He got like 3,000 years. Really. I think it was a sentence of 3.000 - 5,000 years in lieu of the death penalty. No kidding. Dude will not be among the regular folks for his lifetime. And that's where he belongs.Originally Posted by Odin
OMG, I'm so sorry!I hope he is rotting in a prison cell.
But really, we can all be victims sometimes. It happens. But it taught me that I'm the only person who is allowed to ruin my life.
This is the best statement that I have ever seen on this forum.
Seriously.
Absolutely, Tony. The fear of a "Parable Of The Sower"-type scenario is what has me thinking of arming myself and learning how to shoot well. That's what I don't understand about people like Eric...people with good hearts who, nevertheless, feel we should be sitting ducks, all for the sake of ideology.
"Better hurry. There's a storm coming. His storm!!!" :-O -Abigail Freemantle, "The Stand" by Stephen King
I think you're making some assumptions that may not apply. There is a direct correlating between the easy availability of firearms and firearm-related deaths. There is also a similar relationship to overall levels of violence.
Yes, you might save yourself from a bad situation, but a child down the road may be accidental killed by daddy's improperly secured weapon. Is one pereson's good fortunes a justification for the unintended consequences of a society awash in weapons? You personalize it, but is it really personal?
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
The first is undoubtedly and logically true. Just as there is a direct correlation between the abundance of water in an area and drownings.
The second, on the other hand, is one of those often-repeated, never-demonstrated "facts". Overall levels of violence exist independent of the kind of tools at-hand for committing violence. At least, so far as every kind of evidence I've ever come across seems to indicate. If you've got something new, by all means, share it with us.
Of course, that child might instead find himself protected by daddy (or -gasp- himself!) using said weapon. Since my example happens far more frequently in the real world than yours does, I'll be really unreasonably charitable and offer to call it just a wash. What 'might' happen at the end of one of thousands of chains of unforeseeable (and mutually-opposite) events is irrelevant to the question of what to do.Yes, you might save yourself from a bad situation, but a child down the road may be accidental killed by daddy's improperly secured weapon.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch
"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy
"[it] is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky
Here is the Firearms Death Rate. Here is the Overall Violence Rate. The second data set should be cross-correlated with population density, but I don't have the time or inclination to do that.
Are incidents of self-protection higher than accidental shootings? Please show if so.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
This thread goes way too far back for me to catch up and still get any work done, so if this has been addressed sorry fort he repeat.
My question is whats wrong with making gun liscense and a drivers liscense the same process? My knowledge of guns is not extensive to say the least but do they have classes that you can go to learn the proper use and maintenance of guns? If not why not? Why isnt this mandatory if you want to own a gun?
Kanteai's stance on guns is how a lot of hunters are. Thye are well taught and know the consequences of owning a gun. Why not have a guy like that teaching gun care and safety on the weekends or after work or school?
Again this seems really obvious, so if someone asked this a few pages back sorry for the bump.
Bottom line: I DON'T CARE what the left-wing thinks about it. Fu#@ correlations. It is my right, and responsibility, to be the first line of defense for myself and family. If someone else misuses that right and does something bad to someone else...well, it would be worse if they had company.
Right now, i'm a sitting duck. That I plan to change.
"Better hurry. There's a storm coming. His storm!!!" :-O -Abigail Freemantle, "The Stand" by Stephen King
It's been suggested by a few of us. Generally, the idea gets laughed off as "impossible" or "unworkable" without any explanation as to why it wouldn't work. Other than an assumption that the NRA wouldn't support it and, therefore, it would never come to fruitition.
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." —Albert Einstein
"The road to perdition has ever been accompanied by lip service to an ideal." —Albert Einstein
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.” —Albert Einstein
Sooo....anyone of you gun enthusiasts want to weigh in? I really think this could be workable. It would definetly take care of someone spontaneously needing a gun and getting it right there.
Who really needs a gun right away? (Hello there red flag.)
Can anyone give me a good reason why someone shouldnt wait for a week long background check? Why would anyone need a gun RIGHT NOW? I dont buy a sponaneous hunting trip. You guys plan those things way in advance. It's not like going fishing.(Which you also need a liscense for)
Why cant these guys wait for a background check or even a psychological test?
Good points indeed.
Are you really threatened? I know my situation is not that dire.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
If we could provide a reasonable way to "fast track" background checks for people who suddenly find themselves getting death threats, for women (hell, and men for that matter) being stalked, for people who report to the police some threats or incidents that started occurring suddenly enough that they can't wait seven days for protection, I might be inclined to agree with you.
But (as a random example) if a woman breaks up with her husband or boyfriend and he starts stalking her and cops an "if I can't have you, no one will" attitude, I don't want to tell her she has to wait seven days to bolster her self-defense. Especially since the courts have ruled that law enforcement has no liability for their failure to protect you even if you report you are in clear and present danger of being victimized.
Last edited by ziggyX65; 02-18-2011 at 03:35 PM.
That's pretty much what I thought. Rates of death by particular means correlate positively with the availability of that means. The second set contains no new data, and fails to demonstrate the point you were trying to make. No big surprises there...
Easy enough. For firearm injuries annually (by the way, this includes accidental, and intentional... but for the sake of laziness, we'll just pretend they were all accidents. It only makes the numbers look less unbalanced, anyway) we can use the CDC's statistics (page 5 is where you want to look). They show in the neighborhood of 32,000 fatalities, and then state that "An estimated two nonfatal injuries occur for every firearm death." Which gives us a grand total of 96,000 annually. Let's call it 100,000 -- no reason not to be generous with you.Are incidents of self-protection higher than accidental shootings? Please show if so.
For defensive uses of firearms, the numbers are all over the map. The most conservative one (based on crimes which ended up being committed anyway, so it misses incidence of defense actually stopping a crime; plus based on self-reporting, which further biases the number downward) I can find gives a figure of 68,000 annually. For lack of a way to agree upon a number, I'm inclined to go with work published in a relatively neutral forum. This study from the Journal of Criminology and Law references both the 68,000/an study as well as survey-studies which gave significantly higher figures. It goes rather extensively into the methodological weaknesses of previous studies before outlining its own methodology. The results it reports imply an incidence of self-defense-by-firearm in the US of upwards of 2 million annually. That seems a pretty high number, whether or not it is correct. So, what the fuck, split the difference high/low? That gives us 1 million annually if we do it arithmetically, and 370,000 annually if we use the geometric mean.
In either case, we're talking about an unambiguously overwhelming incidence of firearms-defending over firearms-hurting. According to whatever actual fact there are lying around, that is...
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch
"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy
"[it] is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky
No, not at all...not now. I'm thinking of 10-15 yrs out...if and when society implodes "Parable"-style. In the book, you bet they were gun-owners, knew how to use them, and survived only because of it. Screw ideology.
"Better hurry. There's a storm coming. His storm!!!" :-O -Abigail Freemantle, "The Stand" by Stephen King
These tests would be used by people like Eric as a way to ban firearms. This is why the Second Amendment was worded so strongly. Consider as an example how few concealed weapon permits were issued in the state of Oregon before the must issue laws were passed in 1992.
If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.
- Ludwig von Mises
Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.
- Lazarus Long
It's not mandatory to have a license if you want to own or buy a car. Licensing is only mandatory if you want to use a car in public spaces. I would think the exact same kind of restrictions -- that is, anyone with money can buy; set your own rules in your own space; need some sort of certificate of minimal competency to be able to use (which may as well include 'carry') in public spaces -- would go down alright.
I contrast the American weapons laws with the Russian ones. There, with a minimal amount of paperwork (and that's saying something for that country) any person who is not a criminal or lunatic can buy any smooth-bore long gun or any kind of handgun he can afford. Once he has been a weapons-owner for several years (5 or 7; I can't remember), he is considered to have proven himself responsible enough to be allowed to own the really dangerous stuff -- rifles and carbines.
Most of the people I know who could afford them had at minimum a mossberg-type short pump shotgun for at-home. When all the walls -- interior and exterior are foot-thick brick or 8" concrete, there's not such a big need for frangible rounds.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch
"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy
"[it] is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky
I think some cities have laws like that for pets. Dogs have to be licensed, but if your cat stays inside all day it's not required.
That would probably work for guns. Keep them at home if you want to, but get a license if you want to carry one on public property.
First let me state that I am not a gun enthusiast, if by that you mean someone who feels the need to go out and buy a gun every chance they get. I own the weapons that I need to do the types of hunting that I enjoy and don't feel the need to have to buy anymore than what I have *well I would love to have an old lever action 30-30* and most of the people that I know who hunt pretty much feel the same way.
Most states *not all* do have regulations in place in which in order to purchase a gun *different regulations between hand guns and long rifles* it all depends on where you live. here is an article outlining different state regulations *ya I know it's wiki but it does go state by state*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law...ates_(by_state)
there is also the gun control act that I had always thought was in effect for all states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968
Lots of reading there but it is interesting to see how many states do have very specific laws pertaining to the buying and selling of guns with police checks and waiting periods ranging from a week to up to 6 months I believe it was for New York.
personally I do not have an issue with having a background check done on me, you have one done for just about every thing else you do from applying for a job to buying a car.. ok so no big deal, and again the majority of hunters that I know also do not have real issues with this. When I moved to Illinois in 1995 I found that I was required to fill out and apply for a firearms owner identification card (FOID) in order to legally own a firearm or buy ammunition in Illinois you must be able to present this card to the authorities or to the sporting goods store where you are trying to by ammo and they do ask for it. Because you cant hunt deer in Illinois with a rifle I instead took up bow hunting which allowed me to hunt when I wished.
As for spontaneous hunting trips ya they actually come up quite often, I don't know how many times I have gotten calls on a Friday night where they were forecasting a freeze or snow that night asking me if I wanted to go out in the morning, but neither me or the other party needed to go buy a gun in order to do so and neither do most hunters, we already have what we need.
to one last point that i have seen raised about training. If you read the first article I posted you will also see that many states also require classes on firearm use and safety and in some cases maintenance before a licence to purchase will be issued, while in Illinois I know that young hunters had to pass special hunting classes before they were allowed to get a licence to hunt. If you have questions about whether classes like this are offered in your area, ask your local sporting goods store or police department, they can tell you and believe me as a hunter i would love to see people take these courses. Personally and I would think you would have realized this from my earlier post I believe that proper education and training in the use of weapons to be very important, and I would suggest *for first time gun owners* that you take advantage of any and all courses that pertain to the use of firearms before buying one or imeadiatly upon buying one. I also suggest that you find a proper firing range and get in as much practice as you can in order to get comfortable with the weapon you purchase especially if you have never owned one before.
this is the sentiment of most hunters that I know, we like to hunt and are responsible in the ways that we do it, does this apply to everyone who hunts, I would have to say no, there are many first time hunters out there that ignorantly believe that they don't need any kind of training and are dangerous, one reason why I took up bow hunting in Illinois and would not go out during the couple of weekends that shotgun season was open *besides the fact that I think shooting a deer with a shotgun even with the rifled slugs they use now days to go against what i was taught growing up, shotguns are for bird hunting
I will finish this up by saying once again though that if I ever need to protect my family, I will not hesitate to do so, and if it ever comes down to having to surrender my weapons because some bureaucrat thinks that they should be outlawed all together, that I will fight vehemently to keep them.
Where is there dignity unless there is honesty? Cicero
I have a right to my anger, and I don't want anybody telling me I shouldn't be, that it's not nice to be, and that something's wrong with me because I get angry. Maxine Waters
Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck.
I think in most states you need to pass some sort of competency test to get a concealed carry or carry permit. A buddy of mine has his permit and permits for 30 some odd states. I seem to remember him saying that if you get a Utah permit it transfers to most nearby western states... don't remember exactly so don't quote me. A few states don't honor out of state permits. I wouldn't know, here in the People's Republic of Maryland it is nearly impossible to get a carry permit period.It's not mandatory to have a license if you want to own or buy a car. Licensing is only mandatory if you want to use a car in public spaces. I would think the exact same kind of restrictions -- that is, anyone with money can buy; set your own rules in your own space; need some sort of certificate of minimal competency to be able to use (which may as well include 'carry') in public spaces -- would go down alright.
I contrast the American weapons laws with the Russian ones. There, with a minimal amount of paperwork (and that's saying something for that country
Most of the people I know who could afford them had at minimum a mossberg-type short pump shotgun for at-home. When all the walls -- interior and exterior are foot-thick brick or 8" concrete, there's not such a big need for frangible rounds.
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
Malcolm Reynolds
"I ran across a book recently which suggested that the peace and prosperity of a culture was solely related to how many librarians it contained. Possibly a slight overstatement. But a culture that doesn't value its librarians doesn't value ideas and without ideas, well, where are we?"
Lucien, Librarian of Dream (from The Sandman, issue 57 (1993) by Neil Gaiman)
Early-wave GenX
Even here in Texas where gun laws seem to be pretty relaxed you have to prove that you are proficient with the weapon before they will let you carry. I would have to check with my neighbor but I believe he told me that it involved classes and time on a shooting range before you could get the license. I will admit that I have considered it, there are 2 types of carry permits for handguns here, one is revolver only, the other allows both.. it all depends on what you test with. most people test with semi auto's because this allows you to carry both and if I were to take the competency test I would do the same although the only time that I actually carry my 357 here is when I hunt wild hog. *tough buggers they are*.
In response to the western state carry laws, yes they vary from state to state I believe that someone licensed in Nevada can carry in Arizona but not the other way around. Every state has different laws on the carry issue so if looking into it make sure you check out what you can and cannot do very carefully.
Where is there dignity unless there is honesty? Cicero
I have a right to my anger, and I don't want anybody telling me I shouldn't be, that it's not nice to be, and that something's wrong with me because I get angry. Maxine Waters
Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck.
You can't use a law meant to restrict firearms, to ban firearms.
It is not worded strongly. It says the purpose of people being allowed to own guns, is that a militia is needed. That need is long since outdated.This is why the Second Amendment was worded so strongly.
It's crazy to allow people to carry concealed weapons, unless I suppose they have some reason by virtue of their law enforcement occupation. Even then I am not really in favor. Allowing concealed weapons is a perversion of laws allowing people to have guns. It is certainly not an example of how reasonable requirements for gun ownership result in a ban.Consider as an example how few concealed weapon permits were issued in the state of Oregon before the must issue laws were passed in 1992.
Eric, Eric, Eric...
Again, I would recommend reading The Commonplace Second Amendmentt. The construction where there is a justification clause and an operational clause was not unique to the 2nd. There are other examples where that construction is used. As the Bill of Rights was intended to protect the People from the State, it is not proper, when the state doesn't believe the justification clause applies anymore, to cease enforcing the operational clause. Rather, a judge interpreting a right worded that way should interpret the operational clause under the assumption that the justification clause is true. To do otherwise would be to turn the intent of the writers upside down.
Also, it is not uncommon for the operational phrase to be either more inclusive or less than the justification.
Aside from the article, I can quite agree that there is no more need for a militia to enforce the law, suppress insurrections and repel invasions, the three functions which justify the Congress calling up the militia. However, these are not the only reason that the People's right to bear arms shouldn't be infringed. In fact, if one wanted to kill the right to bear arms, one would have to repeal the IXth Amendment in addition to the IInd. The right to bear arms was recognized under English Common Law at the time of the Revolution. According to current precedents, the right to bear arms was not created by the Constitution but existed before the Constitution. Thus, the wording of the IInd. It is worded not that the IInd is creating a new right, but that a right that already exist cannot be infringed.
But here we have values lock again. I do not believe Eric capable of honestly reading the IInd.
Did you try my Quiz, Eric?
Not the way you read it, no! But I call the way I read it, "honestly"
The point was that the 2nd amendment is certainly not "strongly" worded, since it has the first clause in it. Maybe our disagreement is over the meaning of the word "strongly." I don't agree with Galen on it, but then, I usually don't agree with Galen.
Yes I just took your quiz.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 02-18-2011 at 07:27 PM.
Perpetual Motion
Someone took the quiz at 6:25.50 PM today. As a reading comprehension test, and I specified it as a reading comprehension test, that person flunked the first three key questions. Zero for three.
Which is pretty much par for the course, and not just for Mr. 6:25:50. The majority of the people responding to the quiz cannot seem to take it as a reading comprehension test, but answer with what they wished it said.
Which is part of why the discussion is, as I believe Rani put it, a perpetual motion machine. No one can listen. No one wants to open their mind sufficiently to understand.
