RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Crush -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (5/1/2007 7:01:14 AM)



People who carry concealed weapons, at least those in Florida, have to go through a background check, take a class and exhibit some level of proficiency with a handgun.  Other states are even more rigorous.
Have you read the statistics i quoted earlier where over half the offenders were legal gun owners. courses and checks are not infallible.

  Actually, I've read the entire thread.  That's why I felt compelled to participate, though I usually leave these things alone, since talking to people about this is often like trying to talk about abortion.
I pointed out that there are TWO different kinds of background checks.  One to purchase a gun and another to be able to carry it out in public, but concealed.  Entirely different to be able to own a gun and to be able to carry it around concealed under a jacket or in a pocket.
Q:  Did you check out the website I pointed to and the references to their claims?

Frankly, those people concealed weapons are those least likely to use them except in extreme situations.
Wrong a lot of the gun owners who were legal used them because of an argument.
Again, you are lumping gun owners in with Concealed Weapons Permit holders.  One is a subset of the other.  Please check the specific statistic you've claimed "a lot" and compare it to the number of times people have defended themselves (not even firing the weapon, just making it be known they had one) as cited by the FBI stats.

The MAJORITY of crime is committed by criminals...do we agree on that?  If so, they won't be getting their gun legally anyway.  After that first conviction they won't be able to get one legally, so they either get it off the street, steal it,  or via a "strawman" purchase, which is a serious Federal offense...up to 10 years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine, though yes, first offenses are often 1 year and $10,000.   (See: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_9_45/ai_65953073 )

Let's make the bad guys keep guessing who might make their day and those who won't.
Some of the bad guys are those with legal guns.
But less likely to use them if the good guys have them and the bad guys know it
Take a look at http://en.allexperts.com/q/Guns-Firearms-Projectile-1501/illegal-trade-weapon.htm for more info on the effect of taking guns out of the hands of citizens..

 
Laws are followed by law-abiding people.  They aren't by those that break them. 
It is time to actually trust people.  After all, isn't what we do here?  As a masochistic bottom, I trust my sadistic top.    As a sub, you expect to trust your Dom/me.
Wrong the statistics show half of legal owners cannot be trusted.

I don't read the statistics that way.  Can you cite your specific stats?  After all, you are saying that 22 million of the 44 million US citizens are own guns cannot be trusted? 

What about the entire state of Vermont, where no permit is even required to carry a gun? And Vermont has been consistently voted one of the top safest states in the US?

And again, you are mixing Concealed Weapons Holders in with Gun Owners.  CWP holders are even less likely to be involved, since they actually have taken the time to learn the law.  Heck, in Florida, you are more likely to be attacked by an alligator than someone with CWP is likely to be detained for carrying a weapon.  (average of 15 gator attacks a year vs 10 CWP holders being involved with the law, usually from carrying in the wrong place.)  No statistics support anything close to saying that CWP holders are more likely to commit crime.  In fact, it is quite the opposite, given that their fingerprints are on file and that they are good folk to begin with after all!

I'm not trying to change your mind or get you to carry a weapon.  That is a heavy responsibility only for those willing to take it on. 

I'm just asking you to think from BOTH sides of the issue.  I've done that, having gone from mildly anti-gun to now much more pro self-defense.  No, I haven't joined the NRA or some crazy militia.  I don't hunt, though I'm not about to tell someone they can't go hunting.  I go about my day innocuously as anyone else. Deciding whether or not I'll need to get a 2nd mortgage to pay for gas this summer.  Mowing the lawn.  Go to the bank.  Go shopping for various pervertables at my local crafts store.  To look at me you'd never know I'm carrying.  But that's the point, isn't it, for concealed carry?

Believ me, I don't want to ever have to use my weapon against another person. Not to mention the psychological and legal trauma I'd likely face as a result.   But if it is me or some other innocent that finds themself in fear of their life and I'm where I might be able to stop the bad guy, I know I can try.  



Crush -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (5/1/2007 7:05:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

I propose a trip to the US; a Brit tour with all the message board regulars - me, MissT, NG, Seeks, Dark and Darcy and anyone else who wants to go. We could even fetch MC along, Pilgrims' style from Holland.

I'd feel safer almost anywhere over there I'm sure, than in a bar in Glasgow or Blaenau Ffestiniog. In those places my accent would see me dead in under 30 seconds, whilst at least in Crackton USA I'd be an exotic novelty of more interest to talk to than to stab/shoot/glass etc.

E


Heck, just to hear the accent, I'll buy you a tall one if you make it to Florida ;)





missturbation -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (5/1/2007 8:47:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation
Again i have said no system works 100% but the system in place does not work satisfactorily at all to me. You can suspect about me all you like but your assumptions so far have been way off the mark.



Okay, then let's play the game that stems from that declaration ... what would constitute a "satisfactory" system to you?  What are the requirements / parameters that we need to meet in order to make your ideal world?  What are the acceptable losses?  What are the acceptable sacrifices in the name of imperfection?

As i have said time and again i dont have the answers but i am entitled to say the present system and attitudes to the system do not work. Background checks do not work infallibly and i have cited one particular case where they failed repeatedly and resulted in two children being killed and many more being assaulted. Training courses do not always work, i will be the first to admit that i trained to work with special needs children for over two years but when it came down to it for various reasons i couldnt handle the job.
Your argument is based on the background check and the training courses working when they clearly dont in every case. There was a mention of the licenced gun holder being checked again every two years, for starters i would say this is not often enough.  



missturbation -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (5/1/2007 8:50:39 AM)

So, are you saying that people who sometimes act unprofessional in their debates online aren't responsible? Perhaps we should keep them for owning knives or any other means of harming someone. Because they must iresponsible. Geesh.
As i cited earlier the majority of gun deaths committed by licenced gun holders were the result of an argument. Now if you cant keep your temper in a forum what chance have you in real life?
I have taken into account the figures you have quoted but i still believe the system needs to change. As i have also said the background checks and courses are not proof of a responsible person. I dont have the solutions or the ultimate answers but i think a majority of thinking that 'hes armed so im armed' is definately not the solution.



missturbation -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (5/1/2007 8:51:43 AM)

What I really dont understand is the total loathing of so many Brits for the very idea of guns.

I don't loathe guns i loathe guns in the WRONG hands!!



missturbation -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (5/1/2007 9:02:52 AM)

Actually, I've read the entire thread.  That's why I felt compelled to participate, though I usually leave these things alone, since talking to people about this is often like trying to talk about abortion.
I pointed out that there are TWO different kinds of background checks.  One to purchase a gun and another to be able to carry it out in public, but concealed.  Entirely different to be able to own a gun and to be able to carry it around concealed under a jacket or in a pocket.
Q:  Did you check out the website I pointed to and the references to their claims?
Yes. Rigorous background checks fail and they are not carried out often enough. I would pass a background check for a gun and i could pass a course in gun training too but i would be far from a suitable candidate to have a gun.
The MAJORITY of crime is committed by criminals...do we agree on that?  If so, they won't be getting their gun legally anyway.  After that first conviction they won't be able to get one legally, so they either get it off the street, steal it,  or via a "strawman" purchase, which is a serious Federal offense...up to 10 years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine, though yes, first offenses are often 1 year and $10,000.   (See: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_9_45/ai_65953073 )
Sorry but the statistics showed a fair share of legal gun owners committed crime. So it is ok for them to have to be convicted to find out they are not a suitable owner for a licenced gun?
I'm just asking you to think from BOTH sides of the issue.
I have and i do not believe the measures in place to own a gun etc are enough and the mentality of 'hes got a gun so i have one' is truely mind boggling.
And again, you are mixing Concealed Weapons Holders in with Gun Owners. 
As i asked sicarius earlier show me some stats that prove concealed weapon holders commit less crime.
I don't read the statistics that way.  Can you cite your specific stats?  After all, you are saying that 22 million of the 44 million US citizens are own guns cannot be trusted?
If you have read the entire thread you will have read my post which corrected the error i made with that statement.
Believ me, I don't want to ever have to use my weapon against another person. Not to mention the psychological and legal trauma I'd likely face as a result.   But if it is me or some other innocent that finds themself in fear of their life and I'm where I might be able to stop the bad guy, I know I can try. 
And as i have said time and again whilst it is legal for you to do so i take no issue with it. What i do take issue with is the fact that rather than question the system in place for owning a gun the mentality is 'hes got one, so ive got one'. I remember showing the same mentality when i was a child.



missturbation -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (5/1/2007 9:05:09 AM)

I propose a trip to the US; a Brit tour with all the message board regulars - me, MissT, NG, Seeks, Dark and Darcy and anyone else who wants to go. We could even fetch MC along, Pilgrims' style from Holland.

I dont want to go lol. Though the thought of cheap shoe shopping does appeal. I could go in disguise so all the angry pro gun cmers dont see me i guess [:D]

Edited to add - I have to go to work now and run the gauntlet of flying ashtrays and beer bottles [:o] 



Sicarius -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (5/1/2007 10:57:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation
I dont want to go lol. Though the thought of cheap shoe shopping does appeal. I could go in disguise so all the angry pro gun cmers dont see me i guess [:D]


Nah, you would be welcome here regardless.  Most of us Americans are so enamored by the British accent that yourself and Lady E could probably get away with quite a bit if you visited.  :)  You're a very opinionated woman and half the time you make me want to scream and pull out hair, but I don't dislike you.

Further stemming from that and getting back to your initial response to me a few posts up, I think I'm just going to drop it at that.  You're entitled to your dissatisfaction at the rate of violent crime in the United States.  I'm not happy about it either.  You're welcome to your opinion that banning firearms would reduce that violent crime.  I disagree.  Being that there is nothing of any real 'substance' that we can argue here ... i.e. no "goals" or alternative ideas to weigh the merit of, I don't really see any logical means of progressing the discussion unless we start attacking each other personally, and I don't want to do that.

-Sicarius



missturbation -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (5/1/2007 3:07:28 PM)

Nah, you would be welcome here regardless.  Most of us Americans are so enamored by the British accent that yourself and Lady E could probably get away with quite a bit if you visited. 
Ok now i have two good reasons to visit - shoe shopping and getting away with murder (not literally) [:D]
You're a very opinionated woman and half the time you make me want to scream and pull out hair, but I don't dislike you.
That was very diplomatic thank you. I however would say im a stubborn, pig headed bitch [;)]
I don't really see any logical means of progressing the discussion unless we start attacking each other personally, and I don't want to do that.
True, i'm an idealist at the end of the day and its not always a good thing i can tell ya. As for insults, i quite get off on being insulted so feel free [:D]

Edited to add ive started a poll in the polls section of who has a gun and what licences they hold and concealed weapon licence holders and ordinary licence holders are pretty even at the moment.



Sicarius -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (5/1/2007 3:48:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation
ive started a poll in the polls section of who has a gun and what licences they hold and concealed weapon licence holders and ordinary licence holders are pretty even at the moment.

I'll have to keep an eye on it.  I've voted, of course.  Obviously I don't expect the results to be scientific considering it's the voluntary polling of a unique subculture which tends to heavily favor heightened education, understanding, and training within many facets of their lifestyles, but it should prove interesting nonetheless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation
As for insults, i quite get off on being insulted so feel free [:D]


*Chuckles*  And your partner's all right with that?

-Sicarius



missturbation -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (5/1/2007 4:22:59 PM)

I'll have to keep an eye on it.  I've voted, of course.  Obviously I don't expect the results to be scientific considering it's the voluntary polling of a unique subculture which tends to heavily favor heightened education, understanding, and training within many facets of their lifestyles, but it should prove interesting nonetheless.
Glad you voted [:D]. I know its too small / select a group of people to be scientific but still interesting as you say.
*Chuckles*  And your partner's all right with that?
I won't tell him if you don't lol [;)]
Seriously no, he doesn't mind me having my fun !!



Lordandmaster -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (5/2/2007 6:18:11 PM)

I've said it before: the crux of the anti-gun-control argument is that criminals will be able to get guns whether they're legal or not.  And it's just not true.  Some of you need to spend time in a country with effective gun control and see how people live in other developed nations.  The American pretension is always that other countries can't POSSIBLY have come up with better solutions than we have.  I think it's pretty ironic, for example, that the Virginia Tech murderer would never have been able to buy firearms in his native South Korea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

The MAJORITY of crime is committed by criminals...do we agree on that?  If so, they won't be getting their gun legally anyway.



Sicarius -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (5/2/2007 6:27:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
I've said it before: the crux of the anti-gun-control argument is that criminals will be able to get guns whether they're legal or not.  And it's just not true.  Some of you need to spend time in a country with effective gun control and see how people live in other developed nations.  The American pretension is always that other countries can't POSSIBLY have come up with better solutions than we have.  I think it's pretty ironic, for example, that the Virginia Tech murderer would never have been able to buy firearms in his native South Korea.


Personally, I don't believe that you could ever get rid of weapons entirely in the United States.  It might be possible in other countries, but there are over 250 million of them here.  A new one is built every few seconds.  We maintain a very wide strip of territory with varying amount of legal presence, possess the largest unguarded border in the world, and have very poor control on our ports and other varieties of importation as has been proven time and again by tests and analysis.

But despite all of that, even if it were possible to get rid of all of the firearms, do you honestly believe that that would put an end to murder?  Would it put an end to violent crime, or even mass killings?  I don't know ... it seems to me that an individual who snaps to the point that they are willing to murder another person in this country (where our apprehension rate against murderers is actually pretty damned good) ... they're going to find a way to do it.  Personally, I'd have rather seen Cho with a pair of relatively low-powered weapons than a pickup truck filled with fertilizer bombs.

For the record, I'm not attacking you ... I genuinely would like to know your opinion on those points.

-Sicarius



Pulpsmack -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (5/2/2007 6:44:38 PM)

quote:

I've said it before: the crux of the anti-gun-control argument is that criminals will be able to get guns whether they're legal or not.  And it's just not true.


That assumption is completely false.

SHOW ME ONE nation on this planet where there is ZERO gun crime. If you don't have that proof, your argument already loses, and I guarandamntee you don't have that proof.

The real argument is that you cannot have gun control in an otherwise free society and expect to work. You can have effective (not total) gun control in police state (until a revolution breaks), but that's as good as it gets.  Even China has the triads.



Lordandmaster -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (5/2/2007 7:07:45 PM)

That's absurd.  Who is asking for ZERO gun crime?  Even gun-control opponents don't promise zero gun crime.

Why don't you people try to argue rationally instead of just attacking everyone who doesn't agree with you?  Who cares what you "guarandamtee"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack

SHOW ME ONE nation on this planet where there is ZERO gun crime. If you don't have that proof, your argument already loses, and I guarandamntee you don't have that proof.

The real argument is that you cannot have gun control in an otherwise free society and expect to work. You can have effective (not total) gun control in police state (until a revolution breaks), but that's as good as it gets.  Even China has the triads.



Lordandmaster -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (5/2/2007 7:15:39 PM)

Same thing as what I just wrote above.  Strange how gun-control opponents seem to think it's everyone ELSE'S obligation to put an end to murder.  There's always going to be murder.  Gun-control opponents recognize that too.  If you're going to object to any idea that doesn't bring about an end to murder, you're going to object to every policy on earth.

The question (at least in America) is: How do you limit people's capacity to commit murder without objectionably infringing on their Constitutional rights?  I don't believe the right to carry a handgun whenever and however you choose is found anywhere in the Constitution, so for me the question is really pretty simple.  Nor am I persuaded, obviously, by the argument that widespread handgun ownership would reduce crime.  As I pointed out in the other thread, by that argument, you'd be in favor of removing handgun restrictions on commercial aircraft as well.  If someone tried to hijack the plane, you'd just have everyone whip out their Glocks and blow him away.  When a few people immediately (and predictably, I suppose) announced that they oppose handgun restrictions on airplanes, I declared that conversation over.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sicarius

But despite all of that, even if it were possible to get rid of all of the firearms, do you honestly believe that that would put an end to murder?  Would it put an end to violent crime, or even mass killings?



Sicarius -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (5/2/2007 7:27:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
Same thing as what I just wrote above.  Strange how gun-control opponents seem to think it's everyone ELSE'S obligation to put an end to murder.  There's always going to be murder.  Gun-control opponents recognize that too.  If you're going to object to any idea that doesn't bring about an end to murder, you're going to object to every policy on earth.

Mmm ... no, that's not what I'm saying at all, honestly.  I never said that it was anyone's "obligation" to put an end to murder.  You seem to be admitting that regardless of what system is in place that there will be murders committed with guns ... so I don't really see how it's possible to continue arguing this point.  If there will be murders committed with guns regardless of what happens, why implement any changes at all?  If you'd like, change the word "end" to "reduce" and my questions remain equally as valid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
The question (at least in America) is: How do you limit people's capacity to commit murder without objectionably infringing on their Constitutional rights?  I don't believe the right to carry a handgun whenever and however you choose is found anywhere in the Constitution, so for me the question is really pretty simple.  Nor am I persuaded, obviously, by the argument that widespread handgun ownership would reduce crime.  As I pointed out in the other thread, by that argument, you'd be in favor of removing handgun restrictions on commercial aircraft as well.  If someone tried to hijack the plane, you'd just have everyone whip out their Glocks and blow him away.  When a few people immediately (and predictably, I suppose) announced that they oppose handgun restrictions on airplanes, I declared that conversation over.


Amendment II:  "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."

I would classify handguns as an "Arm," being that it is a personal weapon.  If you see any ambiguity here, please feel free to talk about it and I will discuss it calmly and rationally.  As far as handgun restrictions on airplanes go, I don't believe that they should be modified at all from their current state.  The issue to me has nothing to do with hijacking, however ... it has to do with the fact that if a hundred people stood up in an extremely crowded, contained spae with zero cover, they would primarily be hitting each other and in addition to that, blowing holes in the pressurized cabin that could bring the entire plane down.  In that situation, it's safer to have a single defender (an Air Martial) with a weapon that will not penetrate an airplane's skin (which they do use) who will be able to engage a hijacker clearly without hundreds of people standing in his or her way trying to shoot as well.

-Sicarius





Lordandmaster -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (5/2/2007 7:35:47 PM)

Because there will be fewer.

As for the Second Amendment: the right to bear arms is hardly the same thing as the right to bear whatever weapon you wish under whatever circumstances.  Do you think the Second Amendment permits us to carry nuclear weapons?  Nerve gas?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sicarius

If there will be murders committed with guns regardless of what happens, why implement any changes at all?



Sicarius -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (5/2/2007 7:39:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Because there will be fewer.

As for the Second Amendment: the right to bear arms is hardly the same thing as the right to bear whatever weapon you wish under whatever circumstances.  Do you think the Second Amendment permits us to carry nuclear weapons?  Nerve gas?


Mmm ... no, I believe it pertains to "Arms."  The etymology and implied definition of the word is pretty simple to grasp.  Arms most specifically relate to "firearms" in general (of which handguns are certainly one variety) as most dictionaries will tell you.  I also said in my comment that I was speaking of "personal weapons."  A nuke and nerve gas are not "personal weapons," sir.  I believe you are distorting the argument some here.

-Sicarius



Lordandmaster -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (5/2/2007 7:50:12 PM)

You're operating according to your own definitions.  What's a "personal weapon"?  The word "arms" doesn't imply any distinction between personal and impersonal.  Is a bazooka a "personal weapon"?  I'm curious to know where you draw the line--and, more importantly, why you draw the line wherever you draw it.  Because it's clear that even you believe there's a line that has to be drawn somewhere.



Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875