It wasn't done by terrorists, but 30 people are dead...

[Sam_The_Man]

BTW, if I beat you to death with a baseball bat, should we outlaw Louisville Sluggers?

No. Because I spent the £3 and one hour a week on karate lessons and can easily dodge a bloody great stick and put you on the floor.

And if you can't spend £3 and 1 hour a week, that's your own problem.

(And yes, if you're any good you should be able to win against a baseball bat. It was invented to protect against swords, after all.)

Well if you read the constitution (havnt i been quoting the thing alot?)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment II - Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People seem to have forgoten about that whole statment infront of the second comma. Our right to bear arms isn't for our own personal protection. It is for the protection of the nation.

Protection of the nation? On September 11th I didn't see everyone pulling out SAM launchers and shooting down those terrorists.

I mean, if America is being invaded, your fully-equipped army has been defeated, and Bush lost his nuclear button, I hardly think the pistol in your drawer is going to make a lot of difference

 

[iolair]

Originally posted by [RSU]MoBAcE|BuF
You'll pry my guns from my dead fingers

Ok then ...

 

[LordKhaine]

/me drags sam away from the americans.

This debate isnt worth the hassle, let them have their guns, we'll stick to our gun laws

 

[phil]

but what your forgetting oh great one to jump to a conclusion without thinking. Is that the constitution was written when a standard hunting rifle was "the ****" and fighting was done rifle to rifle.

But if your argueing against citizens with guns, I totaly agree with you. My statement was more along the lines of real regulation over those who want to wield weapons (prolly cause they have small penises) they can join the "well regulated" militia.

Firearms (even a second one added) into a situation escalate the level of violence and intensity another step.

example:

You are eating dinner at a nice restaurant. A guy comes in wielding a gun and demands everyone’s money. The guy sitting behind your mom (lets just make the assumption its mothers day or something) has a concealed weapon. He tries to do something stupid (as people who have what they feel is an advantage (like a weapon) are inclined to do) like telling the perp to "freeze" and wielding the gun. The perp starts to fire at said idiot many people are injured in insueing firefight, including your mom who is dies at the scene.

Now if said idiot hadn't had said weapon, and just let the police do there job, no one would have been killed most likely. Sure its nice when the person trying to stop the crime wields a gun and the criminal doesn’t, but the problem is that more and more criminals are carrying guns. Citizens also carrying concealed guns raise the stakes of any situation to a possible further escalation in violence.

 

[Sam_The_Man]

but what your forgetting oh great one to jump to a conclusion without thinking. Is that the constitution was written when a standard hunting rifle was "the ****" and fighting was done rifle to rifle.

But it's not now. We had a law saying that everyone had to do 1 or 2 hours longbow practice, when fighting was done a) longbow to longbow/bloody great pointed metal object and b) frequently. I think we still have it, actually, but no-one pays any attention to it.

My point is that laws need to be changed as time goes on. 'Constitutions' are no different, isn't what you're talking about an amendment anyway?

But if you're arguing against citizens with guns, I totally agree with you. My statement was more along the lines of real regulation over those who want to wield weapons (prolly cause they have small penises) they can join the "well regulated" militia.

Is this 'well regulated militia' the Army?

If not, what's wrong with that if they want to wave a gun about?

A stint in the Army would probably cure them of their gun obsession anyway.

 

[phil]

You do know we arn't argueing sam? We agree totaly.

Frankly (or Philly (ha-ha) if you like) that some of the people in the inf forums REALY own firearms scares me. Same goes for people in the arstechnica soapbox forum. It's rather bothering.

 

[Cap'n Beeb]

LK: Ahh, neat, I didnt know that. Thats gonna be kewl :tup:

 

[Wolf Blackstar]

Originally posted by phil

You are eating dinner at a nice restaurant. A guy comes in wielding a gun and demands everyone’s money. The guy sitting behind your mom (lets just make the assumption its mothers day or something) has a concealed weapon. He tries to do something stupid (as people who have what they feel is an advantage (like a weapon) are inclined to do) like telling the perp to "freeze" and wielding the gun. The perp starts to fire at said idiot many people are injured in insueing firefight, including your mom who is dies at the scene.

Now if said idiot hadn't had said weapon, and just let the police do there job, no one would have been killed most likely. Sure its nice when the person trying to stop the crime wields a gun and the criminal doesn’t, but the problem is that more and more criminals are carrying guns. Citizens also carrying concealed guns raise the stakes of any situation to a possible further escalation in violence.

I'm getting sick and tired of these generalizations and bullshit arguments about concealed weapon owners. There are standards and training that must be met before any US citizen can carry a concealed weapon and these allow concealed weapon owners to draw their weapons only when their is an imminent danger of death or great bodily harm to themselves or others. Going along with the scenario outlined above would not only put the lives of others in danger, it's just plain stupid. Owners of concealed weapons who pull stunts like his risk the suspension of their licenses as well as being charged for endangerment of those around them.

I should also point out that provisions for CCW are much stricter in some states than others. Here in California, you simply won't be approved for a concealed carry weapons permit unless you are a police officer, private investigator, or work in police or government related fields.

]LoL[Wolfram
_________________

 

[Terminal {DTH}]

there is ALWAYS going to be people (criminals) who will exploit our laws/freedoms. does that mean they should ALL be taken away?
i dont know about YOU but I dont want to live in a police state/dictatorship.

 

[phil]

Taking the guns away from citizens does not automatical create a police state. There are many countries around the world where ownership of a gun is just not an option for your run of the mill citizen, and they are hardly "police states".

However you are free to show me a nation where the crime rate is lower since the introduction of greater freedome in the ownership of weapons. Infact take that as a chalange to prove me wrong.

 

[Terminal {DTH}]

problem IS that they are there Now. disreguarding the NRA with its powerfully/rich backing completely the government WOnT be able to take away what IS out there. insted itld create a MASSIVE black market and high resentment/hatred from many of the people. yould end up with god only knows HOW many camps full of gun toting government hating activists for the government forces to attempt to peacibly (and probubly fail miserably) deal take. it COULD even concievibly lead to a civil war. I wouldnt be surprised anyhow.

 

[Wolf Blackstar]

Taking guns away from the people doesn't necessarily constitute the forming of a police state.

It just makes it much easier to implement one.

You are free to show me any country where crime has gone down since the indroduction of stricter or zero-tolerance gun control policies. Good luck.

]LoL[Wolfram
_________________

 

[Danger_Dude]

Originally posted by phil
...However you are free to show me a nation where the crime rate is lower since the introduction of greater freedome in the ownership of weapons. Infact take that as a chalange to prove me wrong.

Far be it from me to not take you up on this one Possibly the best empircal study of crime rates and how they are affected by weapon position is "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott, a senior research fellow at Yale University. Here is the overview from Amazon.com

Amazon.com
Multiple regression analyses are rarely the subject of heated public debate or 225-page books for laypeople. But John R. Lott, Jr.'s study in the January 1997 Journal of Legal Studies showing that concealed-carry weapons permits reduced the crime rate set off a firestorm. The updated study, together with illustrative anecdotes and a short description of the political and academic response to the study, as well as responses to the responses, makes up Lott's informative More Guns, Less Crime.
In retrospect, it perhaps should not have been surprising that increasing the number of civilians with guns would reduce crime rates. The possibility of armed victims reduces the expected benefits and increases the expected costs of criminal activity. And, at the margin at least, people respond to changes in costs, even for crime, as Nobel-Prize winning economist [TAG]Gary Becker showed long ago. Allusions to the preferences of criminals for unarmed victims have seeped into popular culture; Ringo, a British thug in Pulp Fiction, noted off-handedly why he avoided certain targets: "Bars, liquor stores, gas stations, you get your head blown off stickin' up one of them."

But Lott's actual quantification of this, in the largest and most comprehensive study of the effects of gun control to date, a study well-detailed in the book, provoked a number of attacks, ranging from the amateurish to the subtly misleading, desperate to discredit him. Lott takes the time to refute each argument; it's almost touching the way he footnotes each time he telephones an attacker who eventually hangs up on him without substantiating any of their claims.

Lott loses a little focus when he leaves his firm quantitative base; as an economist, he should know that the low number of rejected background checks under the Brady Bill doesn't demonstrate anything by itself, because some people may have been deterred from even undergoing the background check in the first place, but he attacks the bill on this ground anyway. But the conclusions that are backed by evidence--that concealed-weapons permits reduce crime, and do so at a lower cost to society than increasing the number of police or prisons--are important ones that should be considered by policymakers. --Ted Frank --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

There are also a number of excerpt pages available for viewing, complete with some interesting statistics. Link

I'm not contending that this is the last word, but it does contain exhaustive empircal analysis of an issue that is often debated with emotion rather than reason.

Bottom line, I don't believe that phil and I will ever see eye-to-eye on this issue; fair enough, he can live in Washington DC, with some of the most restrictive gun ownership laws in the country (whoops, also the highest murder rate....), I'll live in a state whose approach is makes more sense, both common and Constitutional. That's the great thing about America...

 

[phil]

I want government statistics, not excerpts from a biased book by a biased author.

and Washington DC has more problems going for it than a lack of firearm ownership, it is frankly a very large ghetto and hardly a comparison for whatever rural community you live in. A *fair* comparison would be two large cities with matching demographics. You'r trying to compair apples and oranges.

 

[Terminal {DTH}]

my point:

if its not guns its going to be something else that someone is bitching about due to of exploitation of current laws until we ARE in a police state.

 

[fauker]

Originally posted by BlAcK_PlAgUe22


They don't make full-auto M16's.

Shows how much you know about the "street".

 

[fauker]

Well, right now im glad to have started such a debative topic and it appears that most of you DO want the right to bear arms.

 

[Danger_Dude]

phil, one of the main sources used in Lott's research are the crime statistics compiled by the FBI (as noted in the excerpted pages) - how much more "government" can you want to get?

2nd point - compare Washington to ANY other urban area - it is the murder capital of the nation AND has the most restrictive gun laws; any way you cut it, it does not appear that DC's laws are very effective...

 

[phil]

Danger dude my point is, is that you can make statistics say whatever you want them to. I could take the same statistics and prolly compile them diffrently and get a completly diffrent answer. The only way to have fair statistical sources is to get them from a dirrect un-biased source(like a government report). That guy is trying to sell a book to people who agree with him, thats capitalism sell you your ideals back to you. Thats why I dont buy into as much liberal BS as you think I do . Cause its someone elses BS not my own special homegrown BS.

 

[Terminal {DTH}]

a Government report, UNbiased??? *eyebrowsed raised to hairline*
............................. BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Whew~! thanx for the laugh. ah man, i needed that.

ah the naive.