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  
•       •       •

7891 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 05:22:59 PM  

Itstoearly: Seeing as criminals already carry without regulation, it's about time law abiding citizens are allowed to as well.


If violation of a law was a valid argument against it's own existence, then we wouldn't have any laws at all.
 
2013-04-20 05:29:30 PM  

mizchief: "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


You're aware that's not a real quote, right?
 
2013-04-20 05:29:32 PM  

udhq: 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.


Now that's funny!
 
2013-04-20 05:33:10 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.


It therefore follows that you haven't met very many people to begin with.
 
2013-04-20 05:38:09 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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.


Yes I do.  With that being said do you believe that there is absolutely no room for doubt with Kleck's findings?  Do you believe that they are 100% accurate?  Do you blindly accept Kleck's number of 2.5 million even when his survey produced a range of 1.5 million and they did not release the full results of their survey or their weighting methodology?
 
2013-04-20 05:45:30 PM  

Mock26: BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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.

Yes I do.  With that being said do you believe that there is absolutely no room for doubt with Kleck's findings?  Do you believe that they are 100% accurate?  Do you blindly accept Kleck's number of 2.5 million even when his survey produced a range of 1.5 million and they did not release the full results of their survey or their weighting methodology?


The idea that nothing is perfect isn't a valid reason to dismiss the findings.
 
2013-04-20 05:49:10 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.


None?  Oh really?  At least 80,000 people would disagree with you.  And that is just defensive gun use.  Other people, in high stress situations, manage to fend of an attacker without a gun.  In fact, not to long ago on the news there was the story of a shop owner who used a baseball bat to fend off a robber with a gun.  Even after he was shot in the hip he still kept on attacking the robber. 

The actual number of people who successfully use a gun for defensive purposes ranges from 80,000 (Department of Justice) to 2,500,000 (Dr. Kleck).  Yeah, that is a damn huge range there, but even going with the Department of Justice's number (which I believe are on the low side) there are roughly 80,000 situations each year where a person not on possibly but actually DID use their weapon in a high stress situation.  80,000.  That is a hell of a lot higher than your unfounded and specious claim of "none."  Just because you might start crying like a little child and wet yourself in the face of an assailant does not mean that everyone else will.
 
2013-04-20 05:49:53 PM  

udhq: Dimensio: udhq: 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.

Neither my life insurance application nor my renter's insurance application included questions regarding firearm possession.

You're right, I misspoke.  In some states, it is illegal for insurance companies to collect this information.

But the actuarial tables still place higher odds of death in homes with a firearm, regardless of training or secure storage.


Which tables are these?  The only publicly available data on this appears to be produced by a known liar with sloppy methods.
 
2013-04-20 05:50:34 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: The idea that nothing is perfect isn't a valid reason to dismiss the findings.


Wait, so being independent but producing results that contradict your preconceived worldview were enough to dismiss my earlier link, but INACCURACY is no reason to question yours?
 
2013-04-20 05:54:34 PM  

udhq: mizchief: "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

You're aware that's not a real quote, right?


That was not very nice, udhq.  If you are going to burn someone at least have the decency to provide them with some burn ointment.


img.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-20 06:10:27 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mock26: BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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.

Yes I do.  With that being said do you believe that there is absolutely no room for doubt with Kleck's findings?  Do you believe that they are 100% accurate?  Do you blindly accept Kleck's number of 2.5 million even when his survey produced a range of 1.5 million and they did not release the full results of their survey or their weighting methodology?

The idea that nothing is perfect isn't a valid reason to dismiss the findings.


I did not dismiss the findings.  I am merely questioning the accuracy of them.  There is a huge difference between the two.  Nor do I blindly question them.  I presented some reasons as to why his numbers are open to debate.  You, however, presented no counter point as to why one would take them at face value as being absolultely 100% accurate, especially given the huge variance in numbers between various surveys and statistics reported over the years, and even especially more so because  Kleck's own study gives a range from 1 million to 2.5 million! 

Also, you forgot to answer my questions.  Maybe you missed them.  If so, here they are again:  Do you believe that they are 100% accurate?  Do you blindly accept Kleck's number of 2.5 million even when his survey produced a range of 1.5 million and they did not release the full results of their survey or their weighting methodology?
 
2013-04-20 06:22:54 PM  
Here are some DGU numbers from various surveys from the years 1976 to 1994:

3,052,717
1,414,544
2,141,512
1,098,409
1,797,461
771,043
1,487,342
777,153
1,621,377
3,609,682
764,036


So why would anyone not question the results of every survey?  Why would they blindly accept the findings from one survey?

Source.
 
2013-04-20 06:29:38 PM  
udhq: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).

One of their checks was the popular vote and specified terms. That wasn't the only check.  Multiple houses, different branches of government, rule of law, etc.  The Second Amendment was another.

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".

Your lack of understanding of Constitutional law isn't my problem.  Given the writings of the Founders, as well as their actions, it's very clear that they were under no illusions that the government they were setting couldn't fail and result in another revolution.  Secondly, it's been clearly demonstrated that the right to bear arms has many components - not just the clause, as you bold.  That's one reason among many - clearly not the only one.

Also, nice strawman.  No one said rule by violence, just you.  It shows that you're not particularly interested in having a debate.  The purpose of an armed revolution would never to be installing rule by violence or force.  It would be to restore the Republic (maybe you failed Civics or Government, but we don't live in a democracy).

As for your statement on guns preventing crime, you can stand by it, but that doesn't make it any less objectively, provable wrong.

That is the largest failure of a statement you've stated yet.  It's clearly proven that firearms prevent crime.  The question is do they prevent more crime than they stop.  You've demonstrated nothing to prove that this isn't true whereas I, and others, have provided states that demonstrate otherwise.

Honestly, you've failed here.  Badly.
 
2013-04-20 08:04:37 PM  

skozlaw: Dimensio: I am a single, thirty-five year-old white male of middle class income who resides in a relatively low-crime suburban environment. Please explain, with mathematical formula where appropriate, how my firearm ownership increases my risk of being killed by use of a firearm. Identify the specific increase of risk; explain what my risk would be were I not a firearm owner and explain what my risk is as a firearm owner.

First of all, gun policy will not be crafted to the specifications of a "thirty-five year-old white male of middle class income who resides in a relatively low-crime suburban environment " so your request is both absurd and conceited at the same time.

Second of all, statistical analysis doesn't work that way.

Finally, regardless of those other two things which are enough on their own to dismiss your comment outright, there is evidence that if someone does attempt to assault you, your odds of being killed are higher than someone who doesn't own a gun. That's just the first thing I came across. It even includes links to studies that attempt to dismiss it if you're so interested.

You're also more likely to kill a family member by accident and increased gun ownership correlates with increased risk of suicide.

And, of course, none of this takes into account non-fatal injury rates.

Guns are destructive tools. That's all there is to it. Their only inherent purpose is to destroy things. It should hardly be surprising, then, that an inherent risk is associated with their ownership.


The most common penis-related accidents are owner's accidentally blowing their own nuts off.  True story, ask any urologist or anyone in an ER ... so go ahead, get your gun, and enjoy the increased risk of blowing your own nuts off.

LAUGHTER OL.

Anyways, concealed carry is dumb.  Open carry like we have in Ohio is a far more effective solution.  While I don't care for our CCW laws, I do like that they recognize the rights of private property owners to restrict the carrying of weapons on their property, which is why if you carry on a premises where this sign is displayed, it is an automatic 1st degree misdemeanor and loss of your gun rights.

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-04-20 08:28:15 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.


There are no such things as "gun rights activists". Another of your closet fear monsters.
There are only gun grabbers subverting the weak and fear mongered to take political action.
The people with guns are law abiding, Constitutionally empowered and the grabbers are the activists.
Only one group rewrites history, and manufactures fear to rewrite the Constitution.
Whar are activists actively lobbying for less gun control?
Over here? Nope. Maybe over there, nope. Well, gee, they were just here, I was told they were.
Aww, say it ain't so.

/you are not really here for the hunting, eh?
 
2013-04-20 08:43:10 PM  

udhq: BraveNewCheneyWorld: The idea that nothing is perfect isn't a valid reason to dismiss the findings.

Wait, so being independent but producing results that contradict your preconceived worldview were enough to dismiss my earlier link, but INACCURACY is no reason to question yours?


I was asked a specific leading question.  I chose to answer that no study will ever be "perfect".  Your study on the other hand was from a group that is specifically anti gun.  Of course you cannot trust them to be independent as their income stream relies on making guns look bad, or at best, ineffective.

Mock26: I did not dismiss the findings.  I am merely questioning the accuracy of them.  There is a huge difference between the two.  Nor do I blindly question them.  I presented some reasons as to why his numbers are open to debate.  You, however, presented no counter point as to why one would take them at face value as being absolultely 100% accurate, especially given the huge variance in numbers between various surveys and statistics reported over the years, and even especially more so because  Kleck's own study gives a range from 1 million to 2.5 million! 

Also, you forgot to answer my questions.  Maybe you missed them.  If so, here they are again:  Do you believe that they are 100% accurate?  Do you blindly accept Kleck's number of 2.5 million even when his survey produced a range of 1.5 million and they did not release the full results of their survey or their weighting methodology?


Yes, you are dismissing it.  Saying that 80,000 is closer to the mark, when refuting a claim of 2.5 or even 1 million, is nothing short of dismissal.  Also, the onus is not on me to prove that the numbers are accurate, it is on you to disprove them.  Your attempt at disproving them isn't even evidence, you just spout off about a bunch of theoreticals of why it might not be accurate, but have no proof that your claims are based in reality.  Do I think it's 100% accurate?  As I stated, no study will be perfect so that is my answer.   I believe it's safe to say that the number is in the 1.5 million range, and that 80,000 number is produced by people looking to eliminate any samples that are not just of reasonable doubt, but of any doubt, which is an asinine way to handle data of this nature.
 
2013-04-20 08:48:16 PM  
The law should be simple,
If'n you can carry it, you can have it.

CSB, I knew this guy once, at camp, and he wanted to carry an M-60 because they are so damn cool.
That lasted, as I recall, all of about 10 miles.
 
2013-04-20 08:53:25 PM  

seadoo2006: The most common penis-related accidents are owner's accidentally blowing their own nuts off.  True story, ask any urologist or anyone in an ER ... so go ahead, get your gun, and enjoy the increased risk of blowing your own nuts off.
LAUGHTER OL.


It'd be interesting to see you back up that claim with actual stats.

Anyways, concealed carry is dumb.  Open carry like we have in Ohio is a far more effective solution.  While I don't care for our CCW laws, I do like that they recognize the rights of private property owners to restrict the carrying of weapons on their property, which is why if you carry on a premises where this sign is displayed, it is an automatic 1st degree misdemeanor and loss of your gun rights.
 
Why is it dumb?  Do take the time to inspire us with your wisdom.

As for open carry in Ohio, that's not particularly well defined.  If I were to attempt to open carry down the middle of High Street, I'm betting that's not going to go well for me.  However, I can carry concealed and run into absolutely no harassment from the police or other citizens.  To me, that makes CC much, much better (aside from the whole don't target me, bro portion).

And not an automatic 1st degree misdemeanor.  Could be, but much more likely is that they ask you to leave and you do.  If you're a dick about it, you deserve the legal action.  I also agree that they should respect the property rights of owners - just like I respect my right to not shop there.  By the way, my bank, favorite restaurants, Starbucks, and grocery have no problem with people carrying concealed there.  Nor do any of the normal shops I hit.  So yes, people can put up a sign - but you'd be surprised at how many don't.
 
2013-04-20 09:03:19 PM  

ronaprhys: seadoo2006: The most common penis-related accidents are owner's accidentally blowing their own nuts off.  True story, ask any urologist or anyone in an ER ... so go ahead, get your gun, and enjoy the increased risk of blowing your own nuts off.
LAUGHTER OL.

It'd be interesting to see you back up that claim with actual stats.

Anyways, concealed carry is dumb.  Open carry like we have in Ohio is a far more effective solution.  While I don't care for our CCW laws, I do like that they recognize the rights of private property owners to restrict the carrying of weapons on their property, which is why if you carry on a premises where this sign is displayed, it is an automatic 1st degree misdemeanor and loss of your gun rights.
 
Why is it dumb?  Do take the time to inspire us with your wisdom.

As for open carry in Ohio, that's not particularly well defined.  If I were to attempt to open carry down the middle of High Street, I'm betting that's not going to go well for me.  However, I can carry concealed and run into absolutely no harassment from the police or other citizens.  To me, that makes CC much, much better (aside from the whole don't target me, bro portion).

And not an automatic 1st degree misdemeanor.  Could be, but much more likely is that they ask you to leave and you do.  If you're a dick about it, you deserve the legal action.  I also agree that they should respect the property rights of owners - just like I respect my right to not shop there.  By the way, my bank, favorite restaurants, Starbucks, and grocery have no problem with people carrying concealed there.  Nor do any of the normal shops I hit.  So yes, people can put up a sign - but you'd be surprised at how many don't.


1) Yep ... most common form of penile injury after fracture is gunshot amputation ... remember that the next time you holster up.  Don't believe me or the link? Talk to some urologists or ER nurses (like my SO is).  More common than you'd think.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-penile-amputation.htm

2) In Ohio, yes, it's an automatic 1st Degree Misdemeanor ... no prior warning beyond the sign is required.  One of my friends was recently arrested in a CVS while carrying ... Off-duty saw him and it holstered under his shirt and arrested him on the spot.

(a) Except as provided in division (C)(3)(b) of this section, the owner or person in control of private land or premises, and a private person or entity leasing land or premises owned by the state, the United States, or a political subdivision of the state or the United States, may post a sign in a conspicuous location on that land or on those premises prohibiting persons from carrying firearms or concealed firearms on or onto that land or those premises. Except as otherwise provided in this division, a person who knowingly violates a posted prohibition of that nature is guilty of criminal trespass in violation of division (A)(4) of section 2911.21 of the Revised Code and is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If a person knowingly violates a posted prohibition of that nature and the posted land or premises primarily was a parking lot or other parking facility, the person is not guilty of criminal trespass in violation of division (A)(4) of section 2911.21 of the Revised Code and instead is subject only to a civil cause of action for trespass based on the violation.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.126v2

It's a bummer, but you can't be ignorant of the law ... that's an expected duty of ALL licensed gun owners.
 
2013-04-20 09:04:22 PM  

seadoo2006: ronaprhys: seadoo2006: The most common penis-related accidents are owner's accidentally blowing their own nuts off.  True story, ask any urologist or anyone in an ER ... so go ahead, get your gun, and enjoy the increased risk of blowing your own nuts off.
LAUGHTER OL.

It'd be interesting to see you back up that claim with actual stats.

Anyways, concealed carry is dumb.  Open carry like we have in Ohio is a far more effective solution.  While I don't care for our CCW laws, I do like that they recognize the rights of private property owners to restrict the carrying of weapons on their property, which is why if you carry on a premises where this sign is displayed, it is an automatic 1st degree misdemeanor and loss of your gun rights.
 
Why is it dumb?  Do take the time to inspire us with your wisdom.

As for open carry in Ohio, that's not particularly well defined.  If I were to attempt to open carry down the middle of High Street, I'm betting that's not going to go well for me.  However, I can carry concealed and run into absolutely no harassment from the police or other citizens.  To me, that makes CC much, much better (aside from the whole don't target me, bro portion).

And not an automatic 1st degree misdemeanor.  Could be, but much more likely is that they ask you to leave and you do.  If you're a dick about it, you deserve the legal action.  I also agree that they should respect the property rights of owners - just like I respect my right to not shop there.  By the way, my bank, favorite restaurants, Starbucks, and grocery have no problem with people carrying concealed there.  Nor do any of the normal shops I hit.  So yes, people can put up a sign - but you'd be surprised at how many don't.

1) Yep ... most common form of penile injury after fracture is gunshot amputation ... remember that the next time you holster up.  Don't believe me or the link? Talk to some urologists or ER nurses (like my SO is).  More common than you'd think.

http://www.wisegeek.com/wh ...


Sorry ... they updated the penalties to a 4th Degree Misdemeanor.
 
2013-04-20 09:27:20 PM  

seadoo2006: 1) Yep ... most common form of penile injury after fracture is gunshot amputation ... remember that the next time you holster up.  Don't believe me or the link? Talk to some urologists or ER nurses (like my SO is).  More common than you'd think.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-penile-amputation.htm


Which is not what you originally said.  Also, they call out the gunshots and stabbing wounds as occurring during combat (well, the sentence isn't incredibly clear, but seems to indicate that both are the result of combat), which is also not what you said.  Would you like to find a better source?  I'm not going to bother with anecdotes.

2) In Ohio, yes, it's an automatic 1st Degree Misdemeanor ... no prior warning beyond the sign is required.  One of my friends was recently arrested in a CVS while carrying ... Off-duty saw him and it holstered under his shirt and arrested him on the spot.

(a) Except as provided in division (C)(3)(b) of this section, the owner or person in control of private land or premises, and a private person or entity leasing land or premises owned by the state, the United States, or a political subdivision of the state or the United States, may post a sign in a conspicuous location on that land or on those premises prohibiting persons from carrying firearms or concealed firearms on or onto that land or those premises. Except as otherwise provided in this division, a person who knowingly violates a posted prohibition of that nature is guilty of criminal trespass in violation of division (A)(4) of section 2911.21 of the Revised Code and is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If a person knowingly violates a posted prohibition of that nature and the posted land or premises primarily was a parking lot or other parking facility, the person is not guilty of criminal trespass in violation of division (A)(4) of section 2911.21 of the Revised Code and instead is subject only to a civil cause of action for trespass based on the violation.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.126v2

It's a bummer, but you can't be ignorant of the law ... that's an expected duty of ALL licensed gun owners.


And, oddly enough, I am informed as to where I can and cannot go, which is really all that matters.  Also, as you've updated it, I'll point out that it's not automatic.  A police officer has discretion and could just tell you to leave, as could the owner of the property.  I totally agree that someone who's going to carry should take the time to look for the signs ahead of time and comply.  It's not your property, so respect their rights.

Of course, if you're carrying properly, no one will notice.
 
in
2013-04-20 10:42:45 PM  

Dimensio: I have no difficulty carrying a double-stacked .45 caliber handgun.  However, because I carry it in a fanny pack I must acknowledge that I appear to be a "pussy" in doing so.


I don't think the default assumption is "pussy."  Whenever I see someone wearing a fanny pack I instantly think two things:

1)  The person has zero fashion sense, and
2)  They're carrying a handgun.

Carrying responsibly means if you're not wearing a uniform people around you shouldn't know you're armed.  As the likelihood that you're ever going to be in a position to have to pull out a pistol is extremely small, carry economically.  My go-to gun is a Ruger LCP.  No, it's not a hand cannon, but it'll do the trick in a pinch and I can clip it inside the waistband of my jeans comfortably without ever cluing anyone in to the fact that it's there.  And then there's that whole not-looking-like-a-dork thing.
 
2013-04-21 02:29:41 AM  

seadoo2006: Anyways, concealed carry is dumb.  Open carry like we have in Ohio is a far more effective solution.  While I don't care for our CCW laws, I do like that they recognize the rights of private property owners to restrict the carrying of weapons on their property, which is why if you carry on a premises where this sign is displayed, it is an automatic 1st degree misdemeanor and loss of your gun rights.


I like the GA law better. You can post all the signs you want but it doesn't mean shiat unless it's a courthouse or some other pre-defined off-limits area. For everyone else, worse they can do is ask you to leave then charge you with trespassing if you don't.
 
2013-04-21 03:31:05 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: udhq: BraveNewCheneyWorld: The idea that nothing is perfect isn't a valid reason to dismiss the findings.

Wait, so being independent but producing results that contradict your preconceived worldview were enough to dismiss my earlier link, but INACCURACY is no reason to question yours?

I was asked a specific leading question.  I chose to answer that no study will ever be "perfect".  Your study on the other hand was from a group that is specifically anti gun.  Of course you cannot trust them to be independent as their income stream relies on making guns look bad, or at best, ineffective.

Mock26: I did not dismiss the findings.  I am merely questioning the accuracy of them.  There is a huge difference between the two.  Nor do I blindly question them.  I presented some reasons as to why his numbers are open to debate.  You, however, presented no counter point as to why one would take them at face value as being absolultely 100% accurate, especially given the huge variance in numbers between various surveys and statistics reported over the years, and even especially more so because  Kleck's own study gives a range from 1 million to 2.5 million! 

Also, you forgot to answer my questions.  Maybe you missed them.  If so, here they are again:  Do you believe that they are 100% accurate?  Do you blindly accept Kleck's number of 2.5 million even when his survey produced a range of 1.5 million and they did not release the full results of their survey or their weighting methodology?


Yes, you are dismissing it.  Saying that 80,000 is closer to the mark, when refuting a claim of 2.5 or even 1 million, is nothing short of dismissal.  Also, the onus is not on me to prove that the numbers are accurate, it is on you to disprove them.  Your attempt at disproving them isn't even evidence, you just spout off about a bunch of theoreticals of why it might not be accurate, but have no proof that your claims are based in reality.  Do I think it's 100% accurate?  As I stated, no study will be perfect so that is my answer.   I believe it's safe to say that the number is in the 1.5 million range, and that 80,000 number is produced by people looking to eliminate any samples that are not just of reasonable doubt, but of any doubt, which is an asinine way to handle data of this nature.

Where exactly did I say that 80,000 was closer to the mark?
 
2013-04-21 03:34:29 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: udhq: BraveNewCheneyWorld: The idea that nothing is perfect isn't a valid reason to dismiss the findings.

Wait, so being independent but producing results that contradict your preconceived worldview were enough to dismiss my earlier link, but INACCURACY is no reason to question yours?

I was asked a specific leading question.  I chose to answer that no study will ever be "perfect".  Your study on the other hand was from a group that is specifically anti gun.  Of course you cannot trust them to be independent as their income stream relies on making guns look bad, or at best, ineffective.

Mock26: I did not dismiss the findings.  I am merely questioning the accuracy of them.  There is a huge difference between the two.  Nor do I blindly question them.  I presented some reasons as to why his numbers are open to debate.  You, however, presented no counter point as to why one would take them at face value as being absolultely 100% accurate, especially given the huge variance in numbers between various surveys and statistics reported over the years, and even especially more so because  Kleck's own study gives a range from 1 million to 2.5 million! 

Also, you forgot to answer my questions.  Maybe you missed them.  If so, here they are again:  Do you believe that they are 100% accurate?  Do you blindly accept Kleck's number of 2.5 million even when his survey produced a range of 1.5 million and they did not release the full results of their survey or their weighting methodology?

Ye

s, you are dismissing it.  Saying that 80,000 is closer to the mark, when refuting a claim of 2.5 or even 1 million, is nothing short of dismissal.  Also, the onus is not on me to prove that the numbers are accurate, it is on you to disprove them.  Your attempt at disproving them isn't even evidence, you just spout off about a bunch of theoreticals of why it might not be accurate, but have no proof that your claims are based in reality.  Do I think it's 100% accurate?  As I stated, no study will be perfect so that is my answer.   I believe it's safe to say that the number is in the 1.5 million range, and that 80,000 number is produced by people looking to eliminate any samples that are not just of reasonable doubt, but of any doubt, which is an asinine way to handle data of this nature.

By the way, since you yourself dismiss the 2.5 million claim the onus is also on you to disprove that number to be incorrect.  That is, after all, the official number given in the report. 2,500,000.  So, would you care to disprove the 2.5 million claim?  Or are you the only one allowed to believe the numbers to be inaccurate?
 
2013-04-21 07:48:40 AM  

Mock26: By the way, since you yourself dismiss the 2.5 million claim the onus is also on you to disprove that number to be incorrect.  That is, after all, the official number given in the report. 2,500,000.  So, would you care to disprove the 2.5 million claim?  Or are you the only one allowed to believe the numbers to be inaccurate?


No asshole, I didn't dismiss the 2.5 million claim, I only said that a number of at least 1.5 million is a SAFE estimate.  This isn't a difficult concept, and I really shouldn't have to explain it to you.  But since you're proving yourself to be stunningly dimwitted, I will.  Imagine a car manufacturer states that their car goes 150mph.  Is it safe to say that a particular car you buy off the lot will hit 150?  No, it won't because there will be minor variances in manufacture and testing conditions.  Now, If I claim that the car does 135, that would be safe to say, because it would cover the majority of variables that negatively impact the test.  Does it mean the 150 result is a lie?  No, it just means that 135 is guaranteed to be the minimum result upon additional outside testing.  2.5 million vs 80,000 isn't even in the same league.  2.5 vs 1.5 is.
 
2013-04-21 10:14:33 AM  

udhq: mizchief: "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

You're aware that's not a real quote, right?



Irrelevant.

The 2nd exists to snuff a government that forgets whom it serves. Full stop.

Our government forgot about 50 years ago, which coincides rather closely with the rise of the dole-oriented grabber movement.

I see the grabbers as traitors of the United States, who collude with corrupt government out of ignorance or in exchange for sundry doles.
 
2013-04-21 10:44:11 AM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: ZzeusS: "If you've ever traveled outside the state of Illinois, you've been in a state that has concealed carry and you probably didn't even notice," said Rep. Michael Unes, R-East Peoria. "But the people who do notice are the criminals."


I just love this quote.
Suck it liberal bed wetters.

And here is your fundamental flaw.  There is no group called "the criminals."  Criminal acts are carried out by any person sufficiently compromised and will use what is available to them at the time.  Less guns available, less crimes carried out with them.  This will not stop Sandy Hooks, this will not stop any specific shooting, but it will reduce the overall available potential for criminal acts to be carried out with simple deadly force, as well as reduce the number of suicides.  Belief in the existence of, and fearing "the criminals" is a lot closer to being a bed wetter.


Nah, all it'll do is limit access to guns for the "law-abiding." As 9/11, Boston, and many times in Israel and the Middle East proves, violent and fatal crime will still happen, just the weapon of choice changes. People sometimes can survive a gun wound... harder to survive a bomb blast.... and suicide rate typically is not affected by lack of access to guns. Again, another method is found (in Japan pills and wrist slitting).
 
2013-04-21 12:20:12 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mock26: By the way, since you yourself dismiss the 2.5 million claim the onus is also on you to disprove that number to be incorrect.  That is, after all, the official number given in the report. 2,500,000.  So, would you care to disprove the 2.5 million claim?  Or are you the only one allowed to believe the numbers to be inaccurate?

No asshole, I didn't dismiss the 2.5 million claim, I only said that a number of at least 1.5 million is a SAFE estimate.  This isn't a difficult concept, and I really shouldn't have to explain it to you.  But since you're proving yourself to be stunningly dimwitted, I will.  Imagine a car manufacturer states that their car goes 150mph.  Is it safe to say that a particular car you buy off the lot will hit 150?  No, it won't because there will be minor variances in manufacture and testing conditions.  Now, If I claim that the car does 135, that would be safe to say, because it would cover the majority of variables that negatively impact the test.  Does it mean the 150 result is a lie?  No, it just means that 135 is guaranteed to be the minimum result upon additional outside testing.  2.5 million vs 80,000 isn't even in the same league.  2.5 vs 1.5 is.


Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!  Your bad analogy is, well, bad.  Laughably bad!  We are not talking about something physical (a car) that anyone can take out onto the highway or a test track and find out exactly how fast that particular car goes.  We are talking about survey results that were gathered through questionable methods and the method of weighting the data was not revealed.  To use your car analogy, imagine if the manufacturer used questionable manufacturing techniques, and because of this it is possible that the maximum speed possible for that car is not 150mph, but only 70 mph.  In that case then no matter what you say that car will not hit 135 mph.  So, yeah, go ahead and blindly accept some random number you decided to pluck out of that range of 1 million to 2.5 million.  Go ahead and let others tell you what to think and believe without ever questioning it.  If you do not want to think for yourself that is your prerogative.

And, once again, where in any of my posts did I ever make the claim that the Department of Justice's number of 80,000 defensive gun uses was closer to the mark?  Hmmm?
 
2013-04-21 12:49:54 PM  

Carousel Beast: aNihilV10L8tr: Because as we all know, is the only thing that couldve saved those people in Boston from bad guys with pressure cookers are good guys with pressure cookers.

It certainly took guys with guns to stop them once they were found, didn't it?


Only one of them. It took a guy and his boat to catch the other one...
 
2013-04-21 06:14:44 PM  

udhq: 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.


It had roughly the same standing in Crown law.  And yet....
 
Displayed 31 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report