Do you have adblock enabled?
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 310
    More: Cool, Illinois House, Illinois, Chicago Democrat, concealed weapons, gun owners, parliamentary procedures, Brooke Anderson  
•       •       •

7897 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Apr 2013 at 10:56 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 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 10 of 310 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 »
Advertisement
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