Posted by Seventh Stage I mean this as civilly as possible: do you honestly believe that it is safer for a madman with a gun to indiscriminately shoot people unobstructed, or for that same madman to encounter opposition from a sane person carrying a gun legally? If given the chance would you hold the sane person back and let the madman continue shooting people?

I would like them to encounter opposition from a sane person carrying a gun legally AKA a cop. Not some person trying to be a hero.

Do you honestly believe that if everyone was allowed to carry around their legal guns, that this wouldn't result in more spur of the moment/drunk killings/suicides?

Posted by Skold I would like them to encounter opposition from a sane person carrying a gun legally AKA a cop. Not some person trying to be a hero. Do you honestly believe that if everyone was allowed to carry around their legal guns, that this wouldn't result in more spur of the moment/drunk killings/suicides?

sorry, but the majority of cops today are pretty fucking far from sane. Most are the type trying to be a hero.

Posted by MutantMandias Sorry, I can't take the time to read your whole post, since I am driving as fast as I can to get a beer with Ophie before bed.

Whoa, Mandi! I am impressed with your mad texting skillz while driving, but I think the gas fumes have gotten to you.

Oh, and thanks for the beer! (cider, whatever)

Posted by Samurai sorry, but the majority of cops today are pretty fucking far from sane. Most are the type trying to be a hero.

Agreed, a few years in the field seems to battle harden a lot of them from being too normal. In my limited sample set most started this field trying to be a hero but then discovered that civilians will do anything and can't be trusted.

But, even if cops were perfect automatons, which no one can be, it is still a probabilistic game that they can be on the scene in time to even help potential victims. Crime statistics say this is not a good bet. As a matter of fact, we as explorers exploit this observation on a regular basis.

Finally, when cops first started getting guns many people were wary of giving them such power because they viewed it as an armed occupation. I think this is healthy skepticism and helps keep the balance of power. This is another reason to keep an armed populace.

Posted by Neophile ...but then what do real women use?

I uh, don't think I can get into this conversation as a man of morals and virtue.

Posted by Tyralus The second amendment originated from a section of the English Bill of Rights in 1689 which declared that "Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law". This law was put in place because at the time, there was no regular army or police force, and the government saw it as every man's duty to protect the community, because there was nobody else to do it. At this point, I'm pretty sure America has a police force and army, so there should be no reason for well regulated militias. Edit: oops!

Regardless of its origin, the second amendment is two clauses: the first reading that a well regulated militia is needed, and the second reading that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The second clause is set apart and not conditional on the first. One interpretation is that since the government must keep some form of armed militia, regular citizens shall also be able retain firearms as well. This would make a great deal of sense considering it was written by people that had just spent years fighting a tyrannical government that had tried to confiscate all their guns.

Posted by Skold Do you honestly believe that if everyone was allowed to carry around their legal guns, that this wouldn't result in more spur of the moment/drunk killings/suicides?

There are many states that allow their population to do just that and what you describe is not happening. Vermont and Texas for example. Washington state also has a shall issue policy for C&C meaning that unless they find a reason not to, they have to give it to you. So to answer your question I not only believe that would not happen I can see it for myself. Feel free to present data regarding the rising violence among legal gun owners after they are allowed to carry.

Now back to my question, which you sidestepped. In the situation where some madman was shooting people in a public place, would you hold back the legally carrying gun owner from trying to stop him?

Think guns involve alot of political and government bullshit? Try getting your Commercial Pilot's license. Try spending 4 hours on the ground for every 1 hour you get to fly.

Posted by Seventh Stage Now back to my question, which you sidestepped. In the situation where some madman was shooting people in a public place, would you hold back the legally carrying gun owner from trying to stop him?

No, but please do not mistakenly believe that this in any way furthers your arguement. I wouldn't stop someone from firing at the guy, but I also wouldn't want to be the one carrying a gun in this situation. It's not like that situation would cause me to see the world in a whole new way and start a lobby group for gun ownership and the right to carrying a gun to a club (for protection yo!).

Here's some evidence for you:

"The prevalence of gun ownership
may also be an important influence on violent crime patterns, since given
what we know about how delinquent youths and criminals obtain guns, the
availability of guns for use in crime is closely linked to population prevalence
(Cook and Braga, 2001; Cook and Leitzel, 1996). Previous analysis has
found that the prevalence of gun ownership is positively correlated with the
likelihood of a gun being used in robbery and serious assault (Cook, 1979).
There is evidence that, as a result, gun prevalence has a positive effect
on homicide rates (Cook and Ludwig, 2002; Duggan, 2001; Miller et al.,
2002a, b; Zimring and Hawkins, 1997)."

By: Azrael, Deborah; Cook, Philip J.; Miller, Matthew. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Mar2004, Vol. 20 Issue 1, p43-62, 20p; (AN 12285182)

"This article notes that the decline in firearms-related mortality in Canada has coincided with regulatory changes beginning in the late 1970s and culminating in the enactment of Bill C-68 in 1995. It argues that the increasing regulation of firearms reflects cultural change; specifically, a growing intolerance on the part of Canadians for firearms and their associated perils. The apparent trend of declining gun ownership is a reflection of this cultural change. Fewer firearms, in turn, result in fewer fatalities. The registry is beneficial to public safety and the intense criticism of the program's cost is due not to its lack of impact or to poor management, but to unusual scrutiny as a result of its highly politicized nature. Costs have increased for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with mismanagement or bureaucratic excess. First, opponents of gun registration challenged the law, ultimately taking their challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada and delaying the implementation of the program by approximately two years. Second, most provincial jurisdictions chose not to cooperate in administering the new system, forcing the federal government to create a more costly centralized form of administration."

By: Boyd, Neil. Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice, Oct2003, Vol. 45 Issue 4, p473-478, 6p; (AN 11701177)

"Objectives. In this study we explored the association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide across the United States, by age groups. Methods. We used cross-sectional time-series data (1988-1997) to estimate the association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide. Results. In region- and state-level analyses, a robust association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide was found. Regionally, the association exists for victims aged 5 to 14 years and those 35 years and older. At the state level, the association exists for every age group over age 5, even after controlling for poverty, urbanization, unemployment, alcohol consumption, and nonlethal violent crime. Conclusions. Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide."

By: Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. American Journal of Public Health, Dec2002, Vol. 92 Issue 12, p1988-1993, 6p; (AN 8566536)

"This research is based on data on gun availability in private households, collected through the international victimization surveys o] 1989, 1992. and 1996, and World Health Organization data on homicide and suicide from 21 countries. It updates and extends former research conducted on this issue, based on the surveys of 1989 and 1992. In addition, data from the International Crime Victimization Surveys were used on total and gun-related robbery and assault (including threats). The results show very strong correlations between the presence of guns in the home and suicide committed with a gun. rates of gun-related homicide involving female victims, and gun-related assault."

By: Killias, Martin; Van Kesteren, John; Rindlisbacher, Martin. Canadian Journal of Criminology, Oct2001, Vol. 43 Issue 4, p429-448, 20p; (AN 5328003)


Now if you will please answer this question: Why are you so afraid of everyone, that you feel the need to carry around a weapon for self defence everywhere you go? Need I mention IN THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE UNIVERSE If you are so concerned about your safety I think wearing body armour should also be added to your list.

Why do you feel such a need to carry around a weapon in the first place? Where I am from, the laws are much tighter than you have in America, here we are unable to own semi autos, and all bolt actions and pump actions are limited in magazine size, but no one complains, because no one gives a shit about guns, the only people allowed to carry are police, licensed security guards and the military. Just because its your right to have one doesn't mean you have to. Too many people who shouldn't have one manage to get a license to have one. Don't get me wrong, I OWN A RIFLE MYSELF (mainly because I enjoy going pig and roo shooting on my property) and until quite recently was part of my country Military, so I'm not some gun hating fool like someone will most likely try to flame me as. Even whilst serving in the military, I still had to go through all the safety crap, but that I think was a good thing, better education on gun safety IS needed. I see someone was ranting about shooting some mad man who is waving around a gun, believe me actually shooting at a person isn't all its cracked up to be (happened to me in Afghanistan WHILST SUPPORTING AMERICAN TROOPS , wish there had been another option, but there wasn't and I would do it again), its easy to talk tough until it comes time to actual do it. Perhaps make laws tighter and that madman won't have a gun and you won't have to shoot him. I know its you American second constitution right or something, that's all well and good, and we all know how yanks love to do something just because they can, but grow up, there are so many countries with tighter laws than the state the original poster lives in, and there are few complaints from any one that's not American.

Go ahead and enjoy fire arms responsibly, just remember more people injure THEMSELVES with guns than what actually hurt the people they think they need it to protect themselves against. If you only want it for "self Protection" or because its "My Constitutional Right" perhaps your wanting it for the wrong reasons. Go hunting, target shooting, join a shooting club and use THEIR GUNS. Better yet, if you like guns, join the Army (or Marines if your a Yank)

What possible day to day need could there be to for you to need to carry one for any way? Open your beer cans? Or turning off the lights?

There's a lot to respond to. I will try and be as concise as possible.

Posted by Skold No, but please do not mistakenly believe that this in any way furthers your arguement. I wouldn't stop someone from firing at the guy, but I also wouldn't want to be the one carrying a gun in this situation. It's not like that situation would cause me to see the world in a whole new way and start a lobby group for gun ownership and the right to carrying a gun to a club (for protection yo!).

Of course it does. I stated that the legal gun owner confronting the madman was a good thing, you danced around whether it was a good choice with no real alternative. When confronting you with the hard details of the situation you resigned to admit it was the same course you would have chosen.

Here's some evidence for you: "The prevalence of gun ownership ..." By: Azrael, Deborah; Cook, Philip J.; Miller, Matthew. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Mar2004, Vol. 20 Issue 1, p43-62, 20p; (AN 12285182)

Do you have this article? I could not find it available for examination on any site without paying for it. All the abstracts quote no data and assuming what they say is true, correlation still does not necessarily mean causation. For example: in areas that have higher numbers of cops there is usually higher levels of crime. This does not mean that the cops are responsible for the crime. If you have the parts with the data I will examine it.

"This article notes that the decline in firearms-related mortality in Canada... By: Boyd, Neil. Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice, Oct2003, Vol. 45 Issue 4, p473-478, 6p; (AN 11701177)

Same as the last article, not available for viewing.

"Objectives. In this study we explored the association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide across the United States, ..." By: Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. American Journal of Public Health, Dec2002, Vol. 92 Issue 12, p1988-1993, 6p; (AN 8566536)

This one was available, here were some interesting quotes from it:
"Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide."
"...and that gun ownership may be a risk factor for committing homicide7 (although other studies found no association with homicide perpetration8)"
I find it interesting that they were so upfront about their shortcomings.

"This research is based on data on gun availability in private households,..." By: Killias, Martin; Van Kesteren, John; Rindlisbacher, Martin. Canadian Journal of Criminology, Oct2001, Vol. 43 Issue 4, p429-448, 20p; (AN 5328003)

Once again, only part of the article I could find. What I could read said that the lions share of the violence is suicides. Did you read any of these articles or did you just post the abstracts?

Now if you will please answer this question: Why are you so afraid of everyone, that you feel the need to carry around a weapon for self defence everywhere you go? Need I mention IN THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE UNIVERSE If you are so concerned about your safety I think wearing body armour should also be added to your list.

As much as you think this is cornering me, it is actually quite easy to answer. If you want to know the affect of suddenly constrained resources, just take a look at New Orleans during hurricane Katrina. Violence and looting by armed gangs took place only a week after the hurricane hit. Natural disasters are definitely things to prepare for long before you know they will happen, since stores get cleaned out when people know it is coming. Along with guns I also stockpile water and food, just in case supplies are cut off unexpectedly. If I owned a house the list would also include a generator, so when things go bad I can stay safe in my house like the Omega Man.

If disaster hit where you lived tomorrow and supplies were cut off, how well would you be prepared to deal with it? Would you have to go and find a guy like me that was prepared and try to mooch off him?

One other thing, I do own several pairs of body armor. Long story...

You know, out West you can get tossed in the can for NOT owning a gun

Posted by junkyard You know, out West you can get tossed in the can for NOT owning a gun

Well yea, there's lot's of people here illegally you know.

Alright Wilky, first off the only reason you don't hear about gun related deaths is because the media in arizona is owned by rich white people who want to calm the fears of other, rich white people in who live in fear of immigrants in their castles in scottsdale. I lived in the mexican ghetto a couple of blocks from 16th and van buren where I heard gunfire 4 nights a week and my neighborhood had 10 murders in 1 month. That's fucking ridiculous.

The fact of the matter remains that murder is easier with guns. Plain and simple. Its easier to kill someone quickly and from a distance than to stab them face to face.

Posted by junkyard You know, out West you can get tossed in the can for NOT owning a gun

I am intrigued by this idea and want to subscribe to its newsletter. ;)

Posted by Seventh Stage Of course it does. I stated that the legal gun owner confronting the madman was a good thing, you danced around whether it was a good choice with no real alternative. When confronting you with the hard details of the situation you resigned to admit it was the same course you would have chosen.

No, you are doing inductive reasoning, based on a few unlikely situations.

"When confronting you with the hard details of the situation you resigned to admit it was the same course you would have chosen."

Remember when I said I'd rather a cop confront the person? Remember how I said I wouldn't want to be the one holding the gun as my right? I am not dancing around the situation, I am giving you a full answer. Life is not all black and white, so stop expecting a one word answer/conclusion. Maybe I am looking too realistically into this situation but if I was THERE MYSELF I wouldn't be like OMG STOP BREAKING THE LAW, as I would be more concerned about getting the fuck away. HINT: crazy people = unpredictable people. Need I also remind you that she is a politician so a more likely attractor of crazy people who hate her.

I cannot believe you are using the natural disaster's argument when you live in Boston! If wikipedia is to serve as my academic source, you have had two disasters, both before the 1920s, and both related to human error (fire and explosion), not nature. But if we play along with you little theory, natural disasters seem at least a little predictable, so there is no point in having these rules apply every single day JUST IN CASE. Also, looting seems to be done by everyday joes; I bet having a gun would sure make it easier to steal and hog dwindling resources!

As for my evidence, I did read the articles, but I'm not going to write academic essays on an internet forum as the abstracts get the point across. If you are interested, I'll email them to you and we can nit pick every point with 100% biased perspectives. In the meantime, I have yet to see any supported evidence or numbers from you, so keep it coming!

Posted by DjMalign Alright Wilky, first off the only reason you don't hear about gun related deaths is because the media in arizona is owned by rich white people who want to calm the fears of other, rich white people in who live in fear of immigrants in their castles in scottsdale. I lived in the mexican ghetto a couple of blocks from 16th and van buren where I heard gunfire 4 nights a week and my neighborhood had 10 murders in 1 month. That's fucking ridiculous. The fact of the matter remains that murder is easier with guns. Plain and simple. Its easier to kill someone quickly and from a distance than to stab them face to face.

Yea, there is a lot of gun crime but it's not any higher than other cities who have much more stringent gun laws. Some of them are actually much higher. The media is very liberal in Arizona. They love to bash on Sheriff Arpaio and the other neo-con's we have running around. So while they may be owned by rich white people they definitely don't act like it. Also, I was just being facetious with the illegal comment.

Posted by DjMalign Alright Wilky, first off the only reason you don't hear about gun related deaths is because the media in arizona is owned by rich white people who want to calm the fears of other, rich white people in who live in fear of immigrants in their castles in scottsdale. I lived in the mexican ghetto a couple of blocks from 16th and van buren where I heard gunfire 4 nights a week and my neighborhood had 10 murders in 1 month. That's fucking ridiculous. The fact of the matter remains that murder is easier with guns. Plain and simple. Its easier to kill someone quickly and from a distance than to stab them face to face.

Fun fact: 100% of mexican gangbangers / drugrunners guns are legal.

that's funny... as stated above, most heavily armed county in New York and very little, if any, gun-related violence here.

Posted by Samurai that's funny... as stated above, most heavily armed county in New York and very little, if any, gun-related violence here.

yeah but how many people live in your county?

you can go back and forth and back and forth and back and forth. problem is - gun laws will never change. it really is a futile effort.

Posted by DiVaMoNKeY gun laws will never change.

http://news.google.com/news?q=dc gun laws

Reality called, it said you've been out of touch. Wanted to know why you stopped calling. Why are you so distant? It said to tell you that it missed you.