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
 
2013-04-20 08:11:05 AM  
ROFL

Would this invalidate the need to have a FOID card?
I love the fact that this could overrule any and all chicago laws by default.

/as much as you and I might be against gun ownership, illinois is the ONLY state left which does not permit concealed carry.
/strange but true
 
2013-04-20 09:00:09 AM  

namatad: ROFL

Would this invalidate the need to have a FOID card?
I love the fact that this could overrule any and all chicago laws by default.

/as much as you and I might be against gun ownership, illinois is the ONLY state left which does not permit concealed carry.
/strange but true


No, but it should.  At minimum there should be no charge for the FOID card.  As it stands, it takes the ISP longer than the maximum 30-days allotted under the law (and this law is almost 50 years old, they haven't found a better way), if you move, you have to re-apply, you can't just get an updated card by showing a utility bill and some other documents like with a driver's license.  Almost every Illinois county also fails to report disqualifying info to the State Police, so people who shouldn't be allowed to keep their cards end up keeping them.  It was a punitive measure born of racial paranoia by the Chicago machine in response to the civil rights movement.  That's why under "Race" there are three checkboxes:  Black, White, and Other.

I think all of Chicago's and Cook County's gun laws should be invalidated, but I'm not big on "constitutional carry."  Carrying a gun in public is something that should be regulated reasonably.  Of course, if Springfield fails to come up with legislation then so be it.

/a lot of anti-gun politicians are under the impression that by allowing concealed carry, they're in a position to get "compromise" and attach a slew of anti-gun proposals to a concealed carry bill
//Illinois is getting concealed carry regardless of what the legislature does
 
2013-04-20 10:29:57 AM  

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.....
 
2013-04-20 10:48:14 AM  

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


Please please please
 
2013-04-20 11:00:19 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-20 11:01:16 AM  

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.


And what's the solution?
 
2013-04-20 11:01:25 AM  
Illinois Democrats can't manage to pass anything except tax increases, so I wouldn't expect that they'll resolve this any time soon.

Someone should throw a CC party in Chicago if the legislature can't get their shiat together.
 
2013-04-20 11:02:02 AM  

Fark It: namatad: ROFL

Would this invalidate the need to have a FOID card?
I love the fact that this could overrule any and all chicago laws by default.

/as much as you and I might be against gun ownership, illinois is the ONLY state left which does not permit concealed carry.
/strange but true

No, but it should.  At minimum there should be no charge for the FOID card.  As it stands, it takes the ISP longer than the maximum 30-days allotted under the law (and this law is almost 50 years old, they haven't found a better way), if you move, you have to re-apply, you can't just get an updated card by showing a utility bill and some other documents like with a driver's license.  Almost every Illinois county also fails to report disqualifying info to the State Police, so people who shouldn't be allowed to keep their cards end up keeping them.  It was a punitive measure born of racial paranoia by the Chicago machine in response to the civil rights movement.  That's why under "Race" there are three checkboxes:  Black, White, and Other.

I think all of Chicago's and Cook County's gun laws should be invalidated, but I'm not big on "constitutional carry."  Carrying a gun in public is something that should be regulated reasonably.  Of course, if Springfield fails to come up with legislation then so be it.

/a lot of anti-gun politicians are under the impression that by allowing concealed carry, they're in a position to get "compromise" and attach a slew of anti-gun proposals to a concealed carry bill
//Illinois is getting concealed carry regardless of what the legislature does


This is Illinois you're talking about...
 
2013-04-20 11:02:39 AM  

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.....


And Chicago's problem with violence is about far more than just guns....
 
2013-04-20 11:02:41 AM  

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.....


That's why he said:

Silly Jesus: is a certain culture that exists in your largest city



You brought up color, you farking racist.
 
2013-04-20 11:05:07 AM  
Guns are gay.
 
2013-04-20 11:06:04 AM  

Lsherm: Illinois Democrats can't manage to pass anything except tax increases, so I wouldn't expect that they'll resolve this any time soon.

Someone should throw a CC party in Chicago if the legislature can't get their shiat together.


CC?  Why not open-carry?  The city of Chicago is close to 9-figures when it comes to payouts for police brutality/misconduct settlements this year, a bunch of open-carriers getting abused would vault them into oil-spill/poisoning groundwater territory....
 
2013-04-20 11:07:08 AM  

Lsherm: 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.....

That's why he said:

Silly Jesus: is a certain culture that exists in your largest city


You brought up color, you farking racist.


I'm sorry, I can't hear you over that dog-whistle.
 
2013-04-20 11:07:10 AM  

macadamnut: Guns are gay.


0/10 wouldn't read again.
 
2013-04-20 11:07:37 AM  

macadamnut: Guns are gay.


Armed gays don't get bashed.
 
2013-04-20 11:08:18 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: 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.

And what's the solution?


There is no easy solution.  The conditions that led to that situation built up over generations, and it will take generations to change both the conditions and the culture, and like the old joke about the psychiatrist and the lightbulb, that culture has to *WANT* to change:  It can't be imposed upon them from the outside.

There are some incentives we can enact, and perverse incentives we can remove.

Certainly, gun control was tried:  Handguns were completely banned in Chicago (existing permits were grandfathered), and that didn't stop or even slow down the crime.
 
2013-04-20 11:08:51 AM  

Molavian: macadamnut: Guns are gay.

Armed gays don't get bashed.


Though I'm totally ok with this.
 
2013-04-20 11:09:15 AM  
Oh, the cops are going to love that.
 
2013-04-20 11:11:03 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: 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.

And what's the solution?


If only there was some place they could be sent, like a farm or something. They could get room and board in exchange for agricultural work. Pretty sweet deal if you ask me.
 
2013-04-20 11:12:08 AM  

Molavian: macadamnut: Guns are gay.

Armed gays don't get bashed.


Not only that, but I thought calling stuff you don't like "gay" was wrong.  So I'm assuming that calling guns gay means that they're actually fabulous.

And I'd totally agree with that.
 
2013-04-20 11:12:11 AM  
4.bp.blogspot.com

I expect the discussion in this thread to be reasoned and measured.
 
2013-04-20 11:12:45 AM  

T-Servo: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 425x460]

I expect the discussion in this thread to be reasoned and measured.


And based on your pic, slightly erotic?

...is there a field for 'gun erotica'?
 
2013-04-20 11:12:57 AM  
COOL tag?  Does this mean subby likes crime?
 
2013-04-20 11:14:24 AM  
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.
 
2013-04-20 11:14:34 AM  
I guess this is where the anti-gun Farkers come out and start screaming that if they pass concealed carry that there "Will be rivers of blood running in the streets", because, you know, that hasn't happened anywhere else when the same laws were passed??
 
2013-04-20 11:14:39 AM  

Capo Del Bandito: T-Servo: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 425x460]

I expect the discussion in this thread to be reasoned and measured.

And based on your pic, slightly erotic?

...is there a field for 'gun erotica'?


http://bit.ly/Hq0QP1

SFW
 
2013-04-20 11:14:46 AM  
My take on this is that concealed carry and open carry would both be legal if nothing is passed.
 
GBB
2013-04-20 11:15:06 AM  
Yee Haw!
simpsonswiki.net
 
2013-04-20 11:15:35 AM  

CaptainCliche: Lionel Mandrake: 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.

And what's the solution?

If only there was some place they could be sent, like a farm or something. They could get room and board in exchange for agricultural work. Pretty sweet deal if you ask me.


I didn't know you were a teabagger
 
2013-04-20 11:16:34 AM  

Fark It: namatad: ROFL

Would this invalidate the need to have a FOID card?
I love the fact that this could overrule any and all chicago laws by default.

/as much as you and I might be against gun ownership, illinois is the ONLY state left which does not permit concealed carry.
/strange but true

No, but it should.  At minimum there should be no charge for the FOID card.  As it stands, it takes the ISP longer than the maximum 30-days allotted under the law (and this law is almost 50 years old, they haven't found a better way), if you move, you have to re-apply, you can't just get an updated card by showing a utility bill and some other documents like with a driver's license.  Almost every Illinois county also fails to report disqualifying info to the State Police, so people who shouldn't be allowed to keep their cards end up keeping them.  It was a punitive measure born of racial paranoia by the Chicago machine in response to the civil rights movement.  That's why under "Race" there are three checkboxes:  Black, White, and Other.

I think all of Chicago's and Cook County's gun laws should be invalidated, but I'm not big on "constitutional carry."  Carrying a gun in public is something that should be regulated reasonably.  Of course, if Springfield fails to come up with legislation then so be it.

/a lot of anti-gun politicians are under the impression that by allowing concealed carry, they're in a position to get "compromise" and attach a slew of anti-gun proposals to a concealed carry bill
//Illinois is getting concealed carry regardless of what the legislature does


Geez, dude, you sound knowledgeable and reasonable. I'm kind of at a loss.
 
2013-04-20 11:16:59 AM  

Anderson's Pooper: My take on this is that concealed carry and open carry would both be legal if nothing is passed.


That's exactly what would happen.  I'm pro-gun and I don't want that to happen, I think that guns in public can and should be regulated.
 
2013-04-20 11:17:20 AM  

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?
 
2013-04-20 11:17:47 AM  

Anderson's Pooper: My take on this is that concealed carry and open carry would both be legal if nothing is passed.


WI had open carry by default up until last year when they passed a concealed carry.
 
2013-04-20 11:19:48 AM  

Fark It: http://bit.ly/Hq0QP1

SFW


Yeah you took me to women's gun apparel. I'm asking is there a fetish for guys/girls/whoever that want to see women with guns in various poses?
 
2013-04-20 11:19:52 AM  
I say, fark conceal carry and issue only an unconcealed carry.  You man/woman enough to carry a gun be man/woman enough to show it
 
2013-04-20 11:20:17 AM  

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?


Yeah...maybe we should rethink all those calls to disarm the police...
 
2013-04-20 11:20:22 AM  

CaptainCliche: Lionel Mandrake: 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.

And what's the solution?

If only there was some place they could be sent, like a farm or something. They could get room and board in exchange for agricultural work. Pretty sweet deal if you ask me.


We have that now with for-profit prisons and the drug war...
 
2013-04-20 11:20:49 AM  

BigRightRear: COOL tag?  Does this mean subby likes crime?


Your statement is apt; allowing concealed carry of firearms without a permit will substantially increase rates of violent crime, as is evident by the unbearably high crime rate observed in Vermont.
 
2013-04-20 11:21:19 AM  
And bad news for reasonable citizens.
 
2013-04-20 11:21:40 AM  

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?


And judging by the pictures, the ones they had were "Ar-15 fully automatic assault murder rifle weapons with large high capacity bullet magazine ammunition clip feeder devices" too!  I'm surprised anyone in the entire city survived that...
 
2013-04-20 11:22:03 AM  

Capo Del Bandito: Fark It: http://bit.ly/Hq0QP1

SFW

Yeah you took me to women's gun apparel. I'm asking is there a fetish for guys/girls/whoever that want to see women with guns in various poses?


>not clicking on the Image search results
 
2013-04-20 11:22:21 AM  

Farkage: I guess this is where the anti-gun Farkers come out and start screaming that if they pass concealed carry that there "Will be rivers of blood running in the streets", because, you know, that hasn't happened anywhere else when the same laws were passed??


Those voices in your head, they aren't really very bright. Maybe some new meds?

/Why is it the most ardent "gun rights advocates" always seem to be in need of help with their brains?
 
2013-04-20 11:22:56 AM  
Gun laws have long divided Illinois along geographical lines, not necessarily political ones. Democrats in Chicago worry about street violence, while Democrats and Republicans in other parts of the state stand by the 2nd Amendment.

Really, Chicago? Really? 532 murders in 2012, and you worry that allowing law-abiding citizens the means to protect themselves is going to make it worse?

Wow.
 
2013-04-20 11:23:06 AM  

BigBooper: 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.....

And Chicago's problem with violence is about far more than just guns....


But guns at least allow the residents to fend for themselves where government is failing.
If they go concealed carry its going to be interesting to see how crime rates there repond.

So far as concealed carry bans, if I recall Hawaii and the US territories still have bans on carry and heavily restricted ownership (where its even allowed).
Getting all stats in on concealed carry would be a big win for us on the fringes.
 
2013-04-20 11:23:41 AM  

ghare: Farkage: I guess this is where the anti-gun Farkers come out and start screaming that if they pass concealed carry that there "Will be rivers of blood running in the streets", because, you know, that hasn't happened anywhere else when the same laws were passed??

Those voices in your head, they aren't really very bright. Maybe some new meds?

/Why is it the most ardent "gun rights advocates" always seem to be in need of help with their brains?


Are you honestly trying to say that argument hasn't been repeated over and over and over?  Because it's quite easy to prove otherwise.
 
2013-04-20 11:24:04 AM  

Fark It: >not clicking on the Image search results


You missed the point of my question but that's ok. I forgive you. You're still human.
 
2013-04-20 11:24:31 AM  

LarryDan43: Anderson's Pooper: My take on this is that concealed carry and open carry would both be legal if nothing is passed.

WI had open carry by default up until last year when they passed a concealed carry.


I don't believe this. I did not read anywhere about the streets of Milwaukee running red with blood (which of course is what would have happened).
 
2013-04-20 11:25:37 AM  

soia: I say, fark conceal carry and issue only an unconcealed carry.  You man/woman enough to carry a gun be man/woman enough to show it


Police officers in Louisville, Kentucky prefer that citizens who carry firearms keep those firearms concealed. For what reason do you have police officers?
 
2013-04-20 11:25:47 AM  

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.


Your right - it is a cultural problem, and prohibitive laws won't fix it. If you think the "cultural problem" is limited to our urban ghettos - I must LOL at you pathetic self-delusion.
 
2013-04-20 11:26:15 AM  

JosephFinn: And bad news for reasonable citizens.


Please explain and justify your assertion. As you are known to lie regarding firearm-related issues, for what reason should you be believed?
 
2013-04-20 11:26:45 AM  
1) Criminals already concealed carry.

2) The more guns in the hands of the law abiding means more guns in the hands of criminals.
 
2013-04-20 11:27:46 AM  

Lsherm: 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.....

That's why he said:

Silly Jesus: is a certain culture that exists in your largest city


You brought up color, you farking racist.


I said "blued guns", NOT "gums"!!!!
 
2013-04-20 11:28:01 AM  

Dimensio: soia: I say, fark conceal carry and issue only an unconcealed carry.  You man/woman enough to carry a gun be man/woman enough to show it

Police officers in Louisville, Kentucky prefer that citizens who carry firearms keep those firearms concealed. For what reason do you hate police officers?


I have corrected my error.
 
2013-04-20 11:28:10 AM  

Farkage: 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?

And judging by the pictures, the ones they had were "Ar-15 fully automatic assault murder rifle weapons with large high capacity bullet magazine ammunition clip feeder devices" too!  I'm surprised anyone in the entire city survived that...


When the cops have them they're "patrol carbines" not "assault weapons."  Learn your terminology, citizen....
 
2013-04-20 11:28:25 AM  

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


Oh that's right.  I forgot that all mentions of Chicago and culture were inherently racist.  It's so hard to keep up with the current list these days.

Seriously, though, Chicago has a gang/criminal violence problem.  It is not solely a racial issue, but race does play a part in it.  I've been on Fark a few years and haven't had much interaction with you or Silly Jesus.  If he's a troll then fine, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  But it's going to be very difficult to have any type of reasonable discussion, here or elsewhere, if people are going to jump to the worst conclusions about each other.
 
2013-04-20 11:28:57 AM  

JungleBoogie: 1) Criminals already concealed carry.

2) The more guns in the hands of the law abiding means more guns in the hands of criminals.


I am certain that you will be able to justify your second statement through reference to statistical data derived from states that have enacted "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit systems. Please do so.
 
2013-04-20 11:29:19 AM  
Concealment is the problem. Open carry is the solution.
 
2013-04-20 11:30:05 AM  

way south: BigBooper: 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.....

And Chicago's problem with violence is about far more than just guns....

But guns at least allow the residents to fend for themselves where government is failing.
If they go concealed carry its going to be interesting to see how crime rates there repond.

So far as concealed carry bans, if I recall Hawaii and the US territories still have bans on carry and heavily restricted ownership (where its even allowed).
Getting all stats in on concealed carry would be a big win for us on the fringes.


It will be just like anywhere else.  The crimes rates will drop.  Or rise.  Or stay the same.
 
2013-04-20 11:30:17 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: CaptainCliche: Lionel Mandrake: 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.

And what's the solution?

If only there was some place they could be sent, like a farm or something. They could get room and board in exchange for agricultural work. Pretty sweet deal if you ask me.

I didn't know you were a teabagger


Must trying to offer "free market solutions". Of course the owners farmers should get some kind of tax break for all the charity they're giving... Maybe only pay 60% of the taxes they are now... Call it a compromise.
 
2013-04-20 11:30:25 AM  

Phinn: Concealment is the problem. Open carry is the solution.


Please explain why concealment is a "problem".
 
2013-04-20 11:32:02 AM  

Fark It: Farkage: 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?

And judging by the pictures, the ones they had were "Ar-15 fully automatic assault murder rifle weapons with large high capacity bullet magazine ammunition clip feeder devices" too!  I'm surprised anyone in the entire city survived that...

When the cops have them they're "patrol carbines" not "assault weapons."  Learn your terminology, citizen....


I saw a couple that had the shoulder thingie that goes up.
 
2013-04-20 11:32:33 AM  

Fark It: I think all of Chicago's and Cook County's gun laws should be invalidated, but I'm not big on "constitutional carry."  Carrying a gun in public is something that should be regulated reasonably.


Why.  How many 50 year olds with a gun in a holster on their hip do you see holding up liquor stores?
 
2013-04-20 11:32:36 AM  

LarryDan43: WI had open carry by default up until last year when they passed a concealed carry.


We've had it in Ohio for at least as long as I've been practicing law.  I have a friend who open carries regularly.  He's a big bald imposing guy and law enforcement does get called occassionally.  They know him and just drive by and wave.
 
2013-04-20 11:33:04 AM  

Fark It: Farkage: 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?

And judging by the pictures, the ones they had were "Ar-15 fully automatic assault murder rifle weapons with large high capacity bullet magazine ammunition clip feeder devices" too!  I'm surprised anyone in the entire city survived that...

When the cops have them they're "patrol carbines" not "assault weapons."  Learn your terminology, citizen....


I stand corrected :)
 
2013-04-20 11:33:41 AM  

Phinn: Concealment is the problem. Open carry is the solution.


EXACTLY! Once those ghetto thugs see me walkin down the street with my pressure cooker, they will know what they are in for!!!
 
2013-04-20 11:35:31 AM  
Plaxico Burress's agent is calling the Bears front office as we speak.
 
2013-04-20 11:35:42 AM  

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.


So we just need to outlaw pressure cookers and we'll all be safe.
 
2013-04-20 11:35:45 AM  
No sympathy for Illinois.  They were given a fairly reasonable period of time to come up with a law, and every chance to make it as restrictive as they wanted it to be.  The fact that they're refusing to come to terms with it is rather tough farking shiat for them.

Seems we've found the Illinois Democrat equivalent of the national Republican budget issue.  Lots of words, lots of demands, completely unable to put together a REAL bill that solves the issue to their own satisfaction.

Yes, both sides are bad.  So fark the party and vote for the candidate to actually stands for stuff you stand for, regardless of that silly letter after their name.
 
2013-04-20 11:35:47 AM  

Capo Del Bandito: T-Servo: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 425x460]

I expect the discussion in this thread to be reasoned and measured.

And based on your pic, slightly erotic?

...is there a field for 'gun erotica'?


Rule 34 of the Internet is always in effect...
 
2013-04-20 11:36:29 AM  

Dimensio: Phinn: Concealment is the problem. Open carry is the solution.

Please explain why concealment is a "problem".


Concealment is the preferred mode of carrying for people who like to commit crimes.

The legitimate (i.e., defensive) use of weapons does not require concealment. Also, the open carring of weapons helps prevent aggressive violence by deterring it.
 
2013-04-20 11:37:10 AM  

Capo Del Bandito: T-Servo: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 425x460]

I expect the discussion in this thread to be reasoned and measured.

And based on your pic, slightly erotic?

...is there a field for 'gun erotica'?


Rule 34.
 
2013-04-20 11:37:22 AM  
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.
 
2013-04-20 11:38:00 AM  

Farkage: I guess this is where the anti-gun Farkers come out and start screaming that if they pass concealed carry that there "Will be rivers of blood running in the streets", because, you know, that hasn't happened anywhere else when the same laws were passed??


No, the rivers of blood are already there.
 
2013-04-20 11:39:13 AM  

Phinn: Dimensio: Phinn: Concealment is the problem. Open carry is the solution.

Please explain why concealment is a "problem".

Concealment is the preferred mode of carrying for people who like to commit crimes.

The legitimate (i.e., defensive) use of weapons does not require concealment. Also, the open carring of weapons helps prevent aggressive violence by deterring it.


As many citizens legally carry concealed firearms and do not commit crimes with them, your claim is demonstrably false. As you are relying upon a false premise, your conclusion is unreliable.
 
2013-04-20 11:39:22 AM  

Your titties - Do they need sucking: Fark It: I think all of Chicago's and Cook County's gun laws should be invalidated, but I'm not big on "constitutional carry."  Carrying a gun in public is something that should be regulated reasonably.

Why.  How many 50 year olds with a gun in a holster on their hip do you see holding up liquor stores?


"911 what's your emergency?"

"There's a man with a gun!"

I would give open-carry time.  It's not something people would be used to right away, and it would lead to needless wastes of LE resources and abuses at the hands of overzealous cops.  Could you imagine how poorly a black guy would get treated if he was caught legally open-carrying?  The taxpayers don't deserve any more brutality lawsuits....
 
2013-04-20 11:39:23 AM  

soia: I say, fark conceal carry and issue only an unconcealed carry.  You man/woman enough to carry a gun be man/woman enough to show it


That is AWESOME.  Now, when you walk in to a 7-11 and someone comes in to rob it, he can walk around the store and see who has a gun and knows whom to shoot first, after he pulls out his concealed gun.
 
2013-04-20 11:39:41 AM  

mizchief: 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.

So we just need to outlaw pressure cookers and we'll all be safe.


I don't want the gawddarn gubmint coming to my house asking to see the papers on my pressure cooker. If you outlaw pressure cookers, only outlaws can make a nice pot roast with taters and carrots.
 
2013-04-20 11:40:19 AM  

Cybernetic: Gun laws have long divided Illinois along geographical lines, not necessarily political ones. Democrats in Chicago worry about street violence, while Democrats and Republicans in other parts of the state stand by the 2nd Amendment.

Really, Chicago? Really? 532 murders in 2012, and you worry that allowing law-abiding citizens the means to protect themselves is going to make it worse?

Wow.


Chicago is kind of a big city. On a per captia basis, a law-abiding citizen in Chicago has a smaller chance of being murdered than in cities in gun-grabbing liberal paradises of Tennessee and Lousiana.


Link
 
2013-04-20 11:40:40 AM  

Fark It: Anderson's Pooper: My take on this is that concealed carry and open carry would both be legal if nothing is passed.

That's exactly what would happen.  I'm pro-gun and I don't want that to happen, I think that guns in public can and should be regulated.


There has been discussion about this on CPD blogs.  They aren't sure what to do at an administrative level.
 
2013-04-20 11:41:34 AM  

Giant Clown Shoe: Fark It: Anderson's Pooper: My take on this is that concealed carry and open carry would both be legal if nothing is passed.

That's exactly what would happen.  I'm pro-gun and I don't want that to happen, I think that guns in public can and should be regulated.

There has been discussion about this on CPD blogs.  They aren't sure what to do at an administrative level.


I can understand. Currently, they can be assured that the only individuals in public who are armed, without exception, are criminals.
 
2013-04-20 11:41:37 AM  

T-Servo: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 425x460]

I expect the discussion in this thread to be reasoned and measured.


I have a weird boner right now.
 
2013-04-20 11:41:50 AM  

Dimensio: Phinn: Dimensio: Phinn: Concealment is the problem. Open carry is the solution.

Please explain why concealment is a "problem".

Concealment is the preferred mode of carrying for people who like to commit crimes.

The legitimate (i.e., defensive) use of weapons does not require concealment. Also, the open carring of weapons helps prevent aggressive violence by deterring it.

As many citizens legally carry concealed firearms and do not commit crimes with them, your claim is demonstrably false. As you are relying upon a false premise, your conclusion is unreliable.


Most of the people you describe carry concealed because open carry is considered a crime.

Like a typical statist, you ignore the effect of statism on people's behavior.
 
2013-04-20 11:41:54 AM  

aNihilV10L8tr: mizchief: 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.

So we just need to outlaw pressure cookers and we'll all be safe.

I don't want the gawddarn gubmint coming to my house asking to see the papers on my pressure cooker. If you outlaw pressure cookers, only outlaws can make a nice pot roast with taters and carrots.


+1 for use of the word 'taters'!!
 
2013-04-20 11:42:02 AM  

mizchief: 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.

So we just need to outlaw pressure cookers and we'll all be safe.


A good guy with a hydrogen bomb would have prevented it from happening.
 
2013-04-20 11:44:36 AM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: No sympathy for Illinois.  They were given a fairly reasonable period of time to come up with a law, and every chance to make it as restrictive as they wanted it to be.  The fact that they're refusing to come to terms with it is rather tough farking shiat for them.

Seems we've found the Illinois Democrat equivalent of the national Republican budget issue.  Lots of words, lots of demands, completely unable to put together a REAL bill that solves the issue to their own satisfaction.

Yes, both sides are bad.  So fark the party and vote for the candidate to actually stands for stuff you stand for, regardless of that silly letter after their name.


An Illinois democrat from downstate has been working at concealed carry for a decade.  The only people standing in the way are the morons in Chicago.  This concealed carry bill passed 64-45.  Chicago's "may-issue" counter-proposal only mustered 31 votes.  It needs 71 to override home-rule and the governor's veto.  I see this outrage at the Senate for failing to pass expanded background checks when the vote was 56-44, but then we have these gun control proponents doing exactly the same thing in Illinois (with a much larger margin and court-imposed deadline, no less).
 
2013-04-20 11:44:36 AM  

Phinn: Dimensio: Phinn: Dimensio: Phinn: Concealment is the problem. Open carry is the solution.

Please explain why concealment is a "problem".

Concealment is the preferred mode of carrying for people who like to commit crimes.

The legitimate (i.e., defensive) use of weapons does not require concealment. Also, the open carring of weapons helps prevent aggressive violence by deterring it.

As many citizens legally carry concealed firearms and do not commit crimes with them, your claim is demonstrably false. As you are relying upon a false premise, your conclusion is unreliable.

Most of the people you describe carry concealed because open carry is considered a crime.


I am a resident of Kentucky. Carrying an openly displayed firearm is legal within the state, without any permit requirement. Nonetheless, most citizens who carry prefer to carry firearms concealed. Your claim is false.


Like a typical statist, you ignore the effect of statism on people's behavior.

Your assertion is based upon a false premise, and thus it is not valid.
 
2013-04-20 11:45:10 AM  

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.


I thought you could shiat in the middle of the street in Texas. How can you not wear a gun?

(Also - did you have a boner when you typed that last part? It sounds like you did.)
 
2013-04-20 11:45:21 AM  

craigdamage: ...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.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-20 11:45:35 AM  

Farkage: 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?

And judging by the pictures, the ones they had were "Ar-15 fully automatic assault murder rifle weapons with large high capacity bullet magazine ammunition clip feeder devices" too!  I'm surprised anyone in the entire city survived that...


Looks like they could indeed get all murdery
d3.yimg.com
 
2013-04-20 11:48:03 AM  

aNihilV10L8tr: EXACTLY! Once those ghetto thugs see me walkin down the street with my pressure cooker, they will know what they are in for!!!


Gun bans are old news. OMFG BAN ASSAULT COOKERS !@%!@

Especially the scary looking extra-capacity ones with the tactical handles and infrared pressure gauges. I mean really, who needs an 11 quart pressure cooker - it's just common sense. The canning nuts have gone too far this time.

/90% of Americans support universal background checks on pressure cookers over 1 quart
 
2013-04-20 11:49:02 AM  

Your titties - Do they need sucking: soia: I say, fark conceal carry and issue only an unconcealed carry.  You man/woman enough to carry a gun be man/woman enough to show it

That is AWESOME.  Now, when you walk in to a 7-11 and someone comes in to rob it, he can walk around the store and see who has a gun and knows whom to shoot first, after he pulls out his concealed gun.


Or he'll see that there's armed people there, realize that there's no way he'll get out of there alive, and walk back out.
 
2013-04-20 11:49:06 AM  

Your titties - Do they need sucking: Farkage: 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?

And judging by the pictures, the ones they had were "Ar-15 fully automatic assault murder rifle weapons with large high capacity bullet magazine ammunition clip feeder devices" too!  I'm surprised anyone in the entire city survived that...

Looks like they could indeed get all murdery
[d3.yimg.com image 750x500]


At least his EOTech isn't on backwards.....
 
2013-04-20 11:50:14 AM  

snowshovel: Chicago is kind of a big city. On a per captia basis, a law-abiding citizen in Chicago has a smaller chance of being murdered than in cities in gun-grabbing liberal paradises of Tennessee and Lousiana.


Then it must be cold weather that cases murder.
 
2013-04-20 11:51:12 AM  
They simply need to remove the emotion from the argument. It serves no purpose in matters of life and death.

Unfortunately for Chicago lawmakers, without emotion, they have no argument.
 
2013-04-20 11:51:30 AM  

Fark It: Your titties - Do they need sucking: Farkage: 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?

And judging by the pictures, the ones they had were "Ar-15 fully automatic assault murder rifle weapons with large high capacity bullet magazine ammunition clip feeder devices" too!  I'm surprised anyone in the entire city survived that...

Looks like they could indeed get all murdery
[d3.yimg.com image 750x500]

At least his EOTech isn't on backwards.....


lol, right?
 
2013-04-20 11:53:04 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: snowshovel: Chicago is kind of a big city. On a per captia basis, a law-abiding citizen in Chicago has a smaller chance of being murdered than in cities in gun-grabbing liberal paradises of Tennessee and Lousiana.

Then it must be cold weather that cases murder.


Did...did you just link to Breitbart?
 
2013-04-20 11:53:30 AM  

Fark It: Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: No sympathy for Illinois.  They were given a fairly reasonable period of time to come up with a law, and every chance to make it as restrictive as they wanted it to be.  The fact that they're refusing to come to terms with it is rather tough farking shiat for them.

Seems we've found the Illinois Democrat equivalent of the national Republican budget issue.  Lots of words, lots of demands, completely unable to put together a REAL bill that solves the issue to their own satisfaction.

Yes, both sides are bad.  So fark the party and vote for the candidate to actually stands for stuff you stand for, regardless of that silly letter after their name.

An Illinois democrat from downstate has been working at concealed carry for a decade.  The only people standing in the way are the morons in Chicago.  This concealed carry bill passed 64-45.  Chicago's "may-issue" counter-proposal only mustered 31 votes.  It needs 71 to override home-rule and the governor's veto.  I see this outrage at the Senate for failing to pass expanded background checks when the vote was 56-44, but then we have these gun control proponents doing exactly the same thing in Illinois (with a much larger margin and court-imposed deadline, no less).


Brandon Phelps (D-Harrisburg) keeps watering down his  HB 997 with more restrictions to try and appease the northern/Chicago Dems and it still can't get passed. That's the funny thing about gun politics in Illinois, neither side really has the numbers to advance their agenda.
 
2013-04-20 11:53:51 AM  

Fark It: It was a punitive measure born of racial paranoia by the Chicago machine in response to the civil rights movement. That's why under "Race" there are three checkboxes: Black, White, and Other.


Several gun control laws were. Good luck on getting the "pro-civil" rights usuals to end that form of racism.

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.....


Yes, which is what he was saying before you interpreted what he said into race bias. Thus confirming that political correctness affects discussion.

scotty425: 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.


Absolutely. I have nothing against a FOID card but it should be free and shall issue with no tracking of purchases. It should be a portable background check.

Farkage: I guess this is where the anti-gun Farkers come out and start screaming that if they pass concealed carry that there "Will be rivers of blood running in the streets", because, you know, that hasn't happened anywhere else when the same laws were passed??


Bingo. It's like the gay marriage debate except the gun control advocates don't realize their fallacy and there's no exaggerating what they say.
 
2013-04-20 11:54:30 AM  

Dimensio: Phinn: Dimensio: Phinn: Dimensio: Phinn: Concealment is the problem. Open carry is the solution.

Please explain why concealment is a "problem".

Concealment is the preferred mode of carrying for people who like to commit crimes.

The legitimate (i.e., defensive) use of weapons does not require concealment. Also, the open carring of weapons helps prevent aggressive violence by deterring it.

As many citizens legally carry concealed firearms and do not commit crimes with them, your claim is demonstrably false. As you are relying upon a false premise, your conclusion is unreliable.

Most of the people you describe carry concealed because open carry is considered a crime.

I am a resident of Kentucky. Carrying an openly displayed firearm is legal within the state, without any permit requirement. Nonetheless, most citizens who carry prefer to carry firearms concealed. Your claim is false.


Like a typical statist, you ignore the effect of statism on people's behavior.

Your assertion is based upon a false premise, and thus it is not valid.


You'll notice that I said that concealment is the preferred mode for criminals. I did not say that all persons who prefer concealment are criminals. Concealment may well be the preferred mode for lawful people, too. You should read more carefully, and employ logical reasoning.

If, however, one were to purport to be interested in crime reduction, when given a choice between prohibiting concealed carry or open carry, prohibiting concealment would be far more appropriate, since the open carrying of weapons does not diminish the effectiveness of guns as a defensive instrument, and in fact increases it (see, e.g., LEOs), whereas concealment increases the utility of its use in the commission of crimes.
 
2013-04-20 11:55:43 AM  

macadamnut: Guns are gay.


Until you are looking at the business end of one...then they are serious business.
 
2013-04-20 11:56:22 AM  
Fun fact:

Chicago Gang Violence went up AFTER the Feds swooped in with their RICO case against the largest gang, because they only arrested 20 some odd folks, effectively splintering said largest gang into many different territories vying for control of the drug trade.  It's getting even worse now because the Mexican gangs are pushing up the corridor and attempting to establish a presence.
 
2013-04-20 11:56:46 AM  

Fark It: namatad: ROFL

Would this invalidate the need to have a FOID card?
I love the fact that this could overrule any and all chicago laws by default.

/as much as you and I might be against gun ownership, illinois is the ONLY state left which does not permit concealed carry.
/strange but true

No, but it should.  At minimum there should be no charge for the FOID card.  As it stands, it takes the ISP longer than the maximum 30-days allotted under the law (and this law is almost 50 years old, they haven't found a better way), if you move, you have to re-apply, you can't just get an updated card by showing a utility bill and some other documents like with a driver's license.  Almost every Illinois county also fails to report disqualifying info to the State Police, so people who shouldn't be allowed to keep their cards end up keeping them.  It was a punitive measure born of racial paranoia by the Chicago machine in response to the civil rights movement.  That's why under "Race" there are three checkboxes:  Black, White, and Other.

I think all of Chicago's and Cook County's gun laws should be invalidated, but I'm not big on "constitutional carry."  Carrying a gun in public is something that should be regulated reasonably.  Of course, if Springfield fails to come up with legislation then so be it.



KEEP AND BEAR. for those of you in rio linda you get to own a gun and carry a gun in (gasp) public!!!
 
2013-04-20 11:56:57 AM  
Meanwhile, people ary dying left and right because the proper legislation is not inplace. Don't those lawmakers realize they are playing god with people's lives and with every penstroke they cause or prevent thousands of gun deaths?
 
2013-04-20 11:58:25 AM  

Phinn: You'll notice that I said that concealment is the preferred mode for criminals. I did not say that all persons who prefer concealment are criminals. Concealment may well be the preferred mode for lawful people, too. You should read more carefully, and employ logical reasoning.


You claimed that "Most of the people you describe carry concealed because open carry is considered a crime.". Your claim remains unsupported by any data.

You have provided no rational justification for not enacting a "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit system that does not rely upon false or unsupported premises.
 
2013-04-20 11:58:58 AM  
Concealed carry means the weapon must be small and concealable under clothes. A small frame "snubby' or a single stack short auto.

Open carry would mean you can carry a larger,more powerful and or more accurate "duty-sized" weapon.

My point about carrying my .44 revolver.

...but yes,I am indeed a BADASS. (with a boner)
 
2013-04-20 12:00:38 PM  
Carry it right there on your hip

No need to keep 'em guessing who's the easier victim
 
2013-04-20 12:00:41 PM  

scotty425: Fark It: Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: No sympathy for Illinois.  They were given a fairly reasonable period of time to come up with a law, and every chance to make it as restrictive as they wanted it to be.  The fact that they're refusing to come to terms with it is rather tough farking shiat for them.

Seems we've found the Illinois Democrat equivalent of the national Republican budget issue.  Lots of words, lots of demands, completely unable to put together a REAL bill that solves the issue to their own satisfaction.

Yes, both sides are bad.  So fark the party and vote for the candidate to actually stands for stuff you stand for, regardless of that silly letter after their name.

An Illinois democrat from downstate has been working at concealed carry for a decade.  The only people standing in the way are the morons in Chicago.  This concealed carry bill passed 64-45.  Chicago's "may-issue" counter-proposal only mustered 31 votes.  It needs 71 to override home-rule and the governor's veto.  I see this outrage at the Senate for failing to pass expanded background checks when the vote was 56-44, but then we have these gun control proponents doing exactly the same thing in Illinois (with a much larger margin and court-imposed deadline, no less).

Brandon Phelps (D-Harrisburg) keeps watering down his  HB 997 with more restrictions to try and appease the northern/Chicago Dems and it still can't get passed. That's the funny thing about gun politics in Illinois, neither side really has the numbers to advance their agenda.


The pro-gun side absolutely has the numbers to advance their agenda, they have an uncooperative governor (the most unpopular in the country) and a gaggle of Chicago politicians who want special rules for their fiefdom.  "B-b-b-but homerule should let larger cities decide for themselves...."  Blow it out your ass (not directed at you, btw).  How do you think Western NY feels about being governed out of Manhattan when it comes to the NY SAFE act?  They want home-rule when it comes to pro-gun legislation, but they're fine with a simple majority when it comes to inflicting their gun laws on the rest of the state.  Brandon Phelps and the farking NRA have bent over backwards to appease Chicago, and they've basically taken their ball and gone home.
 
2013-04-20 12:01:18 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Did...did you just link to Breitbart?


Awwww....poor thing. Where did the bad Breitbart man touch you?
 
2013-04-20 12:01:43 PM  

scotty425: Fark It: Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: No sympathy for Illinois.  They were given a fairly reasonable period of time to come up with a law, and every chance to make it as restrictive as they wanted it to be.  The fact that they're refusing to come to terms with it is rather tough farking shiat for them.

Seems we've found the Illinois Democrat equivalent of the national Republican budget issue.  Lots of words, lots of demands, completely unable to put together a REAL bill that solves the issue to their own satisfaction.

Yes, both sides are bad.  So fark the party and vote for the candidate to actually stands for stuff you stand for, regardless of that silly letter after their name.

An Illinois democrat from downstate has been working at concealed carry for a decade.  The only people standing in the way are the morons in Chicago.  This concealed carry bill passed 64-45.  Chicago's "may-issue" counter-proposal only mustered 31 votes.  It needs 71 to override home-rule and the governor's veto.  I see this outrage at the Senate for failing to pass expanded background checks when the vote was 56-44, but then we have these gun control proponents doing exactly the same thing in Illinois (with a much larger margin and court-imposed deadline, no less).

Brandon Phelps (D-Harrisburg) keeps watering down his  HB 997 with more restrictions to try and appease the northern/Chicago Dems and it still can't get passed. That's the funny thing about gun politics in Illinois, neither side really has the numbers to advance their agenda.


Divided and Conquered.
This is what happens when the sheeple vote by remote control with their emotions instead of marching in the streets.
 
2013-04-20 12:01:50 PM  

trappedspirit: Meanwhile, people ary dying left and right because the proper legislation is not inplace. Don't those lawmakers realize they are playing god with people's lives and with every penstroke they cause or prevent thousands of gun deaths?


You're assuming politicians care about anything other than getting reelected.  I honestly can't stand either party.
 
2013-04-20 12:02:04 PM  
I wasn't aware that Kentucky had restrictive gun laws.
 
2013-04-20 12:02:30 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-20 12:03:33 PM  

Phinn: Dimensio: Phinn: Concealment is the problem. Open carry is the solution.

Please explain why concealment is a "problem".

Concealment is the preferred mode of carrying for people who like to commit crimes.

The legitimate (i.e., defensive) use of weapons does not require concealment. Also, the open carring of weapons helps prevent aggressive violence by deterring it.


Of course it requires concealment.   Your statement that having a gun out in the open where people can see it assumes that criminals will instantly run.   The open carry simply allows the crimanal to ID anyone that is a threat to them robbing the 7-11.  Once they see you, they can walk past you and fein interest in the King Size Snickers bar.. then they pull a gun out that they are illegally carrying.

No fair!  They arent supposed to be carrying !

If you want to look at the likely results of this,. look at ABCs pretend journalism piece on concealed carry.  They had some guy walk in to the classroom and shoot the teacher, and then targeted the guy in the room that they knew had a gun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s

Of course, this is simply proof that you dont want to be a criminals first or second target.  Also proof that if you are 140 pounds, perhaps you should not wear shirts that John Candy could wear.

By openly carrying, you are simply saying 'shoot me first, before I have a chance to react'
 
2013-04-20 12:04:00 PM  

Your titties - Do they need sucking: Looks like they could indeed get all murdery


Let's see:  Dressed in all black, coal-scuttle helmets, combat boots, armed to the teeth with guns "designed for the battlefield, where the goal is to rapidly kill as many enemy soldiers as possible, and they have no place in civilian life."

Throw in a "Sieg Heil!" or two, and it might as well be a picture of SS troops during WWII.
 
2013-04-20 12:04:26 PM  

craigdamage: Concealed carry means the weapon must be small and concealable under clothes. A small frame "snubby' or a single stack short auto.

Open carry would mean you can carry a larger,more powerful and or more accurate "duty-sized" weapon.

My point about carrying my .44 revolver.

...but yes,I am indeed a BADASS. (with a boner)


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.
 
2013-04-20 12:04:49 PM  

Capo Del Bandito: T-Servo: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 425x460]

I expect the discussion in this thread to be reasoned and measured.

And based on your pic, slightly erotic?

...is there a field for 'gun erotica'?


Are you unfamiliar with rule 34?
 
2013-04-20 12:05:08 PM  
"If it's so scary, why isn't there one other state in this country that's repealed concealed carry? Because it works," Phelps saidy

So that's why Chicago is the murder free paradise that it is today. And thanks for giving us that genius Slobama too.
 
2013-04-20 12:05:34 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-20 12:06:41 PM  

Fark It: The pro-gun side absolutely has the numbers t

...


Sounds reasonable. I may not agree with everything you say, but I thought I'd chime in on a "maybe you're not so bad off" note, here.
 
2013-04-20 12:07:12 PM  

dittybopper: Your titties - Do they need sucking: Looks like they could indeed get all murdery

Let's see:  Dressed in all black, coal-scuttle helmets, combat boots, armed to the teeth with guns "designed for the battlefield, where the goal is to rapidly kill as many enemy soldiers as possible, and they have no place in civilian life."

Throw in a "Sieg Heil!" or two, and it might as well be a picture of SS troops during WWII.


www.psiopradio.com
 
2013-04-20 12:07:24 PM  

trappedspirit: Meanwhile, people ary dying left and right because the proper legislation is not inplace. Don't those lawmakers realize they are playing god with people's lives and with every penstroke they cause or prevent thousands of gun deaths?


People are dying in traffic collisions, many multiples of those killed with guns.

And traffic is an area of plenary state control. And yet, legislators fail to enact laws to prevent the roughly 90-100 people who die daily on the state's roads, along with the many more who are maimed and disabled.

These same legislators also enact drug laws that are the root cause of most gun crime.

Rather than prevent or greatly reduce deaths by (a) repealing drug laws or (b) enacting better car safety measures, over which the state has 100% control, the state insists on pushing for even greater restrictions on guns, over which it has very little real control, and which in the process inhibits the legitimate, defensive use of guns far more than it curbs crime.
 
2013-04-20 12:08:10 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Lionel Mandrake: Did...did you just link to Breitbart?

Awwww....poor thing. Where did the bad Breitbart man touch you?


Just an odd source of "information."  If your goal was to make a point, you failed.
 
2013-04-20 12:09:20 PM  

Mock26: way south: BigBooper: 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.....

And Chicago's problem with violence is about far more than just guns....

But guns at least allow the residents to fend for themselves where government is failing.
If they go concealed carry its going to be interesting to see how crime rates there repond.

So far as concealed carry bans, if I recall Hawaii and the US territories still have bans on carry and heavily restricted ownership (where its even allowed).
Getting all stats in on concealed carry would be a big win for us on the fringes.

It will be just like anywhere else.  The crimes rates will drop.  Or rise.  Or stay the same.




I expect a drop, but I'm hesitant to say they simply drop or rise more than just change to different kinds of crimes depending on how they are counted. Fewer rapes and assaults, more daylight (absent homeowner) break-ins.

As long as bad people are on the loose the devil will have his due. The point is allowing the good ones a means to keep the bad guys in check.
Fixing the crime problem is going to take work in alot of areas, but concealed carry would allow legal use of an age old stopgap measure.
 
2013-04-20 12:10:15 PM  

dittybopper: Your titties - Do they need sucking: Looks like they could indeed get all murdery

Let's see:  Dressed in all black, coal-scuttle helmets, combat boots, armed to the teeth with guns "designed for the battlefield, where the goal is to rapidly kill as many enemy soldiers as possible, and they have no place in civilian life."

Throw in a "Sieg Heil!" or two, and it might as well be a picture of SS troops during WWII.


My friends don't like it when I point out other police who had black and silver uniforms.
 
2013-04-20 12:10:28 PM  
If more liberties taken away from the public is cool, than subby must be a myopic fool.
 
2013-04-20 12:11:37 PM  

Fark It: "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


He may have meant that. He may have been blowing that whistle at the top of his lungs. I'm just glad I had to have it suggested by someone else, before it came to mind. I thought of white men making life joy-free and unnecessarily difficult for poor people.
 
2013-04-20 12:15:56 PM  

enry: Your titties - Do they need sucking: soia: I say, fark conceal carry and issue only an unconcealed carry.  You man/woman enough to carry a gun be man/woman enough to show it

That is AWESOME.  Now, when you walk in to a 7-11 and someone comes in to rob it, he can walk around the store and see who has a gun and knows whom to shoot first, after he pulls out his concealed gun.

Or he'll see that there's armed people there, realize that there's no way he'll get out of there alive, and walk back out.


Yeah, because criminals, they are well known for making the most logical, well thought out decisions, right?
 
2013-04-20 12:19:53 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-20 12:20:29 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?


That was indeed a well-regulated militia.
 
2013-04-20 12:20:33 PM  

Your titties - Do they need sucking: enry: Your titties - Do they need sucking: soia: I say, fark conceal carry and issue only an unconcealed carry.  You man/woman enough to carry a gun be man/woman enough to show it

That is AWESOME.  Now, when you walk in to a 7-11 and someone comes in to rob it, he can walk around the store and see who has a gun and knows whom to shoot first, after he pulls out his concealed gun.

Or he'll see that there's armed people there, realize that there's no way he'll get out of there alive, and walk back out.

Yeah, because criminals, they are well known for making the most logical, well thought out decisions, right?


Wellll, in the movies they do and on TV,,,,
 
2013-04-20 12:21:07 PM  
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.
 
2013-04-20 12:21:42 PM  

Pockafrusta: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 528x405]


Good thing private individuals still have the same firepower the government has, amirite?
 
2013-04-20 12:22:18 PM  
We must address the scourge of gun addiction.
 
2013-04-20 12:23:03 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.


Your poor little world is so incredibly small.
Do get off yer ass and get out there.
 
2013-04-20 12:24:28 PM  

Dimensio: Phinn: You'll notice that I said that concealment is the preferred mode for criminals. I did not say that all persons who prefer concealment are criminals. Concealment may well be the preferred mode for lawful people, too. You should read more carefully, and employ logical reasoning.

You claimed that "Most of the people you describe carry concealed because open carry is considered a crime.". Your claim remains unsupported by any data.

You have provided no rational justification for not enacting a "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit system that does not rely upon false or unsupported premises.


I have not proposed enacting any permitting system at all. This is yet another erroneous assumption on your part.

I am saying that the state's prohibition of open carry is both ethically illegitimate and pragmatically counter-productive to the (stated) goal of crime-reduction.

I, however, can see that the stated goal of crime-reduction (or even death-reduction) is not the true goal of legislators. If it were, they would start with traffic reform, and then move on to the "gun problem" by first repealing drug laws and prohibitions against open carry. These obvious solutions are not even on the table.

The fact that the state refuses to consider its own role in causing both traffic deaths and gun crime, and insists on doubling down on its control mechanisms, leads me to conclude that their top priority is maintaining or increasing the vigor of their control mechanisms.

I judge them by what they do, not what they say.
 
2013-04-20 12:25:25 PM  

Your titties - Do they need sucking: enry: Your titties - Do they need sucking: soia: I say, fark conceal carry and issue only an unconcealed carry.  You man/woman enough to carry a gun be man/woman enough to show it

That is AWESOME.  Now, when you walk in to a 7-11 and someone comes in to rob it, he can walk around the store and see who has a gun and knows whom to shoot first, after he pulls out his concealed gun.

Or he'll see that there's armed people there, realize that there's no way he'll get out of there alive, and walk back out.

Yeah, because criminals, they are well known for making the most logical, well thought out decisions, right?


If they were good at planning things in advance then they wouldn't be robbing a 7-11.
A little intimidation goes a long way when it comes to crime prevention.

/and while I'm here, I must say you have an awesome fark handle.
 
2013-04-20 12:25:43 PM  

Anderson's Pooper: LarryDan43: WI had open carry by default up until last year when they passed a concealed carry.

We've had it in Ohio for at least as long as I've been practicing law.  I have a friend who open carries regularly.  He's a big bald imposing guy and law enforcement does get called occassionally.  They know him and just drive by and wave.


WHY?
Why dont they tell the caller that open carry is legal and they should get a life? Sure, there is always the chance it is a really dumb bad guy ...
(rhetorical question ....)


Cybernetic: Really, Chicago? Really? 532 murders in 2012, and you worry that allowing law-abiding citizens the means to protect themselves is going to make it worse?


So while it was up 10-15% versus a year ago, the trend has been flat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago#Murders

We got a new chief of police in 2011.
http://www.wbez.org/emanuel-defends-his-early-policing-decisions-100 72 9
TADA rahm emanuel disbanded the anti-gang strike force and moved them to beats in lower crime areas. 
TADA murders went up in poor areas.
This goes a long way to completely explaining the increase in murders in 2012.

Corrupt and Insane Police
"A few months after announcing that they would be funding the defense of Cmdr. Jon Burge, on March 17, 2009, the Chicago lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police gave a vote of no-confidence in Weis.[3] "
THE police union paid to defend a known torturer.

some possible answers -http://www.newgeography.com/content/003456-why-are-there-so-many-mur de rs-chicago
 
2013-04-20 12:26:32 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.


There are multiple security cam examples available on the interwebs.  My 83 year old great grandmother persuaded a home invader to leave her living room because she was armed.

You need to meet more people.
 
2013-04-20 12:29:39 PM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: Oh, the cops are going to love that.


Believe it or not some would.  One opinion expressed was that it would give the police  reason to openly  treat everybody as if they might be armed.
 
2013-04-20 12:29:41 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.


Your statement is astute, and I am certain that no one will be able to dispute it by referencing even a single incident where a lawfully armed citizen was able to stop a crime in progress.
 
2013-04-20 12:31:27 PM  

Phinn: Dimensio: Phinn: You'll notice that I said that concealment is the preferred mode for criminals. I did not say that all persons who prefer concealment are criminals. Concealment may well be the preferred mode for lawful people, too. You should read more carefully, and employ logical reasoning.

You claimed that "Most of the people you describe carry concealed because open carry is considered a crime.". Your claim remains unsupported by any data.

You have provided no rational justification for not enacting a "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit system that does not rely upon false or unsupported premises.

I have not proposed enacting any permitting system at all. This is yet another erroneous assumption on your part.

I am saying that the state's prohibition of open carry is both ethically illegitimate and pragmatically counter-productive to the (stated) goal of crime-reduction.

I, however, can see that the stated goal of crime-reduction (or even death-reduction) is not the true goal of legislators. If it were, they would start with traffic reform, and then move on to the "gun problem" by first repealing drug laws and prohibitions against open carry. These obvious solutions are not even on the table.

The fact that the state refuses to consider its own role in causing both traffic deaths and gun crime, and insists on doubling down on its control mechanisms, leads me to conclude that their top priority is maintaining or increasing the vigor of their control mechanisms.

I judge them by what they do, not what they say.


Thank you for admitting that you are "trolling" and that you are not in any way attempting to present a reasoned or rational statement. Your postings may now safely be disregarded, as you are intentionally attempting to disrupt discussion and you are not attempting to coherently argue for any on-topic position.
 
2013-04-20 12:32:30 PM  

JoanHaus: No one has ever protected themselves with a weapon concealed on their person or in their car


Anecdotal story time.  My old man was working in Ohio as a construction superintendent.  There was a pipefitter and Desert Storm veteran on one of his jobsites who had a glass eye.  Back several years ago, he was waiting at an intersection in the wee hours of the morning, close to a job site.  Two enterprising criminals walked up to his window and shot him in the face to jack tools and whatever cash he was carrying.  The bullet entered somewhere around his zygomatic/temporal region and blew out his entire left orbit.  He slumped over the center console (still conscious but extremely dazed) and overheard one of the perps say something along the lines of "he's still moving, finish him off."  The guy produced a 1911 from his center console and shot the armed would-be murderer in the chest.  Perp #2 ran, and the guy in the truck stepped out and drilled the fleeing criminal in the back, paralyzing him.
 
2013-04-20 12:34:24 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.


I have never met anyone who has shot Osama Bin Laden, therefore, it is no possible.
 
2013-04-20 12:35:59 PM  

Your titties - Do they need sucking: Farkage: 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?

And judging by the pictures, the ones they had were "Ar-15 fully automatic assault murder rifle weapons with large high capacity bullet magazine ammunition clip feeder devices" too!  I'm surprised anyone in the entire city survived that...

Looks like they could indeed get all murdery
[d3.yimg.com image 750x500]


Looks like Rob Liefeld designed their equipment. "More pouches! MOAR STRAPS!"


As to the idea of "universal carry", I prefer to regulate concealed carry. I like knowing that the armed people around me have had at least a modicum of safety training.
 
2013-04-20 12:38:05 PM  

dittybopper: Lionel Mandrake: 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.

And what's the solution?

There is no easy solution.  The conditions that led to that situation built up over generations, and it will take generations to change both the conditions and the culture, and like the old joke about the psychiatrist and the lightbulb, that culture has to *WANT* to change:  It can't be imposed upon them from the outside.

There are some incentives we can enact, and perverse incentives we can remove.

Certainly, gun control was tried:  Handguns were completely banned in Chicago (existing permits were grandfathered), and that didn't stop or even slow down the crime.


I've only been to Chicago once, but I don't recall having to show my passport or get searched for firearms upon entry to the city. Did that only change in recent years? Or can people just travel to somewhere else and pick up whatever firearm they please with little-to-no regulation? If the latter, then I applaud the desire of the city to reduce gun violence, but it's a futile gesture when, at the end of the day, they're still engulfed by an entire country and national culture of recklessly easy gun access.
 
2013-04-20 12:38:33 PM  

give me doughnuts: Your titties - Do they need sucking: Farkage: 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?

And judging by the pictures, the ones they had were "Ar-15 fully automatic assault murder rifle weapons with large high capacity bullet magazine ammunition clip feeder devices" too!  I'm surprised anyone in the entire city survived that...

Looks like they could indeed get all murdery
[d3.yimg.com image 750x500]

Looks like Rob Liefeld designed their equipment. "More pouches! MOAR STRAPS!"


As to the idea of "universal carry", I prefer to regulate concealed carry. I like knowing that the armed people around me have had at least a modicum of safety training.


I prefer "shall-issue" permit systems to unregulated concealed carry (though I will say that I do not entirely oppose unregulated concealed carry) so long as the training course required includes substantial coverage of laws regarding the use of deadly force. Kentucky law requires that concealed carry courses address the conditions under which the use of deadly force is allowed; I found the instruction to be comprehensive and meaningful.
 
2013-04-20 12:39:18 PM  

Dimensio: Phinn: Dimensio: Phinn: You'll notice that I said that concealment is the preferred mode for criminals. I did not say that all persons who prefer concealment are criminals. Concealment may well be the preferred mode for lawful people, too. You should read more carefully, and employ logical reasoning.

You claimed that "Most of the people you describe carry concealed because open carry is considered a crime.". Your claim remains unsupported by any data.

You have provided no rational justification for not enacting a "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit system that does not rely upon false or unsupported premises.

I have not proposed enacting any permitting system at all. This is yet another erroneous assumption on your part.

I am saying that the state's prohibition of open carry is both ethically illegitimate and pragmatically counter-productive to the (stated) goal of crime-reduction.

I, however, can see that the stated goal of crime-reduction (or even death-reduction) is not the true goal of legislators. If it were, they would start with traffic reform, and then move on to the "gun problem" by first repealing drug laws and prohibitions against open carry. These obvious solutions are not even on the table.

The fact that the state refuses to consider its own role in causing both traffic deaths and gun crime, and insists on doubling down on its control mechanisms, leads me to conclude that their top priority is maintaining or increasing the vigor of their control mechanisms.

I judge them by what they do, not what they say.

Thank you for admitting that you are "trolling" and that you are not in any way attempting to present a reasoned or rational statement. Your postings may now safely be disregarded, as you are intentionally attempting to disrupt discussion and you are not attempting to coherently argue for any on-topic position.


I'm sure your many psychological defense mechanisms are very comforting to you, but they do nothing to correct your fallacies.
 
2013-04-20 12:40:41 PM  

Phinn: Dimensio: Phinn: Dimensio: Phinn: You'll notice that I said that concealment is the preferred mode for criminals. I did not say that all persons who prefer concealment are criminals. Concealment may well be the preferred mode for lawful people, too. You should read more carefully, and employ logical reasoning.

You claimed that "Most of the people you describe carry concealed because open carry is considered a crime.". Your claim remains unsupported by any data.

You have provided no rational justification for not enacting a "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit system that does not rely upon false or unsupported premises.

I have not proposed enacting any permitting system at all. This is yet another erroneous assumption on your part.

I am saying that the state's prohibition of open carry is both ethically illegitimate and pragmatically counter-productive to the (stated) goal of crime-reduction.

I, however, can see that the stated goal of crime-reduction (or even death-reduction) is not the true goal of legislators. If it were, they would start with traffic reform, and then move on to the "gun problem" by first repealing drug laws and prohibitions against open carry. These obvious solutions are not even on the table.

The fact that the state refuses to consider its own role in causing both traffic deaths and gun crime, and insists on doubling down on its control mechanisms, leads me to conclude that their top priority is maintaining or increasing the vigor of their control mechanisms.

I judge them by what they do, not what they say.

Thank you for admitting that you are "trolling" and that you are not in any way attempting to present a reasoned or rational statement. Your postings may now safely be disregarded, as you are intentionally attempting to disrupt discussion and you are not attempting to coherently argue for any on-topic position.

I'm sure your many psychological defense mechanisms are very comforting to you, but they do nothing to correct yo ...


You have yet to justify your initial claim that "concealment is the problem". Your fundamental premise remains unsubstantiated and thus your claims lack any credibility.
 
2013-04-20 12:41:36 PM  

Your titties - Do they need sucking: enry: Your titties - Do they need sucking: soia: I say, fark conceal carry and issue only an unconcealed carry.  You man/woman enough to carry a gun be man/woman enough to show it

That is AWESOME.  Now, when you walk in to a 7-11 and someone comes in to rob it, he can walk around the store and see who has a gun and knows whom to shoot first, after he pulls out his concealed gun.

Or he'll see that there's armed people there, realize that there's no way he'll get out of there alive, and walk back out.

Yeah, because criminals, they are well known for making the most logical, well thought out decisions, right?


So wait, you're saying that a criminal is more likely to go around, scope out all the people who are carrying, then shoot them first, rather than go in, get spooked because multiple people are obviously packing heat, get scared, and run off?  If there was a cop in there, you think they'd shoot the cop first then rob the place?
 
2013-04-20 12:44:45 PM  

namatad: ROFL

Would this invalidate the need to have a FOID card?
I love the fact that this could overrule any and all chicago laws by default.

/as much as you and I might be against gun ownership, illinois is the ONLY state left which does not permit concealed carry.
/strange but true


Well, NJ gives concealed carry permits, but the process is so incredibly difficult and hard to pass that they rarely give them out.  I'd bet other states are like that.

But hey, I live in the south, you get a gun on your 1st birthday here.
 
2013-04-20 12:45:22 PM  

Molavian: macadamnut: Guns are gay.

Armed gays don't get bashed.


This. 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. Not only does it provide protection for a routinely abused minority, but, they go to the range, have started hunting, and have joined some shooting groups, and tell me that they have been approached by several members saying that they have really changed their opinion about gays.
 
2013-04-20 12:47:59 PM  
Is this the thread where we debate the merits of prematurely escalating a thoroughly unlikely and unpredictable situation?
 
2013-04-20 12:48:23 PM  

devildog123: Molavian: macadamnut: Guns are gay.

Armed gays don't get bashed.

This. 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. Not only does it provide protection for a routinely abused minority, but, they go to the range, have started hunting, and have joined some shooting groups, and tell me that they have been approached by several members saying that they have really changed their opinion about gays.


Did they have initial trouble with "limp-wristing"?

/I still do, to my shame.
 
2013-04-20 12:49:30 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.


You need to leave your house more...

In recent months, Darin Fowler had been the victim of several burglaries at his Oroville, Calif. store, Air Cooled Unlimited. Fed up, Fowler, a Right-to-Carry permit holder, decided to arm himself and camp out at the business. While sleeping behind the shop one night, Fowler was awakened by a thief. Fowler drew his gun on the criminal, who complied with the business owner's orders to stay put until police arrived.
A subsequent search of the burglar's home uncovered several of the items that had previously been stolen from Fowler. Following the incident Fowler commented, "It was almost closure because now we can relax a little bit now and get back to work." (CBS, Sacramento, Calif.  April 8, 2013)

82-year-old Jim Brazel and his wife were asleep at home in Linn County, Ore. when they were awakened by suspicious noises coming from Brazel's workshop. After retrieving a .410 shotgun, Brazel went to investigate and discovered a burglar. Brazel said to the man, "You take one more step and this gun goes off in the middle of your chest. Do what you want."  The criminal chose to stay put until police could arrive, 20 minutes later.
Following the incident, Brazel spoke of the burglar to local media, stating, "He's making a mistake to try country people... Because 99 percent of us are all the same. We're not afraid to shoot." (NWCN, Portland, Ore. 03/28/13)

Just after a 22-year-old woman got out of her car in Oregon City, Ore., a man grabbed her by her ponytail and dragged and attacked her. The criminal continued his attack until the young woman drew a handgun, which caused the attacker to flee. In describing the incident to local media, Oregon City Police Sgt. Matthew Paschall recalled, "He continued to assault her until she was able to defend herself by producing her legally-owned handgun." (KPTV, Portland, Ore. 04/01/13, KGW, Portland, Ore. 04/02/2013)

A woman in Elm City, N.C. was home sick from work when she heard a banging at her back door. The noise turned out to be a pair of home invaders who forced their way inside as the woman fled to retrieve a gun and hide in a closet. Eventually the burglars made it to the room where the homeowner was hiding, and when they opened the door, the woman fired at them, striking one and causing both to flee.
Neighbor Wayne Crumpler spotted the home invaders after hearing one of the criminals screaming for help in the street. As one of the burglars moved towards Crumpler's property, Crumpler retrieved a revolver and ordered the man to halt. The criminals fled, but were captured by police a short time later. Speaking to local media about the incident, Crumpler approved of his neighbor's actions, stating, "She was lucky she knew how to use a handgun and lucky she had it. Because if she hadn't, we might be going to a funeral." (WRAL, Raleigh, N.C. 03/22/13)

A homeowner in Maypearl, Texas was at home watching TV when she heard a suspicious noise at the door. When she got up to investigate, the woman spotted one of a pair of armed criminals trying to get into her home. The homeowner then went find her husband and retrieve a gun. The husband was on another part of the property, but once he heard of the intrusion he went inside the house and retrieved a rifle. A gun battle ensued, with the husband and wife firing at the criminals and the criminals returning fire.
The homeowners managed to strike one of the home invaders in the foot, while the other fled in a pickup truck to a nearby field. After succumbing to the armed resistance, both criminals took their own lives.
Following the incident, Lt. James Saulter of the Ellis County Sheriff's Department told local media, "Our sheriff is always letting homeowners know to arm themselves. This is one of the reasons why... Sometimes it takes a while for us to get out this far, and they have to take care of themselves." (KENS, San Antonio, Texas 03/21/13)

Seriously, that took less than 5 minutes to find and there are thousands more.  But keep pretending you know better, okay?
 
2013-04-20 12:51:27 PM  

JosephFinn: And bad news for reasonable citizens.


Reality check: You can't be reasonable to a bad guy with a gun. Talking your way out of a bullet doesn't work. All you can do is comply, and pray you don't get shot, or a cop comes by (fat chance on the latter).
 
2013-04-20 12:52:00 PM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Is this the thread where we debate the merits of prematurely escalating a thoroughly unlikely and unpredictable situation?


No, in this discussion opponents of "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit systems are to present statistical data showing an increase of crime rates in locales where such systems have been implemented and a demonstration that concealed weapons permit holders were responsible for some of that increase.

/We are still waiting.
 
2013-04-20 12:54:08 PM  

People_are_Idiots: JosephFinn: And bad news for reasonable citizens.

Reality check: You can't be reasonable to a bad guy with a gun. Talking your way out of a bullet doesn't work. All you can do is comply, and pray you don't get shot, or a cop comes by (fat chance on the latter).


Be aware that JosephFinn is himself "unreasonable", as he has repeatedly lied about Constitutional issues in previous discussions.
 
2013-04-20 12:54:40 PM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Is this the thread where we debate the merits of prematurely escalating a thoroughly unlikely and unpredictable situation?


They're not all that unpredictable.

Nothing's perfectly predictable, of course, but gun crime is more predictable than, say, a potentially fatal traffic collision.

Time, place, perpetrator ... Gun crime is highly concentrated in certain places, times and demographic groups. Traffic death is far more random.
 
2013-04-20 12:55:01 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.


Ever wonder why cops fire so many rounds in a firefight?  High stress situation.  There is a reason people actually fear gang members with military training (happened in CA already) - they're superior to cops in a firefight because they understand combat maneuvers and can fire under duress.

Tactical units are a different story.  Patrolman?  Good luck with that.
 
2013-04-20 12:56:44 PM  
Weapon of choice for Chicago in the 20's
 
2013-04-20 12:58:15 PM  

Deep Contact: Weapon of choice for Chicago in the 20's


i45.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-20 12:58:49 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.



i74.photobucket.com
Why do sword guys never shut up about their swords?!
 
2013-04-20 12:59:04 PM  

dittybopper: Your titties - Do they need sucking: Looks like they could indeed get all murdery

Let's see:  Dressed in all black, coal-scuttle helmets, combat boots, armed to the teeth with guns "designed for the battlefield, where the goal is to rapidly kill as many enemy soldiers as possible, and they have no place in civilian life."

Throw in a "Sieg Heil!" or two, and it might as well be a picture of SS troops during WWII.


This.

Where's Obama and Feinstein to say that the cops don't need those weapons, that they're designed for one thing-to kill as many people as possible, that they're only good for spray firing from the hip, etc.?
Where's Joe Biden to tell them they just need double barrel shotguns and that the rifle is harder to use and aim?

If the police want to be viewed and treated as a civilian police force, they need to dress and equip like one.  They're much more like a paramilitary organization than a police force, and need to be treated and regulated like one.
 
2013-04-20 12:59:39 PM  

Farkage: [snipped for brevity, man]


If the average held, twenty seven people were the victim of a homicide yesterday in which the weapon used was a firearm. Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

You're gonna need a lot more anecdotes to make any sort of mathematically sensible argument here.

/ protip: very few people will ever by the victim of a violent assault, which means both that the average person has little reason to fear the homicide-by-firearm statistic and has very little reason to carry a firearm for self defense

// it's almost like the gun debate isn't specifically about you....
 
2013-04-20 01:00:16 PM  
Any gun?


Where can I get a portal gun???
 
2013-04-20 01:01:54 PM  

skozlaw: Farkage: [snipped for brevity, man]

If the average held, twenty seven people were the victim of a homicide yesterday in which the weapon used was a firearm. Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

You're gonna need a lot more anecdotes to make any sort of mathematically sensible argument here.

/ protip: very few people will ever by the victim of a violent assault, which means both that the average person has little reason to fear the homicide-by-firearm statistic and has very little reason to carry a firearm for self defense

// it's almost like the gun debate isn't specifically about you....


Newspaper reports directly countering a "factual" claim that guns aren't ever effectively used to counter a crime are hardly anecdotes, now are they?
 
2013-04-20 01:02:29 PM  

Deep Contact: Deep Contact: Weapon of choice for Chicago in the 20's

[i45.photobucket.com image 500x203]


If the Hughes Amendment is ever repealed that's the first thing I'm buying, new production or old, IDGAF.  And if it's not repealed and I happen to live in a free state I might even someday pony up the $20,000 to get a good one.....
 
2013-04-20 01:03:06 PM  

enry: Your titties - Do they need sucking: enry: Your titties - Do they need sucking: soia: I say, fark conceal carry and issue only an unconcealed carry.  You man/woman enough to carry a gun be man/woman enough to show it

That is AWESOME.  Now, when you walk in to a 7-11 and someone comes in to rob it, he can walk around the store and see who has a gun and knows whom to shoot first, after he pulls out his concealed gun.

Or he'll see that there's armed people there, realize that there's no way he'll get out of there alive, and walk back out.

Yeah, because criminals, they are well known for making the most logical, well thought out decisions, right?

So wait, you're saying that a criminal is more likely to go around, scope out all the people who are carrying, then shoot them first, rather than go in, get spooked because multiple people are obviously packing heat, get scared, and run off?  If there was a cop in there, you think they'd shoot the cop first then rob the place?


Cops can't shoot straight.
Downgraded threat.
 
2013-04-20 01:03:45 PM  
"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.
 
2013-04-20 01:06:10 PM  

Farkage: skozlaw: Farkage: [snipped for brevity, man]

If the average held, twenty seven people were the victim of a homicide yesterday in which the weapon used was a firearm. Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

You're gonna need a lot more anecdotes to make any sort of mathematically sensible argument here.

/ protip: very few people will ever by the victim of a violent assault, which means both that the average person has little reason to fear the homicide-by-firearm statistic and has very little reason to carry a firearm for self defense

// it's almost like the gun debate isn't specifically about you....

Newspaper reports directly countering a "factual" claim that guns aren't ever effectively used to counter a crime are hardly anecdotes, now are they?


So many guns, yet so few violent assaults with guns.
Hmmm. Pick one, just can't let ya have both in one sentence.
 
2013-04-20 01:07:01 PM  

skozlaw: Farkage: [snipped for brevity, man]

If the average held, twenty seven people were the victim of a homicide yesterday in which the weapon used was a firearm. Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

You're gonna need a lot more anecdotes to make any sort of mathematically sensible argument here.

/ protip: very few people will ever by the victim of a violent assault, which means both that the average person has little reason to fear the homicide-by-firearm statistic and has very little reason to carry a firearm for self defense

// it's almost like the gun debate isn't specifically about you....


Farkage was countering the assertion, issued by JoanHaus, that absolutely no armed citizen would have the ability to use their firearm in self-defense in a stressful situation. Only a single example is necessary to disprove the assertion, and Farkage presented five.
 
2013-04-20 01:07:03 PM  

macadamnut: Guns are gay.


You are using them wrong.
 
2013-04-20 01:07:14 PM  
You mean like our constitutional rights say we can?
 
2013-04-20 01:07:16 PM  

Farkage: Newspaper reports directly countering a "factual" claim that guns aren't ever effectively used to counter a crime are hardly anecdotes, now are they?


Um... yes....  each bit you posted is practically a self-contained definition of the word anecdote. Just because they came out of a newspaper doesn't make them not anecdotes.

Also, I don't think a random farker making a blanket, off the cuff comment qualifies as a "factual claim" in any reasonable sense.

Regardless, I'm not questioning the veracity of your anecdotes, I'm merely pointing out that in the context of the larger debate, they don't exactly mean much from anything but a personal perspective for those involved.

You can't hold "self-defense" up as a valid claim when what you're doing for self-defense is statistically more likely to get you killed than if you'd done nothing. That's like saying your going to stick your head in a bucket of ice once a day to reduce your chances of drowning.
 
2013-04-20 01:09:08 PM  

snocone: Farkage: skozlaw: Farkage: [snipped for brevity, man]

If the average held, twenty seven people were the victim of a homicide yesterday in which the weapon used was a firearm. Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

You're gonna need a lot more anecdotes to make any sort of mathematically sensible argument here.

/ protip: very few people will ever by the victim of a violent assault, which means both that the average person has little reason to fear the homicide-by-firearm statistic and has very little reason to carry a firearm for self defense

// it's almost like the gun debate isn't specifically about you....

Newspaper reports directly countering a "factual" claim that guns aren't ever effectively used to counter a crime are hardly anecdotes, now are they?

So many guns, yet so few violent assaults with guns.
Hmmm. Pick one, just can't let ya have both in one sentence.


Private gun ownership is steadily increasing while gun crime is steadily decreasing, so I honestly have no idea what you are attempting to say.
 
2013-04-20 01:09:30 PM  
Don't all the gangbangers in Chicago already conceal their guns?
 
2013-04-20 01:09:55 PM  

skozlaw: Farkage: Newspaper reports directly countering a "factual" claim that guns aren't ever effectively used to counter a crime are hardly anecdotes, now are they?

Um... yes....  each bit you posted is practically a self-contained definition of the word anecdote. Just because they came out of a newspaper doesn't make them not anecdotes.

Also, I don't think a random farker making a blanket, off the cuff comment qualifies as a "factual claim" in any reasonable sense.

Regardless, I'm not questioning the veracity of your anecdotes, I'm merely pointing out that in the context of the larger debate, they don't exactly mean much from anything but a personal perspective for those involved.

You can't hold "self-defense" up as a valid claim when what you're doing for self-defense is statistically more likely to get you killed than if you'd done nothing. That's like saying your going to stick your head in a bucket of ice once a day to reduce your chances of drowning.


There is this place you should stick your head.
 
2013-04-20 01:11:04 PM  

snocone: There is this place you should stick your head.


Typically intelligent response from the pro-gun crowd.
 
2013-04-20 01:11:55 PM  

Farkage: snocone: Farkage: skozlaw: Farkage: [snipped for brevity, man]

If the average held, twenty seven people were the victim of a homicide yesterday in which the weapon used was a firearm. Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

You're gonna need a lot more anecdotes to make any sort of mathematically sensible argument here.

/ protip: very few people will ever by the victim of a violent assault, which means both that the average person has little reason to fear the homicide-by-firearm statistic and has very little reason to carry a firearm for self defense

// it's almost like the gun debate isn't specifically about you....

Newspaper reports directly countering a "factual" claim that guns aren't ever effectively used to counter a crime are hardly anecdotes, now are they?

So many guns, yet so few violent assaults with guns.
Hmmm. Pick one, just can't let ya have both in one sentence.

Private gun ownership is steadily increasing while gun crime is steadily decreasing, so I honestly have no idea what you are attempting to say.


Guess that puts me in the lead, 'cause I know exactly what you are trying to misrepresent.
Your best position at this point is to claim youth and lack of IRW life..
 
2013-04-20 01:12:43 PM  

skozlaw: snocone: There is this place you should stick your head.

Typically intelligent response from the pro-gun crowd.


Read my bio and then trot out that crap.
 
2013-04-20 01:13:35 PM  

craigdamage: Concealed carry means the weapon must be small and concealable under clothes. A small frame "snubby' or a single stack short auto.

Open carry would mean you can carry a larger,more powerful and or more accurate "duty-sized" weapon.

My point about carrying my .44 revolver.

...but yes,I am indeed a BADASS. (with a boner)


Umm, not true.  I know plenty of people that conceal carry full size .45 autos and they don't print either.
 
2013-04-20 01:15:23 PM  

skozlaw: Farkage: Newspaper reports directly countering a "factual" claim that guns aren't ever effectively used to counter a crime are hardly anecdotes, now are they?

Um... yes....  each bit you posted is practically a self-contained definition of the word anecdote. Just because they came out of a newspaper doesn't make them not anecdotes.

Also, I don't think a random farker making a blanket, off the cuff comment qualifies as a "factual claim" in any reasonable sense.

Regardless, I'm not questioning the veracity of your anecdotes, I'm merely pointing out that in the context of the larger debate, they don't exactly mean much from anything but a personal perspective for those involved.

You can't hold "self-defense" up as a valid claim when what you're doing for self-defense is statistically more likely to get you killed than if you'd done nothing. That's like saying your going to stick your head in a bucket of ice once a day to reduce your chances of drowning.


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.
 
2013-04-20 01:16:22 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-20 01:18:46 PM  

Fark It: scotty425: Fark It: Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: No sympathy for Illinois.  They were given a fairly reasonable period of time to come up with a law, and every chance to make it as restrictive as they wanted it to be.  The fact that they're refusing to come to terms with it is rather tough farking shiat for them.

Seems we've found the Illinois Democrat equivalent of the national Republican budget issue.  Lots of words, lots of demands, completely unable to put together a REAL bill that solves the issue to their own satisfaction.

Yes, both sides are bad.  So fark the party and vote for the candidate to actually stands for stuff you stand for, regardless of that silly letter after their name.

An Illinois democrat from downstate has been working at concealed carry for a decade.  The only people standing in the way are the morons in Chicago.  This concealed carry bill passed 64-45.  Chicago's "may-issue" counter-proposal only mustered 31 votes.  It needs 71 to override home-rule and the governor's veto.  I see this outrage at the Senate for failing to pass expanded background checks when the vote was 56-44, but then we have these gun control proponents doing exactly the same thing in Illinois (with a much larger margin and court-imposed deadline, no less).

Brandon Phelps (D-Harrisburg) keeps watering down his  HB 997 with more restrictions to try and appease the northern/Chicago Dems and it still can't get passed. That's the funny thing about gun politics in Illinois, neither side really has the numbers to advance their agenda.

The pro-gun side absolutely has the numbers to advance their agenda, they have an uncooperative governor (the most unpopular in the country) and a gaggle of Chicago politicians who want special rules for their fiefdom.  "B-b-b-but homerule should let larger cities decide for themselves...."  Blow it out your ass (not directed at you, btw).  How do you think Western NY feels about being governed out of Manhattan when it comes to the NY SAFE act?  They want home-rule when it comes to pro-gun legislation, but they're fine with a simple majority when it comes to inflicting their gun laws on the rest of the state.  Brandon Phelps and the farking NRA have bent over backwards to appease Chicago, and they've basically taken their ball and gone home.


Yes, fark Pat Quinn and fark Chicago straight up the asshole with a chainsaw. Ugh. Central IL lifer, and its pretty rural/down to earth here. However, when you travel and people refer to your state as "the people's republic of Illinois", its goes to show how farked up Chicago is and how much power they wield. It'd be nice to split into two states, say north of I80 and east of 55 to the lake is Chicago; the rest of the state is Reality. If you drew the lines closer so it was easier to commute into shiatcago but live in Reality, I wonder if there would be a population shift.
 
2013-04-20 01:19:18 PM  

give me doughnuts: As to the idea of "universal carry", I prefer to regulate concealed carry. I like knowing that the armed people around me have had at least a modicum of safety training.


PLEASE .... give me a break.
The idea that safety training ...
The number of dumbass shootings is legion.
No amount of forced safety classes can fix stupid.

I had more than enough safety training when I was much younger, but now to get a handgun permit in chicago I need to get a certification? LOL
Stranger still, it is impossible to get that safety training class in chicago, given that there are no gun ranges in the city.

http://www.chicago-gun-registration.com/chicagofirearmpermit.htm
"There are no public ranges in the City of Chicago. Upon completion of the classroom portion of the course, students will travel to a designated range in the north/western suburbs (determined by date of the class) for the live-fire portion of the course. "

AKA - BULLshiat
Talk about an unfair tax preventing poor citizens from being able to get a permit.

Of course, there are no gun stores in Chicago either ....

/or casinos or brothels ... wtf ... why does anyone live here again? the weather??
 
2013-04-20 01:20:18 PM  

Tio_Holtzmann: Fark It: scotty425: Fark It: Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: No sympathy for Illinois.  They were given a fairly reasonable period of time to come up with a law, and every chance to make it as restrictive as they wanted it to be.  The fact that they're refusing to come to terms with it is rather tough farking shiat for them.

Seems we've found the Illinois Democrat equivalent of the national Republican budget issue.  Lots of words, lots of demands, completely unable to put together a REAL bill that solves the issue to their own satisfaction.

Yes, both sides are bad.  So fark the party and vote for the candidate to actually stands for stuff you stand for, regardless of that silly letter after their name.

An Illinois democrat from downstate has been working at concealed carry for a decade.  The only people standing in the way are the morons in Chicago.  This concealed carry bill passed 64-45.  Chicago's "may-issue" counter-proposal only mustered 31 votes.  It needs 71 to override home-rule and the governor's veto.  I see this outrage at the Senate for failing to pass expanded background checks when the vote was 56-44, but then we have these gun control proponents doing exactly the same thing in Illinois (with a much larger margin and court-imposed deadline, no less).

Brandon Phelps (D-Harrisburg) keeps watering down his  HB 997 with more restrictions to try and appease the northern/Chicago Dems and it still can't get passed. That's the funny thing about gun politics in Illinois, neither side really has the numbers to advance their agenda.

The pro-gun side absolutely has the numbers to advance their agenda, they have an uncooperative governor (the most unpopular in the country) and a gaggle of Chicago politicians who want special rules for their fiefdom.  "B-b-b-but homerule should let larger cities decide for themselves...."  Blow it out your ass (not directed at you, btw).  How do you think Western NY feels about being governed out of Manhattan when it comes to the ...


There's already a population shift going on, everyone is moving to places that aren't Illinois to escape the taxes and shiatty economy.
 
2013-04-20 01:20:34 PM  

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.


How exactly, does establishing a "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit system increase availability to firearms? Are you able to provide statistical data showing that the establishment of "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit systems increases rates of crime and rates of suicide?
 
2013-04-20 01:25:47 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Lionel Mandrake: Did...did you just link to Breitbart?

Awwww....poor thing. Where did the bad Breitbart man touch you?


It's an absurd wingnut propaganda site.  You used to be better than that.  What's next?  Whirled Nuts Daily?
Conservatives need to push back against the wingnuts.
 
2013-04-20 01:27:48 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-20 01:29:30 PM  

way south: BigBooper: 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.....

And Chicago's problem with violence is about far more than just guns....

But guns at least allow the residents to fend for themselves where government is failing.
If they go concealed carry its going to be interesting to see how crime rates there repond.

So far as concealed carry bans, if I recall Hawaii and the US territories still have bans on carry and heavily restricted ownership (where its even allowed).
Getting all stats in on concealed carry would be a big win for us on the fringes.


Hawaii has concealed carry, though it requires a permit. The permit also allows open carry
 
2013-04-20 01:29:31 PM  

Dimensio: 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.

How exactly, does establishing a "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit system increase availability to firearms? Are you able to provide statistical data showing that the establishment of "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit systems increases rates of crime and rates of suicide?


Of course he's not.  There isn't one factual study that has ever showed shall-issue has increased crime.  In fact, quite the opposite.  As gun laws have relaxed, crime across the US has decreased.

If you want even more facts, look at Washington DC.  The restriction of guns only increased homicide by gun, not decreased it.
 
2013-04-20 01:30:28 PM  

snocone: Read my bio and then trot out that crap.


Yea, good point. It was unfair of me to accuse you of being pro-gun for your childish comment.

Based on your comments so far in this thread, you're clearly just a childish person in general regardless of whatever other opinions you may hold.

Have a nice day.
 
2013-04-20 01:33:57 PM  

Phinn: Dimensio: Phinn: Concealment is the problem. Open carry is the solution.

Please explain why concealment is a "problem".

Concealment is the preferred mode of carrying for people who like to commit crimes.

The legitimate (i.e., defensive) use of weapons does not require concealment. Also, the open carring of weapons helps prevent aggressive violence by deterring it.


The other school of thought is that if enough people conceal carry bad guys don't know who is and who isn't defenseless so that those who don't wish to go through the hassle of carrying a weapon also get some benefit.
 
2013-04-20 01:35:11 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.


I am familiar with the study. It surveys a relatively low number participants for a meaningful conclusion, makes no distinction between lawful and unlawful firearm possession (the authors mention excluding individuals under the age of twenty-one, due to such individuals not being able to legally possess a firearm, but they make no mention of individuals over the age of twenty-one who either could not lawfully possess a firearm or who did not hold a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public) and performs no demographic analysis to determine any common factors amongst firearm carriers beyond firearm carry; it did not even attempt to ascertain whether individuals who carried a firearm did so because they believed themselves to be in a position where they experienced a higher than average risk of being shot.

Merely by failing to distinguish legal from illegal firearm carry, the study is useless for assessing any risk of lawful firearm carry in public.


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

What are these increased likelihoods? Merely saying an incident to be "more likely" is not as meaningful as stating whether the increased likelihood is 5% or 500%.

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

Have you data regarding such injuries?

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.

I do not deny an inherent risk. I question the claimed magnitude of that risk.
 
2013-04-20 01:36:18 PM  

enforcerpsu: The restriction of guns only increased homicide by gun, not decreased it


This is also an utterly absurd argument. There is exactly no restriction on travel in and out of D.C. which is a very small area. To argue that a gun ban in one tiny geographical area surrounded by a vast (by comparison) geographical area with relatively few restrictions on the purchase, transfer and ownership of guns caused anything related to guns or gun violence is ridiculous.

You can't say a gun ban failed in one tiny area when that area is completely surrounded by a much larger area with virtually no real restrictions on gun ownership or transport.

While what you're saying might be factually true in the strictest sense, it means nothing other than that you can't ban guns in one tiny area with unrestricted movement in and out of it and expect a positive change to occur.
 
2013-04-20 01:39:49 PM  

skozlaw: snocone: Read my bio and then trot out that crap.

Yea, good point. It was unfair of me to accuse you of being pro-gun for your childish comment.

Based on your comments so far in this thread, you're clearly just a childish person in general regardless of whatever other opinions you may hold.

Have a nice day.


And some day, child, you may figure out what is important in this world.
 
2013-04-20 01:40:21 PM  

snocone: skozlaw: snocone: Read my bio and then trot out that crap.

Yea, good point. It was unfair of me to accuse you of being pro-gun for your childish comment.

Based on your comments so far in this thread, you're clearly just a childish person in general regardless of whatever other opinions you may hold.

Have a nice day.

And some day, child, you may figure out what is important in this world.


To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women?
 
2013-04-20 01:42:01 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-20 01:44:01 PM  

craigdamage: Concealed carry means the weapon must be small and concealable under clothes. A small frame "snubby' or a single stack short auto.

Open carry would mean you can carry a larger,more powerful and or more accurate "duty-sized" weapon.

My point about carrying my .44 revolver.

...but yes,I am indeed a BADASS. (with a boner)


I can think of a situation where 6 bullets would not be enough

img849.imageshack.us
 
2013-04-20 01:47:35 PM  

Your titties - Do they need sucking: Phinn: Dimensio: Phinn: Concealment is the problem. Open carry is the solution.

Please explain why concealment is a "problem".

Concealment is the preferred mode of carrying for people who like to commit crimes.

The legitimate (i.e., defensive) use of weapons does not require concealment. Also, the open carring of weapons helps prevent aggressive violence by deterring it.

Of course it requires concealment.   Your statement that having a gun out in the open where people can see it assumes that criminals will instantly run.   The open carry simply allows the crimanal to ID anyone that is a threat to them robbing the 7-11.  Once they see you, they can walk past you and fein interest in the King Size Snickers bar.. then they pull a gun out that they are illegally carrying.

No fair!  They arent supposed to be carrying !

If you want to look at the likely results of this,. look at ABCs pretend journalism piece on concealed carry.  They had some guy walk in to the classroom and shoot the teacher, and then targeted the guy in the room that they knew had a gun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s

Of course, this is simply proof that you dont want to be a criminals first or second target.  Also proof that if you are 140 pounds, perhaps you should not wear shirts that John Candy could wear.

By openly carrying, you are simply saying 'shoot me first, before I have a chance to react'


No one is saying that carrying a gun will save everyone in every situation. If you watch the video you can clearly see that the gunman knew who the concealed carry guy was and shot him right after the teacher. That one scenario does not cover all cases. If your defense is to stand up in the middle of the room and pull your gun while the shooter is already firing they that obviously wont' work very well. Had instead one of the people in the back had a gun and instead ducked behind a desk prior to pulling it out and taking aim behind cover he would have had a better chance.

Another scenario is one where someone in a neighboring classroom has a weapon and is able to take out the shooter from behind, or readies himself for when the shooter comes into his classroom.

Look at the other option where no one has a gun. The shooter blocks the only exit and kills everyone in the room unopposed until police arrive.

What if instead of a gun the attacker walked in with a backpack full of pipe bombs and just went down the hall tossing one in each room?
 
2013-04-20 01:47:38 PM  

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.


No, it is the people who follow the rules, obey the law, and fill out the paperwork that are the real extremists and nutjobs.  Catch up on your talking point memos, already, before they kick you off the mailing list.
 
2013-04-20 01:47:39 PM  

mizchief: Phinn: Dimensio: Phinn: Concealment is the problem. Open carry is the solution.

Please explain why concealment is a "problem".

Concealment is the preferred mode of carrying for people who like to commit crimes.

The legitimate (i.e., defensive) use of weapons does not require concealment. Also, the open carring of weapons helps prevent aggressive violence by deterring it.

The other school of thought is that if enough people conceal carry bad guys don't know who is and who isn't defenseless so that those who don't wish to go through the hassle of carrying a weapon also get some benefit.


I don't really dispute it. My larger point is not to argue against concealed carry permits per se . It's obvious that permit-holders pose no serious threat of aggression, since the crime rate among them that is the same or better than crimes committed by LEOs. (And that's not even counting all the crimes LEOs commit with the full approval and encouragement of the state, nor all the crimes they get away with because of the complicity of other cops). And the availability of defensive force is increased. So, overall, it's not surprising that shall-issue permitting systems tend to reduce crime, ceteris paribus, relative to blanket gun bans.

My point is that prohibiting open carry is more detrimental to the cause of crime-reduction than is the prohibition of concealed carry.
 
2013-04-20 01:48:18 PM  

Fark It: Anderson's Pooper: My take on this is that concealed carry and open carry would both be legal if nothing is passed.

That's exactly what would happen.  I'm pro-gun and I don't want that to happen, I think that guns in public can and should be regulated.


Regulated by people with guns?
 
2013-04-20 01:49:55 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-20 01:52:19 PM  

Tio_Holtzmann: Yes, fark Pat Quinn and fark Chicago straight up the asshole with a chainsaw. Ugh. Central IL lifer, and its pretty rural/down to earth here. However, when you travel and people refer to your state as "the people's republic of Illinois", its goes to show how farked up Chicago is and how much power they wield. It'd be nice to split into two states, say north of I80 and east of 55 to the lake is Chicago; the rest of the state is Reality. If you drew the lines closer so it was easier to commute into shiatcago but live in Reality, I wonder if there would be a population shift.


hehehehehe
the BEST thing which could ever happen is it Chicago/Cook could secede from the State of Illinois.
The State of Cook would have casinos along the lake, with brothels. Pot would be legal.
2 senators and 7 representatives.
heaven on earth
sort of

not like the corruption could actually increase ... well increase much more
 
2013-04-20 01:52:48 PM  

skozlaw: enforcerpsu: The restriction of guns only increased homicide by gun, not decreased it

This is also an utterly absurd argument. There is exactly no restriction on travel in and out of D.C. which is a very small area. To argue that a gun ban in one tiny geographical area surrounded by a vast (by comparison) geographical area with relatively few restrictions on the purchase, transfer and ownership of guns caused anything related to guns or gun violence is ridiculous.

You can't say a gun ban failed in one tiny area when that area is completely surrounded by a much larger area with virtually no real restrictions on gun ownership or transport.

While what you're saying might be factually true in the strictest sense, it means nothing other than that you can't ban guns in one tiny area with unrestricted movement in and out of it and expect a positive change to occur.


Actually you can say that.  It's even relatively easy to demonstrate.  In the areas where firearm access for law-abiding citizens wasn't particularly restrictive, the homicide rate was rather low.  In the areas where firearms were banned, the homicide rate is high.  Why?  Because criminals realize that it's much easier to use a firearm in the commission of a crime when there's not much of a chance of them being shot.

This has been shown time and time again - relax firearm laws for law-abiding citizens, homicide rates in that area drop.  Additionally, relaxing firearm laws and/or allowing concealed carry (even in restaurants that serve alcohol) seems to show absolutely no negative impact.

So, what's your argument again?
 
2013-04-20 01:52:54 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-20 01:53:31 PM  

ggecko: But hey, I live in the south, you get a gun on your 1st birthday here.


Normally learn how to shoot around 12 years old and take your hunter's safety class.

/miss going hunting with my dad
 
2013-04-20 01:54:26 PM  

Dimensio: 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.

How exactly, does establishing a "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit system increase availability to firearms? Are you able to provide statistical data showing that the establishment of "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit systems increases rates of crime and rates of suicide?


I don't necessarily agree with this legislation as an effective means to reduce the available number of firearms.  I was just responding to the "bed wetter" idea that is popular among the self appointed sheep dogs.  I'm on the apathetic 'we already lost the gun debate' side, and I definitely don't support taking away anything already legally purchased.  The only solution I see is to tell gun manufacturers to GTFO, but that wouldn't make me a viable politician.
 
2013-04-20 01:55:02 PM  

Your titties - Do they need sucking: soia: I say, fark conceal carry and issue only an unconcealed carry.  You man/woman enough to carry a gun be man/woman enough to show it

That is AWESOME.  Now, when you walk in to a 7-11 and someone comes in to rob it, he can walk around the store and see who has a gun and knows whom to shoot first, after he pulls out his concealed gun.


They would probably just wait for the guy with a gun to leave before robbing it.
 
2013-04-20 01:56:18 PM  

Fark It: There's already a population shift going on, everyone is moving to places that aren't Illinois to escape the taxes and shiatty economy.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois#Demographics
Knock Knock
Who's there?
Reality

(for the reading and logic impaired, Illinois' population has not shrunk. Ever.)
(who knows, maybe the FARK IT was think the population of chicago)
 
2013-04-20 01:59:25 PM  
Fark gun nuts are calling those who conducted one of the best operations in recent history Nazis. Nice.
 
2013-04-20 01:59:38 PM  

mizchief: Your titties - Do they need sucking: soia: I say, fark conceal carry and issue only an unconcealed carry.  You man/woman enough to carry a gun be man/woman enough to show it

That is AWESOME.  Now, when you walk in to a 7-11 and someone comes in to rob it, he can walk around the store and see who has a gun and knows whom to shoot first, after he pulls out his concealed gun.

They would probably just wait for the guy with a gun to leave before robbing it.


Or cross the street and rob the other 7/11
 
2013-04-20 02:01:39 PM  

ronaprhys: In the areas where firearms were banned, the homicide rate is high. Why? Because criminals realize that it's much easier to use a firearm in the commission of a crime when there's not much of a chance of them being shot.


Yes. A firearm they can easily obtain 20 miles east of the ban area and bring back with absolutely no trouble.

Your point again?
 
2013-04-20 02:01:41 PM  

Dimensio: I prefer "shall-issue" permit systems to unregulated concealed carry (though I will say that I do not entirely oppose unregulated concealed carry) so long as the training course required includes substantial coverage of laws regarding the use of deadly force. Kentucky law requires that concealed carry courses address the conditions under which the use of deadly force is allowed; I found the instruction to be comprehensive and meaningful.


I don't really need a law to tell me when to use deadly force. If the given situation leads me to believe that me or my loved ones will die otherwise, I use deadly force. Being dead trumps going to jail.

No that being said, I personally would just avoid the situation if at all possible. Killing someone is going to be a huge legal hassle no matter how justified you are. Given the hatred spewing out of the anit-gun crowd these days there is no way in hell I would put myself though that for a random person I don't know.
 
2013-04-20 02:03:33 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-20 02:03:49 PM  

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.


You know what is an extremely useful metric for assessing one's risk of experiencing gun crime?

Proximity to a high population density of black and Hispanic males between the ages of 15 and 25.

Insurance companies are legally prohibited from using that criterion to underwrite policies, despite its utility.

Buying a gun is also a useful statistical proxy for having information that one is likely to be a crime victim. People who are threatened buy guns. Even if insurers may use gun ownership to assess risk, the mere ownership of a gun does not cause one to be a victim of crime or other insurable loss.

Also, wet streets do not cause rain.
 
2013-04-20 02:04:07 PM  

skozlaw: ronaprhys: In the areas where firearms were banned, the homicide rate is high. Why? Because criminals realize that it's much easier to use a firearm in the commission of a crime when there's not much of a chance of them being shot.

Yes. A firearm they can easily obtain 20 miles east of the ban area and bring back with absolutely no trouble.

Your point again?


You fail at logic and reality is set firmly against you.  That's the point.

Fact - removing restrictions on law-abiding citizens seems to result in lower homicide rates.  Now, not sure about the actual causal link, but the fact is that it continues to happen consistently.

It also seems reasonable that criminals prefer to hunt in areas where law-abiding citizens can't own firearms.
 
2013-04-20 02:06:37 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.


They'd also point out a higher chance of death via vehicles for those who own cars.  As pointed out downthread, benefits outweight the risk.
 
2013-04-20 02:06:48 PM  

Fark It: There's already a population shift going on, everyone is moving to places that aren't Illinois to escape the taxes and shiatty economy.


The problem is they take their dumbassed ideas with them and pollute functional cities.
 
2013-04-20 02:07:57 PM  

namatad: ROFL

Would this invalidate the need to have a FOID card?
I love the fact that this could overrule any and all chicago laws by default.

/as much as you and I might be against gun ownership, illinois is the ONLY state left which does not permit concealed carry.
/strange but true


Wait, wouldn't "constitutional carry" invalidate Chicago's Firearm Permit?
I have no need for a permit to use my constitutional rights.

LOL
This might be the lawsuit which I have been looking for!!
LOL
 
2013-04-20 02:08:49 PM  

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 get that information?  Because I've never been asked about gun ownership.  Also if guns serve no legitimate purpose, they why do police carry them?  Also..

* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year-or about 6,850 times a day.(1) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(2)

The benefits outweigh the liabilities.
 
2013-04-20 02:11:59 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Where did you get that information? Because I've never been asked about gun ownership. Also if guns serve no legitimate purpose, they why do police carry them? Also..

* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year-or about 6,850 times a day.(1) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(2)

The benefits outweigh the liabilities.


Kleck's work has been thoroughly debunked. The math itself is inherently absurd.

Hardly surprising, though, I should see you posting long-since-discredited crap. I assume you'll flee this thread with your tail between your legs like you did last time I utterly embarrassed you?
 
2013-04-20 02:12:49 PM  

ronaprhys: Fact - removing restrictions on law-abiding citizens seems to result in lower homicide rates.


Yea. I'm the one who doesn't understand logic.
 
2013-04-20 02:13:07 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.


What they don't address , however is the cause behind it.  Are those deaths because the people getting the firearm live in a higher crime area, therefore putting them at more risk to begin with (which leads them to getting a gun)?  Or is it being killed by their own gun?  Defending themselves from a home invasion?  Stating that someone with a gun in their home is more likely to be killed by a gun loses some of its validity without the supporting information.
 
2013-04-20 02:13:33 PM  

Phinn: mizchief: Phinn: Dimensio: Phinn: Concealment is the problem. Open carry is the solution.

Please explain why concealment is a "problem".

Concealment is the preferred mode of carrying for people who like to commit crimes.

The legitimate (i.e., defensive) use of weapons does not require concealment. Also, the open carring of weapons helps prevent aggressive violence by deterring it.

The other school of thought is that if enough people conceal carry bad guys don't know who is and who isn't defenseless so that those who don't wish to go through the hassle of carrying a weapon also get some benefit.

I don't really dispute it. My larger point is not to argue against concealed carry permits per se . It's obvious that permit-holders pose no serious threat of aggression, since the crime rate among them that is the same or better than crimes committed by LEOs. (And that's not even counting all the crimes LEOs commit with the full approval and encouragement of the state, nor all the crimes they get away with because of the complicity of other cops). And the availability of defensive force is increased. So, overall, it's not surprising that shall-issue permitting systems tend to reduce crime, ceteris paribus, relative to blanket gun bans.

My point is that prohibiting open carry is more detrimental to the cause of crime-reduction than is the prohibition of concealed carry.


I agree with you and think open carry should be legal for permit holders, but also think that in most situations your better off to conceal to save your self the hassle of people freaking out and calling the cops all the time.

Like if i'm just out shopping or something i would prefer to conceal, but when I had my motorcycle riding though the city I would keep it in my leg holster as a lot of guys were getting jumped at traffic lights and getting bike-jacked.
 
2013-04-20 02:13:33 PM  

skozlaw: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Where did you get that information? Because I've never been asked about gun ownership. Also if guns serve no legitimate purpose, they why do police carry them? Also..

* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year-or about 6,850 times a day.(1) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(2)

The benefits outweigh the liabilities.

Kleck's work has been thoroughly debunked. The math itself is inherently absurd.

Hardly surprising, though, I should see you posting long-since-discredited crap. I assume you'll flee this thread with your tail between your legs like you did last time I utterly embarrassed you?


That doesn't obviate the fact that firearms are frequently used for self-defense and that they stop crime.  Even the Brady study had a number that completely outweighed the number of homicides.

So, try again.
 
2013-04-20 02:14:53 PM  

skozlaw: ronaprhys: Fact - removing restrictions on law-abiding citizens seems to result in lower homicide rates.

Yea. I'm the one who doesn't understand logic.


From what I can see, yep, you are.  Seriously - you've not proposed a single argument here that stands up to even mild scrutiny.
 
2013-04-20 02:17:27 PM  

ronaprhys: skozlaw: enforcerpsu: The restriction of guns only increased homicide by gun, not decreased it

This is also an utterly absurd argument. There is exactly no restriction on travel in and out of D.C. which is a very small area. To argue that a gun ban in one tiny geographical area surrounded by a vast (by comparison) geographical area with relatively few restrictions on the purchase, transfer and ownership of guns caused anything related to guns or gun violence is ridiculous.

You can't say a gun ban failed in one tiny area when that area is completely surrounded by a much larger area with virtually no real restrictions on gun ownership or transport.

While what you're saying might be factually true in the strictest sense, it means nothing other than that you can't ban guns in one tiny area with unrestricted movement in and out of it and expect a positive change to occur.

Actually you can say that.  It's even relatively easy to demonstrate.  In the areas where firearm access for law-abiding citizens wasn't particularly restrictive, the homicide rate was rather low.  In the areas where firearms were banned, the homicide rate is high.  Why?  Because criminals realize that it's much easier to use a firearm in the commission of a crime when there's not much of a chance of them being shot.

This has been shown time and time again - relax firearm laws for law-abiding citizens, homicide rates in that area drop.  Additionally, relaxing firearm laws and/or allowing concealed carry (even in restaurants that serve alcohol) seems to show absolutely no negative impact.

So, what's your argument again?


I think one can argue that restrictive gun laws get passed in areas where there is high crime rates and that the cause and effect are reversed, however there isn't much evidence to the contrary that shows increase of crime rates after gun laws are relaxed for citizens. Worst case it has no effect on crime, best case it helps reduce it.
 
2013-04-20 02:18:30 PM  

skozlaw: Farkage: [snipped for brevity, man]

If the average held, twenty seven people were the victim of a homicide yesterday in which the weapon used was a firearm. Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

You're gonna need a lot more anecdotes to make any sort of mathematically sensible argument here.

/ protip: very few people will ever by the victim of a violent assault, which means both that the average person has little reason to fear the homicide-by-firearm statistic and has very little reason to carry a firearm for self defense

// it's almost like the gun debate isn't specifically about you....


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.
 
2013-04-20 02:20:45 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-20 02:22:24 PM  

way south: Mock26: way south: BigBooper: 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.....

And Chicago's problem with violence is about far more than just guns....

But guns at least allow the residents to fend for themselves where government is failing.
If they go concealed carry its going to be interesting to see how crime rates there repond.

So far as concealed carry bans, if I recall Hawaii and the US territories still have bans on carry and heavily restricted ownership (where its even allowed).
Getting all stats in on concealed carry would be a big win for us on the fringes.

It will be just like anywhere else.  The crimes rates will drop.  Or rise.  Or stay the same.

I expect a drop, but I'm hesitant to say they simply drop or rise more than just change to different kinds of crimes depending on how they are counted. Fewer rapes and assaults, more daylight (absent homeowner) break-ins.

As long as bad people are on the loose the devil will have his due. The point is allowing the good ones a means to keep the bad guys in check.
Fixing the crime problem is going to take work in alot of areas, but concealed carry would allow legal use of an age old stopgap measure.


There really is no correlation between concealed carry laws and crime rate.  Some places with strict laws have high crime rates.  Some places with strict laws have low crime rates.  I do believe that concealed carry laws do have an effect, but that effect is negligible when compared to all the other factors that contribute to crime rates.  Now, that effect is not negligible for the person who does successfully defend themselves with a firearm, and that is why I fully support concealed and open carry laws.
 
2013-04-20 02:22:27 PM  

ronaprhys: Even the Brady study had a number that completely outweighed the number of homicides.


Ignoring the fact that you're intentionally dragging me into an argument I wasn't participating in by intentionally misinterpreting my response to another poster....

And? The Kleck study, when his ridiculous math is corrected, finds about 200,000 self defense incidences per year involving a firearm. The NIJ reports that in 2011 there were over 467,000 victims of a crime involving a perp with a gun. In other words, even when you limit criminal victims only to those victimized by a perp with a gun, guns are still used in crimes about twice as often as they're used by citizens to stop all manner of crimes.

But, no, you're right. The completely irrelevant and ridiculous statement that guns are used for self defense across all categories of crime more often than they're used just to kill someone is true.

Pointless... but true.
 
2013-04-20 02:23:10 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-20 02:23:54 PM  

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?

ronaprhys: From what I can see, yep, you are. Seriously - you've not proposed a single argument here that stands up to even mild scrutiny.


You honestly believe that you're making sense, don't you?
 
2013-04-20 02:26:23 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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 get that information?  Because I've never been asked about gun ownership.  Also if guns serve no legitimate purpose, they why do police carry them?  Also..

* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year-or about 6,850 times a day.(1) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(2)

The benefits outweigh the liabilities.


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

 More like 70,000, meaning your gun is 4 times more likely to injure or kill a member of your household than defend against any sort of crime.

Like I said, there a lot of good reasons to own guns.  But "safety" just ain't one of them.
 
2013-04-20 02:27:20 PM  

skozlaw: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Where did you get that information? Because I've never been asked about gun ownership. Also if guns serve no legitimate purpose, they why do police carry them? Also..

* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year-or about 6,850 times a day.(1) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(2)

The benefits outweigh the liabilities.

Kleck's work has been thoroughly debunked. The math itself is inherently absurd.

Hardly surprising, though, I should see you posting long-since-discredited crap. I assume you'll flee this thread with your tail between your legs like you did last time I utterly embarrassed you?


I'm starting to think you're mentally unstable.  Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?  You keep mentioning this fantasy you had of "schooling" me.  Actually, the last time you brought this up, I had to go and look up what the hell you were talking about.  After looking through the old thread, I found out that  you're just a half wit suffering from the dunning kruger effect, and didn't warrant any more attention.  It's more than a little disturbing that you apparently have this delusion that you're my nemesis when in fact, you're entirely benign.
 
2013-04-20 02:28:43 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.


Yep, and many of the more specialty shops are refusing to sell to the police forces of the states passing ban laws.
 
2013-04-20 02:29:32 PM  

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
 
2013-04-20 02:29:39 PM  

skozlaw: ronaprhys: Even the Brady study had a number that completely outweighed the number of homicides.

Ignoring the fact that you're intentionally dragging me into an argument I wasn't participating in by intentionally misinterpreting my response to another poster....

And? The Kleck study, when his ridiculous math is corrected, finds about 200,000 self defense incidences per year involving a firearm. The NIJ reports that in 2011 there were over 467,000 victims of a crime involving a perp with a gun. In other words, even when you limit criminal victims only to those victimized by a perp with a gun, guns are still used in crimes about twice as often as they're used by citizens to stop all manner of crimes.

But, no, you're right. The completely irrelevant and ridiculous statement that guns are used for self defense across all categories of crime more often than they're used just to kill someone is true.

Pointless... but true.


It'd be interesting to see all of the stats surrounding your 467K number - having a firearm in the general vicinity of a crime, whether or not it was actually used, seems like how one might actually screw with the numbers.  Secondly, how many of those crimes were drug-related and were criminal on criminal?   That does make a difference, you know.  Do you have any stats that restrict the crimes to only law-abiding citizens?  Also, there are various other studies that are far over your 200K number.

Again - DGUs well outnumber homicides.  That's a very useful number.
 
2013-04-20 02:32:33 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-20 02:32:57 PM  

udhq: BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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 get that information?  Because I've never been asked about gun ownership.  Also if guns serve no legitimate purpose, they why do police carry them?  Also..

* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year-or about 6,850 times a day.(1) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(2)

The benefits outweigh the liabilities.

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

 More like 70,000, meaning your gun is 4 times more likely to injure or kill a member of your household than defend against any sort of crime.

Like I said, there a lot of good reasons to own guns.  But "safety" just ain't one of them.


You need to coordinate with your fellow gun-grabbers a bit better.  Skozlaw just put the number at 200K (which is very low, based on other studies).
 
2013-04-20 02:33:02 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.


Or Mexican drug cartels

m5.paperblog.com

www.everydaynodaysoff.com

resources0.news.com.au

Like with any other form of prohibition, you end up with a totally unregulated black market.
 
2013-04-20 02:33:04 PM  
I'm picking up a Browning Hi-Power this afternoon, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.
 
2013-04-20 02:34:33 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?

ronaprhys: From what I can see, yep, you are. Seriously - you've not proposed a single argument here that stands up to even mild scrutiny.

You honestly believe that you're making sense, don't you?


Don't think it, know it.  I'm not the one using failed arguments that have been clearly been shown false to argue your point.
 
2013-04-20 02:35:04 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: I'm starting to think you're mentally unstable. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you? You keep mentioning this fantasy you had of "schooling" me. Actually, the last time you brought this up, I had to go and look up what the hell you were talking about. After looking through the old thread, I found out that you're just a half wit suffering from the dunning kruger effect, and didn't warrant any more attention. It's more than a little disturbing that you apparently have this delusion that you're my nemesis when in fact, you're entirely benign.


Soooo..... is this your weird way of admitting that you have absolutely no response to the actual math in that PDF? I assume if that's the case you're recanting your last post?

And you didn't have to "look anything up". I linked your last complete embarrassment for you when I mentioned it. Like this.
 
2013-04-20 02:36:29 PM  

ronaprhys: 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?

ronaprhys: From what I can see, yep, you are. Seriously - you've not proposed a single argument here that stands up to even mild scrutiny.

You honestly believe that you're making sense, don't you?

Don't think it, know it.  I'm not the one using failed arguments that have been clearly been shown false to argue your point.


Yea when name calling and personal attacks begin it's clear that you have lost the argument.
 
2013-04-20 02:36:40 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-20 02:38:46 PM  
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.
 
2013-04-20 02:39:25 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.


The ages called. They said you lost. And embarrassed yourself in the process.
 
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
 
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 331 of 331 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report