Seriously? A fatal knife wound takes quite a while to die from, even if you managed to kill someone with a knife (which is far from a guarantee if you don't have specific training to do such a thing), unless you managed to stab them through the brainstem it's still going to take a few minutes to bleed out and for hypoxia to the brain to take effect. Not to mention that with adrenaline and endorphins the person isn't even going to start feeling the wound for 30 or 40 seconds. You stab a guy with a gun, he's going to pull it out and shoot you.
I think you're overestimating the effect of adrenaline during violent situations. Most people may probably be too stunned and/or disoriented to pull out their gun and accurately shoot someone before they keep getting stabbed. I know police get trained to react in situations like getting maced or being disarmed and other similar situations, and even they can have a tough time responding in an efficient manner. I mean, not to mention the mugger could see the person in their after stabbing state trying to go for their weapon and either stab them some more, or disarm them.
It also depends on the wound. You bleed out from slashing, and so might be able to shoot depending one location. A stab wound to an organ just means more stabs while you keel over.
I still think you all are overestimating the incapacitating effects of knife wounds. There was a case of a knife fight here (between a husband and wife of all people) recently, both sides had 4 or 5 deep wounds at the end of the fight and both had life threatening organ injuries. Sure after they fought for 3 or 4 minutes they both ended up unable to continue (and if not for people hearing the fight they'd both have probably died) but they both definitely had plenty of time to do some serious damage.
Edit: There are certainly a lot of variables here, but the original scenario was mugger sees man, knows man has a gun, so mugger stabs man and takes money safely when man is dead. Sure the man isn't going to be able to get a shot off all the time. But even if the guy only can effectively fight back 10% of the time, the mugger still is going to have a pretty short life expectancy if he's planning to do such a thing habitually. Only one victim is ever going to have to get his gun out and get a decent shot off for the mugger to suffer a life-threatening wound.
You get stabbed anywhere by a decent blade you have effectively ZERO chance of pulling a gun, aiming, and shooting your assailant. You recieve a minor flesh wound an inch or so deep, then provided its not in a bad place then maybe you can go for your gun, but he's right on you with a knife and can stab you again.
Fighting back after a stabbing is like hoping the other guys gun jams when you go to pull yours out. True, it might happen, but 99.% of the time you are dead.
The way I figure it is that if I'm carrying a gun concealed, I can choose not to escalate it- they don't know I have a gun- or if the situation calls for it, I can escalate it. In one situation, there are two options, in the other there is one option.
As long as I trust my judgment, I'm going for the circumstances that lead to me having the most 'outs'.
From the community's viewpoint of this they'd also have to trust your judgement. Which might be a problem because I wouldn't know if you in fact have good or bad judgement in threatening situations. You'd be as likely to escalate a situation where it would be inappropriate, possibly ending in you and people around you killed.
(Where you = any citizen)
Well, it seems clear that those states that allow concealed carrying weapons have not turned into the Wild West and do not have some one unload on a crowded street every other day because someone startled them.
So, obviously the average citizen who gets a concealed carry permit is able to use it in a responsible manner. So your personal feelings on the matter are trumped by reality.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
The way I figure it is that if I'm carrying a gun concealed, I can choose not to escalate it- they don't know I have a gun- or if the situation calls for it, I can escalate it. In one situation, there are two options, in the other there is one option.
As long as I trust my judgment, I'm going for the circumstances that lead to me having the most 'outs'.
From the community's viewpoint of this they'd also have to trust your judgement. Which might be a problem because I wouldn't know if you in fact have good or bad judgement in threatening situations. You'd be as likely to escalate a situation where it would be inappropriate, possibly ending in you and people around you killed.
(Where you = any citizen)
Well, it seems clear that those states that allow concealed carrying weapons have not turned into the Wild West and do not have some one unload on a crowded street every other day because someone startled them.
So, obviously the average citizen who gets a concealed carry permit is able to use it in a responsible manner. So your personal feelings on the matter are trumped by reality.
Well, compared to Mass, some of them have, but that's probably not fair (for a measure of just how peaceful it is here, I would like to note that our local media actually reports when black people are killed, and it often makes the front page of the globe).
Good ruling. I'm one of those crazy liberals who actually supports gun rights. It's apparent to me that the founders intended for everyone to have the right to carry a firearm. If they want to change that and take the right away, it requires a constitutional amendment.
Now if you are fucking crazy or a felon, then of course you can lose your right to bear arms, just like you can lose other rights by violating the law. I'm not that crazy.
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
You said it best. This is a good decision. I don't see why this should be any different than any other basic right. One major fuck up will probably lose you said right. Well, in the case of rights like Voting, etc.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The reasoning prior to Heller was that the Second Amendment protected a state's right to form and maintain militia to defend itself against the federal government, and, by extension, an individual's right to keep and bear arms strictly in pursuit of that goal, not an individual's right to bear arms for self-defense against criminals and the like.
It's kind of unfortunate, really, because the Heller decision renders the bolded portion of the second amendment into flavor text. Apparently, that clause has no bearing on the meaning of the amendment. But who am I to apply rules of statutory interpretation that first year law students learn to Supreme Court decisions?
Good ruling. I'm one of those crazy liberals who actually supports gun rights. It's apparent to me that the founders intended for everyone to have the right to carry a firearm. If they want to change that and take the right away, it requires a constitutional amendment.
Now if you are fucking crazy or a felon, then of course you can lose your right to bear arms, just like you can lose other rights by violating the law. I'm not that crazy.
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
You said it best. This is a good decision. I don't see why this should be any different than any other basic right. One major fuck up will probably lose you said right. Well, in the case of rights like Voting, etc.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The reasoning prior to Heller was that the Second Amendment protected a state's right to form and maintain militia to defend itself against the federal government, and, by extension, an individual's right to keep and bear arms strictly in pursuit of that goal, not an individual's right to bear arms for self-defense against criminals and the like.
It's kind of unfortunate, really, because the Heller decision renders the bolded portion of the second amendment into flavor text. Apparently, that clause has no bearing on the meaning of the amendment. But who am I to apply rules of statutory interpretation that first year law students learn to Supreme Court decisions?
There's also the question of the meaning of "infringed" v. "abridged." I, personally, take it to mean the 2nd isn't violated if you can still buy a musket, but nothing else.
There's also the question of the meaning of "infringed" v. "abridged." I, personally, take it to mean the 2nd isn't violated if you can still buy a musket, but nothing else.
And if the Founding Fathers wanted freedom of the press to apply to radio, television, and the Internet, they would have said so, right?
There's also the question of the meaning of "infringed" v. "abridged." I, personally, take it to mean the 2nd isn't violated if you can still buy a musket, but nothing else.
And if the Founding Fathers wanted freedom of the press to apply to radio, television, and the Internet, they would have said so, right?
No, that's why they said "abridged." It's like you can't read. Are you from Mississippi?
The big problem with guns in America isn't legal ownership, it's illegal ownership.
If tighter gun laws are needed to cut the number of guns on the street, so be it. However the connection between tougher laws and less guns has failed to pan out so far.
That may have more to do with how cities with very strict gun control laws (such as DC) are right next to states with very lax gun control laws, facilitating illegal gun ownership via ease of importing.
Edit: beated.
Yeah, most NE/Tristate mayors despise the gun laws in southern states, and have been really pissed about a recent law forbidding police from finding what out-of-state gun stores guns used in crimes came from.
Out of curiosity... why would they hate the gun laws in southern states? You're talking about the northeast... New England. Shit, here in Vermont, there are almost no gun laws. Period.
The big problem with guns in America isn't legal ownership, it's illegal ownership.
If tighter gun laws are needed to cut the number of guns on the street, so be it. However the connection between tougher laws and less guns has failed to pan out so far.
That may have more to do with how cities with very strict gun control laws (such as DC) are right next to states with very lax gun control laws, facilitating illegal gun ownership via ease of importing.
Edit: beated.
Yeah, most NE/Tristate mayors despise the gun laws in southern states, and have been really pissed about a recent law forbidding police from finding what out-of-state gun stores guns used in crimes came from.
Out of curiosity... why would they hate the gun laws in southern states? You're talking about the northeast... New England. Shit, here in Vermont, there are almost no gun laws. Period.
According to those who have seen the laws in the south, that's just in comparison to Mass and Canada, although that might be because there are more gun shows in the south.
There's also the question of the meaning of "infringed" v. "abridged." I, personally, take it to mean the 2nd isn't violated if you can still buy a musket, but nothing else.
And if the Founding Fathers wanted freedom of the press to apply to radio, television, and the Internet, they would have said so, right?
No, that's why they said "abridged." It's like you can't read. Are you from Mississippi?
Oh yes, I can see the constitutional convention now.
"What if people invent new mediums for the press?"
"Well those shall not be abridged either."
"What if people invent new ways to search or seize something?"
"Well, the police will need to get a warrant for those methods too."
"What if people develop newer and more effective arms and armament?"
"Fuck that inalienable right! This here amendment has a sunset clause, motherfucker."
zerg rush on
0
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
The big problem with guns in America isn't legal ownership, it's illegal ownership.
If tighter gun laws are needed to cut the number of guns on the street, so be it. However the connection between tougher laws and less guns has failed to pan out so far.
That may have more to do with how cities with very strict gun control laws (such as DC) are right next to states with very lax gun control laws, facilitating illegal gun ownership via ease of importing.
Edit: beated.
Yeah, most NE/Tristate mayors despise the gun laws in southern states, and have been really pissed about a recent law forbidding police from finding what out-of-state gun stores guns used in crimes came from.
Out of curiosity... why would they hate the gun laws in southern states? You're talking about the northeast... New England. Shit, here in Vermont, there are almost no gun laws. Period.
According to those who have seen the laws in the south, that's just in comparison to Mass and Canada, although that might be because there are more gun shows in the south.
I guess I just don't get it. There are plenty of gun shows in Vermont (and New Hampshire), and we're right next door to Mass. You don't have that whole 18 hour drive to worry about and all. And like I said, there are no real laws here. You can buy any firearm that's not forbidden by federal law, there is absolutely no licensing...
There's also the question of the meaning of "infringed" v. "abridged." I, personally, take it to mean the 2nd isn't violated if you can still buy a musket, but nothing else.
And if the Founding Fathers wanted freedom of the press to apply to radio, television, and the Internet, they would have said so, right?
No, that's why they said "abridged." It's like you can't read. Are you from Mississippi?
Oh yes, I can see the constitutional convention now.
"What if people invent new mediums for the press?"
"Well those shall not be abridged either."
"What if people invent new ways to search or seize something?"
"Well, the police will need to get a warrant for those methods too."
"What if people develop newer and more effective arms and armament?"
"Fuck that inalienable right! This here amendment has a sunset clause, motherfucker."
Ah, so we should allow our citizens to take advantage of any and all twenty-first century war-fighting technology they can afford? RPGs? Rocket-launchers? Humvees with mounted machine guns? High explosives surrounded by radioactive material?
I suggest you rethink this position with perhaps at least a little more nuance.
There do seem to be two major camps of thought on the 2nd amendment issue. Some people seem to believe that it's largely a matter of being able to protect yourself from violence, others believe that civilian guns are a viable way of overthrowing the government if it becomes too repressive. Those who think the latter would support civilians with RPGs, rocket launchers or whatever.
As for concealed weapons, I do think there is a serious public saftey issue. First of all, if carrying a concealed weapon becomes as common as driving a car there will be cases of "gun rage", people with no prior criminal record just flipping out and shooting somebody because they're pissed about getting cut off on the highway or something. Or heck, even if they just have a bad day which causes a lapse in judgement, going out and shooting somebody isn't really all that far-feteched. Think about how people's driving judgement is shot to hell when they're upset.
Also, the violence in crimes will probably escalate. If you know the person you want to mug is probably carrying a gun, you have a good reason to incapacitate or kill them. In a society where concealed weapons are rare, in makes sense just to use a knife and not try to cause too much damage because you want to hedge your bets just in case you're caught. But, if you're going to rob somebody no matter what, it makes a lot more sense to simply kill someone and then steal their money rather than hold them up. Crime might go down, but they're going to become more violent in nature.
There do seem to be two major camps of thought on the 2nd amendment issue. Some people seem to believe that it's largely a matter of being able to protect yourself from violence, others believe that civilian guns are a viable way of overthrowing the government if it becomes too repressive. Those who think the latter would support civilians with RPGs, rocket launchers or whatever.
As for concealed weapons, I do think there is a serious public saftey issue. First of all, if carrying a concealed weapon becomes as common as driving a car there will be cases of "gun rage", people with no prior criminal record just flipping out and shooting somebody because they're pissed about getting cut off on the highway or something. Or heck, even if they just have a bad day which causes a lapse in judgement, going out and shooting somebody isn't really all that far-feteched. Think about how people's driving judgement is shot to hell when they're upset.
Also, the violence in crimes will probably escalate. If you know the person you want to mug is probably carrying a gun, you have a good reason to incapacitate or kill them. In a society where concealed weapons are rare, in makes sense just to use a knife and not try to cause too much damage because you want to hedge your bets just in case you're caught. But, if you're going to rob somebody no matter what, it makes a lot more sense to simply kill someone and then steal their money rather than hold them up. Crime might go down, but they're going to become more violent in nature.
This is pure speculation.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
Options
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
There's also the question of the meaning of "infringed" v. "abridged." I, personally, take it to mean the 2nd isn't violated if you can still buy a musket, but nothing else.
And if the Founding Fathers wanted freedom of the press to apply to radio, television, and the Internet, they would have said so, right?
No, that's why they said "abridged." It's like you can't read. Are you from Mississippi?
Oh yes, I can see the constitutional convention now.
"What if people invent new mediums for the press?"
"Well those shall not be abridged either."
"What if people invent new ways to search or seize something?"
"Well, the police will need to get a warrant for those methods too."
"What if people develop newer and more effective arms and armament?"
"Fuck that inalienable right! This here amendment has a sunset clause, motherfucker."
Ah, so we should allow our citizens to take advantage of any and all twenty-first century war-fighting technology they can afford? RPGs? Rocket-launchers? Humvees with mounted machine guns? High explosives surrounded by radioactive material?
I suggest you rethink this position with perhaps at least a little more nuance.
Why not? Corporations receive that kind of leniency. Why shouldn't we be allowed to party with the big boys too? Or are we just second class now, not allowed to sit at the grown up table with all the elite types?
There do seem to be two major camps of thought on the 2nd amendment issue. Some people seem to believe that it's largely a matter of being able to protect yourself from violence, others believe that civilian guns are a viable way of overthrowing the government if it becomes too repressive. Those who think the latter would support civilians with RPGs, rocket launchers or whatever.
As for concealed weapons, I do think there is a serious public saftey issue. First of all, if carrying a concealed weapon becomes as common as driving a car there will be cases of "gun rage", people with no prior criminal record just flipping out and shooting somebody because they're pissed about getting cut off on the highway or something. Or heck, even if they just have a bad day which causes a lapse in judgement, going out and shooting somebody isn't really all that far-feteched. Think about how people's driving judgement is shot to hell when they're upset.
Also, the violence in crimes will probably escalate. If you know the person you want to mug is probably carrying a gun, you have a good reason to incapacitate or kill them. In a society where concealed weapons are rare, in makes sense just to use a knife and not try to cause too much damage because you want to hedge your bets just in case you're caught. But, if you're going to rob somebody no matter what, it makes a lot more sense to simply kill someone and then steal their money rather than hold them up. Crime might go down, but they're going to become more violent in nature.
The large majority of states with pretty lenient may-issue laws seem to disagree with this speculation.
You know what sort of concerns me? I live in a shall-issue state and I got my License to Carry... and I'm blind in one eye. Now, no big deal, right? I have one good eye, right? But there's absolutely no medical information for me to submit. There's no physical or anything like that. I could be legitimately blind and I'd have gotten it.
Gun ownership does not lead to a higher crime rate.
[citation needed]
Most of the material I've seen making the link is either biased or obviously flawed, however most of the material I've seen disproving the link (or claiming the opposite) is as well.
Evidence is required to establish a correlation. In the absence of such evidence, non-colleration is the default.
That's ridiculous. You're saying that though you don't know that there is a correlation, you're going to base your argument (partially) on the assertion that there is none, and the burden is on the doubter to disprove it. You made the claim, now back it up.
Why not? Corporations receive that kind of leniency. Why shouldn't we be allowed to party with the big boys too? Or are we just second class now, not allowed to sit at the grown up table with all the elite types?
Why not? Because of crazy people. Weapons are force multipliers. More powerful weapons improve one's ability to cause damage to others. If you limit the ability of people, broadly, to cause damage to one another, through limits on the availability of very powerful weapons, you reduce the danger of some crazy guy getting a weapon that can cause huge damage and using it against large numbers of innocent people.
Why not? Corporations receive that kind of leniency. Why shouldn't we be allowed to party with the big boys too? Or are we just second class now, not allowed to sit at the grown up table with all the elite types?
Why not? Because of crazy people. Weapons are force multipliers. More powerful weapons improve one's ability to cause damage to others. If you limit the ability of people, broadly, to cause damage to one another, through limits on the availability of very powerful weapons, you reduce the danger of some crazy guy getting a weapon that can cause huge damage and using it against large numbers of innocent people.
But without an arsenal of military-grade weapons, how will I fight off Disney's private army when they come to invade my bunker/compound/treehouse?
Lawndart on
0
Options
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
Why not? Corporations receive that kind of leniency. Why shouldn't we be allowed to party with the big boys too? Or are we just second class now, not allowed to sit at the grown up table with all the elite types?
Why not? Because of crazy people. Weapons are force multipliers. More powerful weapons improve one's ability to cause damage to others. If you limit the ability of people, broadly, to cause damage to one another, through limits on the availability of very powerful weapons, you reduce the danger of some crazy guy getting a weapon that can cause huge damage and using it against large numbers of innocent people.
But without an arsenal of military-grade weapons, how will I fight off Disney's private army when they come to invade my bunker/compound/treehouse?
I think Lawndart gets it. Disney was a Nazi fucker after all.
But seriously, have you ever heard of Eric Prince? I would like to see anyone make a case for that guy being sane.
Why not? Corporations receive that kind of leniency. Why shouldn't we be allowed to party with the big boys too? Or are we just second class now, not allowed to sit at the grown up table with all the elite types?
Why not? Because of crazy people. Weapons are force multipliers. More powerful weapons improve one's ability to cause damage to others. If you limit the ability of people, broadly, to cause damage to one another, through limits on the availability of very powerful weapons, you reduce the danger of some crazy guy getting a weapon that can cause huge damage and using it against large numbers of innocent people.
But without an arsenal of military-grade weapons, how will I fight off Disney's private army when they come to invade my bunker/compound/treehouse?
I think Lawndart gets it. Disney was a Nazi fucker after all.
But seriously, have you ever heard of Eric Prince? I would like to see anyone make a case for that guy being sane.
The solution to this hypothetical private army problem is not to make everyone a private army unto themselves.
Matrijs on
0
Options
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
Why not? Corporations receive that kind of leniency. Why shouldn't we be allowed to party with the big boys too? Or are we just second class now, not allowed to sit at the grown up table with all the elite types?
Why not? Because of crazy people. Weapons are force multipliers. More powerful weapons improve one's ability to cause damage to others. If you limit the ability of people, broadly, to cause damage to one another, through limits on the availability of very powerful weapons, you reduce the danger of some crazy guy getting a weapon that can cause huge damage and using it against large numbers of innocent people.
But without an arsenal of military-grade weapons, how will I fight off Disney's private army when they come to invade my bunker/compound/treehouse?
I think Lawndart gets it. Disney was a Nazi fucker after all.
But seriously, have you ever heard of Eric Prince? I would like to see anyone make a case for that guy being sane.
The solution to this hypothetical private army problem is not to make everyone a private army unto themselves.
There is nothing hypothetical about private armies. It's just fashionable to call them contractors instead of mercenary scumbags these days. Shit, Blackwater or Xe or Antichrist Operations or whatever the fuck they are calling themselves this week have their own fucking warship.
I want my own warship too, damnit. Yarr.
edit: It was Xe, not Ze. What the fuck's up with that anyway? I liked the in-your-face-we-are-merc-douchebags name, Blackwater, much more.
Why not? Corporations receive that kind of leniency. Why shouldn't we be allowed to party with the big boys too? Or are we just second class now, not allowed to sit at the grown up table with all the elite types?
Why not? Because of crazy people. Weapons are force multipliers. More powerful weapons improve one's ability to cause damage to others. If you limit the ability of people, broadly, to cause damage to one another, through limits on the availability of very powerful weapons, you reduce the danger of some crazy guy getting a weapon that can cause huge damage and using it against large numbers of innocent people.
Yeah. If a right proves to be problematic, we should just revoke it or restrict it down to nothingness. I mean, Fox news is totally biased. We should just make an exception to the first amendment and shut them down. They're crazy after all.
What makes a country good is it holds freedoms and morals even when it is inconvenient to do so. Yeah, it's dangerous that we give the people the ability to overthrow the government. It's supposed to be dangerous. We let people have weapons because of that exact reason.
There do seem to be two major camps of thought on the 2nd amendment issue. Some people seem to believe that it's largely a matter of being able to protect yourself from violence, others believe that civilian guns are a viable way of overthrowing the government if it becomes too repressive. Those who think the latter would support civilians with RPGs, rocket launchers or whatever.
As for concealed weapons, I do think there is a serious public saftey issue. First of all, if carrying a concealed weapon becomes as common as driving a car there will be cases of "gun rage", people with no prior criminal record just flipping out and shooting somebody because they're pissed about getting cut off on the highway or something. Or heck, even if they just have a bad day which causes a lapse in judgement, going out and shooting somebody isn't really all that far-feteched. Think about how people's driving judgement is shot to hell when they're upset.
Also, the violence in crimes will probably escalate. If you know the person you want to mug is probably carrying a gun, you have a good reason to incapacitate or kill them. In a society where concealed weapons are rare, in makes sense just to use a knife and not try to cause too much damage because you want to hedge your bets just in case you're caught. But, if you're going to rob somebody no matter what, it makes a lot more sense to simply kill someone and then steal their money rather than hold them up. Crime might go down, but they're going to become more violent in nature.
This is pure speculation.
Which is amusing, because he's got a pretty large pool of major and minor metro areas from which to substantiate it. Like I said, (at least) five of the top fifteen metro areas are in shall-issue states. A vast majority of states, containing a very significant portion of population (might be a majority, but probably not) are shall-issue.
So he has a pretty damn big pool of data from which to subtantiate both his claims that:
A) shall-issue carry laws lead to ubiquitous carry ubiquitous carry leads to "gun rage" incidents
C) crime escalates in violence (even if it decreases in frequency)
To my knowledge, only (C) has any real merit. And personally I'm willing to accept a reduced overall risk of violent crime even if it comes with a higher risk of grave injury (or death), depending what all the actual probabilities involved are (in Houston, at least, it's like 16/100,000 for homicides).
(A) and (B) don't seem to be true at all. How many people in Seattle carry? Washington is shall-issue. Same with Denver and Colorado. Since we aren't accepting "hick" cities. Though maybe Denver is a "hick" city. Since that seems to mean anything that isn't between San Diego and San Francisco or Washington and Boston.
Of course, I've provided no actual evidence to disprove his claim. Mainly because I'm too lazy too...I'm roughly familiar with the numbers, though, so I'm pretty sure he'll be absolutely unable to substantiate it. I'll be on pins and needles to see!
Ah, so we should allow our citizens to take advantage of any and all twenty-first century war-fighting technology they can afford? RPGs? Rocket-launchers? Humvees with mounted machine guns? High explosives surrounded by radioactive material?
I suggest you rethink this position with perhaps at least a little more nuance.
Well yeah, that's where you get into such fun terms as "compelling interest" and "least restrictive means."
A ban on RPGs and nuclear warheads is easily defensible from a strict scrutiny approach. A ban on concealed carry? Less so. A ban on hanguns? Apparently not.
Note that for the middle one I said "less so," and not "not." Since it hasn't actually been decided yet.
Well, it seems clear that those states that allow concealed carrying weapons have not turned into the Wild West and do not have some one unload on a crowded street every other day because someone startled them.
So, obviously the average citizen who gets a concealed carry permit is able to use it in a responsible manner. So your personal feelings on the matter are trumped by reality.
Well, compared to Mass, some of them have, but that's probably not fair (for a measure of just how peaceful it is here, I would like to note that our local media actually reports when black people are killed, and it often makes the front page of the globe).
Boston's homicide rate, at least the number I'm looking at, is about 11/100,000. Lower than Houston or Dallas, and lower than Miami. However, looking at other major metro areas (obviously size will vary...then again, both of the above are larger than Boston), Boston is on par with Phoenix, higher than Denver, and much higher than Seattle (all shall-issue states). Boston's rates for other violent crimes are higher than Phoenix (with assaults being double the rate in Phoenix).
Boston isn't that peaceful.
It looks like, in order to prevent maybe five homicides, you're adding a handful of rapes and hundreds of assaults (per 100,000 at least comparing to Dallas and Houston specifically).
EDIT: These numbers are a year old (2007, so reported in 2008). But I doubt that much has changed in the last year in these cities, including the gun laws.
There do seem to be two major camps of thought on the 2nd amendment issue. Some people seem to believe that it's largely a matter of being able to protect yourself from violence, others believe that civilian guns are a viable way of overthrowing the government if it becomes too repressive. Those who think the latter would support civilians with RPGs, rocket launchers or whatever.
As for concealed weapons, I do think there is a serious public saftey issue. First of all, if carrying a concealed weapon becomes as common as driving a car there will be cases of "gun rage", people with no prior criminal record just flipping out and shooting somebody because they're pissed about getting cut off on the highway or something. Or heck, even if they just have a bad day which causes a lapse in judgement, going out and shooting somebody isn't really all that far-feteched. Think about how people's driving judgement is shot to hell when they're upset.
Also, the violence in crimes will probably escalate. If you know the person you want to mug is probably carrying a gun, you have a good reason to incapacitate or kill them. In a society where concealed weapons are rare, in makes sense just to use a knife and not try to cause too much damage because you want to hedge your bets just in case you're caught. But, if you're going to rob somebody no matter what, it makes a lot more sense to simply kill someone and then steal their money rather than hold them up. Crime might go down, but they're going to become more violent in nature.
The large majority of states with pretty lenient may-issue laws seem to disagree with this speculation.
Kansas, a "shall-issue" state has had an increase of violent crime since it started issue concealed weapon permits. Gun control laws tend to have very different effects on culturally different areas. You can't expect concealed weapons in Georgia to have the same effect they would in New York City.
I think my concerns are both rational and reasonable.
Yeah. If a right proves to be problematic, we should just revoke it or restrict it down to nothingness. I mean, Fox news is totally biased. We should just make an exception to the first amendment and shut them down. They're crazy after all.
Yes, not letting you buy a bazooka is exactly the same as revoking the 2nd Amendment.
Just like punishing people for libel is exactly the same as revoking the 1st Amendment.
What makes a country good is it holds freedoms and morals even when it is inconvenient to do so. Yeah, it's dangerous that we give the people the ability to overthrow the government. It's supposed to be dangerous. We let people have weapons because of that exact reason.
I'd say the 1st Amendment is a much better tool for overthrowing the government than the 2nd.
But maybe I missed where "well-regulated militia" actually means "The government shall not prevent any yahoo from trying to re-enact Red Dawn, so machine guns for all!"
Kansas, a "shall-issue" state has had an increase of violent crime since it started issue concealed weapon permits. Gun control laws tend to have very different effects on culturally different areas. You can't expect concealed weapons in Georgia to have the same effect they would in New York City.
I think my concerns are both rational and reasonable.
I'm sure you have other examples? Because I see no reason here to believe that there aren't perhaps other variables in play in Kansas.
I mean, yeah I'm looking at the numbers and Wichita saw a good-sized jump from 2006 to 2007. Then again, Topeka didn't so much (it increased, but was still less than other recent years). Kansas City apparently saw a drop? And I've got a news report right here that says homicides in Wichita dropped 20% for 2008, which is right about back to 2006 levels.
Basically you've got what, two years of data on the state? I'm not seeing how you're drawing broad correlations from that.
EDIT: For those who aren't familiar with it, KS passed shall-issue in 2006.
Gun ownership does not lead to a higher crime rate.
[citation needed]
Most of the material I've seen making the link is either biased or obviously flawed, however most of the material I've seen disproving the link (or claiming the opposite) is as well.
Evidence is required to establish a correlation. In the absence of such evidence, non-colleration is the default.
That's ridiculous. You're saying that though you don't know that there is a correlation, you're going to base your argument (partially) on the assertion that there is none, and the burden is on the doubter to disprove it. You made the claim, now back it up.
That's not how it works. If you have two things and you want to say that A has a correlation with B, you need show, with actual studies and numbers and shit, that there is in fact a correlation. If you can't do that, it means there is no correlation.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
Options
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
What makes a country good is it holds freedoms and morals even when it is inconvenient to do so. Yeah, it's dangerous that we give the people the ability to overthrow the government. It's supposed to be dangerous. We let people have weapons because of that exact reason.
I'd say the 1st Amendment is a much better tool for overthrowing the government than the 2nd.
But maybe I missed where "well-regulated militia" actually means "The government shall not prevent any yahoo from trying to re-enact Red Dawn, so machine guns for all!"
I think the 1st Amendment is better off when you have a 2nd Amendment to back it up. That way when Fox News hires Blackwater to bust up your printing presses, you've got something more than the stack your latest Lone Gunmen newsletters to defend yourself with.
What makes a country good is it holds freedoms and morals even when it is inconvenient to do so. Yeah, it's dangerous that we give the people the ability to overthrow the government. It's supposed to be dangerous. We let people have weapons because of that exact reason.
I'd say the 1st Amendment is a much better tool for overthrowing the government than the 2nd.
But maybe I missed where "well-regulated militia" actually means "The government shall not prevent any yahoo from trying to re-enact Red Dawn, so machine guns for all!"
I think the 1st Amendment is better off when you have a 2nd Amendment to back it up. That way when Fox News hires Blackwater to bust up your printing presses, you've got something more than the stack your latest Lone Gunmen newsletters to defend yourself with.
You know, once they outlaw tinfoil, only outlaws will have the required headgear to avoid the government's mind control rays.
Gun ownership does not lead to a higher crime rate.
[citation needed]
Most of the material I've seen making the link is either biased or obviously flawed, however most of the material I've seen disproving the link (or claiming the opposite) is as well.
Evidence is required to establish a correlation. In the absence of such evidence, non-colleration is the default.
That's ridiculous. You're saying that though you don't know that there is a correlation, you're going to base your argument (partially) on the assertion that there is none, and the burden is on the doubter to disprove it. You made the claim, now back it up.
That's not how it works. If you have two things and you want to say that A has a correlation with B, you need show, with actual studies and numbers and shit, that there is in fact a correlation. If you can't do that, it means there is no correlation.
No. You made the assertion that there is no correlation. The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. Either back it up or retract it.
Gun ownership does not lead to a higher crime rate.
[citation needed]
Most of the material I've seen making the link is either biased or obviously flawed, however most of the material I've seen disproving the link (or claiming the opposite) is as well.
Evidence is required to establish a correlation. In the absence of such evidence, non-colleration is the default.
That's ridiculous. You're saying that though you don't know that there is a correlation, you're going to base your argument (partially) on the assertion that there is none, and the burden is on the doubter to disprove it. You made the claim, now back it up.
That's not how it works. If you have two things and you want to say that A has a correlation with B, you need show, with actual studies and numbers and shit, that there is in fact a correlation. If you can't do that, it means there is no correlation.
No. You made the assertion that there is no correlation. The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. Either back it up or retract it.
You can't prove a negative. Asking someone to prove there isn't a corellation is like asking someone to prove that the world didn't just pop into existance ten seconds ago with all our memories intact - it's impossible to prove conclusively that it didn't happen, but actual evidence is needed to prove that it did.
Edit: I see what you mean, the original statement was worded poorly, but still it's like saying "there is no Santa Claus." Sure it may be possible for there to exist a Santa Claus, but without some evidence of existance saying that there isn't is not an unreasonable statement.
What makes a country good is it holds freedoms and morals even when it is inconvenient to do so. Yeah, it's dangerous that we give the people the ability to overthrow the government. It's supposed to be dangerous. We let people have weapons because of that exact reason.
I'd say the 1st Amendment is a much better tool for overthrowing the government than the 2nd.
The 1st Amendment is a much better tool for overthrowing the government. But you know what?
I want EVERY ONE of my rights in the first 10 amendments. And any of my rights in the next 17 too. And I'd like to retain any other rights not expressly given to the state or federal government. I don't see why the government ought to be taking any of them away without compelling reason.
Is violence truly the only way to resist oppression? Is it even viable to think of a civilian collection resisting an organized government military through violence these days, especially in countries like America? It just seems like it would end up like insurgents fighting against various western countries today, they can make small(very small comparetively) damages, but there's no way for them to realistically defeat a large organized force.
It doesn't even seem like a realistic scenario at all in modern times, that of a government in a first world nation opressing it's people through armed force. Opression would likely come through different forms of propaganda or other subtle forms, where a large percent of the population would be lulled into cooperation.
Is violence truly the only way to resist oppression? Is it even viable to think of a civilian collection resisting an organized government military through violence these days, especially in countries like America? It just seems like it would end up like insurgents fighting against various western countries today, they can make small(very small comparetively) damages, but there's no way for them to realistically defeat a large organized force.
It doesn't even seem like a realistic scenario at all in modern times, that of a government in a first world nation opressing it's people through armed force. Opression would likely come through different forms of propaganda or other subtle forms, where a large percent of the population would be lulled into cooperation.
Armed resistance to government is no longer the main reason why we need the Second Amendment. But it is still a reason.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I just don't see how though. It seems to be getting less and less realistic of a scenario since the twentieth century and beyond. It just seems a little idealized to believe a civilian force could somehow come up with the organization, numbers, finances, and so on that would be needed to combat a large oppressive force. Especially if the country in question allied with other large powerful countries.
There's also the question of the meaning of "infringed" v. "abridged." I, personally, take it to mean the 2nd isn't violated if you can still buy a musket, but nothing else.
And if the Founding Fathers wanted freedom of the press to apply to radio, television, and the Internet, they would have said so, right?
No, that's why they said "abridged." It's like you can't read. Are you from Mississippi?
Oh yes, I can see the constitutional convention now.
"What if people invent new mediums for the press?"
"Well those shall not be abridged either."
"What if people invent new ways to search or seize something?"
"Well, the police will need to get a warrant for those methods too."
"What if people develop newer and more effective arms and armament?"
"Fuck that inalienable right! This here amendment has a sunset clause, motherfucker."
What is so hard to understand about "infringe" and "abridge" not being synonyms? Abridge means to limit or make shorter, while infringe means to violate or, in older usage, invalidate. That means that if you have access to any arms whatsoever, your right to bear arms, while abridged, has not been infringed. Learn English.
I just don't see how though. It seems to be getting less and less realistic of a scenario since the twentieth century and beyond. It just seems a little idealized to believe a civilian force could somehow come up with the organization, numbers, finances, and so on that would be needed to combat a large oppressive force. Especially if the country in question allied with other large powerful countries.
I like to think of it as a deterrent, myself. Sure, we probably would not win, but we may be able to make it where they can't win either. Hypothetically speaking, of course. All a guerrilla has to do is not lose. He doesn't have to win, per se.
But I basically agree with the idea that if we were to face tyranny it would come as state sanctioned propaganda, color-of-law bullshit, torture, double speak, etc. Orwellian/Huxley type stuff. Guns aren't the weapon of choice in that fight.
edit: I mean, look at what bought down the Soviet Union. A lot of damage was done internally just through small acts of daily rebellion, sabotage and non compliance whenever the average Russian dude could get away with it. It destroyed any chance that the USSR had at achieving its vaunted scientific efficiency and really all you had to do was come up with a good excuse to stay home from work and drink vodka all day.
Posts
You get stabbed anywhere by a decent blade you have effectively ZERO chance of pulling a gun, aiming, and shooting your assailant. You recieve a minor flesh wound an inch or so deep, then provided its not in a bad place then maybe you can go for your gun, but he's right on you with a knife and can stab you again.
Fighting back after a stabbing is like hoping the other guys gun jams when you go to pull yours out. True, it might happen, but 99.% of the time you are dead.
Well, it seems clear that those states that allow concealed carrying weapons have not turned into the Wild West and do not have some one unload on a crowded street every other day because someone startled them.
So, obviously the average citizen who gets a concealed carry permit is able to use it in a responsible manner. So your personal feelings on the matter are trumped by reality.
Well, compared to Mass, some of them have, but that's probably not fair (for a measure of just how peaceful it is here, I would like to note that our local media actually reports when black people are killed, and it often makes the front page of the globe).
vs.
The reasoning prior to Heller was that the Second Amendment protected a state's right to form and maintain militia to defend itself against the federal government, and, by extension, an individual's right to keep and bear arms strictly in pursuit of that goal, not an individual's right to bear arms for self-defense against criminals and the like.
It's kind of unfortunate, really, because the Heller decision renders the bolded portion of the second amendment into flavor text. Apparently, that clause has no bearing on the meaning of the amendment. But who am I to apply rules of statutory interpretation that first year law students learn to Supreme Court decisions?
There's also the question of the meaning of "infringed" v. "abridged." I, personally, take it to mean the 2nd isn't violated if you can still buy a musket, but nothing else.
And if the Founding Fathers wanted freedom of the press to apply to radio, television, and the Internet, they would have said so, right?
No, that's why they said "abridged." It's like you can't read. Are you from Mississippi?
Out of curiosity... why would they hate the gun laws in southern states? You're talking about the northeast... New England. Shit, here in Vermont, there are almost no gun laws. Period.
According to those who have seen the laws in the south, that's just in comparison to Mass and Canada, although that might be because there are more gun shows in the south.
Oh yes, I can see the constitutional convention now.
"What if people invent new mediums for the press?"
"Well those shall not be abridged either."
"What if people invent new ways to search or seize something?"
"Well, the police will need to get a warrant for those methods too."
"What if people develop newer and more effective arms and armament?"
"Fuck that inalienable right! This here amendment has a sunset clause, motherfucker."
I guess I just don't get it. There are plenty of gun shows in Vermont (and New Hampshire), and we're right next door to Mass. You don't have that whole 18 hour drive to worry about and all. And like I said, there are no real laws here. You can buy any firearm that's not forbidden by federal law, there is absolutely no licensing...
-shrug-
Ah, so we should allow our citizens to take advantage of any and all twenty-first century war-fighting technology they can afford? RPGs? Rocket-launchers? Humvees with mounted machine guns? High explosives surrounded by radioactive material?
I suggest you rethink this position with perhaps at least a little more nuance.
As for concealed weapons, I do think there is a serious public saftey issue. First of all, if carrying a concealed weapon becomes as common as driving a car there will be cases of "gun rage", people with no prior criminal record just flipping out and shooting somebody because they're pissed about getting cut off on the highway or something. Or heck, even if they just have a bad day which causes a lapse in judgement, going out and shooting somebody isn't really all that far-feteched. Think about how people's driving judgement is shot to hell when they're upset.
Also, the violence in crimes will probably escalate. If you know the person you want to mug is probably carrying a gun, you have a good reason to incapacitate or kill them. In a society where concealed weapons are rare, in makes sense just to use a knife and not try to cause too much damage because you want to hedge your bets just in case you're caught. But, if you're going to rob somebody no matter what, it makes a lot more sense to simply kill someone and then steal their money rather than hold them up. Crime might go down, but they're going to become more violent in nature.
This is pure speculation.
Why not? Corporations receive that kind of leniency. Why shouldn't we be allowed to party with the big boys too? Or are we just second class now, not allowed to sit at the grown up table with all the elite types?
The large majority of states with pretty lenient may-issue laws seem to disagree with this speculation.
That's ridiculous. You're saying that though you don't know that there is a correlation, you're going to base your argument (partially) on the assertion that there is none, and the burden is on the doubter to disprove it. You made the claim, now back it up.
Why not? Because of crazy people. Weapons are force multipliers. More powerful weapons improve one's ability to cause damage to others. If you limit the ability of people, broadly, to cause damage to one another, through limits on the availability of very powerful weapons, you reduce the danger of some crazy guy getting a weapon that can cause huge damage and using it against large numbers of innocent people.
But without an arsenal of military-grade weapons, how will I fight off Disney's private army when they come to invade my bunker/compound/treehouse?
I think Lawndart gets it. Disney was a Nazi fucker after all.
But seriously, have you ever heard of Eric Prince? I would like to see anyone make a case for that guy being sane.
The solution to this hypothetical private army problem is not to make everyone a private army unto themselves.
There is nothing hypothetical about private armies. It's just fashionable to call them contractors instead of mercenary scumbags these days. Shit, Blackwater or Xe or Antichrist Operations or whatever the fuck they are calling themselves this week have their own fucking warship.
I want my own warship too, damnit. Yarr.
edit: It was Xe, not Ze. What the fuck's up with that anyway? I liked the in-your-face-we-are-merc-douchebags name, Blackwater, much more.
Yeah. If a right proves to be problematic, we should just revoke it or restrict it down to nothingness. I mean, Fox news is totally biased. We should just make an exception to the first amendment and shut them down. They're crazy after all.
What makes a country good is it holds freedoms and morals even when it is inconvenient to do so. Yeah, it's dangerous that we give the people the ability to overthrow the government. It's supposed to be dangerous. We let people have weapons because of that exact reason.
Which is amusing, because he's got a pretty large pool of major and minor metro areas from which to substantiate it. Like I said, (at least) five of the top fifteen metro areas are in shall-issue states. A vast majority of states, containing a very significant portion of population (might be a majority, but probably not) are shall-issue.
So he has a pretty damn big pool of data from which to subtantiate both his claims that:
A) shall-issue carry laws lead to ubiquitous carry
C) crime escalates in violence (even if it decreases in frequency)
To my knowledge, only (C) has any real merit. And personally I'm willing to accept a reduced overall risk of violent crime even if it comes with a higher risk of grave injury (or death), depending what all the actual probabilities involved are (in Houston, at least, it's like 16/100,000 for homicides).
(A) and (B) don't seem to be true at all. How many people in Seattle carry? Washington is shall-issue. Same with Denver and Colorado. Since we aren't accepting "hick" cities. Though maybe Denver is a "hick" city. Since that seems to mean anything that isn't between San Diego and San Francisco or Washington and Boston.
Of course, I've provided no actual evidence to disprove his claim. Mainly because I'm too lazy too...I'm roughly familiar with the numbers, though, so I'm pretty sure he'll be absolutely unable to substantiate it. I'll be on pins and needles to see!
Well yeah, that's where you get into such fun terms as "compelling interest" and "least restrictive means."
A ban on RPGs and nuclear warheads is easily defensible from a strict scrutiny approach. A ban on concealed carry? Less so. A ban on hanguns? Apparently not.
Note that for the middle one I said "less so," and not "not." Since it hasn't actually been decided yet.
Boston's homicide rate, at least the number I'm looking at, is about 11/100,000. Lower than Houston or Dallas, and lower than Miami. However, looking at other major metro areas (obviously size will vary...then again, both of the above are larger than Boston), Boston is on par with Phoenix, higher than Denver, and much higher than Seattle (all shall-issue states). Boston's rates for other violent crimes are higher than Phoenix (with assaults being double the rate in Phoenix).
Boston isn't that peaceful.
It looks like, in order to prevent maybe five homicides, you're adding a handful of rapes and hundreds of assaults (per 100,000 at least comparing to Dallas and Houston specifically).
EDIT: These numbers are a year old (2007, so reported in 2008). But I doubt that much has changed in the last year in these cities, including the gun laws.
Kansas, a "shall-issue" state has had an increase of violent crime since it started issue concealed weapon permits. Gun control laws tend to have very different effects on culturally different areas. You can't expect concealed weapons in Georgia to have the same effect they would in New York City.
I think my concerns are both rational and reasonable.
Yes, not letting you buy a bazooka is exactly the same as revoking the 2nd Amendment.
Just like punishing people for libel is exactly the same as revoking the 1st Amendment.
I'd say the 1st Amendment is a much better tool for overthrowing the government than the 2nd.
But maybe I missed where "well-regulated militia" actually means "The government shall not prevent any yahoo from trying to re-enact Red Dawn, so machine guns for all!"
I'm sure you have other examples? Because I see no reason here to believe that there aren't perhaps other variables in play in Kansas.
I mean, yeah I'm looking at the numbers and Wichita saw a good-sized jump from 2006 to 2007. Then again, Topeka didn't so much (it increased, but was still less than other recent years). Kansas City apparently saw a drop? And I've got a news report right here that says homicides in Wichita dropped 20% for 2008, which is right about back to 2006 levels.
Basically you've got what, two years of data on the state? I'm not seeing how you're drawing broad correlations from that.
EDIT: For those who aren't familiar with it, KS passed shall-issue in 2006.
That's not how it works. If you have two things and you want to say that A has a correlation with B, you need show, with actual studies and numbers and shit, that there is in fact a correlation. If you can't do that, it means there is no correlation.
I think the 1st Amendment is better off when you have a 2nd Amendment to back it up. That way when Fox News hires Blackwater to bust up your printing presses, you've got something more than the stack your latest Lone Gunmen newsletters to defend yourself with.
You know, once they outlaw tinfoil, only outlaws will have the required headgear to avoid the government's mind control rays.
No. You made the assertion that there is no correlation. The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. Either back it up or retract it.
You can't prove a negative. Asking someone to prove there isn't a corellation is like asking someone to prove that the world didn't just pop into existance ten seconds ago with all our memories intact - it's impossible to prove conclusively that it didn't happen, but actual evidence is needed to prove that it did.
Edit: I see what you mean, the original statement was worded poorly, but still it's like saying "there is no Santa Claus." Sure it may be possible for there to exist a Santa Claus, but without some evidence of existance saying that there isn't is not an unreasonable statement.
The 1st Amendment is a much better tool for overthrowing the government. But you know what?
I want EVERY ONE of my rights in the first 10 amendments. And any of my rights in the next 17 too. And I'd like to retain any other rights not expressly given to the state or federal government. I don't see why the government ought to be taking any of them away without compelling reason.
It doesn't even seem like a realistic scenario at all in modern times, that of a government in a first world nation opressing it's people through armed force. Opression would likely come through different forms of propaganda or other subtle forms, where a large percent of the population would be lulled into cooperation.
Armed resistance to government is no longer the main reason why we need the Second Amendment. But it is still a reason.
What is so hard to understand about "infringe" and "abridge" not being synonyms? Abridge means to limit or make shorter, while infringe means to violate or, in older usage, invalidate. That means that if you have access to any arms whatsoever, your right to bear arms, while abridged, has not been infringed. Learn English.
I like to think of it as a deterrent, myself. Sure, we probably would not win, but we may be able to make it where they can't win either. Hypothetically speaking, of course. All a guerrilla has to do is not lose. He doesn't have to win, per se.
But I basically agree with the idea that if we were to face tyranny it would come as state sanctioned propaganda, color-of-law bullshit, torture, double speak, etc. Orwellian/Huxley type stuff. Guns aren't the weapon of choice in that fight.
edit: I mean, look at what bought down the Soviet Union. A lot of damage was done internally just through small acts of daily rebellion, sabotage and non compliance whenever the average Russian dude could get away with it. It destroyed any chance that the USSR had at achieving its vaunted scientific efficiency and really all you had to do was come up with a good excuse to stay home from work and drink vodka all day.
Or what.