt need to be there. Sure, there would be some killing, but probably in the span of a week all of the terrorists would either be dead, or give up fighting, because they are such a small percentage of the population, the problem is LITERALLY NO CITIZENS in afghanistan have guns because they are so poor that they cant afford them. And the government troops are scared as shit of them, because they know just how evil they are. Point is, that is the perfect example of what happens when you take away the option for someone to purchase and carry a gun, the bad people ignore the rules, and then become the ones who make the rules at everyone elses expense.
lmao dude I think you need to chill out and try to find the massive pitfalls in trying to present Afghanistan's problems as solely the result of gun ownership.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
Of course, gun crime exists in every western country, but it's much more difficult to get a hold of a gun in somewhere like the UK so the rate is far lower.
Not much, I don't really give a damn what goes on down in england but I think it's more a result of the increased activities of african gangs bringing weapons/drugs into the country than anything else, all these illegal firearms have to be coming from somewhere and there are the people (mostly immigrants) who are crazy enough to use them. Also Labour were pretty dumb and I'm glad to see the back of them. Regardless though, ~5,000 to ~10,000 is a small increase considering the large increase in population over the last 10 years and that statistic covers an area with over 50 million people living in it. And finally the article is from the Daily Fail, I wouldn't put too much faith in them.
5,000 to 10,000 isn't a small increase. That's a 100% increase. Meanwhile the population has gone up by less than 5% over the last decade, according to wiki. How is a 100% increase a small increase while a 5% increase is a large increase?
Gun crime is lower(Edit: In the UK), but most likely more deadly on average per incident (since law enforcement over in the UK doesn't have direct access to guns at all, and a special unit needs to be called in (similar to SWAT in the US) in the event of a gun-related emergency).
When owning a gun is illegal, only the criminals have them.~serves as a strong argument for the allowance of private gun ownership.
Edited: since a few people responded between me and the person I was responding to.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
Of course, gun crime exists in every western country, but it's much more difficult to get a hold of a gun in somewhere like the UK so the rate is far lower.
On July 16 2010 11:46 Myles wrote: For one, the constitution forbids it
Amending the constitution would be the first step towards a sensible gun control policy, that part is a relic from revolutionary times and really should have been changed some 150-200 years ago lol.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
Of course, gun crime exists in every western country, but it's much more difficult to get a hold of a gun in somewhere like the UK so the rate is far lower.
On July 16 2010 11:46 Myles wrote: For one, the constitution forbids it
Amending the constitution would be the first step towards a sensible gun control policy, that part is a relic from revolutionary times and really should have been changed some 150-200 years ago lol.
Well isn't that convenient! People are happy to throw out "zomgz europe is safe because there are no guns", but the second that statement is disprove it isn't relevant.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Tada! Seriously the USA needs to get rid of this problem sooner or later, but there's just too much money involved imo.
I'd love to live in fantasy land with you, but there's no possible way to remove guns from people in the US. For one, the constitution forbids it; and two, it would be logistically impossible.
Never understood why so many americans treat the constitution as some sort of a bible. Questioning the founding fathers in any context seems a big no no; their word is the word of God!
This post isn't directed at you, just a general observation. Amend the freaking amendment people.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
Of course, gun crime exists in every western country, but it's much more difficult to get a hold of a gun in somewhere like the UK so the rate is far lower.
On July 16 2010 11:46 Myles wrote: For one, the constitution forbids it
Amending the constitution would be the first step towards a sensible gun control policy, that part is a relic from revolutionary times and really should have been changed some 150-200 years ago lol.
Well isn't that convenient! People are happy to throw out "zomgz europe is safe because there are no guns", but the second that statement is disprove it isn't relevant.
It says right in the article you shouldn't compare. For example, the USA only reports felony assault as a violent crime. Edit: lesser assaults are not considered violent crime. Sure, you can compare gun deaths\crime, knife deaths\crime, home invasions, whatever specific category you want, but "violent crime" is widely differently defined.
Edit2: or you could set the definition of the components of violent crime and then add them up, but as of now the self-reported violent crime definitions are very much different.
Arizona is fine; people like to freak out to generate jouissance. The law sucked as originally written. They fixed it but no one gives a shit because it's about furthering the realization of progressive ideology, not about studying the situation with rational detachment.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
On July 16 2010 11:42 WeSt wrote:
On July 16 2010 11:31 jello_biafra wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:40 Myles wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:35 Tomnki wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Tada! Seriously the USA needs to get rid of this problem sooner or later, but there's just too much money involved imo.
I'd love to live in fantasy land with you, but there's no possible way to remove guns from people in the US. For one, the constitution forbids it; and two, it would be logistically impossible.
Never understood why so many americans treat the constitution as some sort of a bible. Questioning the founding fathers in any context seems a big no no; their word is the word of God!
This post isn't directed at you, just a general observation. Amend the freaking amendment people.
Because most of the time the people questioning the founding fathers are random liberals on the Internet who don't know shit? Do you regularly question the principles your nation was founded on?
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
On July 16 2010 11:42 WeSt wrote:
On July 16 2010 11:31 jello_biafra wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:40 Myles wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:35 Tomnki wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Tada! Seriously the USA needs to get rid of this problem sooner or later, but there's just too much money involved imo.
I'd love to live in fantasy land with you, but there's no possible way to remove guns from people in the US. For one, the constitution forbids it; and two, it would be logistically impossible.
Never understood why so many americans treat the constitution as some sort of a bible. Questioning the founding fathers in any context seems a big no no; their word is the word of God!
This post isn't directed at you, just a general observation. Amend the freaking amendment people.
Because most of the time the people questioning the founding fathers are random liberals on the Internet who don't know shit? Do you regularly question the principles your nation was founded on?
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
On July 16 2010 11:42 WeSt wrote:
On July 16 2010 11:31 jello_biafra wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:40 Myles wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:35 Tomnki wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Tada! Seriously the USA needs to get rid of this problem sooner or later, but there's just too much money involved imo.
I'd love to live in fantasy land with you, but there's no possible way to remove guns from people in the US. For one, the constitution forbids it; and two, it would be logistically impossible.
Never understood why so many americans treat the constitution as some sort of a bible. Questioning the founding fathers in any context seems a big no no; their word is the word of God!
This post isn't directed at you, just a general observation. Amend the freaking amendment people.
Because most of the time the people questioning the founding fathers are random liberals on the Internet who don't know shit? Do you regularly question the principles your nation was founded on?
Yes.
Of course I'm not saying it's a bad thing to do so. But there's a reason people assume the founding fathers had a better vision for this country than random posters on TL which is why people respond in that way.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
On July 16 2010 11:42 WeSt wrote:
On July 16 2010 11:31 jello_biafra wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:40 Myles wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:35 Tomnki wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Tada! Seriously the USA needs to get rid of this problem sooner or later, but there's just too much money involved imo.
I'd love to live in fantasy land with you, but there's no possible way to remove guns from people in the US. For one, the constitution forbids it; and two, it would be logistically impossible.
Never understood why so many americans treat the constitution as some sort of a bible. Questioning the founding fathers in any context seems a big no no; their word is the word of God!
This post isn't directed at you, just a general observation. Amend the freaking amendment people.
spare your time lalush. this "discussion" really has nothing to offer than a bunch of gun-trolls and people jumping them in thinking it matters.
oh yeah ...
On July 16 2010 13:22 QuakerOats wrote: Do you regularly question the principles your nation was founded on?
actually, here where i live, we do. seems we accepted that, especially with social groups, there are no absolutes or real constants. you us guys will figure it out ... eventually.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
On July 16 2010 11:42 WeSt wrote:
On July 16 2010 11:31 jello_biafra wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:40 Myles wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:35 Tomnki wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Tada! Seriously the USA needs to get rid of this problem sooner or later, but there's just too much money involved imo.
I'd love to live in fantasy land with you, but there's no possible way to remove guns from people in the US. For one, the constitution forbids it; and two, it would be logistically impossible.
Never understood why so many americans treat the constitution as some sort of a bible. Questioning the founding fathers in any context seems a big no no; their word is the word of God!
This post isn't directed at you, just a general observation. Amend the freaking amendment people.
Because most of the time the people questioning the founding fathers are random liberals on the Internet who don't know shit? Do you regularly question the principles your nation was founded on?
Yes.
Of course I'm not saying it's a bad thing to do so. But there's a reason people assume the founding fathers had a better vision for this country than random posters on TL which is why people respond in that way.
They did a pretty damn good job ^.^ .
Specifically about the 2nd Amendment... there are limitations just like any other amendment. This is NOT an excuse to ban handguns like Washington D.C., implement strong restrictions, that sort of thing.
Admittedly that is a really hard line to find, but at least we could agree outright bans violate the second amendment quite clearly.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
On July 16 2010 11:42 WeSt wrote:
On July 16 2010 11:31 jello_biafra wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:40 Myles wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:35 Tomnki wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Tada! Seriously the USA needs to get rid of this problem sooner or later, but there's just too much money involved imo.
I'd love to live in fantasy land with you, but there's no possible way to remove guns from people in the US. For one, the constitution forbids it; and two, it would be logistically impossible.
Never understood why so many americans treat the constitution as some sort of a bible. Questioning the founding fathers in any context seems a big no no; their word is the word of God!
This post isn't directed at you, just a general observation. Amend the freaking amendment people.
Because it IS our governmental bible.
America has been a stable (aside from a brief episode in the 1860s), free, and incredibly prosperous country for two and a half centuries because of the constitution, the bill of rights, and the individualistic entrepreneurial spirit that they endorse.
-Remember that whole Monarchy deal? We never bought into that. -Remember Fascism, that trend that was sweeping Europe a while back? Not only didn't we buy into it, we ended up being the key force in defeating it. -Remember Communism? Pretty much the same thing. -Remember Democratic Socialism? Wait, no, Europe is still doing that. Wait another decade until all of Europe looks like Greece, then I'll be able to say "told you so" once again.
Our constitution is what makes us American. It protects our freedoms, provides the groundwork for our national government, etc. Well, it would if statist politicians and useful idiots hadn't eroded it to the point of being ignored. Hence why our country is going down the shitter almost as fast as the rest of the world.
I was just thinking about something. I guess it's not a super well developed opinion, but since liberals tend to have a problem with guns getting into the wrong hands and conservatives have a problem with gun restrictions... Why have we not developed an answer that can make sure a gun can only be used to the person it is registered to?
I mean, I don't really know how it would work myself. Some kind of biometric or a fob you can carry on your person. Then, if the gun is stolen it is rendered essentially useless, as a safety precaution.
I mean, yeah, this would likely up the price of guns quite a bit. But I might be okay with paying the extra money and owning a handgun if I knew the only person that could fire the gun would be me. Also if there was a capability of a gun being effectively "turned off," guns couldn't be used in places where they were banned. And yes, I am aware that there will be hundreds of millions of guns out there that would not be suspect to this, leaving those with the new guns sitting ducks, but I'm saying ideally if every gun implemented this technology.
But aside from the guns being stolen or whatever, I would also be terrified of accidental shootings or in the process of "being a hero" I just got shot immediately.
This wasn't a troll post or anything. Feel free to pick it apart. I'm just throwing out some ideas.
Guns in bars. I can't see how that could *possibly* go wrong.
/sarcasm
On a more serious note though...
I mean, yeah, this would likely up the price of guns quite a bit. But I might be okay with paying the extra money and owning a handgun if I knew the only person that could fire the gun would be me. Also if there was a capability of a gun being effectively "turned off," guns couldn't be used in places where they were banned. And yes, I am aware that there will be hundreds of millions of guns out there that would not be suspect to this, leaving those with the new guns sitting ducks, but I'm saying ideally if every gun implemented this technology.
I think in Switzerland what they do is keep track of ammunition and so while gun ownership is high, the murder rate is way below that in the United States... can't imagine people in the US would be willing to go along with that though.
On July 16 2010 12:37 lexusgs430 wrote: - Gun, liberals, and a personal experience with lawbreakers -
You seem to be arguing against a gun ban, which is what nobody in the United States is suggesting. The idea of 'gun control' is that we restrict certain people from purchasing guns (the criminally insane, for example) and we keep tabs on the people who do purchase guns so that we can track them down if they're involved in a crime.
Which is why the gun show loophole, and no registration for gun ownership is such a shoddy collection of ideas. This isn't the wild west, with commonsense regulation, we can work to reduce gun crime, and better prevent criminals from being able to get guns. But the obstruction from groups like the NRA is based upon (irrational) fear of criminals and of the government, and it's part of what perpetuates the gun problem in this country. You see how it works, yes? If we never make an attempt to solve our gun issues, then people keep buying guns.
Measures like this in Arizona are a silly, half baked fix to an extremely rare event that can be prevented more efficiently with proper law enforcement, counseling, and, yes, gun control.
The likelihood of misuse of guns in the classroom strikes me as much higher than the likelihood of proper use. And again, gun control, not a gun ban. Nobody wants to take away your gun.
Least informed thread I've ever read. Some posters seem to have a few facts and documentation to reinforce their arguments, but for the most part...
If you hold an opinion, you're entitled to it. But If you honestly don't know how you arrived at said opinion, please refrain from spreading misinformation, or what *may be* misinformation, until you have done a little research.
On July 16 2010 13:34 Funnytoss wrote: Guns in bars. I can't see how that could *possibly* go wrong.
/sarcasm
I agree, potentially lethal machines should not be allowed to exist alongside alcohol.
OUTLAW CARS!
drinking and driving is illegal
Right. But we don't ban cars. My point is that the possibility of somebody being drunk and owning a firearm does not justify gun control legislation - it is up to the person to exercise discretion, just like you would have a designated driver if you planned on getting shitfaced.
Personally I think it is the right of a private property's owner/manager to ask people to check their guns at the door or leave them outside. But not for the government to do so.
On July 16 2010 13:34 Funnytoss wrote: Guns in bars. I can't see how that could *possibly* go wrong.
/sarcasm
I agree, potentially lethal machines should not be allowed to exist alongside alcohol.
OUTLAW CARS!
drinking and driving is illegal
Right. But we don't ban cars. My point is that the possibility of somebody being drunk and owning a firearm does not justify gun control legislation - it is up to the person to exercise discretion, just like you would have a designated driver if you planned on getting shitfaced.
Personally I think it is the right of a private property's owner/manager to ask people to check their guns at the door or leave them outside. But not for the government to do so.
It's already illegal to drive inside of a bar. I don't know what you're getting at.
So basically her whole political ad is her shooting various weapons, and some guy blah blahing about I don't remember what. Yep, sounds like middle America to me. All together now: USA! USA! USA!
America: We have guns. We dare you to disagree with us.
Just pass the law, and judge it by the result. You guys should be happy there is a ginnie pig state willing to try. Maybe they will be hero for showing laws that should never be passed, saving the future debate for the other states.
On July 16 2010 13:42 Crushgroove wrote: Least informed thread I've ever read. Some posters seem to have a few facts and documentation to reinforce their arguments, but for the most part...
If you hold an opinion, you're entitled to it. But If you honestly don't know how you arrived at said opinion, please refrain from spreading misinformation, or what *may be* misinformation, until you have done a little research.
If you have a position, state it and back it up with data. All your post says is, "I disagree". Please be more vague.
On July 16 2010 13:34 Funnytoss wrote: Guns in bars. I can't see how that could *possibly* go wrong.
/sarcasm
I agree, potentially lethal machines should not be allowed to exist alongside alcohol.
OUTLAW CARS!
drinking and driving is illegal
Right. But we don't ban cars. My point is that the possibility of somebody being drunk and owning a firearm does not justify gun control legislation - it is up to the person to exercise discretion, just like you would have a designated driver if you planned on getting shitfaced.
Personally I think it is the right of a private property's owner/manager to ask people to check their guns at the door or leave them outside. But not for the government to do so.
It's already illegal to drive inside of a bar. I don't know what you're getting at.
On July 16 2010 13:42 Crushgroove wrote: Least informed thread I've ever read. Some posters seem to have a few facts and documentation to reinforce their arguments, but for the most part...
If you hold an opinion, you're entitled to it. But If you honestly don't know how you arrived at said opinion, please refrain from spreading misinformation, or what *may be* misinformation, until you have done a little research.
I could say this about any thread on TL. Specific points to show your position as an authority on the subject would be welcome. Lead by example.
On July 16 2010 14:00 furymonkey wrote: Just pass the law, and judge it by the result. You guys should be happy there is a ginnie pig state willing to try. Maybe they will be hero for showing laws that should never be passed, saving the future debate for the other states.
If people die in another state, or another country, that is something that has an impact on me as a fellow human.
For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga.A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief — I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper — that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
On July 16 2010 11:42 WeSt wrote:
On July 16 2010 11:31 jello_biafra wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:40 Myles wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:35 Tomnki wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Tada! Seriously the USA needs to get rid of this problem sooner or later, but there's just too much money involved imo.
I'd love to live in fantasy land with you, but there's no possible way to remove guns from people in the US. For one, the constitution forbids it; and two, it would be logistically impossible.
Never understood why so many americans treat the constitution as some sort of a bible. Questioning the founding fathers in any context seems a big no no; their word is the word of God!
This post isn't directed at you, just a general observation. Amend the freaking amendment people.
Because it IS our governmental bible.
America has been a stable (aside from a brief episode in the 1860s), free, and incredibly prosperous country for two and a half centuries because of the constitution, the bill of rights, and the individualistic entrepreneurial spirit that they endorse.
This is just not true at all. Aside from all the many, many times in history that the Constitution has been broken or ignored to fit a particular crisis, the idea that the country has been stable or that it's due to the Constitution is ridiculous. We're at least an ocean away from where most wars take place. That's what has historically kept the US "stable." Besides, you know, the major unrest during the turn of the century, during the Great Depression, during Vietnam or the Cold War in general. "Entrepreneurial spirit" is a silly modern term to describe negative liberties, which there are many of, but those have been cut down or readjusted time after time. So to think that the Constitution is untouchable is ridiculous.
-Remember that whole Monarchy deal? We never bought into that. -Remember Fascism, that trend that was sweeping Europe a while back? Not only didn't we buy into it, we ended up being the key force in defeating it. -Remember Communism? Pretty much the same thing. -Remember Democratic Socialism? Wait, no, Europe is still doing that. Wait another decade until all of Europe looks like Greece, then I'll be able to say "told you so" once again.
Alright, so you don't understand how the American government works and you probably don't understand US or World History. It's not Democratic Socialism, but we do have a Socialist Democracy. This is not new. GWB partook in it, Reagan partook in it, Nixon, Eisenhower and down the line, even to Jefferson.
Our constitution is what makes us American. It protects our freedoms, provides the groundwork for our national government, etc. Well, it would if statist politicians and useful idiots hadn't eroded it to the point of being ignored. Hence why our country is going down the shitter almost as fast as the rest of the world.
Do people not take Civics classes anymore? Stop with this originalist bullshit. There was no single intent of the Founding Fathers and even if that magical cohesive idea existed, it'd be impossible to understand it today. The Constitution is a living document that has shed its skin for every new era. This is not a modern thing. It was given elasticity for these purposes.
Its easy enough to possess a weapon. Bringing them into schools and bars legally is just going to make shit worse. We have enough idiots going around killing each other as it is we don't need more. Its sick enough as it is that we don't have a idiot proof test and that we give people guns that clearly have no reason having one.
Example A: A woman who was aloud to have a gun even though she had a history of being mentally ill.
**Warning this may be disturbing to some viewers**
In order to understand what is happening in "crazy" Arizona it is necessary to step back and take a look at what our Democracy was and is today.
The key to a functioning democracy are not laws, guns, illegal immigrants but the people themselves. A democracy was created by educated, armed, citizens that loved their country as much as their Blood family. The Founding Fathers were a law abiding, God fearing, English speaking, well educated individuals. They wrote the Constitution in order to establish and maintain a way of life they were willing to lay down their lives for.
In Arizona today we have non citizens entering the country and eroding the legacy granted us by the Founding Fathers. The "crazy" laws in Arizona were written in order to stop non citizen criminal elements of Mexican Drug Cartels from invading , murdering, and forcing civilians of the united States of America to fear for their own lives on their own land. The sad implications of this is that law abiding immigrants also from Mexico are unfairly going to be persecuted in the by the sheriffs and police of Arizona because they enter and habitat in the same areas as Drug Lord gangsters.
The state of Arizona is left holding the "bag" because the Federal Government can not or will not enforce the integrity of the border with Mexico. So since the Federal Government does not maintain its own laws, the State is trying to protect its citizens from the murder and carnage that is happening in Mexico. Last year just in one province in Mexico, over 5000 people many of them Mexican citizens were murdered or fell victim to the civil war that is being fought in Mexico. This war is now spilling over into the United States.
Guns in the hand of criminals is crazy. Guns in the hands of an educated , professional, landed individual is something else. Outlawing guns makes sense on the surface,but what is actually the problem is that the people using the guns in this country are no longer brought up in the same way anymore. What I mean is this, during the Founding Fathers day, kids had two parents that taught them right/wrong according to strict interpretations of the Bible. Today we have single parents that leave the teaching of their kids to the T.V. set. I'm not qualified to say which one is better but I'm leaning toward a clear ,strict interpretation of good/evil right/wrong rather than Jerry Springer. So going back to the "crazy" gun question, it is a little more clear that educated citizens holding guns forces those around them to act responsibly. If you go back to the bar example. How many people would get shit faced in a bar full of armed patrons? I know I would mind my manners if everyone in a bar was carrying a weapon. One of the core pillars of democracy is having citizens that act responsibly in treating with guns and other human beings legal and illegal. Guns are not the problem. Illegal immigrants are not the problem. We have had both since the founding of this country.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
On July 16 2010 11:42 WeSt wrote:
On July 16 2010 11:31 jello_biafra wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:40 Myles wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:35 Tomnki wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Tada! Seriously the USA needs to get rid of this problem sooner or later, but there's just too much money involved imo.
I'd love to live in fantasy land with you, but there's no possible way to remove guns from people in the US. For one, the constitution forbids it; and two, it would be logistically impossible.
Never understood why so many americans treat the constitution as some sort of a bible. Questioning the founding fathers in any context seems a big no no; their word is the word of God!
This post isn't directed at you, just a general observation. Amend the freaking amendment people.
Because it IS our governmental bible.
America has been a stable (aside from a brief episode in the 1860s), free, and incredibly prosperous country for two and a half centuries because of the constitution, the bill of rights, and the individualistic entrepreneurial spirit that they endorse.
This is just not true at all. Aside from all the many, many times in history that the Constitution has been broken or ignored to fit a particular crisis, the idea that the country has been stable or that it's due to the Constitution is ridiculous. We're at least an ocean away from where most wars take place. That's what has historically kept the US "stable." Besides, you know, the major unrest during the turn of the century, during the Great Depression, during Vietnam or the Cold War in general. "Entrepreneurial spirit" is a silly modern term to describe negative liberties, which there are many of, but those have been cut down or readjusted time after time. So to think that the Constitution is untouchable is ridiculous.
-Remember that whole Monarchy deal? We never bought into that. -Remember Fascism, that trend that was sweeping Europe a while back? Not only didn't we buy into it, we ended up being the key force in defeating it. -Remember Communism? Pretty much the same thing. -Remember Democratic Socialism? Wait, no, Europe is still doing that. Wait another decade until all of Europe looks like Greece, then I'll be able to say "told you so" once again.
Alright, so you don't understand how the American government works and you probably don't understand US or World History. It's not Democratic Socialism, but we do have a Socialist Democracy. This is not new. GWB partook in it, Reagan partook in it, Nixon, Eisenhower and down the line, even to Jefferson.
Our constitution is what makes us American. It protects our freedoms, provides the groundwork for our national government, etc. Well, it would if statist politicians and useful idiots hadn't eroded it to the point of being ignored. Hence why our country is going down the shitter almost as fast as the rest of the world.
Do people not take Civics classes anymore? Stop with this originalist bullshit. There was no single intent of the Founding Fathers and even if that magical cohesive idea existed, it'd be impossible to understand it today. The Constitution is a living document that has shed its skin for every new era. This is not a modern thing. It was given elasticity for these purposes.
"negative liberties".
ROFL. What planet do you have to live on for that to NOT be an oxymoron?
This is a subject near and dear to my heart. I'm a college student in Virginia. I'm also a Concealed Handgun Permit carrier. I am not allowed to carry my concealed handgun onto campus in my state (coincidently, a state where a massacre of students occurred a few years ago that may have been avoided), but any random person off the street IS allowed to concealed carry on a public campus.
That's right.
The only people NOT allowed to concealed carry on public campuses are students and faculty. Everyone else can.
That seems absurd to me, but sure enough, it's the law. And the solution clearly isn't to outlaw guns from campuses; that has been tried, and it has failed. Guns are simply a fact of life in this country, so why can't we allow responsible people, after qualifying with a background check and a class, to exercise their rights?
I love our police force. I'm a volunteer EMT. Our emergency response system is great, but we can't be everywhere at once, and we simply can't be there in time when someone is committed to harming others. The most criminal thing of all, to me, is to remove the ability for lawful individuals to simply defend their right to live.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
On July 16 2010 11:42 WeSt wrote:
On July 16 2010 11:31 jello_biafra wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:40 Myles wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:35 Tomnki wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Tada! Seriously the USA needs to get rid of this problem sooner or later, but there's just too much money involved imo.
I'd love to live in fantasy land with you, but there's no possible way to remove guns from people in the US. For one, the constitution forbids it; and two, it would be logistically impossible.
Never understood why so many americans treat the constitution as some sort of a bible. Questioning the founding fathers in any context seems a big no no; their word is the word of God!
This post isn't directed at you, just a general observation. Amend the freaking amendment people.
Because it IS our governmental bible.
America has been a stable (aside from a brief episode in the 1860s), free, and incredibly prosperous country for two and a half centuries because of the constitution, the bill of rights, and the individualistic entrepreneurial spirit that they endorse.
This is just not true at all. Aside from all the many, many times in history that the Constitution has been broken or ignored to fit a particular crisis, the idea that the country has been stable or that it's due to the Constitution is ridiculous. We're at least an ocean away from where most wars take place. That's what has historically kept the US "stable." Besides, you know, the major unrest during the turn of the century, during the Great Depression, during Vietnam or the Cold War in general. "Entrepreneurial spirit" is a silly modern term to describe negative liberties, which there are many of, but those have been cut down or readjusted time after time. So to think that the Constitution is untouchable is ridiculous.
-Remember that whole Monarchy deal? We never bought into that. -Remember Fascism, that trend that was sweeping Europe a while back? Not only didn't we buy into it, we ended up being the key force in defeating it. -Remember Communism? Pretty much the same thing. -Remember Democratic Socialism? Wait, no, Europe is still doing that. Wait another decade until all of Europe looks like Greece, then I'll be able to say "told you so" once again.
Alright, so you don't understand how the American government works and you probably don't understand US or World History. It's not Democratic Socialism, but we do have a Socialist Democracy. This is not new. GWB partook in it, Reagan partook in it, Nixon, Eisenhower and down the line, even to Jefferson.
Our constitution is what makes us American. It protects our freedoms, provides the groundwork for our national government, etc. Well, it would if statist politicians and useful idiots hadn't eroded it to the point of being ignored. Hence why our country is going down the shitter almost as fast as the rest of the world.
Do people not take Civics classes anymore? Stop with this originalist bullshit. There was no single intent of the Founding Fathers and even if that magical cohesive idea existed, it'd be impossible to understand it today. The Constitution is a living document that has shed its skin for every new era. This is not a modern thing. It was given elasticity for these purposes.
"negative liberties".
ROFL. What planet do you have to live on for that to NOT be an oxymoron?
The planet of people who actually study political science and didn't just bandwagon onto liberalism.
A very old video of a testimony before congress regarding the 2nd Amendment, if anyone is interested.
Laws and rules are not based on testimonies, but on statistics and studies.
What happens to you, this lady, or me, doesn't matter if we are the exception to the rule, or we are just 1 in 1000000.
Right, which is why I said it was a testimony if anyone was interested, not whether or not we should base law off of it. If you want my opinion on the actual law, please refer to my previous post, friend. It's right above the one you quoted.
And as for statistics or studies... this depends on what law you are talking about. Are you talking about current gun restrictions? Those are more based on fear of violence, then statistics (not that they are wrong; I'm all for common sense restrictions). Or do you mean the current law in Virginia that I highlighted in my post? I'm not sure what that's based on, since it's a very clear contradiction. Or do you refer to the 2nd Amendment? That is based on a moral belief, not any statistic or study.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
On July 16 2010 11:42 WeSt wrote:
On July 16 2010 11:31 jello_biafra wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:40 Myles wrote:
On July 16 2010 10:35 Tomnki wrote: [quote]
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Tada! Seriously the USA needs to get rid of this problem sooner or later, but there's just too much money involved imo.
I'd love to live in fantasy land with you, but there's no possible way to remove guns from people in the US. For one, the constitution forbids it; and two, it would be logistically impossible.
Never understood why so many americans treat the constitution as some sort of a bible. Questioning the founding fathers in any context seems a big no no; their word is the word of God!
This post isn't directed at you, just a general observation. Amend the freaking amendment people.
Because it IS our governmental bible.
America has been a stable (aside from a brief episode in the 1860s), free, and incredibly prosperous country for two and a half centuries because of the constitution, the bill of rights, and the individualistic entrepreneurial spirit that they endorse.
This is just not true at all. Aside from all the many, many times in history that the Constitution has been broken or ignored to fit a particular crisis, the idea that the country has been stable or that it's due to the Constitution is ridiculous. We're at least an ocean away from where most wars take place. That's what has historically kept the US "stable." Besides, you know, the major unrest during the turn of the century, during the Great Depression, during Vietnam or the Cold War in general. "Entrepreneurial spirit" is a silly modern term to describe negative liberties, which there are many of, but those have been cut down or readjusted time after time. So to think that the Constitution is untouchable is ridiculous.
-Remember that whole Monarchy deal? We never bought into that. -Remember Fascism, that trend that was sweeping Europe a while back? Not only didn't we buy into it, we ended up being the key force in defeating it. -Remember Communism? Pretty much the same thing. -Remember Democratic Socialism? Wait, no, Europe is still doing that. Wait another decade until all of Europe looks like Greece, then I'll be able to say "told you so" once again.
Alright, so you don't understand how the American government works and you probably don't understand US or World History. It's not Democratic Socialism, but we do have a Socialist Democracy. This is not new. GWB partook in it, Reagan partook in it, Nixon, Eisenhower and down the line, even to Jefferson.
Our constitution is what makes us American. It protects our freedoms, provides the groundwork for our national government, etc. Well, it would if statist politicians and useful idiots hadn't eroded it to the point of being ignored. Hence why our country is going down the shitter almost as fast as the rest of the world.
Do people not take Civics classes anymore? Stop with this originalist bullshit. There was no single intent of the Founding Fathers and even if that magical cohesive idea existed, it'd be impossible to understand it today. The Constitution is a living document that has shed its skin for every new era. This is not a modern thing. It was given elasticity for these purposes.
"negative liberties".
ROFL. What planet do you have to live on for that to NOT be an oxymoron?
The planet of people who actually study political science and didn't just bandwagon onto liberalism.
A very old video of a testimony before congress regarding the 2nd Amendment, if anyone is interested.
Laws and rules are not based on testimonies, but on statistics and studies.
What happens to you, this lady, or me, doesn't matter if we are the exception to the rule, or we are just 1 in 1000000.
Right, which is why I said it was a testimony if anyone was interested, not whether or not we should base law off of it. If you want my opinion on the actual law, please refer to my previous post, friend. It's right above the one you quoted.
And as for statistics or studies... this depends on what law you are talking about. Are you talking about current gun restrictions? Those are more based on fear of violence, then statistics (not that they are wrong; I'm all for common sense restrictions). Or do you mean the current law in Virginia that I highlighted in my post? I'm not sure what that's based on, since it's a very clear contradiction. Or do you refer to the 2nd Amendment? That is based on a moral belief, not any statistic or study.
I'm talking laws in general. But I should have said "Laws should be based on...", because it does not always happen, I agree.
Also I didn't mean to come off as offensive. It's just that "testimonies", "what I read somewhere", "what I heard", etc doesn't help at all in a discussion because it fuels one argument in the wrong direction with no information to back it up.
A very old video of a testimony before congress regarding the 2nd Amendment, if anyone is interested.
Laws and rules are not based on testimonies, but on statistics and studies.
What happens to you, this lady, or me, doesn't matter if we are the exception to the rule, or we are just 1 in 1000000.
Right, which is why I said it was a testimony if anyone was interested, not whether or not we should base law off of it. If you want my opinion on the actual law, please refer to my previous post, friend. It's right above the one you quoted.
And as for statistics or studies... this depends on what law you are talking about. Are you talking about current gun restrictions? Those are more based on fear of violence, then statistics (not that they are wrong; I'm all for common sense restrictions). Or do you mean the current law in Virginia that I highlighted in my post? I'm not sure what that's based on, since it's a very clear contradiction. Or do you refer to the 2nd Amendment? That is based on a moral belief, not any statistic or study.
I'm talking laws in general. But I should have said "Laws should be based on...", because it does not always happen, I agree.
Also I didn't mean to come off as offensive. It's just that "testimonies", "what I read somewhere", "what I heard", etc doesn't help at all in a discussion because it fuels one argument in the wrong direction with no information to back it up.
You definitely have a point. And I took no offense, sorry if it seemed that way (it's late). I just thought this testimony would be interesting to certain people arguing in this thread because it's a real example of the current law in action, and topical, as the change in the proposed law could have affected a similar situation.
As far as whether or not laws should be based on statistics and studies... I am of two minds on that. Where as it'd be nice if laws were all logical and backed by scientific proof, some of our most important laws are based on human rights and moral beliefs that may or may not have any statistical backing. What statistic or study backs up free press rights? Privacy rights? The 2nd Amendment is very debatable, but I believe most people in the United States would say it's a very important one that is not based on any statistic or study, but on the simple ideal that the common man should be able to defend his own life.
Of course, as to whether statistics back up the 2nd Amendment or not, it depends on your source. I know I could cite many reputable sources that would point to gun possession being an effective deterrent to crime, or that registered gun owners commit far less crimes than other groups. I'm also sure someone could go to the Brady Campaign's website and pull up a bunch of gun statistics that would argue that guns are quite evil.
On July 16 2010 12:28 jello_biafra wrote: So you want me to go back in time, join the US government and change the constitution myself?
I know it would be a next to impossible task because so many people already have firearms but you could at least stop exacerbating the problem by allowing anyone to by them freely now...
You realize Congress can pass a constitutional amendment that invalidates the 2nd amendment, right?
Just exercise your right to vote.
Nobody has come remotely close to proving that gun ownership is even a problem, so your argument is pretty weak.
I'm not American though, kinda hard to vote when you're not a citizen and you don't live in the country.
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously.
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized.
You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things.
Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem.
Of course, gun crime exists in every western country, but it's much more difficult to get a hold of a gun in somewhere like the UK so the rate is far lower.
Not much, I don't really give a damn what goes on down in england but I think it's more a result of the increased activities of african gangs bringing weapons/drugs into the country than anything else, all these illegal firearms have to be coming from somewhere and there are the people (mostly immigrants) who are crazy enough to use them. Also Labour were pretty dumb and I'm glad to see the back of them. Regardless though, ~5,000 to ~10,000 is a small increase considering the large increase in population over the last 10 years and that statistic covers an area with over 50 million people living in it. And finally the article is from the Daily Fail, I wouldn't put too much faith in them.
5,000 to 10,000 isn't a small increase. That's a 100% increase. Meanwhile the population has gone up by less than 5% over the last decade, according to wiki. How is a 100% increase a small increase while a 5% increase is a large increase?
It may be a %100 increase but it's still small since 5,000 a year out of 50 million is such a low rate and of this large increase in population a relatively high number of them will be the kind of person who can acquire illegal weapons.
On July 16 2010 12:57 Ichabod wrote: Gun crime is lower(Edit: In the UK), but most likely more deadly on average per incident (since law enforcement over in the UK doesn't have direct access to guns at all, and a special unit needs to be called in (similar to SWAT in the US) in the event of a gun-related emergency).
Actually most police cars have guns, armed response units are always rolling.
A very old video of a testimony before congress regarding the 2nd Amendment, if anyone is interested.
Damn, that was a crazy story. I still can't help to think though that the only reason that madman was able to do that harm was because of your right to have guns in the US. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/28/supremecourt/main6626538.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody. The woman instead addresses the issue that she wasn't able to carry a gun to defend herself but I think misses the point that in a society where firearms are banned the chances that these killing sprees will happen is so much less frequent.
She is right about the purpose of the second amendment. Makes you wonder why it shouldn't be read as to make available anti-aircraft missiles to defend yourself against the government as well
The only thing I can say about guns in the U.S. is that it's unfortunate we have them and it's also unfortunate that they are practically impossible to get rid of. Instead, we let James Bond wannabes and potential serial killers free access to weapons and have people like me pray we won't get shot during the course of our normal day. Having guns so protected in this country only means that there will be more innocent lives lost; screw the original intent of the amendment, it's out-dated.
A very old video of a testimony before congress regarding the 2nd Amendment, if anyone is interested.
Laws and rules are not based on testimonies, but on statistics and studies.
What happens to you, this lady, or me, doesn't matter if we are the exception to the rule, or we are just 1 in 1000000.
Right, which is why I said it was a testimony if anyone was interested, not whether or not we should base law off of it. If you want my opinion on the actual law, please refer to my previous post, friend. It's right above the one you quoted.
And as for statistics or studies... this depends on what law you are talking about. Are you talking about current gun restrictions? Those are more based on fear of violence, then statistics (not that they are wrong; I'm all for common sense restrictions). Or do you mean the current law in Virginia that I highlighted in my post? I'm not sure what that's based on, since it's a very clear contradiction. Or do you refer to the 2nd Amendment? That is based on a moral belief, not any statistic or study.
I'm talking laws in general. But I should have said "Laws should be based on...", because it does not always happen, I agree.
Also I didn't mean to come off as offensive. It's just that "testimonies", "what I read somewhere", "what I heard", etc doesn't help at all in a discussion because it fuels one argument in the wrong direction with no information to back it up.
You definitely have a point. And I took no offense, sorry if it seemed that way (it's late). I just thought this testimony would be interesting to certain people arguing in this thread because it's a real example of the current law in action, and topical, as the change in the proposed law could have affected a similar situation.
As far as whether or not laws should be based on statistics and studies... I am of two minds on that. Where as it'd be nice if laws were all logical and backed by scientific proof, some of our most important laws are based on human rights and moral beliefs that may or may not have any statistical backing. What statistic or study backs up free press rights? Privacy rights? The 2nd Amendment is very debatable, but I believe most people in the United States would say it's a very important one that is not based on any statistic or study, but on the simple ideal that the common man should be able to defend his own life.
Of course, as to whether statistics back up the 2nd Amendment or not, it depends on your source. I know I could cite many reputable sources that would point to gun possession being an effective deterrent to crime, or that registered gun owners commit far less crimes than other groups. I'm also sure someone could go to the Brady Campaign's website and pull up a bunch of gun statistics that would argue that guns are quite evil.
Well yes, some laws are based on morals which are nothing but beliefs. We have to start somewhere. But as time goes on and we evolve as a society, we modify rules.
When the option is at hand, using science/statistics/studies seems like the best and more neutral solution. Of course this is not always the case.
I think what your video does show well is that middle solutions are maybe the worst of all, because they create ridiculous scenarios where the laws seem to make more bad than good, and leave people with a sense of injustice.
A very old video of a testimony before congress regarding the 2nd Amendment, if anyone is interested.
Damn, that was a crazy story. I still can't help to think though that the only reason that madman was able to do that harm was because of your right to have guns in the US. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/28/supremecourt/main6626538.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody. The woman instead addresses the issue that she wasn't able to carry a gun to defend herself but I think misses the point that in a society where firearms are banned the chances that these killing sprees will happen is so much less frequent.
She is right about the purpose of the second amendment. Makes you wonder why it shouldn't be read as to make available anti-aircraft missiles to defend yourself against the government as well
The only thing I can say about guns in the U.S. is that it's unfortunate we have them and it's also unfortunate that they are practically impossible to get rid of. Instead, we let James Bond wannabes and potential serial killers free access to weapons and have people like me pray we won't get shot during the course of our normal day. Having guns so protected in this country only means that there will be more innocent lives lost; screw the original intent of the amendment, it's out-dated.
By all means, join the Brady Campaign, do whatever you think you need to do to repeal the amendment. I can only give you my personal experience with it (though I feel like I have good ground to stand on here). I work with police (I'm an EMT). I also concealed carry legally in my state. I've personally used my weapon to defend myself. I'd love a world where guns aren't needed, however, the person I trust to defend myself first is not a faceless police officer in an overworked station 20 minutes away. It's me. In a real situation, I have one person to rely on when it comes to my safety and the safety of my loved ones.
An ideal world where we all have no weapons would be lovely. But there would also have to be no crazy people. No gangs, no violent offenders, and no wars. When you can promise me all those things, I'll gladly give away my gun. In the meantime, I'm thankful that I live in a country where I can carry a weapon, so I can at least be adequately able to defend myself against criminals that don't care if I'm a pacifist, don't care if I'm a good person, and don't care if I'm against gun possession or anything like that.
Free access to weapons does not exist because we allow law abiding citizens to have weapons. Access to weapons is something criminals have always had since time immemorial. Do you really think some crazed guy committed to killing random people is going to be stopped because we stop the people who actually obey laws from getting guns?
Do you really think that the fact that you can buy a gun after registering it, a waiting period, and a background check, is what caused some psycho to kill people?
Maybe taking it to the next step and making it mandatory to carry a gun will prevent future incidents like that. When everybody is armed, shooters won't stand a chance, don't you agree?
If everyone had guns, won't there be more friendly fire? If the criminal assume their victim has a gun, won't they just shoot them on sight - I can imagine a bank robbery where a normal person tries to pull a gun out and it ends the whole thing in a massacre.
On July 16 2010 13:42 Crushgroove wrote: Least informed thread I've ever read. Some posters seem to have a few facts and documentation to reinforce their arguments, but for the most part...
If you hold an opinion, you're entitled to it. But If you honestly don't know how you arrived at said opinion, please refrain from spreading misinformation, or what *may be* misinformation, until you have done a little research.
Let me quote and put some emphasis by those means on this wisest of posts and which contents every poster and participant in this community should adhere to.
Those who are against guns are the ones who don't need them. Americans don't know how lucky they are to have this right, it's sad to see how many people here are against carrying a weapon for self defence. Freedom may not be what serves your best interests, but I will sure as hell defend liberty.
Hahaha this really got me cracking up. What else can they come up with...this is just so ridiculous and those people are even paid for stupid bullshit like this. What a shame, really...
A very old video of a testimony before congress regarding the 2nd Amendment, if anyone is interested.
Damn, that was a crazy story. I still can't help to think though that the only reason that madman was able to do that harm was because of your right to have guns in the US. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/28/supremecourt/main6626538.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody. The woman instead addresses the issue that she wasn't able to carry a gun to defend herself but I think misses the point that in a society where firearms are banned the chances that these killing sprees will happen is so much less frequent.
She is right about the purpose of the second amendment. Makes you wonder why it shouldn't be read as to make available anti-aircraft missiles to defend yourself against the government as well
The only thing I can say about guns in the U.S. is that it's unfortunate we have them and it's also unfortunate that they are practically impossible to get rid of. Instead, we let James Bond wannabes and potential serial killers free access to weapons and have people like me pray we won't get shot during the course of our normal day. Having guns so protected in this country only means that there will be more innocent lives lost; screw the original intent of the amendment, it's out-dated.
By all means, join the Brady Campaign, do whatever you think you need to do to repeal the amendment. I can only give you my personal experience with it (though I feel like I have good ground to stand on here). I work with police (I'm an EMT). I also concealed carry legally in my state. I've personally used my weapon to defend myself. I'd love a world where guns aren't needed, however, the person I trust to defend myself first is not a faceless police officer in an overworked station 20 minutes away. It's me. In a real situation, I have one person to rely on when it comes to my safety and the safety of my loved ones.
An ideal world where we all have no weapons would be lovely. But there would also have to be no crazy people. No gangs, no violent offenders, and no wars. When you can promise me all those things, I'll gladly give away my gun. In the meantime, I'm thankful that I live in a country where I can carry a weapon, so I can at least be adequately able to defend myself against criminals that don't care if I'm a pacifist, don't care if I'm a good person, and don't care if I'm against gun possession or anything like that.
Free access to weapons does not exist because we allow law abiding citizens to have weapons. Access to weapons is something criminals have always had since time immemorial. Do you really think some crazed guy committed to killing random people is going to be stopped because we stop the people who actually obey laws from getting guns?
Do you really think that the fact that you can buy a gun after registering it, a waiting period, and a background check, is what caused some psycho to kill people?
You carry a loaded firearm with the intent to use, and you have. You are in no way a pacifist.
A very old video of a testimony before congress regarding the 2nd Amendment, if anyone is interested.
Damn, that was a crazy story. I still can't help to think though that the only reason that madman was able to do that harm was because of your right to have guns in the US. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/28/supremecourt/main6626538.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody. The woman instead addresses the issue that she wasn't able to carry a gun to defend herself but I think misses the point that in a society where firearms are banned the chances that these killing sprees will happen is so much less frequent.
She is right about the purpose of the second amendment. Makes you wonder why it shouldn't be read as to make available anti-aircraft missiles to defend yourself against the government as well
The only thing I can say about guns in the U.S. is that it's unfortunate we have them and it's also unfortunate that they are practically impossible to get rid of. Instead, we let James Bond wannabes and potential serial killers free access to weapons and have people like me pray we won't get shot during the course of our normal day. Having guns so protected in this country only means that there will be more innocent lives lost; screw the original intent of the amendment, it's out-dated.
By all means, join the Brady Campaign, do whatever you think you need to do to repeal the amendment. I can only give you my personal experience with it (though I feel like I have good ground to stand on here). I work with police (I'm an EMT). I also concealed carry legally in my state. I've personally used my weapon to defend myself. I'd love a world where guns aren't needed, however, the person I trust to defend myself first is not a faceless police officer in an overworked station 20 minutes away. It's me. In a real situation, I have one person to rely on when it comes to my safety and the safety of my loved ones.
An ideal world where we all have no weapons would be lovely. But there would also have to be no crazy people. No gangs, no violent offenders, and no wars. When you can promise me all those things, I'll gladly give away my gun. In the meantime, I'm thankful that I live in a country where I can carry a weapon, so I can at least be adequately able to defend myself against criminals that don't care if I'm a pacifist, don't care if I'm a good person, and don't care if I'm against gun possession or anything like that.
Free access to weapons does not exist because we allow law abiding citizens to have weapons. Access to weapons is something criminals have always had since time immemorial. Do you really think some crazed guy committed to killing random people is going to be stopped because we stop the people who actually obey laws from getting guns?
Do you really think that the fact that you can buy a gun after registering it, a waiting period, and a background check, is what caused some psycho to kill people?
You carry a loaded firearm with the intent to use, and you have. You are in no way a pacifist.
Before you say something that makes you put your foot in your mouth, read up on it again.
Kansas and the Bible Belt for anti-science Texas for anti-history and Arizona for this new crazy story (along with anti-immigration)?
Sigh.
I'm not extremely political, but it always seems like it's the conservative (rather than the liberal) viewpoint that proposes this backwards thinking. A very strong correlation, it seems I suppose that any Republicans who have common sense are banging their heads against the wall because of all this nonsense that is giving their political label a bad name.
conceal and carry is such a stupid premise. Cops and the like are there so we don't have re-enactments of the shootout at the OK corral every time two drunk idiots get into a tiff at a bar.
I can buy into having a gun at your home or place as a right to defending yourself. I just don't see walking down to the supermarket with two holstered guns over your shoulder as a right.
A very old video of a testimony before congress regarding the 2nd Amendment, if anyone is interested.
Damn, that was a crazy story. I still can't help to think though that the only reason that madman was able to do that harm was because of your right to have guns in the US. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/28/supremecourt/main6626538.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody. The woman instead addresses the issue that she wasn't able to carry a gun to defend herself but I think misses the point that in a society where firearms are banned the chances that these killing sprees will happen is so much less frequent.
She is right about the purpose of the second amendment. Makes you wonder why it shouldn't be read as to make available anti-aircraft missiles to defend yourself against the government as well
The only thing I can say about guns in the U.S. is that it's unfortunate we have them and it's also unfortunate that they are practically impossible to get rid of. Instead, we let James Bond wannabes and potential serial killers free access to weapons and have people like me pray we won't get shot during the course of our normal day. Having guns so protected in this country only means that there will be more innocent lives lost; screw the original intent of the amendment, it's out-dated.
By all means, join the Brady Campaign, do whatever you think you need to do to repeal the amendment. I can only give you my personal experience with it (though I feel like I have good ground to stand on here). I work with police (I'm an EMT). I also concealed carry legally in my state. I've personally used my weapon to defend myself. I'd love a world where guns aren't needed, however, the person I trust to defend myself first is not a faceless police officer in an overworked station 20 minutes away. It's me. In a real situation, I have one person to rely on when it comes to my safety and the safety of my loved ones.
An ideal world where we all have no weapons would be lovely. But there would also have to be no crazy people. No gangs, no violent offenders, and no wars. When you can promise me all those things, I'll gladly give away my gun. In the meantime, I'm thankful that I live in a country where I can carry a weapon, so I can at least be adequately able to defend myself against criminals that don't care if I'm a pacifist, don't care if I'm a good person, and don't care if I'm against gun possession or anything like that.
Free access to weapons does not exist because we allow law abiding citizens to have weapons. Access to weapons is something criminals have always had since time immemorial. Do you really think some crazed guy committed to killing random people is going to be stopped because we stop the people who actually obey laws from getting guns?
Do you really think that the fact that you can buy a gun after registering it, a waiting period, and a background check, is what caused some psycho to kill people?
You carry a loaded firearm with the intent to use, and you have. You are in no way a pacifist.
Well, I could argue that I am, but you're right, I'm not (though I would certainly advocate a peaceful solution to most things). I didn't mean to imply that I was either. It was an example of a reason I might not be prepared to defend myself, and how someone intent on harming me wouldn't care.
On July 16 2010 19:16 yema1 wrote: Those who are against guns are the ones who don't need them.
People who are for guns don't need them either. In all seriousness, most of the situations depicted where they're useful have more in common with a summer action movie then reality.
What's the first thing you're going to do when someone points a gun at you? Oh right, turn it into a firefight. This is SO MUCH safer then the alternative.
On July 16 2010 08:07 Vharox wrote: Dude, that's awesome. (the fact that she knows how to use various guns)
send her to the war on a iraq! maybe she will shoot a bullet that will ricochet a thousand times and eventually end up hitting bin laden 100% in the middle of the eyes Lmfao.
TrySuckingLess: 2 weeks ago Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A conservative Babe (my favorite) who can shoot guns. Sweetie, you should try doing it in a Bikini, I would love it.
this is politics for u. You spew some of the most insane shit to please a bunch of insane people. If you take the rational approach, uneducated fuckers on both sides of the spectrum will go against you.
I think the err in believing that people should (or should not) have guns lies on the belief that you're entitled to say what they should (or should not) have period... Oh but thats off topic, yeah.
I think it's very interesting that people trust police who don't need a college degree, don't know them, and are often overworked and far away, or will trust armed forces lead by such "capable" leaders as George W. Bush, but they won't trust themselves with a weapon.
On July 17 2010 01:03 w_Ender_w wrote: I think it's very interesting that people trust police who don't need a college degree, don't know them, and are often overworked and far away, or will trust armed forces lead by such "capable" leaders as George W. Bush, but they won't trust themselves with a weapon.
Yeah, that's why I don't trust the police or the military. I would rather carry a gun and be allowed to protect myself than trust someone else to do it for me. That being said, I have no intention of buying a gun.
On July 17 2010 01:03 w_Ender_w wrote: I think it's very interesting that people trust police who don't need a college degree, don't know them, and are often overworked and far away, or will trust armed forces lead by such "capable" leaders as George W. Bush, but they won't trust themselves with a weapon.
Yeah, that's why I don't trust the police or the military. I would rather carry a gun and be allowed to protect myself than trust someone else to do it for me. That being said, I have no intention of buying a gun.
Hehe.... I'd be down with having a gun in my house, I know I can handle it... I have no intention of buying a gun or ever owning one whatsoever.
The main issue is, I don't trust other people with them, because people aren't to be trusted with guns... And I the last thing you want is guns in bars, really. So many reasons for a fight to happen in there, the last thing you need is for a bunch of people to pull out their guns.
I like how the far right doesn't care about bringing us back to the Red Dead Redemption days =P
This link belongs in the OP, in my humble opinion.
There is hope that if you turn your state into a neo-conservative wet dream, you'll at least be entirely screwed economically for the next few decades.
On July 16 2010 14:10 Jibba wrote: Do people not take Civics classes anymore? Stop with this originalist bullshit. There was no single intent of the Founding Fathers and even if that magical cohesive idea existed, it'd be impossible to understand it today. The Constitution is a living document that has shed its skin for every new era. This is not a modern thing. It was given elasticity for these purposes.
You realize that you've basically just made an argument in support of Textualism, and then magically found your way to a ridiculous claim that the Constitution is a "living document" with no actual support of that statement.
It is essentially impossible to make a vaguely good argument in favor of any Constitutional interpretation theory except strict Textualism. I wish people would stop trying.
On July 16 2010 14:10 Jibba wrote: Do people not take Civics classes anymore? Stop with this originalist bullshit. There was no single intent of the Founding Fathers and even if that magical cohesive idea existed, it'd be impossible to understand it today. The Constitution is a living document that has shed its skin for every new era. This is not a modern thing. It was given elasticity for these purposes.
You realize that you've basically just made an argument in support of Textualism, and then magically found your way to a ridiculous claim that the Constitution is a "living document" with no actual support of that statement.
It is essentially impossible to make a vaguely good argument in favor of any Constitutional interpretation theory except strict Textualism. I wish people would stop trying.
The constitution was prefaced with the fact that should it no longer become a suitable document, it is the job of the people to replace it. Combine that with the fact that the constitution has specific provisions for these things called "amendments" which basically say, yes you change, add, or subtract from the constitution.
The ultimate irony is that gun nuts who staunchly oppose any concept of the constitution as a living document also tend to cite their second amendment more then anything else, the first "edit" the constitution recieved.
Likewise, it's bullshit to say that a 234 year old document could, in any way, predict the needs and wants of a future society. Even if written by 1776 futurists, there's no way one could accurately predict the exact state of society over two centuries from now. Whether or not the constitution was "meant to change" is pointless in the context of this conversation anyway.
I trust my m1 super 90 not the feds/police. i dont trust any bueracrats in this world, i trust in god and my right for preservation of life and my family They might enslaved the people by cooperate cosmocology but they will never take away how i defend my life and my family and this should go for everyone because we should all control our own destiny.
On July 17 2010 04:57 GuerrillaRepublik wrote: I trust my m1 super 90 not the feds/police. i dont trust any bueracrats in this world, i trust in god and my right for preservation of life and my family They might enslaved the people by cooperate cosmocology but they will never take away how i defend my life and my family and this should go for everyone because we should all control our own destiny.
Have you ever been in a situation where you could only defend your life and family because you had a handgun?
On July 17 2010 04:57 GuerrillaRepublik wrote: I trust my m1 super 90 not the feds/police. i dont trust any bueracrats in this world, i trust in god and my right for preservation of life and my family They might enslaved the people by cooperate cosmocology but they will never take away how i defend my life and my family and this should go for everyone because we should all control our own destiny.
Have you ever been in a situation where you could only defend your life and family because you had a handgun?
Have you ever been in situation where you could only defend you life and family because you had a phone and know how to dial 911?. Is there something wrong with gun ownership and having the right to defend my family? its not handgun either.
People can barely fucking drive properly and she wants everyone to have a gun in public places, including schools!? Between this and flying cars I'm starting to get very scared for my safety.
How are the police going to maintain their advantage not to mention safety when they have to make random arrests, with the possibility of removing someone from a bar turning into a warzone? Guess grenade launchers are going to become standard issue in police car trunks now.
At least I don't live in Arizona. I feel bad for anyone that does.
On July 17 2010 05:18 spinesheath wrote: Ok, I am not coming to the US anytime soon. Not only are there many crazy people following twisted logic, they also get more and more dangerous.
The laws of one state do not apply to the entire United States.
With all the guns floating around in Arizona, makes you wonder where all the gunfight is happening. Surely armed people getting into an argument will not end well. You'd think there'd be random shootouts in the middle of the street. Maybe there are but the press doesn't cover it?
On July 17 2010 05:18 spinesheath wrote: Ok, I am not coming to the US anytime soon. Not only are there many crazy people following twisted logic, they also get more and more dangerous.
The laws of one state do not apply to the entire United States.
But people can travel quite freely from one state to another. Also if your federal government doesn't prevent nonsense like this (or even the current laws) then something is inherently wrong with the whole country. At least from my perspective.
On July 17 2010 04:57 GuerrillaRepublik wrote: I trust my m1 super 90 not the feds/police. i dont trust any bueracrats in this world, i trust in god and my right for preservation of life and my family They might enslaved the people by cooperate cosmocology but they will never take away how i defend my life and my family and this should go for everyone because we should all control our own destiny.
Have you ever been in a situation where you could only defend your life and family because you had a handgun?
They are there for what COULD happen and not generally for what does happen.
That being said I don't think that we should buy any gun we want but just restricting gun access does nothing really. I can't count the number of fully automatic assault rifles i've confiscated and those aren't legal without a ton of permits.
At least if you keep gun possession everyone can have them, not just the shitheads.
On July 17 2010 05:50 SilverLeagueElite wrote: With all the guns floating around in Arizona, makes you wonder where all the gunfight is happening. Surely armed people getting into an argument will not end well. You'd think there'd be random shootouts in the middle of the street. Maybe there are but the press doesn't cover it?
Umm....yea because everyone who owned a firearm is fucking crazy, you sound like the type of person who shouldnt own a weapon.
Humanity never ceases to amaze me. I'm unsure how someone who thinks that Kindergartners have the physical capacity, much less the sense of responsibility to carry guns is a politician. Which district is this guy from?
On July 17 2010 04:38 Offhand wrote: The constitution was prefaced with the fact that should it no longer become a suitable document, it is the job of the people to replace it. Combine that with the fact that the constitution has specific provisions for these things called "amendments" which basically say, yes you change, add, or subtract from the constitution.
The key point here is that it is the job of the people to replace it. Not the courts.
You can pass a Constitutional Amendment if you want to change the constitution.
Still no argument against Textualism.
The ultimate irony is that gun nuts who staunchly oppose any concept of the constitution as a living document also tend to cite their second amendment more then anything else, the first "edit" the constitution recieved.
Nothing wrong with that. You wont find a single gun nut who thinks textualism isn't a good idea.
Likewise, it's bullshit to say that a 234 year old document could, in any way, predict the needs and wants of a future society. Even if written by 1776 futurists, there's no way one could accurately predict the exact state of society over two centuries from now. Whether or not the constitution was "meant to change" is pointless in the context of this conversation anyway.
Again, irrelevant to arguments against textualism.
On July 17 2010 05:18 spinesheath wrote: Ok, I am not coming to the US anytime soon. Not only are there many crazy people following twisted logic, they also get more and more dangerous.
The laws of one state do not apply to the entire United States.
But people can travel quite freely from one state to another. Also if your federal government doesn't prevent nonsense like this (or even the current laws) then something is inherently wrong with the whole country. At least from my perspective.
State governments are autonomous to some extent and are capable of making local laws. The idea being for each state to be an experiment in governance. If your ideology and morals don't align with local laws, you're free to move to a different state. I don't think people have any business trying to force others to accept their ideology. Whether it's the U.S. involved in nation building or one state trying to affect the laws of another. You can extend this to gay marriage, legalized drugs, guns, abortion, etc. Criticize all you will and let Arizona have its' laws and fail or succeed on its' own terms.
TrySuckingLess: 2 weeks ago Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A conservative Babe (my favorite) who can shoot guns. Sweetie, you should try doing it in a Bikini, I would love it.
this is politics for u. You spew some of the most insane shit to please a bunch of insane people. If you take the rational approach, uneducated fuckers on both sides of the spectrum will go against you.
That is, unfortunately, the downside of today's so called democracy But hey, it's still better than everything else right?
Ok here's my point of view. I understand that a handgun can be used for for self defense and it can be useful. But heres the thing. I've only heard once in my ENTIRE life where a gun was used in self defense, yet I hear everyday about homicides/murder with guns. Guns are exponentially more lethal than the next common weapon over. But nothing will happen probably considering it's in the constitution.
On July 17 2010 07:08 eatmyshorts5 wrote: Ok here's my point of view. I understand that a handgun can be used for for self defense and it can be useful. But heres the thing. I've only heard once in my ENTIRE life where a gun was used in self defense, yet I hear everyday about homicides/murder with guns. Guns are exponentially more lethal than the next common weapon over. But nothing will happen probably considering it's in the constitution.
The best argument against gun control I've heard is that the guys who are using them for other things than self defense are going to get them anyway, and removing the right to bear arms would only hurt the law abiding citizen.
On July 17 2010 07:08 eatmyshorts5 wrote: I've only heard once in my ENTIRE life where a gun was used in self defense, yet I hear everyday about homicides/murder with guns.
People often fail to see the entire equation. They fail to see what can't be measured. You can't measure the number of times a person deters a crime with a gun because the incident goes unreported. Nor can you measure how many victims would still be alive, had they been armed and stood a fighting chance.
On July 17 2010 06:08 kzn wrote: The key point here is that it is the job of the people to replace it. Not the courts.
You can pass a Constitutional Amendment if you want to change the constitution.
Still no argument against Textualism.
The courts are one of the three main branches of the government. Specifically the one responsible for interpretation of the law. If textualism was the only standard by which laws are to be interpreted, we don't need lawyers, just high school English teachers.
Fortunately, there's concepts such as legislative intent, which takes more then the written law into account and can produce a realistic version of the desired effect of the law. I'd hate to see the result of most landmark cases should the ruling be based strictly on textualist lawyers.
EDIT: Funnily enough, the most major proponent of textualism is everyone's favorite reactionary bastard, Anthony Scalia.
On July 17 2010 07:37 Offhand wrote: The courts are one of the three main branches of the government. Specifically the one responsible for interpretation of the law. If textualism was the only standard by which laws are to be interpreted, we don't need lawyers, just high school English teachers.
We'd be rather better off if thats all we had. (even though you're wrong)
Fortunately, there's concepts such as legislative intent, which takes more then the written law into account and can produce a realistic version of the desired effect of the law. I'd hate to see the result of most landmark cases should the ruling be based strictly on textualist lawyers.
Yeah, uh, no. There are tens of viable interpretations for every amendment, and nobody has any clue what was actually intended.
On July 17 2010 07:29 SilverLeagueElite wrote: You can't measure the number of times a person fends of a crime with a gun because the incident goes unreported.
Wait, so if someone broke into your house and started fucking shit up and you fended him off with a gun, you wouldn't file a police report? Or even call 911?
You'd just be like "oh well, he's gone now" and go on with your day?
On July 17 2010 07:29 SilverLeagueElite wrote: You can't measure the number of times a person fends of a crime with a gun because the incident goes unreported.
Wait, so if someone broke into your house and started fucking shit up and you fended him off with a gun, you wouldn't file a police report? Or even call 911?
You'd just be like "oh well, he's gone now" and go on with your day?
The crime has already happened. My previous post edited for clarity.
On July 17 2010 10:23 Adila wrote: Long term though, they'll just start assuming everyone else has guns and adjust for that.
You realize that this statement alone means that more gun ownership means less crime, right?
How does that logic pan out?
It could just as easily lead to more deadly incidents involving criminals.
Nobody breaks the law if they don't expect to profit from it. Sometimes, the profit is not monetary, but its profit nonethless. (In essence, this means nobody breaks the law if its not worth it to them to break the law).
Thus, any time a potential criminal is considering "do I want to do X?", they are performing a cost/benefit analysis. If the costs outweigh the benefits, they simply wont do X.
If everyone has guns, or if criminals must assume everyone has a gun, the costs of any crime go up. You must do one of three things:
a) Take on significantly more risk of a lethal ending to your crime. b) Take on significantly more risk of punishment, by escalating your crime to a lethal level. c) Take measures designed to reduce the risk of a/b happening, measures which would not be necessary if everyone was unarmed.
Thus, the costs associated with all possible criminal acts go up when guns are widespread. The benefits don't change at all.
Thus, there are some crimes that are worth it when most people are unarmed and are completely not worth it when people are armed.
This is of course assuming that your average convenience store robbing thief is capable of making rational risk assessments and of deciding not to do the crime. That is a bad assumption for two reasons. Firstly, if he could just decide not to do a crime then why doesn't he? He's desperate for money and will try it anyway. Secondly, the bottom echelon of society are often there for a reason and their ability to make favourable long term decisions before actions are not one of them.
The outcome is that the guy still tries it because he's stupid or desperate. But now he needs a gun just to be in the running, he won't try it with just intimidation or a knife. Add into that that he's scared now because every guy he sees is now a potential threat.
On July 17 2010 11:22 KwarK wrote: This is of course assuming that your average convenience store robbing thief is capable of making rational risk assessments and of deciding not to do the crime. That is a bad assumption for two reasons. Firstly, if he could just decide not to do a crime then why doesn't he? He's desperate for money and will try it anyway. Secondly, the bottom echelon of society are often there for a reason and their ability to make favourable long term decisions before actions are not one of them.
The outcome is that the guy still tries it because he's stupid or desperate. But now he needs a gun just to be in the running, he won't try it with just intimidation or a knife. Add into that that he's scared now because every guy he sees is now a potential threat.
I'm not entirely sure you improved the situation.
Nobody ever does something when they dont think its worth it. The only difference between me and your average convenience store robber in relevant terms is utility scales. Various differences in such can account for the fact that he robs the store and I don't.
On July 17 2010 11:22 KwarK wrote: This is of course assuming that your average convenience store robbing thief is capable of making rational risk assessments and of deciding not to do the crime. That is a bad assumption for two reasons. Firstly, if he could just decide not to do a crime then why doesn't he? He's desperate for money and will try it anyway. Secondly, the bottom echelon of society are often there for a reason and their ability to make favourable long term decisions before actions are not one of them.
The outcome is that the guy still tries it because he's stupid or desperate. But now he needs a gun just to be in the running, he won't try it with just intimidation or a knife. Add into that that he's scared now because every guy he sees is now a potential threat.
I'm not entirely sure you improved the situation.
Nobody ever does something when they dont think its worth it. The only difference between me and your average convenience store robber in relevant terms is utility scales. Various differences in such can account for the fact that he robs the store and I don't.
But he's still doing an analysis.
I don't doubt there is analysis because all humans analyse everything on some level. That doesn't change the fact he might think crime is still worth it because he has no option or because he's too stupid to accurately weight the various factors. A risk assessment is actually quite a complex thing, you need to assign accurate objective values to each outcome and then multiply that value by the probability of it happening. The problems of stupidity and desperation remain.
While some crimes may be prevented by using gun ownership to effectively raise the stakes I think that is more than counterbalanced by the fact that the stakes are higher. He'll feel he has to bring a gun and he'll be paranoid that everyone else might have one.
Ultimately I think this discussion is futile though. I think we both understand the merits of the other's argument.
No doubt in my mind that some people would commit crime even if everyone had a gun. But I would bet a lot of money that certain crimes would go down if everyone did have a gun. Im not suggesting everyone should have a gun but I think the right should be available to those who want to have them.
I think that people let fear get to them when they think about allowing guns on schools. But if we do not allow them in most places it doesn't stop the people who are willing to commit the crime from coming onto an area with a gun and the intent. It makes them more dangerous because they enter an area where law abiding citizens can not carry weapons to defend themselves at all.
On July 17 2010 11:22 KwarK wrote: This is of course assuming that your average convenience store robbing thief is capable of making rational risk assessments and of deciding not to do the crime. That is a bad assumption for two reasons. Firstly, if he could just decide not to do a crime then why doesn't he? He's desperate for money and will try it anyway. Secondly, the bottom echelon of society are often there for a reason and their ability to make favourable long term decisions before actions are not one of them.
The outcome is that the guy still tries it because he's stupid or desperate. But now he needs a gun just to be in the running, he won't try it with just intimidation or a knife. Add into that that he's scared now because every guy he sees is now a potential threat.
I'm not entirely sure you improved the situation.
Nobody ever does something when they dont think its worth it. The only difference between me and your average convenience store robber in relevant terms is utility scales. Various differences in such can account for the fact that he robs the store and I don't.
But he's still doing an analysis.
While some crimes may be prevented by using gun ownership to effectively raise the stakes I think that is more than counterbalanced by the fact that the stakes are higher. He'll feel he has to bring a gun and he'll be paranoid that everyone else might have one.
Criminals will commit crimes no matter what. If he is intent on acquiring a gun, he will get one. Despite gun bans. Whereas before, unarmed, you were a sitting duck. Now at least, you have a fighting chance. Better for the criminal to be paranoid than citizens.
I've lived in Arizona and they are not any more racist then any other border state (I've lived in California and Texas as well). There is always people fighting for more gun rights and gun control. Calling other states racist and not even trying where the other side of gun regulations is coming from makes me think OP is on the far end of a political spectrum.
Not to exaggerate the situation too much, but it seems like creating an atmosphere where criminals assume everyone has a gun will just make criminals jumpier and more prone to shooting people.
I mean, I know that if I were a criminal and had the propensity to shoot and kill a potentially innocent person, my assuming that anyone I robbed would have the ability to shoot me back would make me far more trigger happy. Plus, I would have the element of surprise. I would be pointing my gun at the other person, where they would have to make a move to shoot me back. Therefore any sudden movements by the other person would give me reason to shoot him or her.
I have never been in such a situation, so I'm open to my scenario being total bullshit. Correct me if I'm wrong.
P.S. Silver, point well made. Deterrence is a difficult thing to track.
On July 17 2010 14:26 Triscuit wrote: Not to exaggerate the situation too much, but it seems like creating an atmosphere where criminals assume everyone has a gun will just make criminals jumpier and more prone to shooting people.
I mean, I know that if I were a criminal and had the propensity to shoot and kill a potentially innocent person, my assuming that anyone I robbed would have the ability to shoot me back would make me far more trigger happy. Plus, I would have the element of surprise. I would be pointing my gun at the other person, where they would have to make a move to shoot me back. Therefore any sudden movements by the other person would give me reason to shoot him or her.
I have never been in such a situation, so I'm open to my scenario being total bullshit. Correct me if I'm wrong.
P.S. Silver, point well made. Deterrence is a difficult thing to track.
That's not just a criminal but a psychopath common criminals use the gun for the ends of coercion, not to shoot people for fun...
On July 17 2010 14:26 Triscuit wrote: Not to exaggerate the situation too much, but it seems like creating an atmosphere where criminals assume everyone has a gun will just make criminals jumpier and more prone to shooting people.
I mean, I know that if I were a criminal and had the propensity to shoot and kill a potentially innocent person, my assuming that anyone I robbed would have the ability to shoot me back would make me far more trigger happy. Plus, I would have the element of surprise. I would be pointing my gun at the other person, where they would have to make a move to shoot me back. Therefore any sudden movements by the other person would give me reason to shoot him or her.
I have never been in such a situation, so I'm open to my scenario being total bullshit. Correct me if I'm wrong.
P.S. Silver, point well made. Deterrence is a difficult thing to track.
That's not just a criminal but a psychopath common criminals use the gun for the ends of coercion, not to shoot people for fun...
Who said the criminal would be shooting for fun? I mean, the criminal might be in self-defense mode at that point, if he reasonably thinks his life is threatened. You can't just assume the guy will point a gun at you to scare you off.
On July 17 2010 14:26 Triscuit wrote: Not to exaggerate the situation too much, but it seems like creating an atmosphere where criminals assume everyone has a gun will just make criminals jumpier and more prone to shooting people.
I mean, I know that if I were a criminal and had the propensity to shoot and kill a potentially innocent person, my assuming that anyone I robbed would have the ability to shoot me back would make me far more trigger happy. Plus, I would have the element of surprise. I would be pointing my gun at the other person, where they would have to make a move to shoot me back. Therefore any sudden movements by the other person would give me reason to shoot him or her.
I have never been in such a situation, so I'm open to my scenario being total bullshit. Correct me if I'm wrong.
P.S. Silver, point well made. Deterrence is a difficult thing to track.
That's not just a criminal but a psychopath common criminals use the gun for the ends of coercion, not to shoot people for fun...
Who said the criminal would be shooting for fun? I mean, the criminal might be in self-defense mode at that point, if he reasonably thinks his life is threatened. You can't just assume the guy will point a gun at you to scare you off.
Sorry I misrepresented your point. But it's still silly. What you're comparing is "victim on the crosshair has a gun" v. "victim on the crosshair has no gun" But the fair way to ask this is "victim on the crosshair has had the option of having a gun" v. "hasn't had the option by law to have a gun"
Whether the victim decides to be an hero doesn't really matter. It's obvious that the criminal would prefer not to shoot either.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://freestateproject.org/images/gun_rights_slaves.240.jpg)
