If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC Local)   Concealed carry fails in Illinois House. This is good news for gun owners because if they don't pass one in the next few weeks you can carry any gun you want any time you want in the Land of Lincoln   (abclocal.go.com) divider line 331
    More: Cool, Illinois House, Illinois, Chicago Democrat, concealed weapons, gun owners, parliamentary procedures, Brooke Anderson  
•       •       •

7887 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Apr 2013 at 10:56 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



331 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-20 02:40:57 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: udhq: Yeah, about that 2.5 million number?  Not so much.

And you cite a study by an overtly pro gun control group?  How about no.


Hmmm, so an institution that produces an academic study that fails to reinforce your preconceived beliefs can be summarily dismissed as "overtly pro gun control", but YOUR OWN STATISTIC comes from a non-academic paper (that's a significant word, notice how it's a "paper", and not a "study") produced by a self-identified gun lobby?

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the very definition of living in an ideological bubble.
 
2013-04-20 02:41:05 PM  

SCUBA_Archer: Has the Fark anti-gun penis envy brigade made it here yet to remind me how small my penis must be because I enjoy firearms?  I always love to read their opinions on the matter.


It's been relatively penis-free today.
 
2013-04-20 02:43:05 PM  

Fark It: Silly Jesus: I love that they are continuing to ignore the real problem out of political correctness.  The problem, Illinois, is a certain culture that exists in your largest city, not the average lawful gun owner.

"Hurrr, the real problem is the blacks!"

Chicago's ghetto culture is about far more than just skin tone.....


I was in Cabela's in Hammond yesterday. The guy at the gun counter said a couple illinois gang banger types were in not to long ago and he overheard one say to the other 'Don't mess wit no old guys in Indiana. They'll kill you'.
 
2013-04-20 02:45:03 PM  
That's the other funny thing. Everyone is out to ban the scary looking .223's where it's considered a war crime use the old style civil war .58cal muskets in battle since they do so much more damage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDX_Lc_FTm0">http://www.youtube.com/w atch?v=vDX_Lc_FTm0
 
2013-04-20 02:45:11 PM  

snocone: udhq: BraveNewCheneyWorld: skozlaw: Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

Just like owning a car increases your chances of being killed in a car accident!!  That doesn't mean there's not an overwhelming number of benefits to having a car that outweigh that risk.  Your "logic" is idiotic.

No, it's really not.  Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.

There are a lot of reasons to own a gun, but if someone cites "safety", "protection" or "crime deterrence" that's a pretty clear flag that they don't know what they're talking about.

Where did you pick that crap up?
Total falsehood. Insurance rates are unchanged.
Deliberate lie or do you not check the crap you believe? Be honest.

/cannot understand farks who spout lies so easily checked


Boy, you sure showed me with all that "evidence" you posted.....
 
2013-04-20 02:46:42 PM  

ronaprhys: mizchief: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: The only solution I see is to tell gun manufacturers to GTFO, but that wouldn't make me a viable politician.

The fun part is when states pass these restrictive gun laws, but then make exceptions so that the big manufacturers can keep operating in the state so they don't lose the jobs.

Isn't Magpul actually leaving CO?  And I read something about a company in CT getting ready to do the same, no?

Even telling the mfrs to leave won't work.  Something on the order of 1 firearm per citizen exists at this point.  Plus, firearms are surprisingly durable and manage to last quite a long time with very basic amounts of maintenance.

And making them is easy.  Just ask the French Resistance.


I'm from CT, even I was shocked to hear that companies are actually going to leave.  Personally, the laws we passed are kind of retarded but it's nice to see people stick to their convictions when money is on the line, we'll see how long that shiat lasts.

There are too many, which is why I said before I think the battle is already lost.  But I try not to be a pessimist and look at what is controllable which is only future production.

However, making them is not easy.  Making a zip gun is fairly easy I guess, but unreliable.  It's a lot better if you have a manufactured one.  If you're going to kill someone, you better make sure you're going to get the job done.  I suppose you can make a bomb too, but only a shiatty one and it's hard to control exactly who you kill.  Murder of a random isn't really that common, there is usually a specific target.  Now if you have four months and a lot of dedication, you can try to make a masterpiece like McVeigh and just hope your target is at work that day.
 
2013-04-20 02:53:49 PM  

mizchief: ronaprhys: mizchief: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: The only solution I see is to tell gun manufacturers to GTFO, but that wouldn't make me a viable politician.

The fun part is when states pass these restrictive gun laws, but then make exceptions so that the big manufacturers can keep operating in the state so they don't lose the jobs.

Isn't Magpul actually leaving CO?  And I read something about a company in CT getting ready to do the same, no?

Even telling the mfrs to leave won't work.  Something on the order of 1 firearm per citizen exists at this point.  Plus, firearms are surprisingly durable and manage to last quite a long time with very basic amounts of maintenance.

And making them is easy.  Just ask the French Resistance.

Or Mexican drug cartels

[m5.paperblog.com image 320x242]

[www.everydaynodaysoff.com image 770x808]

[resources0.news.com.au image 316x211]

Like with any other form of prohibition, you end up with a totally unregulated black market.


That is some of the worst welding I have ever seen.  Was it done in a Mexican back alley  ... oh, it was... 

snocone: udhq: BraveNewCheneyWorld: skozlaw: Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

Just like owning a car increases your chances of being killed in a car accident!!  That doesn't mean there's not an overwhelming number of benefits to having a car that outweigh that risk.  Your "logic" is idiotic.

No, it's really not.  Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.

There are a lot of reasons to own a gun, but if someone cites "safety", "protection" or "crime deterrence" that's a pretty clear flag that they don't know what they're talking about.

Where did you pick that crap up?
Total falsehood. Insurance rates are unchanged.
Deliberate lie or do you not check the crap you believe? Be honest.

/cannot understand farks who spout lies so easily checked


You know, I can explain how that happens.  First you need a child.  Someone in their 20's or later that has never really had any actual personal responsibility.  This person would be lucky to have insurance at all, much less pay the bill themselves.  Then, you get that child into a conversation about things they know nothing what so ever.  They want to seem smart and participate by saying something that A) makes sense, but isn't true or B) repeat something that isn't true but they heard it from another child with no actual knowledge.  If the child knows it's not true, the response to being called on it is usually vile.  If they didn't know, it's usually along the lines of "oh fark me".

In either case, the important factor is the relative life experiences.  Young people with no property have no experience on the subject, but boy they talk very loudly anyway.
 
2013-04-20 02:54:19 PM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: I'm from CT, even I was shocked to hear that companies are actually going to leave.  Personally, the laws we passed are kind of retarded but it's nice to see people stick to their convictions when money is on the line, we'll see how long that shiat lasts.

There are too many, which is why I said before I think the battle is already lost.  But I try not to be a pessimist and look at what is controllable which is only future production.

However, making them is not easy.  Making a zip gun is fairly easy I guess, but unreliable.  It's a lot better if you have a manufactured one.  If you're going to kill someone, you better make sure you're going to get the job done.  I suppose you can make a bomb too, but only a shiatty one and it's hard to control exactly who you kill.  Murder of a random isn't really that common, there is usually a specific target.  Now if you have four months and a lot of dedication, you can try to make a masterpiece like McVeigh and just hope your target is at work that day.


Actually, it is pretty easy.  The 1911 design is over 100 years old.  AKs are made by folks all the time, in other countries.  In fact, I remember ready of markets in the ME where using very basic tools people clone all sorts of stamped steel firearms.

Even revolvers can be made pretty easily.  I'm betting that with a Smithy 3n1 a person could, with a bit of time and effort, make a pretty high quality firearm that's very reliable.  It'd be a decent amount of work, but doable.

However, for criminals who plan on using them to rob someone, the firearm doesn't actually have to work for the most part - just look like it's pretty likely that it'll work.  But, as you note, there are a huge number of firearms out there and there's no practical way to reduce that number by any appreciable amount without crapping all over the Constitution.
 
2013-04-20 02:55:06 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: udhq: Yeah, about that 2.5 million number?  Not so much.

And you cite a study by an overtly pro gun control group?  How about no.


The Department of Justice puts the number at closer to 80,000 a year.  Just saying.
 
2013-04-20 02:56:54 PM  

skozlaw: ronaprhys: Don't think it, know it.

Okay, well, you're nuts and I'm more than confident that it's obvious, so I'm going to go ahead and just let our "argument" stand as it is for the ages to decide.


So, let's see.  When I pointed out that your argument around firearm restrictions was failed, you came up with nothing.  When you tried to argue that owning a firearm contributed nothing to safety and that was clearly discredited, you moved the goalposts.

Way to go, sparky.
 
2013-04-20 02:58:24 PM  

Mock26: BraveNewCheneyWorld: udhq: Yeah, about that 2.5 million number?  Not so much.

And you cite a study by an overtly pro gun control group?  How about no.

The Department of Justice puts the number at closer to 80,000 a year.  Just saying.


The DoJ won't get reports of every DGU.  That's the problem.  Which is why surveys are likely more reliable.  Unfortunately, there's a huge variation in numbers based methodology and so forth.
 
2013-04-20 03:03:31 PM  

ronaprhys: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: I'm from CT, even I was shocked to hear that companies are actually going to leave.  Personally, the laws we passed are kind of retarded but it's nice to see people stick to their convictions when money is on the line, we'll see how long that shiat lasts.

There are too many, which is why I said before I think the battle is already lost.  But I try not to be a pessimist and look at what is controllable which is only future production.

However, making them is not easy.  Making a zip gun is fairly easy I guess, but unreliable.  It's a lot better if you have a manufactured one.  If you're going to kill someone, you better make sure you're going to get the job done.  I suppose you can make a bomb too, but only a shiatty one and it's hard to control exactly who you kill.  Murder of a random isn't really that common, there is usually a specific target.  Now if you have four months and a lot of dedication, you can try to make a masterpiece like McVeigh and just hope your target is at work that day.

Actually, it is pretty easy.  The 1911 design is over 100 years old.  AKs are made by folks all the time, in other countries.  In fact, I remember ready of markets in the ME where using very basic tools people clone all sorts of stamped steel firearms.

Even revolvers can be made pretty easily.  I'm betting that with a Smithy 3n1 a person could, with a bit of time and effort, make a pretty high quality firearm that's very reliable.  It'd be a decent amount of work, but doable.

However, for criminals who plan on using them to rob someone, the firearm doesn't actually have to work for the most part - just look like it's pretty likely that it'll work.  But, as you note, there are a huge number of firearms out there and there's no practical way to reduce that number by any appreciable amount without crapping all over the Constitution.


Okay, there will be people that can make relatively well made firearms, and they'll try to sell a bunch of them too.  I was referring more to the regular individual being able to make one.  Having to know a guy who makes guns and trust his craftsmanship would be enough I hope to deter a bulk of people that are trying to shoot someone up.
 
2013-04-20 03:09:53 PM  

Mock26: BraveNewCheneyWorld: udhq: Yeah, about that 2.5 million number?  Not so much.

And you cite a study by an overtly pro gun control group?  How about no.

The Department of Justice puts the number at closer to 80,000 a year.  Just saying.


Even if it's that low, the number of murders is only 12,000, which means there is a net benefit to having a gun.
 
2013-04-20 03:15:46 PM  

devildog123: My cousin and his husband both have ccws and they own two very nice M4s (I bought them, customized them and provided training as their engagement present) as well. They both say that they can't understand why more gay men AREN'T pro second amendment.


The read "ccws" as "cows" at first.

Now I could understand being armed around pigs, but cows aren't typically bright enough to pick up on it.
 
2013-04-20 03:18:42 PM  

skozlaw: ArkAngel: If the average held, 118 people died yesterday in car crashes. Plus it's just a statistical fact that owning a car increases your odds of being killed by a car.

Both of those things are true.

But what's your point?


So you support banning cars?
 
2013-04-20 03:20:02 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mock26: BraveNewCheneyWorld: udhq: Yeah, about that 2.5 million number?  Not so much.

And you cite a study by an overtly pro gun control group?  How about no.

The Department of Justice puts the number at closer to 80,000 a year.  Just saying.

Even if it's that low, the number of murders is only 12,000, which means there is a net benefit to having a gun.


*facepalm*
 
2013-04-20 03:20:31 PM  

ArkAngel: skozlaw: ArkAngel: If the average held, 118 people died yesterday in car crashes. Plus it's just a statistical fact that owning a car increases your odds of being killed by a car.

Both of those things are true.

But what's your point?

So you support banning cars?


Queue the "But.. but.. that's different" response.
 
2013-04-20 03:22:14 PM  

Fark It: s2s2s2: Fark It: "Hurrr, the real problem is the blacks!"

Chicago's ghetto culture is about far more than just skin tone.....

Fark It: I'm sorry, I can't hear you over that dog-whistle.

So now you have to ask yourself. Why are YOUR ears so finely tuned to the "dog whistle" that you hear?

I heard "cultural problem" as the systemic corruption that sullies a liberal government to the extent that "Chicago Politics" is synonymous with "(D)irty as Fnck".

I guess that's what I get for thinking about what is really wrong with Chicago instead of sitting in my basement patrolling for racists.

"Political correctness" is, in my view, a catch-all way for people to imply things that would otherwise get you odd looks during polite conversation.  If you wanted to address the "cultural problem" you'd address the culture problem, not claim that "political correctness" prevents you or others from doing so.


And yet, when he attempts to discuss the cultural issue, you accuse him of racism, thus proving his point.
 
2013-04-20 03:23:46 PM  

udhq: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mock26: BraveNewCheneyWorld: udhq: Yeah, about that 2.5 million number?  Not so much.

And you cite a study by an overtly pro gun control group?  How about no.

The Department of Justice puts the number at closer to 80,000 a year.  Just saying.

Even if it's that low, the number of murders is only 12,000, which means there is a net benefit to having a gun.

*facepalm*


Yeah, I didn't think you'd be making an actual response to that one.  It's kind of difficult to argue that 80,000 is smaller than 12,000.
 
2013-04-20 03:23:47 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: ArkAngel: skozlaw: ArkAngel: If the average held, 118 people died yesterday in car crashes. Plus it's just a statistical fact that owning a car increases your odds of being killed by a car.

Both of those things are true.

But what's your point?

So you support banning cars?

Queue the "But.. but.. that's different" response.


Actually if you don't own a car, aren't you more likely to walk everywhere, which per mile is far more dangerous because of other people with cars?
 
2013-04-20 03:23:55 PM  

ArkAngel: skozlaw: ArkAngel: If the average held, 118 people died yesterday in car crashes. Plus it's just a statistical fact that owning a car increases your odds of being killed by a car.

Both of those things are true.

But what's your point?

So you support banning cars?


Be patient, the Nannys will get around to it.
As soon as they can find another profit industry to replace them.
Right now, you would kill the world financially.
 
2013-04-20 03:27:18 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: udhq: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mock26: BraveNewCheneyWorld: udhq: Yeah, about that 2.5 million number?  Not so much.

And you cite a study by an overtly pro gun control group?  How about no.

The Department of Justice puts the number at closer to 80,000 a year.  Just saying.

Even if it's that low, the number of murders is only 12,000, which means there is a net benefit to having a gun.

*facepalm*

Yeah, I didn't think you'd be making an actual response to that one.  It's kind of difficult to argue that 80,000 is smaller than 12,000.


It's also difficult to argue any kind of a correlation between these two numbers.
 
2013-04-20 03:29:12 PM  
Leave it to a politician to deny reality. It's a legal fact, and rather than choosing the means of control and the details they reject it out of hand, leaving it wide open.

Not that I have a problem with that, mind you.
 
2013-04-20 03:35:03 PM  

udhq: BraveNewCheneyWorld: udhq: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mock26: BraveNewCheneyWorld: udhq: Yeah, about that 2.5 million number?  Not so much.

And you cite a study by an overtly pro gun control group?  How about no.

The Department of Justice puts the number at closer to 80,000 a year.  Just saying.

Even if it's that low, the number of murders is only 12,000, which means there is a net benefit to having a gun.

*facepalm*

Yeah, I didn't think you'd be making an actual response to that one.  It's kind of difficult to argue that 80,000 is smaller than 12,000.

It's also difficult to argue any kind of a correlation between these two numbers.


What it's not difficult to argue is that firearms also prevent crimes, which provides a benefit to the populace.  And that easing up restrictions for law-abiding citizens generally is followed by a decrease in the homicide rate.  Additionally, it also generally leads to no increase in crime.  As such, why restrict law-abiding citizens?
 
2013-04-20 03:47:44 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mock26: BraveNewCheneyWorld: udhq: Yeah, about that 2.5 million number?  Not so much.

And you cite a study by an overtly pro gun control group?  How about no.

The Department of Justice puts the number at closer to 80,000 a year.  Just saying.

Even if it's that low, the number of murders is only 12,000, which means there is a net benefit to having a gun.


If murder was the only crime, yes, you would be right.
 
2013-04-20 03:50:10 PM  

Mock26: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mock26: BraveNewCheneyWorld: udhq: Yeah, about that 2.5 million number?  Not so much.

And you cite a study by an overtly pro gun control group?  How about no.

The Department of Justice puts the number at closer to 80,000 a year.  Just saying.

Even if it's that low, the number of murders is only 12,000, which means there is a net benefit to having a gun.

If murder was the only crime, yes, you would be right.


And if 80K was the proper DGU number, you'd have a point.
 
2013-04-20 03:52:11 PM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Okay, there will be people that can make relatively well made firearms, and they'll try to sell a bunch of them too.  I was referring more to the regular individual being able to make one.  Having to know a guy who makes guns and trust his craftsmanship would be enough I hope to deter a bulk of people that are trying to shoot someone up.


The real problem is that there is no way to have any soft of meaningful gun control without outright banning all guns, including hunting, that solves the issue of criminals having guns.

If you ban them outright, then you can crack down on shooting ranges, people shooting on private property etc. where any gun shot is considered illegal and can be followed up on by police. By eliminating all recreational uses of guns you would only then limit their supply and ability for criminals to steal them.

However you would still have the problem of homemade guns given the demand they would get more plentiful and have better quality. And would also have importations issues, and that's assuming there are no corrupt policemen or manufacturers selling them on the side.

All in all in about 50 years you might be able to get enough off the streets to make a minor difference.

Then of course still nothing stopping people from killing each other the same ways they did thousands of years before guns were invented.
 
2013-04-20 03:53:04 PM  

ronaprhys: What it's not difficult to argue is that firearms also prevent crimes, which provides a benefit to the populace. And that easing up restrictions for law-abiding citizens generally is followed by a decrease in the homicide rate. Additionally, it also generally leads to no increase in crime. As such, why restrict law-abiding citizens?


I think one of the big misconceptions in the gun debate is that there is a clear lines that can be drawn between "good guys" and "bad guys".  The fact is that all citizens are law-abiding, until they aren't.

What makes that it even murkier are the number of gun rights activists who argue that they need their guns as a check on the power of the government.  Anyone who would even entertain the idea of replacing the rule of law with violence is not a "good guy" or a "law-abiding citizens" in my book.

And, btw, no, there is no way that you can argue, even using the NRA's own statistics, that guns are used defensively more often than they are used offensively.
 
2013-04-20 04:00:14 PM  

udhq: ronaprhys: What it's not difficult to argue is that firearms also prevent crimes, which provides a benefit to the populace. And that easing up restrictions for law-abiding citizens generally is followed by a decrease in the homicide rate. Additionally, it also generally leads to no increase in crime. As such, why restrict law-abiding citizens?

I think one of the big misconceptions in the gun debate is that there is a clear lines that can be drawn between "good guys" and "bad guys".  The fact is that all citizens are law-abiding, until they aren't.

What makes that it even murkier are the number of gun rights activists who argue that they need their guns as a check on the power of the government.  Anyone who would even entertain the idea of replacing the rule of law with violence is not a "good guy" or a "law-abiding citizens" in my book.

And, btw, no, there is no way that you can argue, even using the NRA's own statistics, that guns are used defensively more often than they are used offensively.


So the Founding Fathers, in your opinion, would be bad guys.  Based on your statement, that would be true.

The fact is that, yes - firearms can function as a check on the power of the government without ever actually being used.  Just their existence provides that check.  That being said, if things got to be so shiatty that they were physically needed, then their use would be a good thing.  That's because the level of oppression would be psychotic.

Now, to the last argument, I might take exception with that.  One point to that - the fact that the mere potential for the presence of firearms can cause criminals to think twice.  Note that just because the use wasn't reported, doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Same could be said of crime, especially if it's criminals preying on criminals.  However, again, note that when restrictions were removed in areas, homicide rates dropped.  That wouldn't be a direct DGU, but it's still a prevention.

As such, I'll stand by my statement that firearms are responsible for more crime prevention than actual crimes.
 
2013-04-20 04:00:14 PM  

udhq: What makes that it even murkier are the number of gun rights activists who argue that they need their guns as a check on the power of the government.  Anyone who would even entertain the idea of replacing the rule of law with violence is not a "good guy" or a "law-abiding citizens" in my book.


Then what would put a check on power of the government? You forget what it means to be free. We are not ruled by the government  we as free people tolerate the government to the extent required to maintain a free society. This is the reason we have a Constitution. We give the government a strict set of rules in which they may operate and if those in power decide to violate those rules it is therefore not a crime but the duty of everyone who wants to live free.
 
2013-04-20 04:01:51 PM  

udhq: What makes that it even murkier are the number of gun rights activists who argue that they need their guns as a check on the power of the government.  Anyone who would even entertain the idea of replacing the rule of law with violence is not a "good guy" or a "law-abiding citizens" in my book.


Except that's how the country started, genius.

udhq: And, btw, no, there is no way that you can argue, even using the NRA's own statistics, that guns are used defensively more often than they are used offensively.


Yeah, because we're not allowed to use any information that shows you to be incorrect.
 
2013-04-20 04:07:02 PM  

mizchief: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Okay, there will be people that can make relatively well made firearms, and they'll try to sell a bunch of them too.  I was referring more to the regular individual being able to make one.  Having to know a guy who makes guns and trust his craftsmanship would be enough I hope to deter a bulk of people that are trying to shoot someone up.

The real problem is that there is no way to have any soft of meaningful gun control without outright banning all guns, including hunting, that solves the issue of criminals having guns.

If you ban them outright, then you can crack down on shooting ranges, people shooting on private property etc. where any gun shot is considered illegal and can be followed up on by police. By eliminating all recreational uses of guns you would only then limit their supply and ability for criminals to steal them.

However you would still have the problem of homemade guns given the demand they would get more plentiful and have better quality. And would also have importations issues, and that's assuming there are no corrupt policemen or manufacturers selling them on the side.

All in all in about 50 years you might be able to get enough off the streets to make a minor difference.

Then of course still nothing stopping people from killing each other the same ways they did thousands of years before guns were invented.


I'm an optimist, especially when it comes to unforeseen technology solving problems, and I can't see a feasible solution in the meantime involving more restrictions.  Now I said feasible, so if I had it my way, I'd just ban the farking things and see how that goes.
I do have a serious suggestion for Sandy Hook situations.  That would be to encourage trampling drills.  If you can condition people to swarm a shooter in a crowded space, you stop that kind of shiat real quickly.  It's not worth injuring a half dozen to get trampled to death.  I suppose that would just result in more Texas University/Beltway types being represented.  But yeah, some future tech, that might be the ticket.  And if not, the News Entertainment will continue.
 
2013-04-20 04:09:01 PM  

ronaprhys: Mock26: BraveNewCheneyWorld: udhq: Yeah, about that 2.5 million number?  Not so much.

And you cite a study by an overtly pro gun control group?  How about no.

The Department of Justice puts the number at closer to 80,000 a year.  Just saying.

The DoJ won't get reports of every DGU.  That's the problem.  Which is why surveys are likely more reliable.  Unfortunately, there's a huge variation in numbers based methodology and so forth.


And survey questions can be misleading, either unintentionally or intentionally to lead for certain answers.  In Kleck's case, the questions could be open to broad interpretation by the responder, especially in regards to whether or not an actual crime was about to be committed.  Just because a person felt threatened and "used" their gun in "self defense" does not mean that it actually prevented a crime.  Or, it could have been used in a lesser "crime" that is not a serious crime like theft or assault.  For example, the DGU could have been preventing from someone trespassing.  Another possible example is an intruder who was not there.  Someone might have been woken up by a sound at night, grabbed a gun and gone to look but no one was there.  They could have reported that as a successful DGU.  And while that is technically using a gun to prevent a crime, does it really belong in same classification of rape or attempted murder?  Or what about against animals?  The study did not specifically exclude the use of a gun against an animal so it is possible that someone may have reported such a use as a DGU.  I am not saying that we should discredit Kleck's numbers because these things did happen, only that Kleck's survey was a bit vague.

Also, is 5,000 people really a good representation of the country?  With only 5,000 people surveyed each GDU reported represented 52,000 people.  If even 10 of those 48 who reported GDU could be "discredited" then that number drops to 2,000,000.  Make it 19 and it is down to 1,500,000.  Yeah, to me 5,000 people surveyed seems a bit too small to get an accurate sampling of the country as a hole, especially without knowing where this survey was conducted.  Personally, I do not believe either Kleck or the DoJ.
 
2013-04-20 04:14:16 PM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: mizchief: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Okay, there will be people that can make relatively well made firearms, and they'll try to sell a bunch of them too.  I was referring more to the regular individual being able to make one.  Having to know a guy who makes guns and trust his craftsmanship would be enough I hope to deter a bulk of people that are trying to shoot someone up.

The real problem is that there is no way to have any soft of meaningful gun control without outright banning all guns, including hunting, that solves the issue of criminals having guns.

If you ban them outright, then you can crack down on shooting ranges, people shooting on private property etc. where any gun shot is considered illegal and can be followed up on by police. By eliminating all recreational uses of guns you would only then limit their supply and ability for criminals to steal them.

However you would still have the problem of homemade guns given the demand they would get more plentiful and have better quality. And would also have importations issues, and that's assuming there are no corrupt policemen or manufacturers selling them on the side.

All in all in about 50 years you might be able to get enough off the streets to make a minor difference.

Then of course still nothing stopping people from killing each other the same ways they did thousands of years before guns were invented.

I'm an optimist, especially when it comes to unforeseen technology solving problems, and I can't see a feasible solution in the meantime involving more restrictions.  Now I said feasible, so if I had it my way, I'd just ban the farking things and see how that goes.
I do have a serious suggestion for Sandy Hook situations.  That would be to encourage trampling drills.  If you can condition people to swarm a shooter in a crowded space, you stop that kind of shiat real quickly.  It's not worth injuring a half dozen to get trampled to death.  I suppose that would just result in more Texas University/Beltwa ...


So just throw out the proven and logical tactics of trained individuals using weapons to stop criminals and protect our kids by teaching them to perform Banzai attacks?
 
2013-04-20 04:15:12 PM  
Based on statistics, yes, 5K can be a significant enough number to accurately survey the country, within an acceptable level.  Surveys use less all the time and we accept those results to be indicative of whatever they're showing.

That doesn't mean that any methodology won't have its shortcomings.  Survey questions can be misleading, unreported DGUs can artificially lower the number, the mere knowledge that it's more likely that residents are armed can also (and has some evidence to back it) lower the rate by an indirect impact would also be left out.  The simple fact is that firearms can be used to prevent crime and that it happens with significant frequency.  I'd argue that this frequency is higher, by a large margin, than the use in crimes.  Certainly much larger than the homicide rate.
 
2013-04-20 04:15:30 PM  

Mock26: Just because a person felt threatened and "used" their gun in "self defense" does not mean that it actually prevented a crime.


Aside from owning a tardis, what could actually point to evidence of a prevented crime to your satisfaction?
 
2013-04-20 04:19:45 PM  

mizchief: So just throw out the proven and logical tactics of trained individuals using weapons to stop criminals and protect our kids by teaching them to perform Banzai attacks?


Something like that.  I'm a Renaissance man of sorts, I know.
 
2013-04-20 04:25:46 PM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: mizchief: So just throw out the proven and logical tactics of trained individuals using weapons to stop criminals and protect our kids by teaching them to perform Banzai attacks?

Something like that.  I'm a Renaissance man of sorts, I know.


We're guns invented during the Renaissance?
 
2013-04-20 04:39:37 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mock26: Just because a person felt threatened and "used" their gun in "self defense" does not mean that it actually prevented a crime.

Aside from owning a tardis, what could actually point to evidence of a prevented crime to your satisfaction?


Aside from video/photographic evidence, nothing.  But, it would be nice if the Kleck study had listed the responses to the specific questions of all the people who responded (and that according to Kleck himself only 61% of those called completed the survey) or explained exactly how the weighted the answers.  The actual number, according to Kleck, ranged from 1 million to 2.5 million, but because the answers were weighted he went with the 2.5 million number.  Would you not like to know why he picked the larger of the two numbers?  I know that I would.  But they did not explain how they weighted the answers.  So that leaves the accuracy of their findings in doubt.
 
2013-04-20 04:41:30 PM  

craigdamage: THIS JUST IN....


CRIMINALS CARRY ANYTHING THEY WANT, ANYWHERE THEY WANT.

btw...if Texas ever goes "open carry"
I shall carry my Smith and Wesson 21-4 .44 Special wheel gun on my hip. (Thunder Ranch Model!)
Six .44 slugs beats 15x 9mm any day imho.


WRAABRGL!
 
2013-04-20 04:42:00 PM  

ronaprhys: udhq: ronaprhys: What it's not difficult to argue is that firearms also prevent crimes, which provides a benefit to the populace. And that easing up restrictions for law-abiding citizens generally is followed by a decrease in the homicide rate. Additionally, it also generally leads to no increase in crime. As such, why restrict law-abiding citizens?

I think one of the big misconceptions in the gun debate is that there is a clear lines that can be drawn between "good guys" and "bad guys".  The fact is that all citizens are law-abiding, until they aren't.

What makes that it even murkier are the number of gun rights activists who argue that they need their guns as a check on the power of the government.  Anyone who would even entertain the idea of replacing the rule of law with violence is not a "good guy" or a "law-abiding citizens" in my book.

And, btw, no, there is no way that you can argue, even using the NRA's own statistics, that guns are used defensively more often than they are used offensively.

So the Founding Fathers, in your opinion, would be bad guys.  Based on your statement, that would be true.

The fact is that, yes - firearms can function as a check on the power of the government without ever actually being used.  Just their existence provides that check.  That being said, if things got to be so shiatty that they were physically needed, then their use would be a good thing.  That's because the level of oppression would be psychotic.

Now, to the last argument, I might take exception with that.  One point to that - the fact that the mere potential for the presence of firearms can cause criminals to think twice.  Note that just because the use wasn't reported, doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Same could be said of crime, especially if it's criminals preying on criminals.  However, again, note that when restrictions were removed in areas, homicide rates dropped.  That wouldn't be a direct DGU, but it's still a prevention.

As such, I'll stand by my stat ...


The founding fathers had the foresight to "build in" a check on the power of government by overturning it every 4 years, and they did so precisely so our government did not come to be dominated by those who would use force to achieve political power, like you suggest gun owners do (or at least threaten).

You see, there's a reason why we call it the "Revolutionary War", and not a civil war: because by the time it went down, the colonists no longer identified themselves as Englishmen, and that's exactly why the 2nd amendment includes the clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."The bold part means you have a right to bear arms for the purpose of defending the federal government AGAINST external threats, not for protecting yourself FROM the federal governments.  The government has a long-established monopoly on the legitimate use of force, so if you want to check it's power, you have to do so via elections, like the founding fathers wanted.  What you're talking about--replacing, or at least reserving the right to replace democracy with rule by violence--is fascism, and yes, anybody who suggests this as a viable possibility deserves to be classified as a "bad guy", and not a "law-abiding citizen".

As for your statement on guns preventing crime, you can stand by it, but that doesn't make it any less objectively, provable wrong.
 
2013-04-20 04:47:18 PM  

udhq: You see, there's a reason why we call it the "Revolutionary War", and not a civil war: because by the time it went down, the colonists no longer identified themselves as Englishmen, and that's exactly why the 2nd amendment includes the clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."The bold part means you have a right to bear arms for the purpose of defending the federal government AGAINST external threats, not for protecting yourself FROM the federal governments.  The government has a long-established monopoly on the legitimate use of force, so if you want to check it's power, you have to do so via elections, like the founding fathers wanted.  What you're talking about--replacing, or at least reserving the right to replace democracy with rule by violence--is fascism, and yes, anybody who suggests this as a viable possibility deserves to be classified as a "bad guy", and not a "law-abiding citizen".


I think Jefferson would disagree with you. That could also be easily interpreted to mean state as in a State, meaning that each state can maintain a militia to defend it's self against the federal government. In any case the Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd applies all the way down to the individual's right to own guns to protect themselves.
 
2013-04-20 04:56:05 PM  

Mock26: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mock26: Just because a person felt threatened and "used" their gun in "self defense" does not mean that it actually prevented a crime.

Aside from owning a tardis, what could actually point to evidence of a prevented crime to your satisfaction?

Aside from video/photographic evidence, nothing.  But, it would be nice if the Kleck study had listed the responses to the specific questions of all the people who responded (and that according to Kleck himself only 61% of those called completed the survey) or explained exactly how the weighted the answers.  The actual number, according to Kleck, ranged from 1 million to 2.5 million, but because the answers were weighted he went with the 2.5 million number.  Would you not like to know why he picked the larger of the two numbers?  I know that I would.  But they did not explain how they weighted the answers.  So that leaves the accuracy of their findings in doubt.


Ah, so have an unreasonable burden of proof.
 
2013-04-20 05:07:13 PM  

mizchief: I think Jefferson would disagree with you. That could also be easily interpreted to mean state as in a State, meaning that each state can maintain a militia to defend it's self against the federal government. In any case the Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd applies all the way down to the individual's right to own guns to protect themselves.


I'm not arguing that you don't have an individual right to bear arms, I'm just saying that a lot of gun rights activists seem to think that the 2nd amendment contains an implied right to use those arms against the government, or to use those arms as an instrument of political power, and on top of both of these assumptions being flatly untrue, they are closer to what the founding fathers were fighting against than what they were fighting for.
 
2013-04-20 05:07:36 PM  

scotty425: edmo: namatad: Would this invalidate the need to have a FOID card?

Please please please

I think a really good civil rights lawyer could effectively argue that the fee on FOID cards is in fact a poll tax and therefore unconstitutional.


It's not a poll tax, but it is a tax on the exercise of a civil right.  The 24th Amendment makes poll taxes illegal, but there is adequate precedence for banning taxes and fees having to do with firearms.  Look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Company_v._Comm i ssioner.  In that case, it was decided that state tax systems cannot treat the press differently than any other business without significant and substantial justification. In that and related cases referenced from that page, taxes were imposed on newspapers or newspaper consumables with a direct aim to punish influential newspapers.  Following this logic, it is unconstitutional to impose a tax on the means of exercising a civil right.
 
2013-04-20 05:09:51 PM  

udhq: mizchief: I think Jefferson would disagree with you. That could also be easily interpreted to mean state as in a State, meaning that each state can maintain a militia to defend it's self against the federal government. In any case the Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd applies all the way down to the individual's right to own guns to protect themselves.

I'm not arguing that you don't have an individual right to bear arms, I'm just saying that a lot of gun rights activists seem to think that the 2nd amendment contains an implied right to use those arms against the government, or to use those arms as an instrument of political power, and on top of both of these assumptions being flatly untrue, they are closer to what the founding fathers were fighting against than what they were fighting for.


You really couldn't be more wrong.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
 
2013-04-20 05:15:40 PM  

JoanHaus: If anyone is dumb enough to believe that carrying a gun "protects" them in any way, then they richly deserve the mugging wherein they are pistolwhipped with said gun. I've never one one person, outside of trained military and police, who could possibly EVER use their weapon in a high stress situation. None.


Haven't attended any competitions, have you?
 
2013-04-20 05:15:46 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.


Yes, except, a.) the D.o.I. was written several years prior to the constitution that established the US as a democratic republic, and b.) it has roughly the same standing in American law as the last Harry Potter novel.
 
2013-04-20 05:18:39 PM  
Seeing as criminals already carry without regulation, it's about time law abiding citizens are allowed to as well.
 
2013-04-20 05:22:04 PM  

udhq: mizchief: I think Jefferson would disagree with you. That could also be easily interpreted to mean state as in a State, meaning that each state can maintain a militia to defend it's self against the federal government. In any case the Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd applies all the way down to the individual's right to own guns to protect themselves.

I'm not arguing that you don't have an individual right to bear arms, I'm just saying that a lot of gun rights activists seem to think that the 2nd amendment contains an implied right to use those arms against the government, or to use those arms as an instrument of political power, and on top of both of these assumptions being flatly untrue, they are closer to what the founding fathers were fighting against than what they were fighting for.


"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."  - Thomas Jefferson
 
Displayed 50 of 331 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report