BF2S Forums Arizona Congresswoman Shot

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Uh...  what?  Dude, you're not making any sense here.  These amendments specifically use the phrase "right to vote."  It doesn't say "privilege to vote."

Here let me help: scroll down to "right to vote"
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

But under the 14th amendment the basis of representation would need to be reduced proportionally to the number of people denied the vote - unless they were denied it for rebellion.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Strange the way they call this privilege, which is not a right, a right in the text of the constitution - but then I never understood this obsession people seem to have with the constitution being this sort of sacred unchangable thing, when in fact it's had all sorts of stupid nonsense in it at one point or another, like the 18th ammendment.

I don't understand the Constitutional obsession either, but a right doesn't have to be universal.

Turquoise wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Here let me help: scroll down to "right to vote"
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

But under the 14th amendment the basis of representation would need to be reduced proportionally to the number of people denied the vote - unless they were denied it for rebellion.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Strange the way they call this privilege, which is not a right, a right in the text of the constitution - but then I never understood this obsession people seem to have with the constitution being this sort of sacred unchangable thing, when in fact it's had all sorts of stupid nonsense in it at one point or another, like the 18th ammendment.

I don't understand the Constitutional obsession either, but a right doesn't have to be universal.

Oh I'm agreeing with you - it certainly is a right. Which is why they refer to it as the right to vote. If in law a legal principle is referred to as a right it is fairly silly to suggest that it is anything but.

Well, in the US, studies have been done to track violent crime rates before and after concealed carry laws were passed and between states that had ccw laws and those that did not.

The conclusions generally came out one of two ways.
A)States with ccw laws had lower crime rates/decreases in crime.
B)No statistically significant effect was observed.

So, based on that, one may argue that CCW reduces violent crime (but result "B" makes it a weaker argument).
However, a strong argument is that CCW does not produce an increase in violent crime.  In a society based upon freedom, anything which does not cause harm should be allowed.  Thus, CCW should be allowed, since it provides more freedoms (and may help) and does not increase violent crime rates.
______________________________

To the case in Arizona:
Would a "good guy" with a legally carried firearm have helped or hurt?
We really don't know.  This is one of those rare cases.  The shooter was taken down after one magazine (rare for active shooter cases).  It occured in a dense crowd, making it difficult to get a clean shot on the attacker.  I have heard rumors of a person carrying legally who chose not to fire, due to crowd density.  I have seen several news reports of a guy legally carrying who helped subdue the shooter.  He did not draw his firearm because when he arrived the shooter's gun was already slide-locked (empty), and he was being wrestled on the ground.

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2011-01-13 13:55:13)

Macbeth wrote:

It's cool dude. Why are you in the hospital for? (if you don't mind me asking.)

My mom is having a liver resection to remove a cancerous tumor.

RAIMIUS wrote:

Well, in the US, studies have been done to track violent crime rates before and after concealed carry laws were passed and between states that had ccw laws and those that did not.

The conclusions generally came out one of two ways.
A)States with ccw laws had lower crime rates/decreases in crime.
B)No statistically significant effect was observed.

So, based on that, one may argue that CCW reduces violent crime (but result "B" makes it a weaker argument).
However, a strong argument is that CCW does not produce an increase in violent crime.  In a society based upon freedom, anything which does not cause harm should be allowed.  Thus, CCW should be allowed, since it provides more freedoms (and may help) and does not increase violent crime rates.

I wouldn't expect any laws like that would have any significant impact. The way in which effective gun control works is not by controlling where in the country guns are and how they are carried about, it's by not having them in the country in private hands at all.

Reduce the number of guns and you reduce the amount of gun crime. Rules and restrictions and how you can carry guns about seem quite pointless to me. The way you make gun control work is to simply not have the guns there. In the US getting to that point would be very, very difficult.

Shahter wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:

ok, my english sucks, last try:

all cases involving legal guns, regardless if a crime was committed with the use of those weapons - you can use a gun and NOT commit a crime in the process, right? and this incident may get registered by the government if, for example, the matter was brought to a court for resolution.

so, it's not legal vs illegal - it's owned legally and used legitimately vs owned legally but misused.

But again, that doesn't take into account situations where no case was filed.

it doesn't and it doesn't matter in this case. statistics, to be reliable, doesn't need to include all the situations - it doesn't even need to include most. the only criteria that must be met is sufficient amounts of representative data collected. the amounts i've addressed already, now you basically say that if we only look at the cases registered by the government, we somehow loose the representativeness? how so? i think each case has about equal chance of being registered, no?

In order to make a solid conclusion, you need to account for the majority of situations.  In a free society, this is nigh impossible.

presidentsheep wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

No. As previously pointed out, national per capita knife homicide rates in the UK are lower than in the US.

Ultimately what happens is we have far fewer people killing each other. Which I think is a good thing.

I rather > SUSPECT < you have other things of a much lower national per capita than the United States which contribute more than Laws, Rules and Regs. to your observations of " far fewer people killing each other " in the UK.

Any evidence to back that claim up?

get the Key word ?

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

I rather > SUSPECT < you have other things of a much lower national per capita than the United States which contribute more than Laws, Rules and Regs. to your observations of " far fewer people killing each other " in the UK.

Any evidence to back that claim up?

get the Key word ?

well then your suspicions are baseless and therefore irrelevant to the discussion, move along.

SenorToenails wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

In order to make a solid conclusion, you need to account for the majority of situations.

well, first - no, not really. there are reliable statistical and purely algebraic methods that do not require "majority of situations". and second - as i said, that's as close as we can possibly get to seeing the true picture, and without this kinda stuff there's no way to research the matter at all, imo.

You don't need to account for all or the majority of cases, but if you have a data set that you know is under-representing certain types of data, then you can't use that for anything statistically valid.

again, first - i don't think that any types of data would be under-represented in this particular case, but go ahead and point where i'm wrong if i am, and second - if you do actually know what types of data are being under-represented then it's all the same - there are reliable algebraical methods for accounting for those kinds of stuff.

SenorToenails wrote:

Shahter wrote:

if you do actually know what types of data are being under-represented then it's all the same - there are reliable algebraical methods for accounting for those kinds of stuff.

Only if you like cooking statistics to say what you want them to say.  Please feel free to direct me to the 'reliable algebraical methods' for accounting for large portions of missing data.  I think it's generally referred to as 'data invention', and that is anything but reliable.

that stuff was actually my major in uni where i studied applied mathematics. i'm told some of the brighter people there even did work for some kinda government agency - they developed means of tracking fraudulent practices and speculations on the stock market, back when that shit was actaully looked into anyway. i don't think i can easily find it right now and certainly not all in english - it was many years ago, not to say that i dropped out and never used that stuff since, but i can tell you for sure: if anything, statistics is data invention until it is backed up by proper mathmatics and probability theory, but nobody gives a fuck nowdays. it's "73% of people, who took our survey"-bullshit for them now, especially when there's an agenda to push.

RAIMIUS wrote:

Well, in the US, studies have been done to track violent crime rates before and after concealed carry laws were passed and between states that had ccw laws and those that did not.

The conclusions generally came out one of two ways.
A)States with ccw laws had lower crime rates/decreases in crime.
B)No statistically significant effect was observed.

So, based on that, one may argue that CCW reduces violent crime (but result "B" makes it a weaker argument).
However, a strong argument is that CCW does not produce an increase in violent crime.  In a society based upon freedom, anything which does not cause harm should be allowed.  Thus, CCW should be allowed, since it provides more freedoms (and may help) and does not increase violent crime rates.
______________________________

To the case in Arizona:
Would a "good guy" with a legally carried firearm have helped or hurt?
We really don't know.  This is one of those rare cases.  The shooter was taken down after one magazine (rare for active shooter cases).  It occured in a dense crowd, making it difficult to get a clean shot on the attacker.  I have heard rumors of a person carrying legally who chose not to fire, due to crowd density.  I have seen several news reports of a guy legally carrying who helped subdue the shooter.  He did not draw his firearm because when he arrived the shooter's gun was already slide-locked (empty), and he was being wrestled on the ground.

Didn't hear that first 'crowd density' rumor.
I would argue it would have helped end it had the guy not been taken down when he did.  An armed citizen was responding and holy shit he didn't draw his gun... Who could say that about the police typical response when they think they saw you holding a gun -who draws down faster?

well it should be and as an American living in the greatest nation on earth you should demand that right.