It is. Crimanels are the problem, A gun wont make you murder anymore than your penis can make you rape.
Poll
I am _______ concealed weapons and I live...
| _for_...in the US. | 43% | 43% - 97 | ||||
| _for_...in another nation where they are allowed. | 3% | 3% - 7 | ||||
| _for_...in a nation where they are disallowed. | 10% | 10% - 23 | ||||
| _against_...in the US. | 5% | 5% - 13 | ||||
| _against_...in another nation where they are allowed. | 2% | 2% - 5 | ||||
| _against_...in a nation where they are disallowed. | 35% | 35% - 80 | ||||
| Total: 225 | ||||||
I dunno my penis has forced me to do some pretty dumb shit before.Horseman 77 wrote:
It is. Crimanels are the problem, A gun wont make you murder anymore than your penis can make you rape.
Yeah, and mine usually goes off when I am cleaning it.lowing wrote:
I dunno my penis has forced me to do some pretty dumb shit before.Horseman 77 wrote:
It is. Crimanels are the problem, A gun wont make you murder anymore than your penis can make you rape.
There are several issues with this statement, including, but not limited to:Horseman 77 wrote:
If guns were the problem murders in the Armed Forces would be out of control with all the young people carrying automatic weapons.
1) It assumes the armed forces are representative of the general population
2) Whether guns are "the problem" isn't the issue, it's whether the benefits of possesion out-weigh the risks
3) You ought be saying killings, not murders, and there are plenty of those.
Horseman 77 wrote:
If guns were the problem murders in the Armed Forces would be out of control with all the young people carrying automatic weapons.
good point, glad you brought it up. most are young men.Bubbalo wrote:
There are several issues with this statement, including, but not limited to:
1) It assumes the armed forces are representative of the general population
good piont, look at all the stats or even just one No guns in prison and it isn't murder free is it ?Bubbalo wrote:
2) Whether guns are "the problem" isn't the issue, it's whether the benefits of possesion out-weigh the risks
no actually we are talking about murders. Try and stay current. Ps I was just kidding about that " run, he's spooling up " thing. sorry you took offense. : )Bubbalo wrote:
3) You ought be saying killings, not murders, and there are plenty of those.
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-09-07 20:52:29)
I'm low on time, so I'm going to make this quick:
You misunderstood me. A ban on guns in the US would be more likely to shut down legal sales, with a 'grandfather' allowance for weapons already in posession. Overt confiscation would risk too much civil unrest.Bubbalo wrote:
And promptly have them confiscated after the ban.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
1. Guns are already exaggerated in the media and the subject of an excess amount of glamour. The act of denying something will only serve to raise interest in it. A likely scenario for a ban would be to block the sale of certain guns over time after specified dates, which would only serve to attract buyers to the firearms market before said dates.
Um, no. Gun owners aren't out to destroy their country, so there's no reason for the US to attack them, unless (of course) told to do so by one of the incarnations of Janet Reno, the Destructor, come to claim the Earth as Its own.Bubbalo wrote:
Well in that case you'd better do as Mr. bin Laden says: failing to do so could result in further attacks.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
3. The withdrawal of firearms rights would serve to inspire discord among the more stalwart gun owners of America, resulting in a mildly dystopian scenario of domestic terrorism from both police and extremists.
Incorrect. Self-defense and hunting are legitimate concepts. Firearms can be used for either. Target practice improves chances of success at either while using firearms. Kitchen knives, pens, mallets, picks, shovels, trucks, lawnmowers, limb shredders, gas lines and even cigarettes can be used to cause physical harm, but I don't see you clamouring for a ban on any of these.Bubbalo wrote:
Except that guns can only be used to either practice or cause physical harm, neither of which are legitimate.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
4. To strike at tools that can be misused is ineffective.
I'll pull the Bubbalo card in saying that I have no idea what you're talking about here, and that your 123ABC scenario, which I don't need to quote, was perhaps too simplified (that is, supplying insufficient data) in its convoluted state.Bubbalo wrote:
Except that it probably would be too hard to smuggle a weapon over a state border, which puts the lie to your theory: you see, Washington is probably suffering from looser gun laws over the border.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
The bans and restrictions in Washington, D.C. viewed in combination with its own significant crime rate contributes a bit of proof to that.
Complex language usually does not consist of multiple linked strings of elipses and sporaidic errors in spelling (for which you have been known, if not necessarily in every post).Bubbalo wrote:
Ha..........you tried to be verbose and failed. Anyway........................your D is my B, hence why it had a value of 3, greater than A and C. And you have no basis for this supposed periodical influx of weapons: I have yet to see it in Australia, and AFAIK Europe does not experience them. Here's a hint for your next post: don't try to use complex language. You risk making little sense (your post above as an example) or, even if you succeed, confusing others, which won't convince them of your argument!
* only the proper fancy word is obfuscate, not obfusticate. I hate smearing people like this, but you're crying out for it.Bubbalo wrote:
Which is a border control issue, which could be solved. Russia is big on arms making and such, yet Europe doesn't seem to have huge troubles. Maybe you should ask them for advice?
And using big words means nothing if you use them improperly and attempt to obfusticate* your opponents rather than engage in meaningful dialogue.
*See, I can use fancy words too, and properly! I choose not to, however, because there is little point.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-09-07 22:08:44)
Bubbalo wrote:
2) Whether guns are "the problem" isn't the issue, it's whether the benefits of possesion out-weigh the risks
AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
First of all unless your talking about Class III, CCW(CPL,CHL,CWL,etc),etc, than there is no such thing as "registered" gun owners. Thats a myth.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
moron/psycho who can't be trusted with a keyboard and an internet connection let alone a weapon.
Can anyone find any gun ownership statistics? Maybe registered American gun owners?
Edit: By taking the number of guns and the rough estimate that 1/11 Americans is a gun owner, which is an official estimate, don't remember from where, that puts approximately 24-25 million gun owners in the U.S. + or - 1-2 million (adjusted for error).NotesGuns.
The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) estimates that there were about 215 million guns in 1999,1 when the number of new guns was averaging about 4.5 million (about 2%) annually.2 A report for the National Academy of Sciences put the 1999 figure at 258 million.3 According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 60.4 million approved (new and used) NICS firearm transactions between 1994 2004.4 The number of NICS checks for firearm purchases or permits increased 3.2% between 2003-2004.
Gun Owners.
The number of gun owners is also at an all-time high. The U.S. population is at an all-time high (294 million), and rises about 1% annually.5 Numerous surveys over the last 40+ years have found that almost half of all households have at least one gun owner.6 Some surveys since the late 1990s have indicated a smaller incidence of gun ownership,7 probably because of some respondents` concerns about "gun control," residually due, perhaps, to the anti-gun policies of the Clinton Administration.
Right-to-Carry.
The number of RTC states is at an all-time high, up from 10 in 1987 to 38 today.8 In 2004, states with RTC laws, compared to other states, had lower violent crime rates on average. Total violent crime was lower by 21%, murder by 28%, robbery by 43%, and aggravated assault by 13%.9
"Less Gun Control."
Violent crime has declined while many "gun control" laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive. Many states have eliminated prohibitory or restrictive carry laws, in favor of Right-to-Carry laws. The federal Brady Act`s waiting period on handgun sales ended in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported National Instant Check, and some states thereafter eliminated waiting periods, purchase permit requirements, or other laws delaying gun sales. The federal "assault weapon" ban expired in 2004. All states now have hunter protection laws, 46 have range protection laws, 46 prohibit local jurisdictions from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law, 44 protect the right to arms in their constitutions, and 33 prohibit frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry.10
Studies by and for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and even researchers who support "gun control," have found no evidence that "gun control" reduces crime.11
Crime.
The FBI reports that the nation`s total violent crime rate declined every year between 1991 2004.12 In 2004, the violent crime rate fell to a 30-year low, lower than any time since 1974. The murder rate fell to a 39-year low, lower than any time since 1965. The 2004 robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower than any time since 1968 and 1984, respectively. Since 1991, total violent crime has decreased 39%; murder and non-negligent manslaughter, 44%; rape, 24%; robbery, 50%; and aggravated assault, 33%.13 Between 2003-2004, the violent crime rate declined 2.2%.14 Concurrently, the most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics crime victimization survey found that violent crime is lower than anytime since 1973, when the first such survey was conducted.15
1. BATF, "Crime Gun Trace Reports (1999) National Report," Nov. 2000, p. ix (www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/1999/index.htm).
2. BATF, "Firearms Commerce in the United States 2001/2002" (www.atf.gov/pub/index.htm#Firearms).
3. National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Academies Press, 2005.
4. BJS, "Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2004" (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/pub/pdf/bcft04.pdf).
5. Bureau of the Census (http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html).
6. Gary Kleck, Targeting Firearms, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, pp. 94, 98-100.
7. E.g., BJS Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2002, Table 2.58, (www.albany.edu/sourcebook/).
8. See NRA RTC fact sheet (within www.nraila.org/Issues/Filter.aspx?ID=003).
9. See FBI, Crime in the United States 2004 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius) for state crime statistics.
10. See NRA-ILA Compendium of State Firearms Laws (www.nraila.org/media/misc/compendium.htm). Also, note that in October 2005, federal legislation prohibiting such lawsuits was signed into law.
11. Federal "assault weapon" ban: Roth, Koper, et al., Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, March 13, 1997 (www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=406797); Reedy and Koper, "Impact of handgun types on gun assault outcomes: a comparison of gun assaults involving semiautomatic pistols and revolvers," Injury Prevention 2003, (http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/9/2/151); Koper et al., Report to the National Institute of Justice, An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003, June 2004 (www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/jlc-new/Rese … _final.pdf); Wm. J. Krouse, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban," Dec. 16, 2004. "Gun control," generally: Library of Congress, Report for Congress: Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998, LL98-3, 97-2010; Task Force on Community Preventive Service, "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws," Morbidity and Mortaility Weekly Report, Oct. 3, 2003 (www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm); National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Academies Press, 2005 (http://books.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/index.html).
12. Note 9 and BJS (http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/). See also FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel05/ … 101705.htm).
13. Note 10. Condensed at www.nraila.org, click on "Research," then "Crime Statistics."
14. Note 12.
15. BJS (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/pub/press/cv04pr.htm).
As the old saying goes, If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them.
In most states CCW laws are more for tracking and accountability. so if ( when ) a weapon is discharged. they can match the round to the gun it was fired from. Every weapon leaves a unique signature on the spend round making it easy to match to the weapon it was fired from.
So at the end of the day, Those who have permits will only draw in a self defense situation knowing that if they do something shady, they will get found out and dealt with. It produces a culture of responsibility and if handled properly. should reduce gun related deaths.
In most states CCW laws are more for tracking and accountability. so if ( when ) a weapon is discharged. they can match the round to the gun it was fired from. Every weapon leaves a unique signature on the spend round making it easy to match to the weapon it was fired from.
So at the end of the day, Those who have permits will only draw in a self defense situation knowing that if they do something shady, they will get found out and dealt with. It produces a culture of responsibility and if handled properly. should reduce gun related deaths.
Introduction First, what are "liberalized" concealed carry laws?
They are a set of requirements, when met by an applicant, require the issuance of a concealed carry permit, which allows a permit holder to carry a gun (concealed) in public places. These requirements may consist of a license fee, a safety training program or exam, fingerprinting, a "clean" record, no history of mental illness, etc. In other words it is not left to the discretion of local authorities to decide whether or not to issue a permit. Liberalized concealed carry laws are more often referred to as "shall-issue concealed carry weapons" laws.
In 1987, when Florida enacted such legislation, critics warned that the "Sunshine State" would become the "Gunshine State."
Contrary to their predictions, homicide rates dropped faster than the national average.
Further, through 1997, only one permit holder out of the over 350,000 permits issued, was convicted of homicide.
(Source: Kleck, Gary Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 370. Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.) If the rest of the country behaved as Florida's permit holders did, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate in the world. David Kopel, Research Director at the Independence Institute comments on Florida's concealed carry experience:
"What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit.
This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit." ("More Permits Mean Less Crime..." Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1996, Monday, p. B-5)
They are a set of requirements, when met by an applicant, require the issuance of a concealed carry permit, which allows a permit holder to carry a gun (concealed) in public places. These requirements may consist of a license fee, a safety training program or exam, fingerprinting, a "clean" record, no history of mental illness, etc. In other words it is not left to the discretion of local authorities to decide whether or not to issue a permit. Liberalized concealed carry laws are more often referred to as "shall-issue concealed carry weapons" laws.
In 1987, when Florida enacted such legislation, critics warned that the "Sunshine State" would become the "Gunshine State."
Contrary to their predictions, homicide rates dropped faster than the national average.
Further, through 1997, only one permit holder out of the over 350,000 permits issued, was convicted of homicide.
(Source: Kleck, Gary Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 370. Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.) If the rest of the country behaved as Florida's permit holders did, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate in the world. David Kopel, Research Director at the Independence Institute comments on Florida's concealed carry experience:
"What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit.
This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit." ("More Permits Mean Less Crime..." Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1996, Monday, p. B-5)
Since necroposts are the thing of the evening (thanks G@lt), I'd like to bring up the results of this gigancient poll. In it,
Roughly:
83% of Americans are for CCW, while 17% are against.
60% of citizens of countries where it is allowed are for CCW, while 40% are against.
22% of citizens of countries where it is disallowed are for CCW, while 78% are against.
Looks like an interesting swing to me.
Roughly:
83% of Americans are for CCW, while 17% are against.
60% of citizens of countries where it is allowed are for CCW, while 40% are against.
22% of citizens of countries where it is disallowed are for CCW, while 78% are against.
Looks like an interesting swing to me.
lowing wrote:
I dunno my penis has forced me to do some pretty dumb shit before.Horseman 77 wrote:
It is. Crimanels are the problem, A gun wont make you murder anymore than your penis can make you rape.
On the topic... I'm not that concerned tbh about CCW. Fairly minor in the whole gun control thingo.
Last edited by Spark (2010-02-24 04:17:47)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
" The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, and buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one " - Bill hicks
I wouldn't have a problem carrying, but if that meant the moron next to me were also carrying then no.
Lost and stolen legitimate weapons would also skyrocket.
Off-duty police maybe but otherwise no.
Lost and stolen legitimate weapons would also skyrocket.
Off-duty police maybe but otherwise no.
Fuck Israel
holy macaroni! it's a semi-sencible post by lowing.lowing wrote:
I dunno my penis has forced me to do some pretty dumb shit before.Horseman 77 wrote:
It is. Crimanels are the problem, A gun wont make you murder anymore than your penis can make you rape.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Funniest thing Lowing has ever posted?Spark wrote:
lowing wrote:
I dunno my penis has forced me to do some pretty dumb shit before.Horseman 77 wrote:
It is. Crimanels are the problem, A gun wont make you murder anymore than your penis can make you rape.
On the topic... I'm not that concerned tbh about CCW. Fairly minor in the whole gun control thingo.
His posts would make more sense if you actually used your brain instead of jumping on the troll bus.Shahter wrote:
holy macaroni! it's a semi-sencible post by lowing.lowing wrote:
I dunno my penis has forced me to do some pretty dumb shit before.Horseman 77 wrote:
It is. Crimanels are the problem, A gun wont make you murder anymore than your penis can make you rape.
n is still probably too small for statistical relevance, but is quite funny how it's pretty much a status quo thing.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Since necroposts are the thing of the evening (thanks G@lt), I'd like to bring up the results of this gigancient poll. In it,
Roughly:
83% of Americans are for CCW, while 17% are against.
60% of citizens of countries where it is allowed are for CCW, while 40% are against.
22% of citizens of countries where it is disallowed are for CCW, while 78% are against.
Looks like an interesting swing to me.
but, you know, since he seemingly never uses his, i though i'd skip the "Serious Talk"-part this time.ATG wrote:
His posts would make more sense if you actually used your brain...Shahter wrote:
holy macaroni! it's a semi-sencible post by lowing.lowing wrote:
I dunno my penis has forced me to do some pretty dumb shit before.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
WOW! Talk about a necropost...
Feel free to label me as another "Pro-CCW American."
I agree that not everyone should carry a weapon (firearm or whatever), but I'm not confident that giving the decision to the government (at any level) is the best decision. CCW permit holders are fairly self-selecting, IMO. As a group, their crime rate is quite low. I think the "shall issue" systems in most states are working pretty well. (Alaska and Vermont do pretty well with their "whatever goes" systems, but demographically they are a bit strange compared to other states.)
Feel free to label me as another "Pro-CCW American."
I agree that not everyone should carry a weapon (firearm or whatever), but I'm not confident that giving the decision to the government (at any level) is the best decision. CCW permit holders are fairly self-selecting, IMO. As a group, their crime rate is quite low. I think the "shall issue" systems in most states are working pretty well. (Alaska and Vermont do pretty well with their "whatever goes" systems, but demographically they are a bit strange compared to other states.)
Well, of course it's too small to take seriously, but I thought the results were interesting for a ~190 person poll.DesertFox- wrote:
...still probably too small for statistical relevance, but is quite funny how it's pretty much a status quo thing.
Truly an epic revive...
I'm for it, but only if the license takes hundreds of hours of qualification and training to get.
I'm for it, but only if the license takes hundreds of hours of qualification and training to get.
I just voted so you might wanna recalculate that.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Since necroposts are the thing of the evening (thanks G@lt), I'd like to bring up the results of this gigancient poll. In it,
Roughly:
83% of Americans are for CCW, while 17% are against.
60% of citizens of countries where it is allowed are for CCW, while 40% are against.
22% of citizens of countries where it is disallowed are for CCW, while 78% are against.
Looks like an interesting swing to me.
It's not going to change all that much.Wreckognize wrote:
I just voted so you might wanna recalculate that.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Since necroposts are the thing of the evening (thanks G@lt), I'd like to bring up the results of this gigancient poll. In it,
Roughly:
83% of Americans are for CCW, while 17% are against.
60% of citizens of countries where it is allowed are for CCW, while 40% are against.
22% of citizens of countries where it is disallowed are for CCW, while 78% are against.
Looks like an interesting swing to me.
So you want them to get more training than licensed security guards and cops?S.Lythberg wrote:
Truly an epic revive...
I'm for it, but only if the license takes hundreds of hours of qualification and training to get.
Yes, and why not? Most firearm injuries are accidental, people obviously don't know how to properly handle and store their guns.RAIMIUS wrote:
So you want them to get more training than licensed security guards and cops?S.Lythberg wrote:
Truly an epic revive...
I'm for it, but only if the license takes hundreds of hours of qualification and training to get.