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.

(SFGate)   Looks like California is going to get a lot more polite. Or something   (sfgate.com) divider line 404
    More: Interesting, California law, San Francisco County Superior Court, concealed weapons  
•       •       •

10359 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Feb 2014 at 6:15 PM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-02-13 11:30:34 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: fluffy2097: When was the last time someone was murdered with a concealed carry weapon?

Here's a list just from Florida.


LOL. That site is the weakest lying distorting link I have seen you post EVA.

/go regroup and try again with more gusto, you usually do much better than that
 
2014-02-13 11:33:43 PM  

gja: TuteTibiImperes: fluffy2097: When was the last time someone was murdered with a concealed carry weapon?

Here's a list just from Florida.

LOL. That site is the weakest lying distorting link I have seen you post EVA.

/go regroup and try again with more gusto, you usually do much better than that


Are you suggesting that the gunmen were not CCW holders and that they did not shoot the other people?
 
2014-02-13 11:34:02 PM  
As a liberal California Democrat....Yay!
 
2014-02-13 11:37:22 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: It's the duty of law enforcement to protect the public,


No. No it is not. At least not in the way that you're implying. Police are specifically exempt from being liable for your personal safety or defense. They are supposed to try (that is their duty) but if they don't you have no recourse against them or the city or county that they work for.

If that weren't true it would be an impossible burden to meet without putting a cop every 10 feet on every possible road or path.

one shouldn't ever be expected to carry a gun in order to do it oneself.

So it's your contention that self-defense is not a basic human right recognized since before civilization began? If someone decided to walk up to you, punch you in the face repeatedly that you shouldn't be able to try and stop it using the best means possible at your disposal?
 
2014-02-13 11:39:01 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: I've had this discussion on various gun threads many time.  Regardless of if they have a legally mandated duty to do so, it's still their job.


Here's the job description for police officers in the LAPD.

http://www.lapdonline.org/join_the_team/content_basic_view/9127#Poli ce %20Officer

Please tell me where the duty to protect individuals is stated.
 
2014-02-13 11:40:44 PM  

Scrotastic Method: AngryDragon: Scrotastic Method: The problem being, our legislature is bought out by the gun lobby. Despite overwhelming public outcry for gun legislation, from more rules to a reworking of the amendment, neither house of Congress is capable of passing that legislation. Because money

So abortion under Roe v. Wade is sacrosanct because it's an interpreted right, but the individual right to bear arms under Heller is relative despite being an enumerated right because the government is bought out.  Got it.

First, I wouldn't attempt to conflate health and family decisions with those of the desire to possess a firearm.

And second, I believe Heller was one of the worst decisions the court ever made, maybe only trumped in modern times by Citizens United. I side with Stevens on that one, who wrote in his dissent, which is summarized better on Wikipedia than I would do here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Dissenti ng _opinions

Interestingly, his main points were:
-- That's not what the Bill of Rights says,
-- We're trumping states' rights,
-- We're legislating from the bench, and,
-- We're not even addressing a main point of contention.

All of which are, you know, the kinds of things conservatives are supposed to be against. A true conservative should be against the Heller decision, but since it gave them what they wanted, they are willing to compromise their principles.

Compromising of principle being, of course, the foundation of the right wing. See also: things Jesus really said and did.


Interestingly, his main points were:
-Completely incorrect, a 5th grade understanding of English grammar and sentence structure prove that
-Not trumping STATES' rights, protecting INDIVIDUAL rights
-eh
-Not important

A true liberal should agree with the government protecting their PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL rights...which they claim they are when they invent the right to have abortionsbut close their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears when the 2nd Amendment appears.
 
2014-02-13 11:41:42 PM  

Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: It's the duty of law enforcement to protect the public,

No. No it is not. At least not in the way that you're implying. Police are specifically exempt from being liable for your personal safety or defense. They are supposed to try (that is their duty) but if they don't you have no recourse against them or the city or county that they work for.

If that weren't true it would be an impossible burden to meet without putting a cop every 10 feet on every possible road or path.


I agree.  I'm not saying that you have legal recourse if they fail to protect you, but it is their job, and they should be expected to do it.  You (or your family) just can't sue if they fail.

one shouldn't ever be expected to carry a gun in order to do it oneself.

So it's your contention that self-defense is not a basic human right recognized since before civilization began? If someone decided to walk up to you, punch you in the face repeatedly that you shouldn't be able to try and stop it using the best means possible at your disposal?


I respect the right to defend yourself if there is no option to retreat and notify law enforcement.  If carrying firearms were banned across the board there would be far fewer criminals walking around with guns, and such conflicts would result in death or serious injury less often.
 
2014-02-13 11:42:41 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence.  If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else.  This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.


LOL, then have that majority write a document with full force of the law that trumps the U.S. Constitution.
 
Rat
2014-02-13 11:44:21 PM  
I notice you guys keep arguing with Tute.  The only way to win that argument is with squirrels.  The ADHD in him will see the squirrel, and invariably end up in the entertainment thread with no means to get out, as his back button is disabled.

For those of you not arguing with Tute, I welcome California to the rest of the world.  Now can we get some nat'l reciprocity discussion going?  New York, are you listening?

 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-02-13 11:45:06 PM  

gja: TuteTibiImperes: fluffy2097: When was the last time someone was murdered with a concealed carry weapon?

Here's a list just from Florida.

LOL. That site is the weakest lying distorting link I have seen you post EVA.

/go regroup and try again with more gusto, you usually do much better than that


I am suggesting your site is shiat. The last time I saw some with a view that tilted italians were worried it would fall the fark over.
Get serious. Weak, dude.
Also, your silliness about the police being required to protect/serve, or any inane bullshiat you wanna spout is plain wrong.
Wanna go 'round and round with me? I can pull down the NYPD, NassauPD, and SuffolkPD charters and quote from them.
Hint: none of them are required to come save my life. Just maintain general order.
 
2014-02-13 11:45:36 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence.  If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else.  This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

"A majority of Californians" is not a legal basis for violation of Constitutionally protected rights.

That's the problem.  The 2nd amendment is outdated and causes more trouble than its worth.  Unfortunately the Constitution is so difficult to amend that it's not going anywhere, especially in this political climate.

The only sanity will come with the balance of power in the Supreme Court finally changes and enough cases helping to redefine the limits of the right to bear arms are decided in a manner that re-establish restrictions on personal firearm ownership.


What you're proposing is called "legislating from the bench" and "fascism"

"I don't like that one...say it says something different...please!"
 
2014-02-13 11:46:18 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Actually, I pretty much agree with all of them except for the 2nd.


Well, too bad.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-02-13 11:46:30 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: If carrying firearms were banned across the board there would be far fewer criminals walking around with guns


That is about as naive a statment as I have ever heard. Even here on FARK.
 
2014-02-13 11:49:13 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence.  If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else.  This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

"A majority of Californians" is not a legal basis for violation of Constitutionally protected rights.

That's the problem.  The 2nd amendment is outdated and causes more trouble than its worth.  Unfortunately the Constitution is so difficult to amend that it's not going anywhere, especially in this political climate.

The only sanity will come with the balance of power in the Supreme Court finally changes and enough cases helping to redefine the limits of the right to bear arms are decided in a manner that re-establish restrictions on personal firearm ownership.

"Reinterpreting" an established liberty due to an inability to actually amend the Constitution is intellectually bankrupt.

You don't seem to have a problem with how the Supreme Court reinterpreted it in Heller or McDonald.


Please explain how these decisions were "reinterpretations," that requires PRIOR SCOTUS decisions to have said the opposite. None have, look it up

/Waiting for Miller decision...
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-02-13 11:49:27 PM  

Rat: I notice you guys keep arguing with Tute.  The only way to win that argument is with squirrels.  The ADHD in him will see the squirrel, and invariably end up in the entertainment thread with no means to get out, as his back button is disabled.

For those of you not arguing with Tute, I welcome California to the rest of the world.  Now can we get some nat'l reciprocity discussion going?  New York, are you listening?



I am here in NY and can tell you with all certainty....forget it. My state is run by Cuomo the merciless.
It would be easier to get a permit for a moat filled with sharks with frikkin laser beams than a ccw.
 
2014-02-13 11:50:44 PM  
It's my body. It's my life. The govt doesn't the right to tell me how I can defend my body/my life. It's the most basic freedom there is.
 
2014-02-13 11:51:22 PM  
have*
 
2014-02-13 11:51:54 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: mrlewish: "The risk of armed confrontation "is not limited to the home," O'Scannlain said. He invoked the situations of "a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site."

1. You are supposed to avoid going into a dangerous neighborhood if you carry a gun. One of the first rules of carry and conceal is to avoid situations in which you might have to use a weapon.
2. So what company allows their workers to carry guns at their job site?

If you feel as if you need a gun with you at all times to be safe there are problems far greater than CCW permits.  The logical course of action would be to address why the police presence in the area is either inadequate or ineffective and take measures to fix that.  It's the duty of law enforcement to protect the public, one shouldn't ever be expected to carry a gun in order to do it oneself.


LOL...yep its Law Enforcements "duty" to protect the vague and nebulous "public" without ever having a duty to protect any individual people...sounds plausible and effective
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-02-13 11:52:46 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Actually, I pretty much agree with all of them except for the 2nd.


img.fark.net

Flights out available at any hour, feel free to join Anne Coulter and GTFO.
 
2014-02-14 12:02:01 AM  

sugar_fetus: TuteTibiImperes: I've had this discussion on various gun threads many time.  Regardless of if they have a legally mandated duty to do so, it's still their job.

Here's the job description for police officers in the LAPD.

http://www.lapdonline.org/join_the_team/content_basic_view/9127#Poli ce %20Officer

Please tell me where the duty to protect individuals is stated.


These would all qualify:

Responding to the scene of a crime or an accident

Responding to radio calls

Monitoring any suspicious activity of ongoing crimes

gja: TuteTibiImperes: If carrying firearms were banned across the board there would be far fewer criminals walking around with guns

That is about as naive a statment as I have ever heard. Even here on FARK.


Hardly.  The US has more guns per capita and a higher gun murder rate than other developed nations.  Places like the UK, Japan, and Germany that have stronger firearm regulations have fewer incidents of gun crime because the guns are more easily controlled, causing them to fall into the hands of criminals less often.

www.washingtonpost.com
 
2014-02-14 12:02:27 AM  

OgreMagi: Radioactive Ass: someplace like Jackson Arms to buy it.

I used to go there about every other week to target shoot.


I haven't been by there in years (I think that I've gone there twice to shoot in the last two decades and that was someone elses idea, not mine). I got sick and tired of working with firearms during my time in the navy (between getting a hundred people per year qualified to be armed and doing the related paperwork along with the weekly maintenance duties for an entire submarines worth of firearms for almost 8 years if I never have to touch another one I'm just fine with it). I don't even own one, but I do recognize the rights of others to do so if they want and I'm definitely not irrationally afraid of them like a lot of people seem to be. Don't point it at someone and keep your finger off of the trigger and it's as harmless as a hammer or screwdriver. Oh yeah, and don't keep it 'Hidden" inside of an oven (don't ask).

I mainly know about the difficulties in legally acquiring a handgun in San Francisco (that I mentioned above) because of other people that I know who went through it and listening to them biatch about it.
 
2014-02-14 12:03:08 AM  

The Southern Dandy: It's my body. It's my life. The govt doesn't the right to tell me how I can defend my body/my life. It's the most basic freedom there is.


Yet people living in nations where there are strong firearm safety regulations still manage to protect themselves without carrying guns around.
 
2014-02-14 12:10:33 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: sugar_fetus: TuteTibiImperes: I've had this discussion on various gun threads many time.  Regardless of if they have a legally mandated duty to do so, it's still their job.

Here's the job description for police officers in the LAPD.

http://www.lapdonline.org/join_the_team/content_basic_view/9127#Poli ce %20Officer

Please tell me where the duty to protect individuals is stated.

These would all qualify:

Responding to the scene of a crime or an accident

Responding to radio calls

Monitoring any suspicious activity of ongoing crimes


None of those will do. They may serve to protect someone - or may not. Either way,. there is no specific duty to protect the individual.

So, as there is no enumerated duty to protect people, and the Supreme Court has said that there is no duty to protect individuals...you still maintain that it is their job.

Please, provide a cite that shows that it is their responsibility. I'm sure you have one.
 
2014-02-14 12:16:45 AM  
I'm a pro.

I'm pro gun, pro choice, pro equality for all men, women, GLBT and other. Pro diversity, pro race, pro race mixing, go pro, pro tect,  pro wrestling, pro hunter, pro 1st Amendment through the last Amendment, pro geek, pro nerd, pro hipster (because I don't give a fark if they want to look silly or not) pro athelete, pro pr0n, proton, pro gram, pro MJ, pro sex worker, pro mo,  proto, zoic, ...homo, because I'm human 1st and generally in favor of people being allowed to do whatever the fark they want as long as they aren't farking other people over.

I am the living man.

/go like a pro, bro.
 
2014-02-14 12:16:47 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: I agree. I'm not saying that you have legal recourse if they fail to protect you, but it is their job, and they should be expected to do it. You (or your family) just can't sue if they fail.


Job, not duty. Duty has a very specific meaning. You can be found in dereliction of your duty and punished for it in a court of law (civil if not criminal). Fail to do your job and you just get fired. This is where your comment went off of the rails.

TuteTibiImperes: I respect the right to defend yourself if there is no option to retreat and notify law enforcement. If carrying firearms were banned across the board there would be far fewer criminals walking around with guns, and such conflicts would result in death or serious injury less often.


Chicago has had almost no person walking around legally carrying around a firearm, and it had one of the highest murder rates at the time, the same with many other large cities (DC, Detroit, Oakland and so on). The facts are that criminals will always be able to get guns. I'm willing to bet you, without even looking it up, that the vast majority of gun deaths outside of the home of the person owning the gun are not being caused by CCW permit holders but by illegal guns in the hands of criminals.
 
2014-02-14 12:17:29 AM  

deadlyplatypus: a 5th grade understanding of English grammar and sentence structure prove that


The second amendment says, in 5th grade language, that since we need a militia people can have guns. The Supreme Court later decided that the "militia" part, because of a comma, wasn't the only reason people get to have guns. Grammatically, that is nonsense.

Here's an example: "Hey Timmy, whenever you get an A on your report card, you get to have pizza for dinner." Timmy brings home a C. He requests pizza, and says that since you didn't expressly limit the scope of pizza events to A grades, he can have pizza with a C. Are you buying that line of reasoning?
 
2014-02-14 12:20:20 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: sugar_fetus: TuteTibiImperes: I've had this discussion on various gun threads many time.  Regardless of if they have a legally mandated duty to do so, it's still their job.

Here's the job description for police officers in the LAPD.

http://www.lapdonline.org/join_the_team/content_basic_view/9127#Poli ce %20Officer

Please tell me where the duty to protect individuals is stated.

These would all qualify:

Responding to the scene of a crime or an accident

Responding to radio calls

Monitoring any suspicious activity of ongoing crimes

gja: TuteTibiImperes: If carrying firearms were banned across the board there would be far fewer criminals walking around with guns

That is about as naive a statment as I have ever heard. Even here on FARK.

Hardly.  The US has more guns per capita and a higher gun murder rate than other developed nations.  Places like the UK, Japan, and Germany that have stronger firearm regulations have fewer incidents of gun crime because the guns are more easily controlled, causing them to fall into the hands of criminals less often.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]


Why is Mexico excluded in that diagram? They are currently fighting the other side of our drug war. What would the gun murder rate be in the US and Mexico if we weren't both currently engaged in a futile drug war?
 
2014-02-14 12:21:37 AM  

Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: I agree. I'm not saying that you have legal recourse if they fail to protect you, but it is their job, and they should be expected to do it. You (or your family) just can't sue if they fail.

Job, not duty. Duty has a very specific meaning. You can be found in dereliction of your duty and punished for it in a court of law (civil if not criminal). Fail to do your job and you just get fired. This is where your comment went off of the rails.


OK, I used job and duty interchangeably.  If you prefer job, I have no issue going with that.  If you're in trouble, the police are expected to come and help, that's what they're there for.  

TuteTibiImperes: I respect the right to defend yourself if there is no option to retreat and notify law enforcement. If carrying firearms were banned across the board there would be far fewer criminals walking around with guns, and such conflicts would result in death or serious injury less often.

Chicago has had almost no person walking around legally carrying around a firearm, and it had one of the highest murder rates at the time, the same with many other large cities (DC, Detroit, Oakland and so on). The facts are that criminals will always be able to get guns. I'm willing to bet you, without even looking it up, that the vast majority of gun deaths outside of the home of the person owning the gun are not being caused by CCW permit holders but by illegal guns in the hands of criminals.


Chicago has a huge gang violence problem which is the cause of the majority of their murder rate.  Guns can also easily come in from outside of the city, making the ban in the city not as effective as it could be.  If the bans were expanded to a larger geographical area, it would be harder for the guns to get in.
 
2014-02-14 12:22:26 AM  
TuteTibiImperes:

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]

Chart is missing Mexico... that's odd. Oh... wait... guns are illegal there... so it must be a rate of zero.

/or Mexico isn't the "developed world"
 
2014-02-14 12:23:34 AM  

Descartes: No texting in movie theatres!

img5.joyreactor.com
 
2014-02-14 12:23:36 AM  

violentsalvation: TuteTibiImperes: sugar_fetus: TuteTibiImperes: I've had this discussion on various gun threads many time.  Regardless of if they have a legally mandated duty to do so, it's still their job.

Here's the job description for police officers in the LAPD.

http://www.lapdonline.org/join_the_team/content_basic_view/9127#Poli ce %20Officer

Please tell me where the duty to protect individuals is stated.

These would all qualify:

Responding to the scene of a crime or an accident

Responding to radio calls

Monitoring any suspicious activity of ongoing crimes

gja: TuteTibiImperes: If carrying firearms were banned across the board there would be far fewer criminals walking around with guns

That is about as naive a statment as I have ever heard. Even here on FARK.

Hardly.  The US has more guns per capita and a higher gun murder rate than other developed nations.  Places like the UK, Japan, and Germany that have stronger firearm regulations have fewer incidents of gun crime because the guns are more easily controlled, causing them to fall into the hands of criminals less often.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]

Why is Mexico excluded in that diagram? They are currently fighting the other side of our drug war. What would the gun murder rate be in the US and Mexico if we weren't both currently engaged in a futile drug war?


Probably a lot lower, and I'm all for ending it.

Right now Mexico's government is teetering on the edge between troubled and completely ineffective.  Given the the internal turmoil, it doesn't make sense to compare numbers there.
 
2014-02-14 12:27:11 AM  

Scrotastic Method: deadlyplatypus: a 5th grade understanding of English grammar and sentence structure prove that

The second amendment says, in 5th grade language, that since we need a militia people can have guns. The Supreme Court later decided that the "militia" part, because of a comma, wasn't the only reason people get to have guns. Grammatically, that is nonsense.

Here's an example: "Hey Timmy, whenever you get an A on your report card, you get to have pizza for dinner." Timmy brings home a C. He requests pizza, and says that since you didn't expressly limit the scope of pizza events to A grades, he can have pizza with a C. Are you buying that line of reasoning?


GMOs and gun rights, vs AGW and health insurance - he two sets of issues that make my left-wing friends and right-wing friends sound just as farking crazy and steeped in denialism as eachother.
 
2014-02-14 12:27:41 AM  

Scrotastic Method: deadlyplatypus: a 5th grade understanding of English grammar and sentence structure prove that

The second amendment says, in 5th grade language, that since we need a militia people can have guns. The Supreme Court later decided that the "militia" part, because of a comma, wasn't the only reason people get to have guns. Grammatically, that is nonsense.

Here's an example: "Hey Timmy, whenever you get an A on your report card, you get to have pizza for dinner." Timmy brings home a C. He requests pizza, and says that since you didn't expressly limit the scope of pizza events to A grades, he can have pizza with a C. Are you buying that line of reasoning?


What a steaming pile of crap that was.
 
2014-02-14 12:29:22 AM  

That's 'Master Troll' to You: Hurray! It is safe to go in public with a tiny penis again!


Now even people with tiny peni are safe with The Equalizer.
 
2014-02-14 12:30:30 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: sugar_fetus: TuteTibiImperes: I've had this discussion on various gun threads many time.  Regardless of if they have a legally mandated duty to do so, it's still their job.

Here's the job description for police officers in the LAPD.

http://www.lapdonline.org/join_the_team/content_basic_view/9127#Poli ce %20Officer

Please tell me where the duty to protect individuals is stated.

These would all qualify:

Responding to the scene of a crime or an accident

Responding to radio calls

Monitoring any suspicious activity of ongoing crimes

gja: TuteTibiImperes: If carrying firearms were banned across the board there would be far fewer criminals walking around with guns

That is about as naive a statment as I have ever heard. Even here on FARK.

Hardly.  The US has more guns per capita and a higher gun murder rate than other developed nations.  Places like the UK, Japan, and Germany that have stronger firearm regulations have fewer incidents of gun crime because the guns are more easily controlled, causing them to fall into the hands of criminals less often.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]


Move to Japan then.
 
2014-02-14 12:37:20 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence. If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else. This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

The entire point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. How about if the majority of Kansas chose to outlaw religions they deem unacceptable (anything not fundie). Would that be ok with you because it's a majority choice, or would you go running for Constitutional protection that you so casually tossed aside just a moment ago?

No, I wouldn't be OK with that, but I respect the 1st amendment. Actually, I pretty much agree with all of them except for the 2nd.


You don't get to pick and choose which parts should be defended or not.  It's a package deal.
 
2014-02-14 12:37:56 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Right now Mexico's government is teetering on the edge between troubled and completely ineffective.  Given the the internal turmoil, it doesn't make sense to compare numbers there.


So for the purposes of the diagram, Mexico is no longer part of the developed world, or they chose to omit Mexico considering so many of the country's murders are an affect of the war on drugs. Seems strange they didn't consider to do the same for the US. Even stranger since gun ownership is strictly controlled in Mexico.
 
2014-02-14 12:41:20 AM  

OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence. If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else. This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

The entire point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. How about if the majority of Kansas chose to outlaw religions they deem unacceptable (anything not fundie). Would that be ok with you because it's a majority choice, or would you go running forI Constitutional protection that you so casually tossed aside just a moment ago?

No, I wouldn't be OK with that, but I respect the 1st amendment. Actually, I pretty much agree with all of them except for the 2nd.

You don't get to pick and choose which parts should be defended or not.  It's a package deal.


I like the way you think, OgreMagi.
 
2014-02-14 12:42:08 AM  

fnordfocus: AngryDragon: Decision sounds pretty definitive. They'll appeal to SCOTUS and get smacked down like DC did with Heller. The Supreme Court doesn't like to reverse itself. Then they'll have to be reasonable about it.

Agreed.

My point is, I don't believe California Police Chiefs and Sheriffs are particularly concerned with obeying court orders.


Getting tossed in their own jail for contempt would probably be an enlightening experience.
 
2014-02-14 12:43:44 AM  

violentsalvation: TuteTibiImperes: Right now Mexico's government is teetering on the edge between troubled and completely ineffective.  Given the the internal turmoil, it doesn't make sense to compare numbers there.

So for the purposes of the diagram, Mexico is no longer part of the developed world, or they chose to omit Mexico considering so many of the country's murders are an affect of the war on drugs. Seems strange they didn't consider to do the same for the US. Even stranger since gun ownership is strictly controlled in Mexico.


I can't find the same graph including Mexico, but this is total homicides:

3.bp.blogspot.com

We're not the highest, but we're at the unfortunate end of the spectrum.  Mexico is just insane.  Estonia's position is surprising.

Even if Mexico were included in the first and is higher than us, it's the statistical outlier.  We shouldn't rest our hats on 'Well, we're not as bad as Mexico'.
 
2014-02-14 12:43:48 AM  

violentsalvation: TuteTibiImperes: Actually, I pretty much agree with all of them except for the 2nd.

Well, too bad.


Right!
 
2014-02-14 12:45:04 AM  

IronTom: OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence. If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else. This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

The entire point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. How about if the majority of Kansas chose to outlaw religions they deem unacceptable (anything not fundie). Would that be ok with you because it's a majority choice, or would you go running forI Constitutional protection that you so casually tossed aside just a moment ago?

No, I wouldn't be OK with that, but I respect the 1st amendment. Actually, I pretty much agree with all of them except for the 2nd.

You don't get to pick and choose which parts should be defended or not.  It's a package deal.

I like the way you think, OgreMagi.


I'm glad not everyone on Fark is a GFW (Gun Fearing Wussie).

And thanks for the TF.

I was just discussing the court decision and this thread with my sister.  She's in agreement that it was the correct ruling.  She's also an uber-crunchy, organic eating, yoga instructor, Wiccan hippy.
 
2014-02-14 12:45:24 AM  

shda5582: lostcat:
It seems like this ruling, even if it is not appealed, doesn't directly affect more than a handful of counties, and at most removes the requirement for the applicant to indicate their immediate need, in favor of a more general explanation of need. The waiting period and mandatory safety training are still in place and weren't even challenged. And the local government gets to decide what type of carry permit you receive.

Slightly wrong on that. 

The AWESOME decision by the 9th basically says that a county saying that you needed justifiable "good cause" (IE: restraining order by the courts, proof that you've been threatened requiring a signed statement by the person doing the threatening, politician, judge, celebrity, someone that donated a fark-ton of money to the county Sheriff...) can no longer deny you your application based upon just listing "self defense" on the good cause part of the application.

Pretty much if you can legally own a gun in CA, and you wish to carry concealed, then the counties can no longer deny you the issuance of the CCW if your reason is self-defense.  In other words, you can now get one in LA county provided you aren't a prohibited person, which is HUGE.


Could reciprocity from other states be next?  I'm still not sure why all states have to honor the drivers license from that state but not another state issued license (e.g.: ccw permit).
 
2014-02-14 12:45:41 AM  

OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence. If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else. This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

The entire point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. How about if the majority of Kansas chose to outlaw religions they deem unacceptable (anything not fundie). Would that be ok with you because it's a majority choice, or would you go running for Constitutional protection that you so casually tossed aside just a moment ago?

No, I wouldn't be OK with that, but I respect the 1st amendment. Actually, I pretty much agree with all of them except for the 2nd.

You don't get to pick and choose which parts should be defended or not.  It's a package deal.


Why?  Legislation and Supreme Court cases address individual amendments all the time.  When prohibition was repealed they didn't throw out the whole constitution, they addressed the problem amendment only.
 
2014-02-14 12:48:43 AM  

violentsalvation: TuteTibiImperes: Right now Mexico's government is teetering on the edge between troubled and completely ineffective.  Given the the internal turmoil, it doesn't make sense to compare numbers there.

So for the purposes of the diagram, Mexico is no longer part of the developed world, or they chose to omit Mexico considering so many of the country's murders are an affect of the war on drugs. Seems strange they didn't consider to do the same for the US. Even stranger since gun ownership is strictly controlled in Mexico.


Until recently, gun ownership was illegal.  Supposedly they've loosened that up a little.  Now you can get a pea-shooter to go up against the cartels AK-47s.  However, I'm sure the law was implemented in such a way that your average Mexican citizen won't be able to get a firearm.  The people, though, are now ignoring the law, arming themselves, and taking matters in their own hands because the police are worse than useless since they are actively working with the cartels.
 
2014-02-14 12:49:14 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: OK, I used job and duty interchangeably. If you prefer job, I have no issue going with that. If you're in trouble, the police are expected to come and help, that's what they're there for.


But not obligated to get there on time, that's not even in the job description. This is where people diverge in a discussion like this. Odds are that if it gets to the point where deadly force is required to protect yourself (in other words kill (or maimed) or be killed (or maimed)) that the police are not going to be there.

Just to make it clear here is the definition of deadly force that I learned in the navy:

Deadly force is that force which a person uses or plans to use, that can cause (or should know that it can cause), death or serious bodily harm. It's use is justified only in extreme conditions of last resort when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. It then goes on to cover what is considered justified. It was a long list with a lot of it involving nuclear weapons (which is beyond the scope here) but protecting yourself and others was specifically covered as being justified.

A cell phone call to the police may not stop it from happening and I doubt that throwing the cell phone at your attacker is going to stop them either. That would be lesser means available, but when that doesn't work and you know that serious bodily harm is about to be done to you, or could be done to you, the definition explicitly permits its use.
 
2014-02-14 12:51:32 AM  

OgreMagi: violentsalvation: TuteTibiImperes: Right now Mexico's government is teetering on the edge between troubled and completely ineffective.  Given the the internal turmoil, it doesn't make sense to compare numbers there.

So for the purposes of the diagram, Mexico is no longer part of the developed world, or they chose to omit Mexico considering so many of the country's murders are an affect of the war on drugs. Seems strange they didn't consider to do the same for the US. Even stranger since gun ownership is strictly controlled in Mexico.

Until recently, gun ownership was illegal.  Supposedly they've loosened that up a little.  Now you can get a pea-shooter to go up against the cartels AK-47s.  However, I'm sure the law was implemented in such a way that your average Mexican citizen won't be able to get a firearm.  The people, though, are now ignoring the law, arming themselves, and taking matters in their own hands because the police are worse than useless since they are actively working with the cartels.


If the US were a mostly lawless free-for-all where drug kingpins who were in league with the police ran the show I'd be far more sympathetic towards universal CCW permits.  That, however, is not the case here.
 
2014-02-14 12:51:57 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Even if Mexico were included in the first and is higher than us, it's the statistical outlier. We shouldn't rest our hats on 'Well, we're not as bad as Mexico'.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_de at h_rate

We're 15th. So it's not just Mexico that's our Mississippi.

/and them central americans sure do like shooting each other!
 
2014-02-14 12:53:41 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence. If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else. This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

The entire point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. How about if the majority of Kansas chose to outlaw religions they deem unacceptable (anything not fundie). Would that be ok with you because it's a majority choice, or would you go running for Constitutional protection that you so casually tossed aside just a moment ago?

No, I wouldn't be OK with that, but I respect the 1st amendment. Actually, I pretty much agree with all of them except for the 2nd.

You don't get to pick and choose which parts should be defended or not.  It's a package deal.

Why?  Legislation and Supreme Court cases address individual amendments all the time.  When prohibition was repealed they didn't throw out the whole constitution, they addressed the problem amendment only.


So pass a farking amendment.  Until then, STFU about my rights.
 
2014-02-14 12:54:28 AM  

Thingster: All this does is remove the arbitrary issue of permits to campaign donors and famous people.

Making the rules non-subjective is not a bad thing.


When I managed a shooting range that was one of the most annoying things.  The people that came in with concealed weapons either were one's you'd recognize from movies/news or tossed someones re-election campaign between $10k - $20k. 

TuteTibiImperes: violentsalvation: TuteTibiImperes: Right now Mexico's government is teetering on the edge between troubled and completely ineffective.  Given the the internal turmoil, it doesn't make sense to compare numbers there.

So for the purposes of the diagram, Mexico is no longer part of the developed world, or they chose to omit Mexico considering so many of the country's murders are an affect of the war on drugs. Seems strange they didn't consider to do the same for the US. Even stranger since gun ownership is strictly controlled in Mexico.

I can't find the same graph including Mexico, but this is total homicides:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 545x477]

We're not the highest, but we're at the unfortunate end of the spectrum.  Mexico is just insane.  Estonia's position is surprising.

Even if Mexico were included in the first and is higher than us, it's the statistical outlier.  We shouldn't rest our hats on 'Well, we're not as bad as Mexico'.


WTH is going on in Estonia? o.O
 
Displayed 50 of 404 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report