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

(Talking Points Memo)   People: you've passed legislation establishing a state religion, allowed 13-year-olds to be put in adult prison, and snuck through insane anti-abortion measures. Are you through? North Carolina Republicans: CHALLENGE ACCEPTED   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, state religion, Republican, North Carolina, challenge accepted, legislation, concealed firearm, convicts  
•       •       •

8605 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jul 2013 at 6:08 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-07-26 09:57:22 AM  
Similar legislation was enacted in Virginia and in Tennessee several years ago.

I await data showing the disastrous consequences of that legislation.
 
2013-07-26 10:01:05 AM  

Whiskey Pete: numbquil: If it is, we should prohibit the police from carrying firearms in bars

And with this statement you are no longer worth the time. Derp on , Garth.


Why because you don't have an argument against it?
 
2013-07-26 10:11:16 AM  

CPennypacker: numbquil: Whiskey Pete: numbquil: Whiskey Pete: Where are the resident FARK gun nuts™ to either defend or denounce this particular bit of legislation?

By the way 25 states have stand your ground laws. If that means what liberals say it means, there should be at least one George Zimmerman trial a day.

You're right. Gun violence is at completely acceptable levels in those states now.

What is an acceptable level of gun violence? What is the end goal to gun control?

less?


Rates of violent crime, including crimes committed with use of firearms, have been declining and are currently at relatively low levels when considering the previous fifty years. No data suggests that prohibiting legally licensed individuals from carrying firearms in establishments where alcohol is served (and where they are still not legally permitted to imbibe alcoholic beverages) affects rates of violent crime.

Some regulatory measures are effective at reducing rates of violent crime. Based upon available data, the regulation of prohibiting lawful firearm carriers from carrying firearms in any establishment where alcohol is served (even if they consume no alcohol while on the premises) is not such a measure.
 
2013-07-26 10:22:45 AM  

Granny_Panties: You get what you vote for. I don't feel a bit of pity for them. On the other hand I live in Wisconsin and I have Scott Walker, who I didn't vote for. So maybe I feel some pity for all 10 people in NC that don't vote straight ticket GOP.


A few more than 10. Heard about Moral Monday protests? Not an NC native myself, but have spent most of my life here. There is much I love about NC....the varied geography (Outer Banks to Appalachians) the cultural contributions (John Coltrane, Nina Simone, Earl Scruggs, Doc Watson, Thomas Wolfe, etc...) but SWEET FREAKING JESUS and a Milkshake our legislature is a gotdamn abomination and embarrassment.......and I sure as fark didn't vote for any of'em!
 
2013-07-26 10:29:28 AM  

Dimensio: CPennypacker: numbquil: Whiskey Pete: numbquil: Whiskey Pete: Where are the resident FARK gun nuts™ to either defend or denounce this particular bit of legislation?

By the way 25 states have stand your ground laws. If that means what liberals say it means, there should be at least one George Zimmerman trial a day.

You're right. Gun violence is at completely acceptable levels in those states now.

What is an acceptable level of gun violence? What is the end goal to gun control?

less?

Rates of violent crime, including crimes committed with use of firearms, have been declining and are currently at relatively low levels when considering the previous fifty years. No data suggests that prohibiting legally licensed individuals from carrying firearms in establishments where alcohol is served (and where they are still not legally permitted to imbibe alcoholic beverages) affects rates of violent crime.

Some regulatory measures are effective at reducing rates of violent crime. Based upon available data, the regulation of prohibiting lawful firearm carriers from carrying firearms in any establishment where alcohol is served (even if they consume no alcohol while on the premises) is not such a measure.




While traveling, where do you store your arms when entering a gun-free area?
 
2013-07-26 10:33:47 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: Dimensio: CPennypacker: numbquil: Whiskey Pete: numbquil: Whiskey Pete: Where are the resident FARK gun nuts™ to either defend or denounce this particular bit of legislation?

By the way 25 states have stand your ground laws. If that means what liberals say it means, there should be at least one George Zimmerman trial a day.

You're right. Gun violence is at completely acceptable levels in those states now.

What is an acceptable level of gun violence? What is the end goal to gun control?

less?

Rates of violent crime, including crimes committed with use of firearms, have been declining and are currently at relatively low levels when considering the previous fifty years. No data suggests that prohibiting legally licensed individuals from carrying firearms in establishments where alcohol is served (and where they are still not legally permitted to imbibe alcoholic beverages) affects rates of violent crime.

Some regulatory measures are effective at reducing rates of violent crime. Based upon available data, the regulation of prohibiting lawful firearm carriers from carrying firearms in any establishment where alcohol is served (even if they consume no alcohol while on the premises) is not such a measure.

While traveling, where do you store your arms when entering a gun-free area?


Typically I keep my firearms securely locked in my vehicle. In the past, I locked my firearm in the glove box but, as my current vehicle's glove box does not lock, I store the firearm in the trunk instead.
 
2013-07-26 10:39:17 AM  

hubiestubert: If folks would simply use some common sense,


Exactly.

I know a couple who are a perfect example of gun owners with no common sense. They both have concealed carry permits. She doesn't generally carry, but he never goes anywhere without two guns on him, including his own office. He does developer support for a web hosting company, which is apparently fraught with danger.

Also fraught with danger is their suburban house in a practically antiseptic neighborhood. They have a large array of guns, which are mostly kept in a gun locker, but they keep a loaded, unsecured shotgun in their bedroom closet in case of intruders, because obviously the multiple deadlocks, electronic security system, and three 75-lb. plus dogs couldn't possibly be expected to stop one. (They also have a collection of more than 100 knives, most of them of the combat variety, just in case.)

Oh, and did I mention that the female half of this couple has been diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder, social anxiety, agoraphobia, and severe depression, and has been hospitalized at least five times for being suicidal in the time I've known them? One day she described to me in crystal-clear detail exactly how she planned to kill herself, including which gun she would use, which room she'd do it in, and what the note would say. When, understandably concerned, I brought it up with her husband, he said "oh, she won't really do it."

They shopped psychiatrists for six months before they found one who would sign the paperwork saying she was sane enough to have a CCP.

He's also on antidepressants and anti-anxiety meds, but at least he's not much of a suicide risk, unless you consider how much difficulty someone so morbidly obese (he's 5'9" and weighs at least 350 lbs.) could have retrieving a gun from an ankle holster in an emergency situation. This guy could lose a Peacemaker in his folds. Of course, since he spends most of his free time in a recliner at home, he'd first have to set aside his gigantic laptop (which he even takes to the bathroom) and struggle out of the chair in order to reach anything at all. And yes, he sits there in his own living room wearing two guns. Because you never know, right?

Neither of them has ever been robbed, assaulted, or otherwise a victim of a crime. They do not hunt (in fact, she volunteers at a wildlife rescue center when she's not too afraid to leave the house). They take a couple of guns to the range a couple of times a year to make sure they remember which direction to point them. (They took me with them once. Neither of them can hit a damned thing.) He's always on some paranoid rant about ammunition shortages, of course, I guess because when the zombies come he's going to have to arm his entire neighborhood singlehandedly.

I lived in their spare room for a short while. I could easily have taken the key to the gun locker from their bedside table, picked out a gun or two, and wandered off with them, and they wouldn't have noticed anything amiss for weeks or months.

At least they don't have kids, so they're primarily a danger to themselves. I stopped hanging around with them years ago because their bizarre survivalist folie à deux, but mutual friends assure me they've only gotten crazier over time. And of course, they are fervent gun-rights advocates. (Although, interestingly, they are otherwise far-left liberals.)

My boss carries a gun around the office as well, which is just great since he's an unmedicated bipolar narcissist prone to explosive temper tantrums. Two of my co-workers also carry guns, and both say it's because they're afraid of the boss. So I guess if our ten-person environmental compliance business in a pleasant office park between a catholic church and a playground and duck pond is ever invaded by the well-known terrorist group Al-Qaeda In Central Texas, we'll be fully prepared to stand our ground.

Last year I had a job doing phone support for the texas.gov website. The second most common type of call we got was from people having difficulty applying for or renewing their concealed carry permits online. Most of the callers were elderly. At least a few times a week we'd have someone complaining the text was too small on their screen. On one memorable occasion, it was an elderly woman who was renewing for her husband "because he doesn't see so good anymore." (Yes, I also spoke to plenty of elderly people who sounded completely competent to be carrying, including an awesome 84-year-old woman who said she was renewing her CCP online because her son had taken off with her motorcycle, but they were in the minority.)

And then there was the time my neighbor blew a hole through my house with his elephant gun while cleaning it. Came running over pounding on the door wanting to know if we were ok. He was obviously drunk.Of course, he was usually obviously drunk.

These are the gun owners who scare me, and they vastly outnumber the responsible gun owners I know. I will presume for the sake of argument that all the gun owners in this thread are the responsible sort. You're the experts -- how do we keep guns out of the hands of these people? Never mind the criminals, they'll get their hands on guns one way or another, probably by stealing them from idiots like these. I want to know how we keep crazy and/or incompetent people from walking around armed to the teeth.
 
2013-07-26 10:56:37 AM  

PaulRB: Mentat: ArkAngel: Mentat: I see no way this cunning plan could fail.

Because people who would shoot up a playground are the type to follow the existing law?

It's not about "existing law" or "self-defense" or any of the other tropes that are hauled out.  It's about creating a culture of fear and then selling the solution to that fear: lots and lots of guns.

I've lived in and traveled to a lot of places and there have been a lot of times I've found myself in sketchy parts of town.  Despite that, I've never been mugged, robbed, carjacked, assaulted, or in any way abused, nor have I ever fired anything more powerful than a paintgun.  There may come a time in my life where that changes and I feel I need a weapon to protect myself, but that time hasn't come yet.  If I've managed to go for almost 40 years without needing a weapon to protect myself, maybe it means that America isn't the hellish post-liberal apocalypse the right portrays it as.

I totally agree.  I've managed to make it to 56 without carrying a gun.  No muggings, carjackings, etc in my history either.  I developed good radar, while in high school, for douche-bag types (mostly future Republicans).  The ones you really have to worry about don't actually carry guns when they rob you.  Mostly, they work to change laws to favor the super rich while picking the pockets of the poor and middle class.  These are the criminals that have been stealing from me for the last 30-40 years and, apparently, how they steal is all legal.   Oh, but make sure that guns are everywhere - that'll improve our standards of living and the future of America.


But liberals like you leech off the system that you despise. You talk about the evils of capitalist system but your well being depends on its success. The truth is you are an authoritarian just like the conservatives. You want to force people to live one way while conservatives want to force people to live another way. Once you come to terms with your error you should look into anarcho-syndicalism.
 
2013-07-26 10:59:53 AM  

gglibertine: These are the gun owners who scare me, and they vastly outnumber the responsible gun owners I know. I will presume for the sake of argument that all the gun owners in this thread are the responsible sort. You're the experts -- how do we keep guns out of the hands of these people? Never mind the criminals, they'll get their hands on guns one way or another, probably by stealing them from idiots like these. I want to know how we keep crazy and/or incompetent people from walking around armed to the teeth.


As you claim to have personally witnessed the behaviour that disturbs you, a system to enable better reporting of suspected mental health problems would be an ideal first step. Such a system would not be established specifically to prevent access to firearms to such individuals, but would instead serve to allow such individuals to be identified and given any treatment necessary (if necessary, as such a system would inevitably receive reports from individuals who are not actually mentally disturbed).

Unfortunately, in the United States of America, such a system would be socialism.
 
2013-07-26 11:03:41 AM  

Dimensio: gglibertine: These are the gun owners who scare me, and they vastly outnumber the responsible gun owners I know. I will presume for the sake of argument that all the gun owners in this thread are the responsible sort. You're the experts -- how do we keep guns out of the hands of these people? Never mind the criminals, they'll get their hands on guns one way or another, probably by stealing them from idiots like these. I want to know how we keep crazy and/or incompetent people from walking around armed to the teeth.

As you claim to have personally witnessed the behaviour that disturbs you, a system to enable better reporting of suspected mental health problems would be an ideal first step. Such a system would not be established specifically to prevent access to firearms to such individuals, but would instead serve to allow such individuals to be identified and given any treatment necessary (if necessary, as such a system would inevitably receive reports from individuals who are not actually mentally disturbed).

Unfortunately, in the United States of America, such a system would be socialism.


Yeah, it's called public school.
 
2013-07-26 11:05:34 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: Dimensio: gglibertine: These are the gun owners who scare me, and they vastly outnumber the responsible gun owners I know. I will presume for the sake of argument that all the gun owners in this thread are the responsible sort. You're the experts -- how do we keep guns out of the hands of these people? Never mind the criminals, they'll get their hands on guns one way or another, probably by stealing them from idiots like these. I want to know how we keep crazy and/or incompetent people from walking around armed to the teeth.

As you claim to have personally witnessed the behaviour that disturbs you, a system to enable better reporting of suspected mental health problems would be an ideal first step. Such a system would not be established specifically to prevent access to firearms to such individuals, but would instead serve to allow such individuals to be identified and given any treatment necessary (if necessary, as such a system would inevitably receive reports from individuals who are not actually mentally disturbed).

Unfortunately, in the United States of America, such a system would be socialism.

Yeah, it's called public school.


The public education system in the United States of America does not typically employ individuals qualified to diagnose mental illness. As public schools are themselves seen as socialism, expanded funding for such a measure is unlikely in the current political environment.
 
2013-07-26 11:07:20 AM  

Frank N Stein: Do you guys just sit around all day waiting to be outraged by trivialities?


static.ddmcdn.com
 
2013-07-26 11:29:06 AM  

Dimensio: StoPPeRmobile: Dimensio: gglibertine: These are the gun owners who scare me, and they vastly outnumber the responsible gun owners I know. I will presume for the sake of argument that all the gun owners in this thread are the responsible sort. You're the experts -- how do we keep guns out of the hands of these people? Never mind the criminals, they'll get their hands on guns one way or another, probably by stealing them from idiots like these. I want to know how we keep crazy and/or incompetent people from walking around armed to the teeth.

As you claim to have personally witnessed the behaviour that disturbs you, a system to enable better reporting of suspected mental health problems would be an ideal first step. Such a system would not be established specifically to prevent access to firearms to such individuals, but would instead serve to allow such individuals to be identified and given any treatment necessary (if necessary, as such a system would inevitably receive reports from individuals who are not actually mentally disturbed).

Unfortunately, in the United States of America, such a system would be socialism.

Yeah, it's called public school.

The public education system in the United States of America does not typically employ individuals qualified to diagnose mental illness. As public schools are themselves seen as socialism, expanded funding for such a measure is unlikely in the current political environment.




Yeah, your right, it's a lot cheaper to ban all guns in America. Unless you are rich, of course.
 
2013-07-26 11:34:30 AM  

Dimensio: As you claim to have personally witnessed the behaviour that disturbs you, a system to enable better reporting of suspected mental health problems would be an ideal first step. Such a system would not be established specifically to prevent access to firearms to such individuals, but would instead serve to allow such individuals to be identified and given any treatment necessary (if necessary, as such a system would inevitably receive reports from individuals who are not actually mentally disturbed).


Actually, Texas does have a system for this. However, in order to make use of it I would have to submit a signed, notarized statement. That makes good sense to me, since you don't want people randomly reporting people they're pissed off at, but it also means that I'd be opening myself up to all kinds of potential lawsuits, drama, and retribution. I could live with social drama, but frankly, my life is not worth the shiatstorm my boss would bring down on my head if I reported him. I'd rather he just shoot me.
 
2013-07-26 11:50:49 AM  
numbquil:
If you don't think people are going to follow the law, then what was stopping them from carrying firearms into bars before the law allowed them to? What is the difference between the law that prevented people from carrying concealed in a bar and the law that prevents people from being intoxicated while carrying? Was the former a magical forcefield that couldn't be passed while the latter is simply writing on paper?


Can't tell if you're serious, but I guess I'l try and answer anyway. I'm not aware of any laws that are set up to catch any and all offenders, every time, with 100% rate of efficacy. But the general idea seems to be that we slowly weed out the more egregious repeat offenders and separate them from the rest of society based on their level of danger to other people. The other intent is to try and catch people at a stage before they do serious harm to others, e.g., rather than waiting for them to actually shoot and kill someone, perhaps haul them into jail for a few days of polite social intervention for flashing their gun in a bar while intoxicated and defending the virtues of their favorite NASCAR driver.
 
2013-07-26 11:53:03 AM  

Chummer45: We're becoming way too casual in this country with letting any idiot carry a deadly weapon just because they feel cool doing it.


You're attributing motive to the people who carry without any real proof in this.  How the hell do you know why any individual carries.  Have you seen a survey or something?

Whiskey Pete: The amount of gun violence correlates with the easy accessibility of firearms.


The difficulty to this is that I care about violence levels period, not just gun violence.  We can reduce violence better by doing some things like addressing poverty and ending the 'war on drugs' than by restricting firearms.

gglibertine: And yes, he sits there in his own living room wearing two guns. Because you never know, right?


Is he actually a danger to you?  If not, why the hell do you care?

I lived in their spare room for a short while. I could easily have taken the key to the gun locker from their bedside table, picked out a gun or two, and wandered off with them, and they wouldn't have noticed anything amiss for weeks or months.

You're the one that knows them, I guess.  I'd notice sooner, but that's me.

And then there was the time my neighbor blew a hole through my house with his elephant gun while cleaning it. Came running over pounding on the door wanting to know if we were ok. He was obviously drunk.Of course, he was usually obviously drunk.

On the behalf of the responsible gun owners, I'm forced to apologize for your horrid experiences.  I don't drink and handle firearms.

On the other hand, given my current understanding of Texas law(I'm in Alaska, so take it with a big grain of salt), I think I need to point out that none of your stories really has any standing on CCW.  Why?  As far as I'm aware you can carry inside your house and place of business however you like completely legally within the state of Texas.  So that covers your paranoid couple and boss.  The mental standard to take guns away is far higher than merely denying a CCW permit.  The 'elephant gun' incident, well, you don't get a CCW in order to hunt, and the guns I know of that are worthy of being called an 'elephant gun' are spectacularly unsuited to CCW, and probably self-defense in general.  They'll solve the problem if you actually manage to shoot the person attacking you, certainly, but they're not known for being easy to carry or very nimble, you know?

By the way, owning a gun for self defense isn't about hunting, and I've both hunted and volunteered at wildlife shelters.  Weird, huh?

These are the gun owners who scare me, and they vastly outnumber the responsible gun owners I know.

I'd probably rephrase that as "responsible people that I know also own guns".  Thing about most responsible gun owners is that, at least IRL they don't disclose that they own firearms willy-nilly.  Something like 1/3rd of households own at least one firearm in the USA.  So if you know at least 30 people, that's 10 total firearm owners, of which only 4 you know about are 'bad'.  Of course, that depends on how you define 'bad'.  The couple were obviously nice enough to let you crash there for a while, demonstrating a lot of trust for paranoid sorts like you described.
 
2013-07-26 11:55:05 AM  

JAGChem82: zelet: MinkeyMan: I here and now swear if I ever become rich, I going to start a charity aimed at arming the unemployed. Automatics, explosives, armored vehicles, body armor whatever they can legally get. And free training in the best use there of.

I'm sure the NRA and GOP will fully support my efforts.

That's the best way to stop this craziness. Use the gun show loophole and whatever other dumbass republican laws you can to arm minorities. Watch those pants-pissing cowards twist.

This.

Do they fear black people with guns in general? As much as they let on, probably not.

Now, organized black people marching with guns in their communities and outside their campaign offices? HELL YES.

/if I could start up a black gun club like the Black Bikers, I'd do it
//w/o the GOP derp of course
///2nd amendment is our right too


You just need a group like this, but with an explicit mandate to "teach traditional American marksmanship skills" to minority populations.  Then, to raise awareness about your group, you can organize armed marches.  After all, what better way to illustrate what the group is about?
 
2013-07-26 12:02:01 PM  

gglibertine: Actually, Texas does have a system for this. However, in order to make use of it I would have to submit a signed, notarized statement. That makes good sense to me, since you don't want people randomly reporting people they're pissed off at, but it also means that I'd be opening myself up to all kinds of potential lawsuits, drama, and retribution. I could live with social drama, but frankly, my life is not worth the shiatstorm my boss would bring down on my head if I reported him. I'd rather he just shoot me.


Seems that you don't think that he's 'that' dangerous then.

MSFT: The other intent is to try and catch people at a stage before they do serious harm to others, e.g., rather than waiting for them to actually shoot and kill someone, perhaps haul them into jail for a few days of polite social intervention for flashing their gun in a bar while intoxicated and defending the virtues of their favorite NASCAR driver.


You kind of missed Numbquil's point.  The consequences for 'flashing their gun in a bar while intoxicated', before and after the elimination of the prohibition on carry in bars, remains substantially identical.  Remember, it's illegal to carry while intoxicated.  It's illegal to 'brandish' a firearm(if the flashing was deliberate).

Either offense isn't just a 'few days in jail', it's a RKBA ending event if they're convicted.  Adding a third misdemeanor charge that doesn't(at least for a first offense) isn't much of a difference.

Remember people; eliminating the prohibition on carry in bars&parks doesn't mean that you're free to carry while drunk, that minors can suddenly carry, etc...
 
2013-07-26 12:10:51 PM  

gglibertine: Dimensio: As you claim to have personally witnessed the behaviour that disturbs you, a system to enable better reporting of suspected mental health problems would be an ideal first step. Such a system would not be established specifically to prevent access to firearms to such individuals, but would instead serve to allow such individuals to be identified and given any treatment necessary (if necessary, as such a system would inevitably receive reports from individuals who are not actually mentally disturbed).

Actually, Texas does have a system for this. However, in order to make use of it I would have to submit a signed, notarized statement. That makes good sense to me, since you don't want people randomly reporting people they're pissed off at, but it also means that I'd be opening myself up to all kinds of potential lawsuits, drama, and retribution. I could live with social drama, but frankly, my life is not worth the shiatstorm my boss would bring down on my head if I reported him. I'd rather he just shoot me.


Just reporting people isn't enough either.  Need to do more with the ones we know about.  I have an aunt who gets popped every couple years for "driving while inhibited" or something.  Basically her mental illness makes her such a bad driver as to be a danger to others on the road.
But once they've got her in the clink, they medicate her and her situation approves, so they send her home and say "ok, just keep taking your meds and you'll be fine."  She does for a while, but misses one dose for whatever reason and boom, back off the deep end.
What she really needs is routine testing for the rest of her life to make sure she's staying on the meds, but they don't have that so you've just got to wait until she farks up again, and hope nobody gets hurt in the process.
 
2013-07-26 12:15:11 PM  

serial_crusher: gglibertine: Dimensio: As you claim to have personally witnessed the behaviour that disturbs you, a system to enable better reporting of suspected mental health problems would be an ideal first step. Such a system would not be established specifically to prevent access to firearms to such individuals, but would instead serve to allow such individuals to be identified and given any treatment necessary (if necessary, as such a system would inevitably receive reports from individuals who are not actually mentally disturbed).

Actually, Texas does have a system for this. However, in order to make use of it I would have to submit a signed, notarized statement. That makes good sense to me, since you don't want people randomly reporting people they're pissed off at, but it also means that I'd be opening myself up to all kinds of potential lawsuits, drama, and retribution. I could live with social drama, but frankly, my life is not worth the shiatstorm my boss would bring down on my head if I reported him. I'd rather he just shoot me.

Just reporting people isn't enough either.  Need to do more with the ones we know about.  I have an aunt who gets popped every couple years for "driving while inhibited" or something.  Basically her mental illness makes her such a bad driver as to be a danger to others on the road.
But once they've got her in the clink, they medicate her and her situation approves, so they send her home and say "ok, just keep taking your meds and you'll be fine."  She does for a while, but misses one dose for whatever reason and boom, back off the deep end.
What she really needs is routine testing for the rest of her life to make sure she's staying on the meds, but they don't have that so you've just got to wait until she farks up again, and hope nobody gets hurt in the process.


Lawsuits filed by American Civil Liberties Union has, in some respects, limited the ability to regulate the behaviour of mentally ill individuals. Unfortunately, politicians thus far are uninterested in establishing new systems to replace the overturned ones.
 
2013-07-26 12:22:23 PM  

MSFT: numbquil:
If you don't think people are going to follow the law, then what was stopping them from carrying firearms into bars before the law allowed them to? What is the difference between the law that prevented people from carrying concealed in a bar and the law that prevents people from being intoxicated while carrying? Was the former a magical forcefield that couldn't be passed while the latter is simply writing on paper?


Can't tell if you're serious, but I guess I'l try and answer anyway. I'm not aware of any laws that are set up to catch any and all offenders, every time, with 100% rate of efficacy. But the general idea seems to be that we slowly weed out the more egregious repeat offenders and separate them from the rest of society based on their level of danger to other people. The other intent is to try and catch people at a stage before they do serious harm to others, e.g., rather than waiting for them to actually shoot and kill someone, perhaps haul them into jail for a few days of polite social intervention for flashing their gun in a bar while intoxicated and defending the virtues of their favorite NASCAR driver.


People with permits to carry firearms are extremely unlikely to be repeat offenders. Unless they managed to slip through the system. Up to the point of them getting their permit they have not shown themselves to be a danger to the people. I've lived in North Carolina. It was much harder for me to purchase a handgun there than it is to purchase one in my home state of Iowa or in my current state of Virginia.

As far as catching people before causing serious harm I would argue that the individual must show intent to cause harm. As someone pointed out in another gun thread, if you have a penis, you have the necessary tool to carry out sexual assault. That doesn't mean that you should be punished. Should you have to register your DNA simply because you have a penis. Should you not be allowed into establishments that serve alcohol because you have a penis and you could take advantage of someone who is intoxicated?

I don't disagree with you but you had to exaggerate your point to get it across. Go read the law in North Carolina and then come back and tell me whether or not it is legal to flash a gun in a bar while intoxicated. Throwing in the part about Nascar just tells me you are basing your judgement on stereotypes. If I was prejudiced I may agree with you. I'm not because I'm a gun owner and I don't watch Nascar. I'm not what you would call a "redneck" In fact, I'm an atheist and college educated. At some point I realized that both liberals and conservatives were going to screw me over. That's why I turned to anarchist philosophy. I believe in the right to defend yourself against violence. Like I said before, if you believe you need to carry a firearm for self defense and you're not harming anyone, the government should have to prove that being armed is so dangerous that it infringes on the rights of others. Furthermore, if being armed in and of itself is so damn dangerous, why are police armed?
 
2013-07-26 12:43:44 PM  

numbquil: As far as catching people before causing serious harm I would argue that the individual must show intent to cause harm.




See DUI laws.

So you want drunks on the roads, killing innocent American families with little, tiny, defenseless children?
 
2013-07-26 12:55:53 PM  

Firethorn: gglibertine: Actually, Texas does have a system for this. However, in order to make use of it I would have to submit a signed, notarized statement. That makes good sense to me, since you don't want people randomly reporting people they're pissed off at, but it also means that I'd be opening myself up to all kinds of potential lawsuits, drama, and retribution. I could live with social drama, but frankly, my life is not worth the shiatstorm my boss would bring down on my head if I reported him. I'd rather he just shoot me.

Seems that you don't think that he's 'that' dangerous then.

MSFT: The other intent is to try and catch people at a stage before they do serious harm to others, e.g., rather than waiting for them to actually shoot and kill someone, perhaps haul them into jail for a few days of polite social intervention for flashing their gun in a bar while intoxicated and defending the virtues of their favorite NASCAR driver.

You kind of missed Numbquil's point.  The consequences for 'flashing their gun in a bar while intoxicated', before and after the elimination of the prohibition on carry in bars, remains substantially identical.  Remember, it's illegal to carry while intoxicated.  It's illegal to 'brandish' a firearm(if the flashing was deliberate).

Either offense isn't just a 'few days in jail', it's a RKBA ending event if they're convicted.  Adding a third misdemeanor charge that doesn't(at least for a first offense) isn't much of a difference.

Remember people; eliminating the prohibition on carry in bars&parks doesn't mean that you're free to carry while drunk, that minors can suddenly carry, etc...


What is RKBA?

If I missed his point I apologize. My intent was to show that we have a gradation of laws and where we decide to draw the line is an ongoing process... but it's not very practical to drop laws from the books based on the fact that we cannot catch every infraction.
 
2013-07-26 01:02:13 PM  

numbquil: MSFT: numbquil:
If you don't think people are going to follow the law, then what was stopping them from carrying firearms into bars before the law allowed them to? What is the difference between the law that prevented people from carrying concealed in a bar and the law that prevents people from being intoxicated while carrying? Was the former a magical forcefield that couldn't be passed while the latter is simply writing on paper?


Can't tell if you're serious, but I guess I'l try and answer anyway. I'm not aware of any laws that are set up to catch any and all offenders, every time, with 100% rate of efficacy. But the general idea seems to be that we slowly weed out the more egregious repeat offenders and separate them from the rest of society based on their level of danger to other people. The other intent is to try and catch people at a stage before they do serious harm to others, e.g., rather than waiting for them to actually shoot and kill someone, perhaps haul them into jail for a few days of polite social intervention for flashing their gun in a bar while intoxicated and defending the virtues of their favorite NASCAR driver.

People with permits to carry firearms are extremely unlikely to be repeat offenders. Unless they managed to slip through the system. Up to the point of them getting their permit they have not shown themselves to be a danger to the people. I've lived in North Carolina. It was much harder for me to purchase a handgun there than it is to purchase one in my home state of Iowa or in my current state of Virginia.

As far as catching people before causing serious harm I would argue that the individual must show intent to cause harm. As someone pointed out in another gun thread, if you have a penis, you have the necessary tool to carry out sexual assault. That doesn't mean that you should be punished. Should you have to register your DNA simply because you have a penis. Should you not be allowed into establishments that serve alcohol because yo ...


Having a penis, no. Showing it to people in public, however, may be indicative of an escalating behavior of a person with poor impulse control.

As for NASCAR I really don't give a shiat one way or the other. I like to punch up my analogies so that they resonate a bit more with the reader - people who are offended in any way are entitled to a full refund.
 
2013-07-26 01:05:24 PM  

MSFT: Firethorn: gglibertine: Actually, Texas does have a system for this. However, in order to make use of it I would have to submit a signed, notarized statement. That makes good sense to me, since you don't want people randomly reporting people they're pissed off at, but it also means that I'd be opening myself up to all kinds of potential lawsuits, drama, and retribution. I could live with social drama, but frankly, my life is not worth the shiatstorm my boss would bring down on my head if I reported him. I'd rather he just shoot me.

Seems that you don't think that he's 'that' dangerous then.

MSFT: The other intent is to try and catch people at a stage before they do serious harm to others, e.g., rather than waiting for them to actually shoot and kill someone, perhaps haul them into jail for a few days of polite social intervention for flashing their gun in a bar while intoxicated and defending the virtues of their favorite NASCAR driver.

You kind of missed Numbquil's point.  The consequences for 'flashing their gun in a bar while intoxicated', before and after the elimination of the prohibition on carry in bars, remains substantially identical.  Remember, it's illegal to carry while intoxicated.  It's illegal to 'brandish' a firearm(if the flashing was deliberate).

Either offense isn't just a 'few days in jail', it's a RKBA ending event if they're convicted.  Adding a third misdemeanor charge that doesn't(at least for a first offense) isn't much of a difference.

Remember people; eliminating the prohibition on carry in bars&parks doesn't mean that you're free to carry while drunk, that minors can suddenly carry, etc...

What is RKBA?

If I missed his point I apologize. My intent was to show that we have a gradation of laws and where we decide to draw the line is an ongoing process... but it's not very practical to drop laws from the books based on the fact that we cannot catch every infraction.




Yep, you never know when you might need them.
 
2013-07-26 01:06:26 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: numbquil: As far as catching people before causing serious harm I would argue that the individual must show intent to cause harm.

See DUI laws.

So you want drunks on the roads, killing innocent American families with little, tiny, defenseless children?


I was specifically answering the question in regard to willingly shooting someone. We haven't gotten into negligence yet. I was waiting for someone else to bring it up. Wikipedia says criminal negligence is "careless, inattentive, neglectful, willfully blind, or in the case of gross negligence what would have been reckless in any other defendant." Carrying a firearm in a holster which is the commonly accepted method for police and military would be acceptable. Whereas sitting at the bar while twirling your six shooter would put others in danger. It's interesting that you bring this up because bars serve alcohol which is poisonous in large quantities. The bartender can be found criminally negligent for serving alcohol to a patron who has had to much if that individual suffers any medical issue including death. Why is alcohol not banned from bars? When used improperly it can lead to death. Either directly or by DUI.
 
2013-07-26 01:08:15 PM  
I admit it: I don't understand Southerners.  For folks that huge on self-determination and the culture of Jesus-24-7, the ruthless intolerance and merciless ideas of "justice" are too ironic to be funny anymore.  As a mother of a 13 year old boy, the idea of some poor boy his age in prison is just... Ugh. 

This is why none of the really fun aliens ever visit, y'know.
 
2013-07-26 01:08:33 PM  
Brandishing a firearm is illegal in North Carolina. Like I said I lived there and I'm a firearm owner. I guess in that way it is similar to brandishing a penis. As long as you keep your penis and your pistol in their holsters you should be good.
 
2013-07-26 01:08:55 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: If I missed his point I apologize. My intent was to show that we have a gradation of laws and where we decide to draw the line is an ongoing process... but it's not very practical to drop laws from the books based on the fact that we cannot catch every infraction.

Yep, you never know when you might need them.


If we only cared about laws that we can effectively enforce I suspect we would be a nation of traffic cameras and nothing else.
 
2013-07-26 01:11:05 PM  

numbquil: Brandishing a firearm is illegal in North Carolina. Like I said I lived there and I'm a firearm owner. I guess in that way it is similar to brandishing a penis. As long as you keep your penis and your pistol in their holsters you should be good.


I think we've found some common ground. Although to be honest I suspect we have far more common ground than this thread would indicate.
 
2013-07-26 01:12:49 PM  

MSFT: StoPPeRmobile: If I missed his point I apologize. My intent was to show that we have a gradation of laws and where we decide to draw the line is an ongoing process... but it's not very practical to drop laws from the books based on the fact that we cannot catch every infraction.

Yep, you never know when you might need them.

If we only cared about laws that we can effectively enforce I suspect we would be a nation of traffic cameras and nothing else.


The argument has nothing to do with the idea that it can be enforced. The argument is that the law limits an action that is in no way detrimental to society. If being armed was detrimental to society, the government wouldn't be armed. The government doesn't do things that are detrimental to society.
 
2013-07-26 01:22:41 PM  

numbquil: MSFT: StoPPeRmobile: If I missed his point I apologize. My intent was to show that we have a gradation of laws and where we decide to draw the line is an ongoing process... but it's not very practical to drop laws from the books based on the fact that we cannot catch every infraction.

Yep, you never know when you might need them.

If we only cared about laws that we can effectively enforce I suspect we would be a nation of traffic cameras and nothing else.

The argument has nothing to do with the idea that it can be enforced. The argument is that the law limits an action that is in no way detrimental to society. If being armed was detrimental to society, the government wouldn't be armed. The government doesn't do things that are detrimental to society.


Originally I was speaking to this:
"If you don't think people are going to follow the law, then what was stopping them from carrying firearms into bars before the law allowed them to? What is the difference between the law that prevented people from carrying concealed in a bar and the law that prevents people from being intoxicated while carrying? Was the former a magical forcefield that couldn't be passed while the latter is simply writing on paper? "

Again, where society draws the line of what is detrimental to society is an ongoing process. We legalized pot here in Washington and I'm A-OK with that because I don't see the value in locking people up for smoking weed. As for guns I grew in up in Texas so I'll let you do the math on where I stand on guns in general, but I'm OK with local towns or states setting their own limits within the federal framework that already exists.
 
2013-07-26 01:30:44 PM  
For anyone who is interested to know, you do have to take an approved firearms safety course which "involves the actual firing of handguns and instruction in the law governing the carrying of a concealed handgun and the use of deadly force". When I was there I was on active duty in the United States Marine Corps so I was exempt from taking the course. Ironically, I had never fired a handgun before. Most Marines are trained only spend a significant amount of time training with the M16. To someone who isn't trained with firearms that seems legit. If you can shoot a big gun you can shoot a small gun right? That is not really the case. Hand guns are more dangerous because it's much easier to aim a handgun at your own body on accident. The marksmanship principles are also completely different and the mechanisms to operate handguns tend to be more complex to operate. So much for those super humans are so much better than the average citizen at using firearms.

I'd also like to point out that I never received any kind of special training to be able to control adrenaline or shoot people while being shot at. Fortunately, I was never in combat but I have met a lot of people who were. They all say the same thing. No amount of training can prepare you for a firefight. Training can make you more technically skilled but you are still going to experience chaos. Being a police officer or in the military does not make you better suited to use deadly force.
 
2013-07-26 01:33:11 PM  

numbquil: The government doesn't do things that are detrimental to society.


In what nation do you reside?
 
2013-07-26 01:33:51 PM  

numbquil: Why because you don't have an argument against it?


No, Archimedes. Limiting access to law enforcement and the military is not the issue. Even a drooling, slope-headed, inbred moron knows this.

Well. Evidently not.
 
2013-07-26 01:38:13 PM  

Firethorn: The difficulty to this is that I care about violence levels period, not just gun violence. We can reduce violence better by doing some things like addressing poverty and ending the 'war on drugs' than by restricting firearms.


Exactly. Because we need to address the overwhelming number of crimes that are committed while wielding a rutabaga.
 
2013-07-26 01:46:09 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Firethorn: The difficulty to this is that I care about violence levels period, not just gun violence. We can reduce violence better by doing some things like addressing poverty and ending the 'war on drugs' than by restricting firearms.

Exactly. Because we need to address the overwhelming number of crimes that are committed while wielding a rutabaga.


I read his comments as we should focus more on root cause as opposed to emergent symptoms of the disease, which I tend to agree with.
 
2013-07-26 01:58:34 PM  

MSFT: Whiskey Pete: Firethorn: The difficulty to this is that I care about violence levels period, not just gun violence. We can reduce violence better by doing some things like addressing poverty and ending the 'war on drugs' than by restricting firearms.

Exactly. Because we need to address the overwhelming number of crimes that are committed while wielding a rutabaga.

I read his comments as we should focus more on root cause as opposed to emergent symptoms of the disease, which I tend to agree with.


This is why you should never take a butter knife away from a toddler when they are about to shove it in an electrical outlet. You should find out why they want to do it first.
 
2013-07-26 01:59:11 PM  

numbquil: For anyone who is interested to know, you do have to take an approved firearms safety course which "involves the actual firing of handguns and instruction in the law governing the carrying of a concealed handgun and the use of deadly force". When I was there I was on active duty in the United States Marine Corps so I was exempt from taking the course. Ironically, I had never fired a handgun before. Most Marines are trained only spend a significant amount of time training with the M16. To someone who isn't trained with firearms that seems legit. If you can shoot a big gun you can shoot a small gun right? That is not really the case. Hand guns are more dangerous because it's much easier to aim a handgun at your own body on accident. The marksmanship principles are also completely different and the mechanisms to operate handguns tend to be more complex to operate. So much for those super humans are so much better than the average citizen at using firearms.

I'd also like to point out that I never received any kind of special training to be able to control adrenaline or shoot people while being shot at. Fortunately, I was never in combat but I have met a lot of people who were. They all say the same thing. No amount of training can prepare you for a firefight. Training can make you more technically skilled but you are still going to experience chaos. Being a police officer or in the military does not make you better suited to use deadly force.


Just out of curiosity how do you reconcile the belief in anarchy with the concept of semper fidelis?
 
2013-07-26 02:04:26 PM  

DarwiOdrade: What happened to you, North Carolina? You used to be cool.


They have good basketball and some nice scenery.  If they didn't have mountains and trees they could call themselves Kansas.
 
2013-07-26 02:05:47 PM  

MSFT: I'd also like to point out that I never received any kind of special training to be able to control adrenaline or shoot people while being shot at. Fortunately, I was never in combat but I have met a lot of people who were. They all say the same thing. No amount of training can prepare you for a firefight. Training can make you more technically skilled but you are still going to experience chaos. Being a police officer or in the military does not make you better suited to use deadly force.


Therefore, I'm kinda, sorta a policeman, kinda sorta.
 
2013-07-26 02:07:15 PM  

Whiskey Pete: MSFT: Whiskey Pete: Firethorn: The difficulty to this is that I care about violence levels period, not just gun violence. We can reduce violence better by doing some things like addressing poverty and ending the 'war on drugs' than by restricting firearms.

Exactly. Because we need to address the overwhelming number of crimes that are committed while wielding a rutabaga.

I read his comments as we should focus more on root cause as opposed to emergent symptoms of the disease, which I tend to agree with.

This is why you should never take a butter knife away from a toddler when they are about to shove it in an electrical outlet. You should find out why they want to do it first.


Notice I said focus *more* on root cause and nothing about absolutes.
 
2013-07-26 02:07:39 PM  

Whiskey Pete: MSFT: I'd also like to point out that I never received any kind of special training to be able to control adrenaline or shoot people while being shot at. Fortunately, I was never in combat but I have met a lot of people who were. They all say the same thing. No amount of training can prepare you for a firefight. Training can make you more technically skilled but you are still going to experience chaos. Being a police officer or in the military does not make you better suited to use deadly force.

Therefore, I'm kinda, sorta a policeman, kinda sorta.


I apologize. I meant to quote numbquill:
 
2013-07-26 02:09:50 PM  

MSFT: Notice I said focus *more* on root cause and nothing about absolutes.


Fair enough. But gun violence is out of control in this country and it seems there are people who have an interest in minimizing this fact by equating it with other types of violence.
 
2013-07-26 02:44:33 PM  

Whiskey Pete: MSFT: Notice I said focus *more* on root cause and nothing about absolutes.

Fair enough. But gun violence is out of control in this country and it seems there are people who have an interest in minimizing this fact by equating it with other types of violence.



Completely agree we should go after it wholesale. But to use the medical analogy we have to fight cancer on several fronts - education about the dangers of tobacco use, developing more effective chemotherapy treatments, etc. etc. TL;DR: Prevention of cancer appears to be more effective than treating cancer, but we'll need to continue to invest in both areas for some time.
 
2013-07-26 03:12:49 PM  

numbquil: PaulRB


I want the system to be "of the people, for the people, and by the people" like it's supposed to be.  It should benefit us all not just the super rich who basically own it.
 
2013-07-26 04:00:20 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Firethorn: The difficulty to this is that I care about violence levels period, not just gun violence. We can reduce violence better by doing some things like addressing poverty and ending the 'war on drugs' than by restricting firearms.

Exactly. Because we need to address the overwhelming number of crimes that are committed while wielding a rutabaga.


Actually, you address the causes of violence, and reduce the stresses that allow folks to feel that violence is an acceptable risk.

Gun control legislation boils down to a perception of safety and crime prevention. There are several places where folks have access to arms, and that includes military arms as a matter of course, that don't have the US rates of violence. Why? Are they inherently more peaceful? Or are their populations generally better educated, with greater social mobility, and better access to health care and with a better social safety net?

Gun control debates aren't about guns, they are a useful way of sidestepping the real discussion we need to be having about education, opportunity, health and mental health care, and how we treat our citizens. And oddly enough, the folks who seem most comfortable with the thought of simply shooting their way through their fellow citizens, are also the folks who give the least amount of f*cks for the root causes of violence.

You want to reduce violence, you have to alleviate the conditions that put folks into the position where violence becomes an acceptable option. That is the discussion that folks are desperate to avoid, because it will lead to folks having to admit that we are creating our own monsters in an efficient fashion...
 
2013-07-26 04:48:35 PM  

MSFT: What is RKBA?


Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  It's in the constitution that the only way to lose your protected rights(including but not limited to those explicitly mentioned therein) is by due process in a court of law.

If I missed his point I apologize. My intent was to show that we have a gradation of laws and where we decide to draw the line is an ongoing process... but it's not very practical to drop laws from the books based on the fact that we cannot catch every infraction.

Okay, I'm going to get a bit philosophical here:  I believe that crime can be divided into two categories:  Primary or victim crime -  this is where there's an identifiable victim who has been harmed by the criminal act.  Murder, rape, arson, burglary, assault, battery, etc...  These are all victim crimes.  Somebody other than a fully informed consenting adult has been harmed.  The other category would be secondary or victimless crime - recreational drug prohibitions, seat belt laws, prohibitions against drunk driving, knives that are longer than 3" or automatic, magazine restrictions, assault weapon bans, running stop signs/lights, etc...  By default, there is no victim in said crimes.  To me said laws have to justify themselves in preventing primary offenses(harming others) more than they cost society.

Requiring a permit to carry CCW is a secondary offense.  Subsequently banning carry, even with a permit, is almost tertiary.  Ergo, the standard for having the ban should be in harm prevention - and the evidence is that it doesn't prevent a significant amount of harm, so why not streamline the lawbooks by removing a few lines?

MSFT: As for NASCAR I really don't give a shiat one way or the other. I like to punch up my analogies so that they resonate a bit more with the reader - people who are offended in any way are entitled to a full refund.


In this case it made you look like a thoughtless stereotyper, ergo detracting from your main point.  I'm big on firearms, but otherwise I'm about as far from the rest of your 'example' as it's possible to get - I don't drink, watch NASCAR, etc...

numbquil: The government doesn't do things that are detrimental to society.


I mostly agree with you otherwise, but I couldn't help but snort upon reading this.

MSFT: As for guns I grew in up in Texas so I'll let you do the math on where I stand on guns in general, but I'm OK with local towns or states setting their own limits within the federal framework that already exists.


I agree with you on legalizing pot; but I'm iffy on towns setting up limits on weapons carry because it can be such a hidden 'gotcha!'.  See the idiots who don't know about NYC gun laws - one of the largest and most notorious anti-gun cities and people don't realize that they can't legally carry there at least a dozen times a year.  I think state level should be the lowest level gun control laws devolve to.

numbquil:  To someone who isn't trained with firearms that seems legit. If you can shoot a big gun you can shoot a small gun right? That is not really the case. Hand guns are more dangerous because it's much easier to aim a handgun at your own body on accident.

I can understand, seeing as how you didn't take the course, but I have in 2 states, and the thing to realize is that the course isn't for handgun ownership or to prevent you from shooting yourself, deliberately or negligently.  It's to hopefully keep you from shooting somebody else by accident or improperly thinking you were justified in shooting.  Well, that and to make the marginal parties more happy with the law because they can have warm fuzzies that at least CCW permit holders are 'trained'.  Really, my hunter's safety course was more in depth, and my military M-4 training(USAF) was plenty deep enough on use of force rules(though brushing up on state law is never a bad idea, and mentioned in the courses).

While there are some differences between a AR-15 type rifle and a handgun, I'd say there's more differences between different lines of rifles(bolt, lever, semi, single, pump) than between a semi-auto rifle and semi-auto handgun.  There's generally only 3-7 controls to worry about, and the 4 rules of gun safety remain. (gun is always loaded, keep finger off trigger until ready to fire, don't point weapon at something you're not willing to destroy, be aware of target and what's behind it)

The marksmanship principles are also completely different and the mechanisms to operate handguns tend to be more complex to operate. So much for those super humans are so much better than the average citizen at using firearms.

CCW permits are kind of like learner's permits, besides there's factors to consider:
1. There is not requirement for a CCW holder to engage outside of his or her ability zone.  Police and military train to push this out, but the call for a CCW holder to make a shot, much less a longer range shot, is practically nil.
2.  The average engagement range for self defense is under 7 yards.  Legally blind people have successfully placed 7 of 10 shots on man sized targets at that range(used to be legal minimum for one of my states; his qualifying made the news, and I think he actually made 10 out of 10).
3.  There's no precedent that I'm aware of where a CCW holder's accuracy, or lack theirin, has resulted in tragedy.  By this I mean them shooting somebody not targeted by accident.  There have been a few murders anyways, but fewer than you'd expect out of the general population.

Being a police officer or in the military does not make you better suited to use deadly force.

You know, I was getting all geared up for a big rant until I hit this?  Agreed.  Experience counts, yes, but it's not something you want experience in, nor can you normally get it through training.  You have to live it.

MSFT: I read his comments as we should focus more on root cause as opposed to emergent symptoms of the disease, which I tend to agree with.


Exactly

Whiskey Pete: This is why you should never take a butter knife away from a toddler when they are about to shove it in an electrical outlet. You should find out why they want to do it first.


Is this a Strawman?  I support taking knives away from toddlers in general as well as firearms from criminals and the mentally incompetent.  Well, I actually think that said criminals and mentally ill people need to be confined into appropriate institutions until they can be trusted within society at large(reform and treatment should be emphasized, of course).

Whiskey Pete: Fair enough. But gun violence is out of control in this country and it seems there are people who have an interest in minimizing this fact by equating it with other types of violence.


How do you define 'out of control'?  Here's a question:  Is there more or less gun violence today or 20 years ago?  What about 30?  Are you aware that while firearms account for about 2/3rds of murders in the USA, our NON-firearm murder rate still exceeds the UK's by a decent margin?  That the vast majority of murders are criminal on criminal, and even more concentrated as 'black male on black male'?  Seriously, if black males killed each other no more than the rest of the population of the USA, we'd have a European level of murder, even without removing firearms.

Also, most violence(as opposed to murders) in the USA is still not done with firearms.

My point is that we have so much violence associated with the War on Drugs, especially when combined with poverty, that I want to seriously reform that, we'd save so many more lives that way.
 
2013-07-26 05:21:38 PM  

MSFT: Prevention of cancer appears to be more effective than treating cancer, but we'll need to continue to invest in both areas for some time.


Of course, just be aware that banning guns in the USA is such a long term action that even a 100% ban would take enough time that current high school students would be retiring before the supply to criminals really started drying up.

As such, preventing high school students from becoming criminals in the first place is actually the faster option.

hubiestubert: And oddly enough, the folks who seem most comfortable with the thought of simply shooting their way through their fellow citizens, are also the folks who give the least amount of f*cks for the root causes of violence.


That makes me wonder, are you picturing the gunnies or the gun control supporters in this role?  Because the gun control types seem to love positing that the gunnies will respond to XYZ stimulus(despite it never really happening in the past) by 'shooting their way through'.  Meanwhile, I only posit myself shooting somebody if they're a lethal threat, and honestly hope it never happens(though I'd rather it happen to me and I'm able to adequately respond than to somebody who can't).

Also, while I'm tooting my own horn here, I believe I was the first in the thread to address treating the causes of violence over the implements used during.  But this thread is about guns, not social reform, so I kept it short.
 
2013-07-26 06:12:50 PM  

Firethorn: How do you define 'out of control'?



Murder weapons, 2011Firearms
68%Knives or cutting instruments
13%Other
9%Personal weapons
6%Blunt objects
4%Total:
12,664Source: www.washingtonpost.com
 
Displayed 50 of 270 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report