As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

2nd Amendment: What part of "well regulated militia" don't you understand?

11516171820

Posts

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Moving this discussion from the SC thread:
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    So...making a few assumptions here, but my thoughts on the discussion...

    Gun control. Without more details, on it's face, it seems like this is a situation that couldn't easily be prevented with more laws. Similar to Lanza, it sounds like there was no reasonable way the parent could have been prevented from getting the gun in the first place, and making it available to their child. We could ban handguns, put strict controls / regulations on them, but nothing that is realistic or feasible even if the Overton Window on gun control moves a long way left. If an adult (Roof's dad / Lanza's mom) isn't a criminal, isn't mentally ill, and has the desire to meet any requirements / regulation / restrictions, they will be able to get that gun and make it available to their child.

    Sure, giving the gun as a present was stupid and illegal, but even if the gun was locked up in the family safe / cabinet (like with Lanza) the shooter would still probably have known how to get access to it. I'm not opposed to gun control, but I can't see any reasonable / realistic change simply via simple gun control laws that could have prevented this from happening. Gun control, in this case, provides a major distraction from the real problem here - white supremacist racism.

    Mental health. Racism isn't treated as a mental illness. Aside from some (possible) vague threats, there doesn't seem like there was anything to report and there wasn't action that authorities could have taken.

    Before the shooting, the only thing I can see that was actually actionable prior to the shooting is if the roommate had notified authorities that his racist roommate who had been charged with a felony had access to a gun. Even then, I don't know if anything could / would be done beyond a cop asking him 'do you have a gun? no? ok, please keep it that way'.

    The big problem here, the one that needs to be addressed first and foremost is a culture of systemic racism that brews this kind of hatred. Attacking supremacist organizations that promote violence - like how the KKK was partially dismantled in the Civil Rights era - would be one good start.

    So, hey, hard problem is hard. I don't know what would SOLVE this problem, but I do know that attacking the state-supported institutional racism (like the Confederate traitor's flag over the statehouse) might be a great place to start. Now, if our nation could actually do two or three things at once I'd say attacking all of them would be good...but since we can't even manage one, racism seems like the best issue to try to address.

    Of course, the dad should get the book thrown at him for knowingly providing a firearm to a person charged with a felony. That should go without saying.
    Trace wrote: »
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/us/charleston-church-shooting-main/index.html
    Dylann Roof has confessed to authorities to shooting and killing nine people this week at a historically black church in Charleston, South Carolina, two law enforcement officials said Friday.

    One of the officials said that Roof, who is white, told investigators that he wanted to start a race war.

    He himself bought the .45-caliber handgun used in the shooting last April at a Charleston gun store, according to the two officials. Earlier, a senior law enforcement official had indicated that Roof's father bought him a Glock firearm for his birthday.

    Turns out the "dad got him the gun" story isn't how he actually got the gun.

    So can we use this as part of the gun control debate now? Seeing as gun control actually would have prevented this?

    Depends, if the gun store just sold it to him illegally it is still a case of enforcing existing law.

    Or a case of existing law being such a joke and so destroyed from NRA and FREEDDDOOOOOOMMMMM!!! Stores aren't concerned they are selling weapons to people who shouldn't have them, they'll literally face no consequence for doing so though 9 black people sure as fuck did.

    In which case we still need to force people to start enforcing the law instead of making even more laws that wouldn't be enforced.

    Or, and hear me out here, we make better laws, and we enforce them.

  • Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus now arrives the hour of actionRegistered User regular
    How can you accurately judge the effect of our current laws if they're not being enforced?

  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    Well, first you have to look into why they're not enforced.

    Is it because they're not practically enforceable in their current state? If so, then yes, you need to make better laws.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    How can you accurately judge the effect of our current laws if they're not being enforced?

    The capacity of a law to be enforced, and the frequency with which it is broken, is a good guide to the effectiveness of a law. Our gun laws are frequently broken, and poorly and erratically enforced. This means that they are poor laws regardless of their content.

    So arguing that enforcement of law needs to be a priority is an argument for new, enforceable laws. Current law shifts enforcement to many non-communicating agencies, many with different priorities. So even if you JUST want current laws to remain the same, they need to have those parts of them which discuss enforcement and data sharing revised.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • CogCog What'd you expect? Registered User regular
    It might also be nice to not have the ATF gutted and neutered, and give them some legitimate power to do their goddamn job.

  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    How can you accurately judge the effect of our current laws if they're not being enforced?

    Doesn't that indicate we might want to create rules that encourage the enforcement of the existing laws through finical or penalties.

    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    redx wrote: »
    How can you accurately judge the effect of our current laws if they're not being enforced?

    Doesn't that indicate we might want to create rules that encourage the enforcement of the existing laws through finical or penalties.

    Might also be a case of lack of funding or bad coordination of the laws.

  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    edited June 2015
    tbloxham wrote: »
    How can you accurately judge the effect of our current laws if they're not being enforced?

    The capacity of a law to be enforced, and the frequency with which it is broken, is a good guide to the effectiveness of a law. Our gun laws are frequently broken, and poorly and erratically enforced. This means that they are poor laws regardless of their content.

    So arguing that enforcement of law needs to be a priority is an argument for new, enforceable laws. Current law shifts enforcement to many non-communicating agencies, many with different priorities. So even if you JUST want current laws to remain the same, they need to have those parts of them which discuss enforcement and data sharing revised.

    I don't think it's that current law is unenforceable. It's that the main enforcement agency, the BATFE, wants so badly to do other things than enforce laws and taxes that don't require helicopters and tactical nerd gear, or running illegal gun shops and tricking mentally handicapped kids into breaking the law so they can arrest and prosecute.

    NSDFRand on
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    How can you accurately judge the effect of our current laws if they're not being enforced?

    The capacity of a law to be enforced, and the frequency with which it is broken, is a good guide to the effectiveness of a law. Our gun laws are frequently broken, and poorly and erratically enforced. This means that they are poor laws regardless of their content.

    So arguing that enforcement of law needs to be a priority is an argument for new, enforceable laws. Current law shifts enforcement to many non-communicating agencies, many with different priorities. So even if you JUST want current laws to remain the same, they need to have those parts of them which discuss enforcement and data sharing revised.

    I don't think it's that current law is unenforceable. It's that the main enforcement agency, the BATFE, wants so badly to do other things than enforce laws and taxes that don't require helicopters and tactical nerd gear, or running illegal gun shops and tricking mentally handicapped kids into breaking the law so they can arrest and prosecute.

    Then thats still a problem with the law. A good law should, if required, describe how and who will enforce it.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    edited June 2015
    tbloxham wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    How can you accurately judge the effect of our current laws if they're not being enforced?

    The capacity of a law to be enforced, and the frequency with which it is broken, is a good guide to the effectiveness of a law. Our gun laws are frequently broken, and poorly and erratically enforced. This means that they are poor laws regardless of their content.

    So arguing that enforcement of law needs to be a priority is an argument for new, enforceable laws. Current law shifts enforcement to many non-communicating agencies, many with different priorities. So even if you JUST want current laws to remain the same, they need to have those parts of them which discuss enforcement and data sharing revised.

    I don't think it's that current law is unenforceable. It's that the main enforcement agency, the BATFE, wants so badly to do other things than enforce laws and taxes that don't require helicopters and tactical nerd gear, or running illegal gun shops and tricking mentally handicapped kids into breaking the law so they can arrest and prosecute.

    Then thats still a problem with the law. A good law should, if required, describe how and who will enforce it.

    Which is a problem when the agency whose primary mission is to enforce it does other things.

    Edit: That's not to say that they don't enforce firearms laws. The BATFE does. They just get carried away doing other things that they shouldn't be doing and it's very likely that this takes away from their investigatory man power.

    NSDFRand on
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    edited June 2015
    Cog wrote: »
    It might also be nice to not have the ATF gutted and neutered, and give them some legitimate power to do their goddamn job.

    The BATFE has more than enough power to do their job. They are capable of interpreting legislation through policy letter that can seemingly criminalize something that otherwise wouldn't be.

    They also have the power to step into any FFL, dealers, importers, and manufacturers, and take a microscope to them, look through all their paperwork (their black book of transfers, and 4473 background check forms which they are required to keep until they are no longer in business and then turn over to the BATFE, and in the case of manufacturers look at registered serials for things like machine guns which is what got the Red Jacket Firearms guy and his daughter in hot shit), inspect their premises etc.

    The BATFE has quite a lot of power. The reason they are being threatened with getting their dick knocked in the dirt (which they really need) is because instead of doing their job they are having fun doing criminal "stings" and fucking with people that aren't criminals.

    NSDFRand on
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    The BATFE has quite a lot of power. The reason they are being threatened with getting their dick knocked in the dirt (which they really need) is because instead of doing their job they are having fun doing criminal "stings" and fucking with people that aren't criminals.

    It sounds like a lot of people need to be fired and replaced in that organization.

  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    edited June 2015
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    The BATFE has quite a lot of power. The reason they are being threatened with getting their dick knocked in the dirt (which they really need) is because instead of doing their job they are having fun doing criminal "stings" and fucking with people that aren't criminals.

    It sounds like a lot of people need to be fired and replaced in that organization.

    And when people say that the first reaction from the Left is to say "Why are you tying to neuter the BATFE you NRA shills!?"

    Edit: Honestly, it's business as usual. They really are just doing their job, or what they interpret the desire and intent of the CoC above them in the Executive Branch to be. Holder has done everything but take out a press release stating what his intent is in running the DoJ, and even before he was AG, at least until he resigned.

    NSDFRand on
  • Donovan PuppyfuckerDonovan Puppyfucker A dagger in the dark is worth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered User regular
  • PhasenPhasen Hell WorldRegistered User regular
    Need more guns then we will have less gun violence.

    psn: PhasenWeeple
  • programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular

    Oh look, another piece of "information" that suggests that murderers use the tools they have at hand, but makes no attempt, except by implication, to show having guns is more dangerous in total than not having them.

    Our homicide rate is still really high, but putting it in actual context that matters, this chart deliberately and misleadingly overstates the comparison of Finland vs. US by 7x. Finns like stabbing people to death. And, incidentally, the Nordic country with the most gun violence is also the one with the most gun control ( http://sciencenordic.com/alcohol-behind-finlands-high-homicide-rate ). But, as I've said many times, it isn't better to be stabbed to death than shot to death, and the numbers clearly show Finland is substantially more dangerous than Norway in terms of homicide rates.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    The BATFE has quite a lot of power. The reason they are being threatened with getting their dick knocked in the dirt (which they really need) is because instead of doing their job they are having fun doing criminal "stings" and fucking with people that aren't criminals.

    It sounds like a lot of people need to be fired and replaced in that organization.

    And when people say that the first reaction from the Left is to say "Why are you tying to neuter the BATFE you NRA shills!?"

    ?
    Edit: Honestly, it's business as usual. They really are just doing their job, or what they interpret the desire and intent of the CoC above them in the Executive Branch to be. Holder has done everything but take out a press release stating what his intent is in running the DoJ, and even before he was AG, at least until he resigned.

    The problem is they're not doing that properly. Why's the leadership in the group allowing that to happen, or worse, they're the ones encouraging it?

    Harry Dresden on
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular

    Oh look, another piece of "information" that suggests that murderers use the tools they have at hand, but makes no attempt, except by implication, to show having guns is more dangerous in total than not having them.

    Our homicide rate is still really high, but putting it in actual context that matters, this chart deliberately and misleadingly overstates the comparison of Finland vs. US by 7x. Finns like stabbing people to death. And, incidentally, the Nordic country with the most gun violence is also the one with the most gun control ( http://sciencenordic.com/alcohol-behind-finlands-high-homicide-rate ). But, as I've said many times, it isn't better to be stabbed to death than shot to death, and the numbers clearly show Finland is substantially more dangerous than Norway in terms of homicide rates.

    It's not better to be stabbed to death than it is to be shot to death, but it is definitely better to be stabbed than to be shot, because being stabbed is more survivable.

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »

    Oh look, another piece of "information" that suggests that murderers use the tools they have at hand, but makes no attempt, except by implication, to show having guns is more dangerous in total than not having them.

    Our homicide rate is still really high, but putting it in actual context that matters, this chart deliberately and misleadingly overstates the comparison of Finland vs. US by 7x. Finns like stabbing people to death. And, incidentally, the Nordic country with the most gun violence is also the one with the most gun control ( http://sciencenordic.com/alcohol-behind-finlands-high-homicide-rate ). But, as I've said many times, it isn't better to be stabbed to death than shot to death, and the numbers clearly show Finland is substantially more dangerous than Norway in terms of homicide rates.

    It's not better to be stabbed to death than it is to be shot to death, but it is definitely better to be stabbed than to be shot, because being stabbed is more survivable.

    You need substantially different evidence to make that case than they were offering, though.

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    I think it's funny that we can't compare US gun violence to other countries, except for when the comparison furthers an anti-control argument.

  • The Dude With HerpesThe Dude With Herpes Lehi, UTRegistered User regular
    edited June 2015

    Oh look, another piece of "information" that suggests that murderers use the tools they have at hand, but makes no attempt, except by implication, to show having guns is more dangerous in total than not having them.

    Our homicide rate is still really high, but putting it in actual context that matters, this chart deliberately and misleadingly overstates the comparison of Finland vs. US by 7x. Finns like stabbing people to death. And, incidentally, the Nordic country with the most gun violence is also the one with the most gun control ( http://sciencenordic.com/alcohol-behind-finlands-high-homicide-rate ). But, as I've said many times, it isn't better to be stabbed to death than shot to death, and the numbers clearly show Finland is substantially more dangerous than Norway in terms of homicide rates.

    True story.

    There are thirty other countries in that comparison, besides Finland.

    And, incidentally, they also compare overall homicide rates in the US vs other countries and, surprise surprise, per capita, the US is substantially higher than any other developed nation! As much as 3x higher in the past, but it is down to only 2x higher (at least until 2010). So yes, your fantasy of stab happy countries making up the difference in murder rates is just that. A fantasy.

    Yes, crime is on a downward trend, both in the US and the world as a whole. The US decline is noticeably steeper, and while that is a good thing, it is also indicative of how substantially higher homicides are in the US vs everywhere else.

    You don't get to bitch about cherry picking data by specifically cherry picking data. If you actually read the article, look at the numerous charts and statistics, you'll find that it's more informational than biased.

    If you want to maintain the illusion that access to guns and gun ownership rates have no bearing on the rates of gun related deaths, fine; feel free. Maintain ignorance.

    Just don't pretend to use facts to back up your delusion.

    EDIT: and this doesn't even touch on suicide rates and how they're directly related to gun access and ownership or how, in countries that have reduced access to guns and have much smaller gun ownership, have much lower rates of gun related suicides and suicides in general. Many of these countries have found that while gun related suicides dropped dramatically after passing gun control legislation there were no substantial increases in other types of suicide to make up the difference resulting in sometimes massive drops in suicide rates in those countries.

    The Dude With Herpes on
    Steam: Galedrid - XBL: Galedrid - PSN: Galedrid
    Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
    Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand

  • Ebola ColaEbola Cola Registered User regular

    I feel like this is misleading by comparing gun homicide across states based on their HDI. Here's some random examples (murders are UNODC 2012 numbers, HDI is rounded):

    Russia (HDI .78) has a murder rate of 9.2 (count: 13,120).
    Turkey (HDI: .76) has a murder rate of 4.3 (count: 3,216).
    India (HDI: .59) has a murder rate of 3.5 (count: 43,355).
    Serbia (HDI: .75) has a murder rate of 1.2 (count: 111).

    Serbia has the most guns per 100 citizens, at 37.8; Turkey is second, at 12.5/100. Reported ownership is 8.9/100 for Russia and 4.2/100 for India. The state with the fewest guns per 100 citizens has by far the most homicides, but not the highest homicide rate.

    Turkey, Serbia and India provided UNODC mechanism numbers. Turkey reported in 2005 and 2006: 15% and 17%, respectively, for firearm homicides. The last reported mechanism year for India was 2010, with a firearms at 7% of homicides by mechanism. Serbia has reported consistently: 12% firearm homicides in 2012, down from 20% in 2011 (a homicide rate change of 1.4 down to 1.2 from '11-'12, for a total of 21 fewer homicides).

    It's true that if you are going to killed by a gun, you're more likely to be killed by a gun in Serbia than Turkey, but you're less likely to be killed at all in Serbia, even though the two states have roughly similar levels of development. And even though Turkey has roughly 3x the number of guns in total, it does not have 3x the rate of firearm-mechanism homicide. All we've learned here is that if someone is going to be murdered, and if the murderer is more likely to have a gun, then the murder weapon is also more likely to be a gun. Which is based on guns per capita, the availability and type of those guns, the controls placed on those guns, etc., and not, apparently, on actual total guns.

    It's true enough that the US has a higher homicide rate than other states with roughly equivalent levels of development, but you could also say "the United States has a higher homicide rate than other states with roughly the same number of vowels in their names" and it would be about as meaningful. India, which has the lowest HDI above, still has a homicide rate lower than the US (which has a much higher HDI and guns-per-capita). The three states with roughly equal "high" development have completely different homicide rates, similar to the VOX example which uses only "very high" HDI states.

    Any set of states, with their various gun ownership, total homicide and firearm homicide rates, can be compared to create some conclusion. The problem of choosing that set of states based on an unrelated variable (HDI, Gini, 90/10 ratio, flag color, if they have milk in a bag, etc.) is that you suggest that the variable chosen has some link to gun violence, or to violence in general.

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/204342141.html
    The ATF failed to inspect more than half of gun dealers over five years, while the number violations found at those dealers spiked, according to an audit by the Department of Justice inspector general.

    The audit, released Tuesday, found the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was not meeting its goal of inspecting all federal firearms licensees over a five-year period.

    “As a result, non-compliant FFLs go undetected by ATF for many years,” the review said.

    Between 2007 and 2012, more than 58% of gun dealers were not inspected, the review found. Meanwhile, from 2004 and 2011, the number of violations found by inspectors increased by 276%. The review also found that gun dealers lost track of nearly 175,000 guns between 2004 and 2011.

    The inspector general’s report on ATF, the largest examination of gun dealer licensing since 2004, noted the ATF didn’t have enough inspectors to keep up with inspections. Gun dealers increased by 16 percent to about 124,000 in fiscal year 2011. The figure is now about 132,000, according to ATF’s web site.

    ATF has tried to focus on “high-risk” FFLs but the auditors said the agency was not tracking well enough whether that strategy was working, the review found.

    The report also found the ATF’s revocation process can drag on for years – and gun dealers are allowed to sell firearms in the meantime. The number of revocations by ATF dropped from 125 in 2004 to 71 in 2011.

    A Journal Sentinel investigation on gun shop regulation, “Wiped Clean,” in 2010 found that the ATF rarely revokes gun dealer licenses across the country, and the process can drag on in the courts for years.

    The agency typically wins such cases, but gun stores can easily beat the ATF’s harshest action by having a relative, friend or employee pull a fresh license, the investigation found. The move wipes away the earlier violations.



    http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/ATF-poorly-armed-with-funding-as-duties-grow-4950373.php
    The ATF, charged with keeping track of the nation's 300 million guns, has an annual budget of $1 billion, half that of the Drug Enforcement Administration and a pittance compared with the $8 billion showered on the FBI. In addition to firearms, the bureau investigates bombings, regulates the explosives industry and tries to halt illegal trafficking of alcohol and cigarettes.
    As enforcement responsibilities grow and its funding stays static - the bureau's roster of agents has grown by just 38 in the past 12 years, to 2,388 - some jobs slip through the cracks.



    http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/12/atf-ill-equipped-enforce-new-gun-laws
    Congress, in its wisdom, removed ATF from the Treasury Department and turned it into a stand-alone agency in 2006, adding the agency's director to the list of posts that require Senate confirmation. Thanks to the NRA's lobbying power, the Senate has never confirmed anyone for the job since then, leaving the agency rudderless. (Until 2013, which I'll post below... - Feral)


    http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/new-atf-director-faces-tough-challenges
    According to Ginger Colbrun, the chief of the ATF’s public affairs division, the percentage of current special agents eligible to retire in FY 2017 is almost 40%. “That would take a huge effort to manage new people and try to transfer those skills down. That takes money,” said Chipman.

    Then there’s the budget. Currently the ATF’s budget is just over a billion dollars–it hasn’t changed much since the $900 million from a decade ago.


    The ATF has been underfunded and understaffed for years. It didn't have a steady director until 2013, thanks mostly to the NRA and Republicans. A formidable proportion of their agents are close to retirement, and they haven't been hiring new agents since they were pulled out from the Treasury Department. Recent fiascos (eg, Fast and Furious) can be attributed to incompetence and disorganization, largely due to the lack of accountability at the top.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    The Governor of Maine, Paul LePage, just signed into law LD652, which allows anybody, not just residents of Maine, to concealed carry weapons without a permit.

    This makes Maine the 6th state to allow permitless carry for any US citizen.

    What the actual fuck, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, and Vermont.

    Wyoming also allows permitless carry, but you must be a Wyoming resident. Which is not a whole lot better!

  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    Up here in the woods, we have very different views about guns. It's an entirely different culture, in that respect.

    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    Up here in the woods, we have very different views about guns. It's an entirely different culture, in that respect.

    Concealed is the annoying part for me.

    I am 100% fine with isolated, predator-rich parts of our country having much more relaxed gun laws as part Of respecting the needs of the area.

    Why this involves needing a pistol hidden on you is beyond me though. Rifles, shotguns? Sure. Make it more relaxed to have a rack in your car or a gun by your door. But a concealed pistol serves a very different purpose. Make those go through the same paperwork as anywhere else.

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    A lot of folks here go hiking with high caliber handguns because wild cats and bears are so common (coyotes too, but they won't attack a human).

    As for concealed vs. open, there's a fair argument for concealed being generally better since if people don't know you're carrying, the weapon might as well not even be there. No weird looks from people around you, no vocal altercations, just people going about their business.

    Again, it's a difference in culture. I've been around guns all my life up here, so the thought that people around me may be carrying is no more a worry than anything else.

    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Kansas used to require concealed carry for handguns. Because it was much less likely to become a cowboy fashion accessory if showing it to someone was illegal.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    The Governor of Maine, Paul LePage, just signed into law LD652, which allows anybody, not just residents of Maine, to concealed carry weapons without a permit.

    This makes Maine the 6th state to allow permitless carry for any US citizen.

    What the actual fuck, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, and Vermont.

    Wyoming also allows permitless carry, but you must be a Wyoming resident. Which is not a whole lot better!

    Sounds good to me. Should be like that everywhere.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited July 2015
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    The Governor of Maine, Paul LePage, just signed into law LD652, which allows anybody, not just residents of Maine, to concealed carry weapons without a permit.

    This makes Maine the 6th state to allow permitless carry for any US citizen.

    What the actual fuck, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, and Vermont.

    Wyoming also allows permitless carry, but you must be a Wyoming resident. Which is not a whole lot better!

    Sounds good to me. Should be like that everywhere.

    People should be required to show competency and that they are informed of gun laws before they are allowed to own one and carry it in public.

    I really, really hate making the car comparison, but these laws are like letting people drive cars without licenses. It's not a good thing. Responsible gun owners should be for permitting, not against it.

    joshofalltrades on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    The Governor of Maine, Paul LePage, just signed into law LD652, which allows anybody, not just residents of Maine, to concealed carry weapons without a permit.

    This makes Maine the 6th state to allow permitless carry for any US citizen.

    What the actual fuck, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, and Vermont.

    Wyoming also allows permitless carry, but you must be a Wyoming resident. Which is not a whole lot better!

    No doubt blood is running day and night in the streets of...

    ...

    ...whatever city is in Maine. Castle Rock? Or is that just blood from that killer clown?


    Anyway, of those states that actually have major metro areas (like Phoenix, KCK) has there been any correlation with an increase (or decrease) in violent crime or gun homicides? Do we even know yet?

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    A lot of folks here go hiking with high caliber handguns because wild cats and bears are so common (coyotes too, but they won't attack a human).

    As for concealed vs. open, there's a fair argument for concealed being generally better since if people don't know you're carrying, the weapon might as well not even be there. No weird looks from people around you, no vocal altercations, just people going about their business.

    Again, it's a difference in culture. I've been around guns all my life up here, so the thought that people around me may be carrying is no more a worry than anything else.

    The concealed carry argument there is a goosey on, though. The reason people react to people who carry is because someone carrying a weapon is something that does fundamentally alter how they assess their surroundings. Concealed carry doesn't make those concerns go away - it just makes it so that people don't have that information.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • CogCog What'd you expect? Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    The Governor of Maine, Paul LePage, just signed into law LD652, which allows anybody, not just residents of Maine, to concealed carry weapons without a permit.

    This makes Maine the 6th state to allow permitless carry for any US citizen.

    What the actual fuck, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, and Vermont.

    Wyoming also allows permitless carry, but you must be a Wyoming resident. Which is not a whole lot better!

    No doubt blood is running day and night in the streets of...

    ...

    ...whatever city is in Maine. Castle Rock? Or is that just blood from that killer clown?


    Anyway, of those states that actually have major metro areas (like Phoenix, KCK) has there been any correlation with an increase (or decrease) in violent crime or gun homicides? Do we even know yet?

    Bangor. Haven't you ever read a Steven King book?

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2015
    Also regarding hiking and big cats/bears, there's always the Montana option...permit required only in city limits, at least that's how I recall it. And only to conceal under clothes...you could keep a gun in a backpack or briefcase, or anywhere in a car, even in the "city." With most cities being towns.

    mcdermott on
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited July 2015
    mcdermott wrote: »
    The Governor of Maine, Paul LePage, just signed into law LD652, which allows anybody, not just residents of Maine, to concealed carry weapons without a permit.

    This makes Maine the 6th state to allow permitless carry for any US citizen.

    What the actual fuck, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, and Vermont.

    Wyoming also allows permitless carry, but you must be a Wyoming resident. Which is not a whole lot better!

    No doubt blood is running day and night in the streets of...

    ...

    ...whatever city is in Maine. Castle Rock? Or is that just blood from that killer clown?


    Anyway, of those states that actually have major metro areas (like Phoenix, KCK) has there been any correlation with an increase (or decrease) in violent crime or gun homicides? Do we even know yet?

    Well, Arizona signed constitutional carry into law in April 2010, and since then its gun death rate is consistently among the worst in the US. Wrong link, increase in gun violence shown below.

    I'm not claiming a causation argument here, just saying that gun death is a problem there for sure!

    Places like Alaska are probably not populated enough to get good reliable data on how this affects a state's gun death rate.

    joshofalltrades on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    The Governor of Maine, Paul LePage, just signed into law LD652, which allows anybody, not just residents of Maine, to concealed carry weapons without a permit.

    This makes Maine the 6th state to allow permitless carry for any US citizen.

    What the actual fuck, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, and Vermont.

    Wyoming also allows permitless carry, but you must be a Wyoming resident. Which is not a whole lot better!

    No doubt blood is running day and night in the streets of...

    ...

    ...whatever city is in Maine. Castle Rock? Or is that just blood from that killer clown?


    Anyway, of those states that actually have major metro areas (like Phoenix, KCK) has there been any correlation with an increase (or decrease) in violent crime or gun homicides? Do we even know yet?

    Well, Arizona signed constitutional carry into law in April 2010, and since then its gun death rate is consistently among the worst in the US.

    I'm not claiming a causation argument here, just saying that gun death is a problem there for sure!

    Places like Alaska are probably not populated enough to get good reliable data on how this affects a state's gun death rate.

    Did you read that link?

    Or am I bad at skimming?

    Because aren't those stats from 1999 to 2007?

    Did I not specifically ask for the /change/ in gun violence? Is Arizona now worse? Better? Pretty much the same?

    I have my suspicion.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Cog wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    The Governor of Maine, Paul LePage, just signed into law LD652, which allows anybody, not just residents of Maine, to concealed carry weapons without a permit.

    This makes Maine the 6th state to allow permitless carry for any US citizen.

    What the actual fuck, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, and Vermont.

    Wyoming also allows permitless carry, but you must be a Wyoming resident. Which is not a whole lot better!

    No doubt blood is running day and night in the streets of...

    ...

    ...whatever city is in Maine. Castle Rock? Or is that just blood from that killer clown?


    Anyway, of those states that actually have major metro areas (like Phoenix, KCK) has there been any correlation with an increase (or decrease) in violent crime or gun homicides? Do we even know yet?

    Bangor. Haven't you ever read a Steven King book?

    I've actually got like a dozen relatives up there, obviously I was being a smart ass. ;)

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    The Governor of Maine, Paul LePage, just signed into law LD652, which allows anybody, not just residents of Maine, to concealed carry weapons without a permit.

    This makes Maine the 6th state to allow permitless carry for any US citizen.

    What the actual fuck, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, and Vermont.

    Wyoming also allows permitless carry, but you must be a Wyoming resident. Which is not a whole lot better!

    No doubt blood is running day and night in the streets of...

    ...

    ...whatever city is in Maine. Castle Rock? Or is that just blood from that killer clown?


    Anyway, of those states that actually have major metro areas (like Phoenix, KCK) has there been any correlation with an increase (or decrease) in violent crime or gun homicides? Do we even know yet?

    Well, Arizona signed constitutional carry into law in April 2010, and since then its gun death rate is consistently among the worst in the US.

    I'm not claiming a causation argument here, just saying that gun death is a problem there for sure!

    Places like Alaska are probably not populated enough to get good reliable data on how this affects a state's gun death rate.

    Did you read that link?

    Or am I bad at skimming?

    Because aren't those stats from 1999 to 2007?

    Did I not specifically ask for the /change/ in gun violence? Is Arizona now worse? Better? Pretty much the same?

    I have my suspicion.

    Whoops, sorry. This is the other one I was looking at.

    7388473_g.jpg?w=650

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2015
    So seems to be no deviation from the previous trend?

    Also that's a nationwide graph anyway?

    Still no answer to the question?

    mcdermott on
  • DisruptedCapitalistDisruptedCapitalist I swear! Registered User regular
    Huh. I wonder what caused the nearly 10,000 drop in Motor Vehicle deaths between 2006 and 2009? Some new technology? The 2008 recession cause people to drive less often?

    "Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
Sign In or Register to comment.