nacmacfeegle 0 #101 August 23, 2004 Morning, Been away for the weekend, things have moved on a little.... Okay yep, I see both yours and PJs points, in an argument I'm having difficulty challenging. Even though it feels instinctively wrong to allow alcohol and firerarms to mix. In fact by doing away with laws that patently are innefective in avoiding the situation, one could actually argue that changing the situation to allow CCW etc in bars will ultimately encourage mixing alcohol with firearms. Much better to disallow firearms in general, but hell, I'm not going there again..... Sheesh Kennedy, it looks like you need better law enforcement, not better laws.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #102 August 23, 2004 QuoteMuch better to disallow firearms in general, but hell, I'm not going there again..... Yeah, well for all the good wishing for that will do, we might as well outlaw dying in skydiving accidents. That'd put a stop to it! QuoteSheesh Kennedy, it looks like you need better law enforcement, not better laws. Um, haven't we been saying that all along?! Blue skies, --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #103 August 23, 2004 As I replied to you before see my post to Douva. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #104 August 23, 2004 "Sheesh Kennedy, it looks like you need better law enforcement, not better laws." I was alluding to Kennedy's forthcoming career change. "Um, haven't we been saying that all along?! " It seems to me that you and your fellow gun owners have been trying to persuade us to change our laws.... Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick, but like I said way up the thread, this has fuck all to do with me, I don't have to live there.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douva 0 #105 August 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteI keep hearing the argument, "Show me one incident where a law has prevented something from happening." What you are asking is that we prove a negative. One of the basic rules of both journalism and debating is that you can't prove a negative. Find a new argument. It's fair to ask: "prove that this law has value." Quote But you can't reasonably say, "Prove that something has NOT happened because of this law." How exactly do you prove that? Should we find an alternate dimension where the law wasn't put in place and document the multiple incidents that occurred as a result?I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Douva 0 #106 August 23, 2004 QuoteIn fact by doing away with laws that patently are innefective in avoiding the situation... Who says the laws are ineffective? Sure, if someone is intent on carrying a gun in a bar, a law isn't going to stop them, but that doesn't mean it doesn't stop anybody. It keeps me from carrying in a bar. It keeps my friends from carrying in bars. I'm sure it keeps hundreds of thousands of people from carrying in bars. If we weren't worried about breaking the law, we wouldn't have gone through the trouble and expense of getting licensed to carry our handguns in the first place.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #107 August 23, 2004 "Sure, if someone is intent on carrying a gun in a bar, a law isn't going to stop them" So what will stop them?.... A sense of civic responsibility? Harsh words? Rejection by their peers? The Lion from wizard of Oz saying "Put em up, Put em uuuuup?" -------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #108 August 23, 2004 Quote Who says the laws are ineffective? Sure, if someone is intent on carrying a gun in a bar, a law isn't going to stop them, but that doesn't mean it doesn't stop anybody. OK, so it doesn't stop the people who are a danger to society, and doesn't prevent real crimes. OK. QuoteIt keeps me from carrying in a bar. It keeps my friends from carrying in bars. I'm sure it keeps hundreds of thousands of people from carrying in bars. If we weren't worried about breaking the law, we wouldn't have gone through the trouble and expense of getting licensed to carry our handguns in the first place. You weren't planning on breaking real laws anyway, so what value is there in a law that keeps you and your friends from carrying in a bar? It hasn't stopped a serious crime (which was it's stated purpose) so what good is it?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #109 August 23, 2004 Quote"Sheesh Kennedy, it looks like you need better law enforcement, not better laws." I was alluding to Kennedy's forthcoming career change. "Um, haven't we been saying that all along?! " It seems to me that you and your fellow gun owners have been trying to persuade us to change our laws.... Believe me when I tell you, 99% of our efforts are indeed going toward correcting the abysmal state of our OWN gun laws, thank you very much. It's possible you hear us cynically telling you how yours should be because it is undeniably true that people of the anti-gun stripe are trying to convince us that what has failed to work in your country should be adopted without question in our own country. It would help in persuading us if there could be a SCRAP of success shown to have come from gun control in the U.K. before we stole the guns from American citizens. edit: And technically, all we're really advocating for the U.K. is to go back to how things WERE; if not all the way back to when gun owners didn't have to be licensed, at LEAST back to where they were allowed to HAVE guns at all. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #110 August 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt keeps me from carrying in a bar. It keeps my friends from carrying in bars. I'm sure it keeps hundreds of thousands of people from carrying in bars. If we weren't worried about breaking the law, we wouldn't have gone through the trouble and expense of getting licensed to carry our handguns in the first place. You weren't planning on breaking real laws anyway, so what value is there in a law that keeps you and your friends from carrying in a bar? It hasn't stopped a serious crime (which was it's stated purpose) so what good is it? Oh, but Kennedy, it caused him to leave his gun behind so that just in case he got to the bar and then became a raving, violent psychopath, he would be without his gun and couldn't do as much damage. You know, because the government must treat us all based on the worst things we might do. And someone like Douva simply can't control his impulses, and doesn't know himself that he won't just go berserk in the bar if he happened to have his gun. (That's sarcasm, Douva -- it's not meant in seriousness.) --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Botellines 0 #111 August 24, 2004 It seems you are against gun free zones. What policy would you aply to a high school? I don´t know if you can legaly purchase a gun under 18, but some people in highschool are 18. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #112 August 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt's fair to ask: "prove that this law has value." But you can't reasonably say, "Prove that something has NOT happened because of this law." How exactly do you prove that? Should we find an alternate dimension where the law wasn't put in place and document the multiple incidents that occurred as a result? Can you say the number of bad things has gone down as a result of something? That is a change, something that can be proven, or at least demonstrated. According to your logic, no law can ever be proven effective or ineffective. That is not the case. Your problem is you are not thinking creatively because you have already accepted it, and think other should do the same or don't matter.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #113 August 24, 2004 QuoteIt seems you are against gun free zones. What policy would you aply to a high school? I don´t know if you can legaly purchase a gun under 18, but some people in highschool are 18. I certainly am against the so-called "gun free zones." Tell me, does posting a sign outside a school that says, "DRUG-free school zone" truly mean that the school is magically free of drugs now? Why would it be true if the sign replaced "drug" with "gun"? I am in favor of people who are rightly qualified to carry concealed handguns being entitled to carry in a school as well. What are we saying if we allow them to carry at the shopping mall, but then not at a school? That the school kids are more worthy of protection than the shoppers, who also are moms, dads, and kids? If a person means to enter a school with a gun for the purpose of killing people, the fact that guns are not allowed there will do nothing to stop him. BUT, teachers who might have CCW permits and be armed in the classroom could feasibly STOP an armed attack. Probably would have helped in Columbine if an adult, with shooting practice and a shooting hobby, could have had a gun to stop those two maniacs. As it was, all the good people were dutifully unarmed, making them far easier to kill. There have been incidents in which people have stopped school attacks with their own guns -- guns they had to GO TO THEIR CARS TO RETRIEVE. That time costs lives. One was a school principal who went and got his .45 from his car, and confronted a kid who had just shot people. He got the kid to give up without having to shoot him. (That might have been the Kip Kinkel story, not sure.) Another was that Nigerian dude in the law school who shot some instructors because he was failing out. Two guys who had guns in their cars went and got their guns and confronted the maniac. Funny, the news stories around the country, with the exception of something like FOUR news outlets, all reported that "students confronted, tackled and disarmed" the attacker, but did not mention that two people confronted him with DRAWN GUNS in so doing. Guns in schools can stop gun violence in schools. I support permits being honored there as anywhere else. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #114 August 24, 2004 Quote It seems you are against gun free zones. What policy would you aply to a high school? I don´t know if you can legaly purchase a gun under 18, but some people in highschool are 18. Like Jeffrey, I am completely against Victim Disarmament Zones. You call them Gun Free Zones. Remember, the site of every school shotting in the last ten years was a "gun free zone." At least, it was until a violent psychopath (or two) decided to bring guns. Suddenly they weren't so gun free, were they? This might rattle your cage. Kids used to be able to carry a rifle with them to school, and did so on a regular basis. They were members of the school shooting team. By the time I was in high school, you couldn't even find a public school with a shooting team anymore. But you could sure find schools where shooting was going on. It just wasn't the safe use at a range. Instead it was idiots in the parking lot. Why would you oppose concealed carry licenses not being valid at schools? You have a permit where you live, right? Would you be dangerous at a school? If your child were in school, would you prefer armed protection be as far away as a police station, or would you prefer the teacher, whom you trust with your child;s safety, be able to protect them from a violent predator? Google for ... never mind. Check this link, and others like it. Google for: pearl mississippi school shooting Joel Myrick This man was breaking the law by having his pistol in his truck, and he's the only reason that murdering bastard didn't continue his rampage.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #115 August 24, 2004 The other story was from Appalachian Law School, in Virginia, I believe. ah, here is one account. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2185/is_3_13/ai_84547003 and another http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/9-06-03.html and so on. What's that about outlawing guns, and only outlaws having guns? Victim Disarmament Zones, like schools, are proving it true with every horrible event.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #116 August 24, 2004 QuoteQuote It's fair to ask: "prove that this law has value." Quote But you can't reasonably say, "Prove that something has NOT happened because of this law." How exactly do you prove that? Should we find an alternate dimension where the law wasn't put in place and document the multiple incidents that occurred as a result? If you can't show that a law has value, but it can clearly be demonstrated that it hurts people, then the law should be repealed. If it's too hard to do, then tough luck, eh? Good social science is not that hard, it's just unfortunately filled with unethical and/or math challenged people. Take waiting periods that have the intent of enforcing a cooling off period. They don't work, and it's pretty logical why that is so. It's not hard to look at the numbers, both of killers who waited the 3/5/10 days or just resorted to illegal purchases or alternative weapons. And we also know that women have died waiting to get their weapon so they have a fighting chance against their ex. Your debating tactic - you can't prove a negative - has no value in the real world. Virtually all laws have consequences and need to be justified. Or at least have a sunset, like the AWB. We're going to quickly see how worthless that legislation was when the sky doesn't fall over the next year or two. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Douva 0 #117 August 24, 2004 Quote"Sure, if someone is intent on carrying a gun in a bar, a law isn't going to stop them" So what will stop them?.... A sense of civic responsibility? Harsh words? Rejection by their peers? The Lion from wizard of Oz saying "Put em up, Put em uuuuup?" Well, by all means, what we really need is a half dozen armed drunks trying to stop him. There's no way the end result to that situation could be anything but positive.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Douva 0 #118 August 24, 2004 QuoteQuote Who says the laws are ineffective? Sure, if someone is intent on carrying a gun in a bar, a law isn't going to stop them, but that doesn't mean it doesn't stop anybody. OK, so it doesn't stop the people who are a danger to society, and doesn't prevent real crimes. OK. QuoteIt keeps me from carrying in a bar. It keeps my friends from carrying in bars. I'm sure it keeps hundreds of thousands of people from carrying in bars. If we weren't worried about breaking the law, we wouldn't have gone through the trouble and expense of getting licensed to carry our handguns in the first place. You weren't planning on breaking real laws anyway, so what value is there in a law that keeps you and your friends from carrying in a bar? It hasn't stopped a serious crime (which was it's stated purpose) so what good is it? Don't tell me you're so naive as to think this law was implemented to keep bars from being robbed. Its stated purpose is not to keep dangerous criminals from carrying in bars; it's stated purpose is to keep people from getting drunk while carrying. Therefore, in many cases, it is serving its stated purpose.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Douva 0 #119 August 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt's fair to ask: "prove that this law has value." But you can't reasonably say, "Prove that something has NOT happened because of this law." How exactly do you prove that? Should we find an alternate dimension where the law wasn't put in place and document the multiple incidents that occurred as a result? Can you say the number of bad things has gone down as a result of something? That is a change, something that can be proven, or at least demonstrated. According to your logic, no law can ever be proven effective or ineffective. That is not the case. Your problem is you are not thinking creatively because you have already accepted it, and think other should do the same or don't matter. Kennedy, if the basic concept of "proving a negative" is too difficult for you to grasp, there is no point in me continuing to debate you.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Douva 0 #120 August 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt keeps me from carrying in a bar. It keeps my friends from carrying in bars. I'm sure it keeps hundreds of thousands of people from carrying in bars. If we weren't worried about breaking the law, we wouldn't have gone through the trouble and expense of getting licensed to carry our handguns in the first place. You weren't planning on breaking real laws anyway, so what value is there in a law that keeps you and your friends from carrying in a bar? It hasn't stopped a serious crime (which was it's stated purpose) so what good is it? Oh, but Kennedy, it caused him to leave his gun behind so that just in case he got to the bar and then became a raving, violent psychopath, he would be without his gun and couldn't do as much damage. You know, because the government must treat us all based on the worst things we might do. And someone like Douva simply can't control his impulses, and doesn't know himself that he won't just go berserk in the bar if he happened to have his gun. (That's sarcasm, Douva -- it's not meant in seriousness.) - Actually, I seldom drink, so logically, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to carry in a bar. Perhaps everyone in this thread arguing for concealed carry in bars would be okay carrying in a bar. But the fact remains that alcohol undermines common sense, and every aspect of carrying a concealed weapon, from the logic behind it to its practical applications, hinges on common sense. I would rather accept that I loose the right to carry when I enter an establishment dedicated to the loosening of inhibitions than see an increase in violence by concealed carry holders that would fuel the flames of the antigun lobby. Do you support concealed carry in venues dedicate to the consumption of other drugs, or are you only concerned with alcohol consumption? You keep throwing facts and figures at me, but how do you dispute the studies that identify alcohol as a catalyst behind the majority of the "wild west" shootouts? Most of your arguments make sense, but you continue to disregard the fact that the more alcohol you consume, the less sense has to do with anything. --DouvaI don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Douva 0 #121 August 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote It's fair to ask: "prove that this law has value." Quote But you can't reasonably say, "Prove that something has NOT happened because of this law." How exactly do you prove that? Should we find an alternate dimension where the law wasn't put in place and document the multiple incidents that occurred as a result? If you can't show that a law has value, but it can clearly be demonstrated that it hurts people, then the law should be repealed. If it's too hard to do, then tough luck, eh? Good social science is not that hard, it's just unfortunately filled with unethical and/or math challenged people. Take waiting periods that have the intent of enforcing a cooling off period. They don't work, and it's pretty logical why that is so. It's not hard to look at the numbers, both of killers who waited the 3/5/10 days or just resorted to illegal purchases or alternative weapons. And we also know that women have died waiting to get their weapon so they have a fighting chance against their ex. Your debating tactic - you can't prove a negative - has no value in the real world. Virtually all laws have consequences and need to be justified. Or at least have a sunset, like the AWB. We're going to quickly see how worthless that legislation was when the sky doesn't fall over the next year or two. Again, you're comparing apples to oranges. Waiting periods were designed to reduce crime. It is easy to determine whether or not crime went down after a law was enacted. Disallowing carry in bars was not designed to reduce crime; it was designed to prevent crimes that might result from mixing newly enacted concealed carry laws with alcohol. There is no old data to compare current statistics to. Therefore, my point that you "can't prove a negative" was indeed very solid. Obviously, there is no way I can prove that these laws prevented crimes from happening, rather than the crimes simply not occurring because they never would have occurred without the laws. I was not using a "debating tactic," trying to win some sort of nonexistent match on a technicality; I was pointing out a very real flaw in your logic. --DouvaI don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #122 August 24, 2004 "It would help in persuading us if there could be a SCRAP of success shown to have come from gun control in the U.K. before we stole the guns from American citizens." I've posted it before, and can't be assed posting it again for you, in summary guns banned, crime reduction of 5% last year where I live, look it up yourself. Fucking Google man! I've also posted ad nauseam that one can not take crime statistics and gun control policy for one society and apply them to another as a comparison. A notion first brought to my attention during a civilised discussion with Johnrich, an opinion expounded in extensive research by one of our pro gun lobbyists. When will you pay attention to this widely accepted statement? When they prise your current opinion from your cold dead hands? And finally, as an advocate of change, even though you deny this in your post, it is up to those proposing the change to justify it. Relaxing gun control simply will not fly here. I don't have to justify the status quo and its just not a big issue for us.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #123 August 24, 2004 QuoteDon't tell me you're so naive as to think this law was implemented to keep bars from being robbed. Its stated purpose is not to keep dangerous criminals from carrying in bars; it's stated purpose is to keep people from getting drunk while carrying. Therefore, in many cases, it is serving its stated purpose. Except with those people who carry their concealed guns into the bar and get drunk anyway, and *whew* manage to not have any fights or shooting incidents, thank goodness! The law serves its purpose for everyone but anyone who wants to carry concealed into the bar despite the law. And um, since the guns are concealed, no one knows how often the law is flouted, do they. For all YOU know, Douva, 75% of all bar patrons might have concealed guns that you, by definition, don't know about, and nothing is happening. Or maybe 0.002 percent are carrying guns and that's why there are few incidents that we hear about. How could either of us claim that we know how many people are or are not carrying concealed guns in bars, since by definition the guns are not seen or detected? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #124 August 24, 2004 QuoteActually, I seldom drink, so logically, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to carry in a bar. Perhaps everyone in this thread arguing for concealed carry in bars would be okay carrying in a bar. But the fact remains that alcohol undermines common sense, and every aspect of carrying a concealed weapon, from the logic behind it to its practical applications, hinges on common sense. I would rather accept that I loose the right to carry when I enter an establishment dedicated to the loosening of inhibitions than see an increase in violence by concealed carry holders that would fuel the flames of the antigun lobby. "Now who's being naive, Kay?" Do you really think that the anti-gun lobby only engages its anti-gun-ness in response to real-world incidents and dangers?? Consider the fact that violent crime is at like a ten or fifteen year low in the U.S.; is lower in places with concealed carry laws than without; and gun-related accidental deaths have declined in every year, steadily, since statistics began to be kept. And yet the anti-gun lobby still is active in trying to take away our gun rights. So let's not pretend that "being on our best behavior" is going to keep that particular wolf away from the door. Puhlease. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #125 August 24, 2004 >Take waiting periods that have the intent of enforcing a cooling off period. They don't work . . . A suspected Al Qaeda member was recently arrested in Oregon while waiting to pick up weapons at a gun shop. Personally, I am glad he could not walk out of the store with them. Arming Al Qaeda members is not the purpose of the second amendment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 5 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing × Sign In Sign Up Forums Dropzones Classifieds Gear Indoor Articles Photos Videos Calendar Stolen Fatalities Subscriptions Leaderboard Activity Back Activity All Activity My Activity Streams Unread Content Content I Started
Douva 0 #106 August 23, 2004 QuoteIn fact by doing away with laws that patently are innefective in avoiding the situation... Who says the laws are ineffective? Sure, if someone is intent on carrying a gun in a bar, a law isn't going to stop them, but that doesn't mean it doesn't stop anybody. It keeps me from carrying in a bar. It keeps my friends from carrying in bars. I'm sure it keeps hundreds of thousands of people from carrying in bars. If we weren't worried about breaking the law, we wouldn't have gone through the trouble and expense of getting licensed to carry our handguns in the first place.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #107 August 23, 2004 "Sure, if someone is intent on carrying a gun in a bar, a law isn't going to stop them" So what will stop them?.... A sense of civic responsibility? Harsh words? Rejection by their peers? The Lion from wizard of Oz saying "Put em up, Put em uuuuup?" -------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #108 August 23, 2004 Quote Who says the laws are ineffective? Sure, if someone is intent on carrying a gun in a bar, a law isn't going to stop them, but that doesn't mean it doesn't stop anybody. OK, so it doesn't stop the people who are a danger to society, and doesn't prevent real crimes. OK. QuoteIt keeps me from carrying in a bar. It keeps my friends from carrying in bars. I'm sure it keeps hundreds of thousands of people from carrying in bars. If we weren't worried about breaking the law, we wouldn't have gone through the trouble and expense of getting licensed to carry our handguns in the first place. You weren't planning on breaking real laws anyway, so what value is there in a law that keeps you and your friends from carrying in a bar? It hasn't stopped a serious crime (which was it's stated purpose) so what good is it?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #109 August 23, 2004 Quote"Sheesh Kennedy, it looks like you need better law enforcement, not better laws." I was alluding to Kennedy's forthcoming career change. "Um, haven't we been saying that all along?! " It seems to me that you and your fellow gun owners have been trying to persuade us to change our laws.... Believe me when I tell you, 99% of our efforts are indeed going toward correcting the abysmal state of our OWN gun laws, thank you very much. It's possible you hear us cynically telling you how yours should be because it is undeniably true that people of the anti-gun stripe are trying to convince us that what has failed to work in your country should be adopted without question in our own country. It would help in persuading us if there could be a SCRAP of success shown to have come from gun control in the U.K. before we stole the guns from American citizens. edit: And technically, all we're really advocating for the U.K. is to go back to how things WERE; if not all the way back to when gun owners didn't have to be licensed, at LEAST back to where they were allowed to HAVE guns at all. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #110 August 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt keeps me from carrying in a bar. It keeps my friends from carrying in bars. I'm sure it keeps hundreds of thousands of people from carrying in bars. If we weren't worried about breaking the law, we wouldn't have gone through the trouble and expense of getting licensed to carry our handguns in the first place. You weren't planning on breaking real laws anyway, so what value is there in a law that keeps you and your friends from carrying in a bar? It hasn't stopped a serious crime (which was it's stated purpose) so what good is it? Oh, but Kennedy, it caused him to leave his gun behind so that just in case he got to the bar and then became a raving, violent psychopath, he would be without his gun and couldn't do as much damage. You know, because the government must treat us all based on the worst things we might do. And someone like Douva simply can't control his impulses, and doesn't know himself that he won't just go berserk in the bar if he happened to have his gun. (That's sarcasm, Douva -- it's not meant in seriousness.) --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #111 August 24, 2004 It seems you are against gun free zones. What policy would you aply to a high school? I don´t know if you can legaly purchase a gun under 18, but some people in highschool are 18. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #112 August 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt's fair to ask: "prove that this law has value." But you can't reasonably say, "Prove that something has NOT happened because of this law." How exactly do you prove that? Should we find an alternate dimension where the law wasn't put in place and document the multiple incidents that occurred as a result? Can you say the number of bad things has gone down as a result of something? That is a change, something that can be proven, or at least demonstrated. According to your logic, no law can ever be proven effective or ineffective. That is not the case. Your problem is you are not thinking creatively because you have already accepted it, and think other should do the same or don't matter.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #113 August 24, 2004 QuoteIt seems you are against gun free zones. What policy would you aply to a high school? I don´t know if you can legaly purchase a gun under 18, but some people in highschool are 18. I certainly am against the so-called "gun free zones." Tell me, does posting a sign outside a school that says, "DRUG-free school zone" truly mean that the school is magically free of drugs now? Why would it be true if the sign replaced "drug" with "gun"? I am in favor of people who are rightly qualified to carry concealed handguns being entitled to carry in a school as well. What are we saying if we allow them to carry at the shopping mall, but then not at a school? That the school kids are more worthy of protection than the shoppers, who also are moms, dads, and kids? If a person means to enter a school with a gun for the purpose of killing people, the fact that guns are not allowed there will do nothing to stop him. BUT, teachers who might have CCW permits and be armed in the classroom could feasibly STOP an armed attack. Probably would have helped in Columbine if an adult, with shooting practice and a shooting hobby, could have had a gun to stop those two maniacs. As it was, all the good people were dutifully unarmed, making them far easier to kill. There have been incidents in which people have stopped school attacks with their own guns -- guns they had to GO TO THEIR CARS TO RETRIEVE. That time costs lives. One was a school principal who went and got his .45 from his car, and confronted a kid who had just shot people. He got the kid to give up without having to shoot him. (That might have been the Kip Kinkel story, not sure.) Another was that Nigerian dude in the law school who shot some instructors because he was failing out. Two guys who had guns in their cars went and got their guns and confronted the maniac. Funny, the news stories around the country, with the exception of something like FOUR news outlets, all reported that "students confronted, tackled and disarmed" the attacker, but did not mention that two people confronted him with DRAWN GUNS in so doing. Guns in schools can stop gun violence in schools. I support permits being honored there as anywhere else. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #114 August 24, 2004 Quote It seems you are against gun free zones. What policy would you aply to a high school? I don´t know if you can legaly purchase a gun under 18, but some people in highschool are 18. Like Jeffrey, I am completely against Victim Disarmament Zones. You call them Gun Free Zones. Remember, the site of every school shotting in the last ten years was a "gun free zone." At least, it was until a violent psychopath (or two) decided to bring guns. Suddenly they weren't so gun free, were they? This might rattle your cage. Kids used to be able to carry a rifle with them to school, and did so on a regular basis. They were members of the school shooting team. By the time I was in high school, you couldn't even find a public school with a shooting team anymore. But you could sure find schools where shooting was going on. It just wasn't the safe use at a range. Instead it was idiots in the parking lot. Why would you oppose concealed carry licenses not being valid at schools? You have a permit where you live, right? Would you be dangerous at a school? If your child were in school, would you prefer armed protection be as far away as a police station, or would you prefer the teacher, whom you trust with your child;s safety, be able to protect them from a violent predator? Google for ... never mind. Check this link, and others like it. Google for: pearl mississippi school shooting Joel Myrick This man was breaking the law by having his pistol in his truck, and he's the only reason that murdering bastard didn't continue his rampage.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #115 August 24, 2004 The other story was from Appalachian Law School, in Virginia, I believe. ah, here is one account. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2185/is_3_13/ai_84547003 and another http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/9-06-03.html and so on. What's that about outlawing guns, and only outlaws having guns? Victim Disarmament Zones, like schools, are proving it true with every horrible event.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #116 August 24, 2004 QuoteQuote It's fair to ask: "prove that this law has value." Quote But you can't reasonably say, "Prove that something has NOT happened because of this law." How exactly do you prove that? Should we find an alternate dimension where the law wasn't put in place and document the multiple incidents that occurred as a result? If you can't show that a law has value, but it can clearly be demonstrated that it hurts people, then the law should be repealed. If it's too hard to do, then tough luck, eh? Good social science is not that hard, it's just unfortunately filled with unethical and/or math challenged people. Take waiting periods that have the intent of enforcing a cooling off period. They don't work, and it's pretty logical why that is so. It's not hard to look at the numbers, both of killers who waited the 3/5/10 days or just resorted to illegal purchases or alternative weapons. And we also know that women have died waiting to get their weapon so they have a fighting chance against their ex. Your debating tactic - you can't prove a negative - has no value in the real world. Virtually all laws have consequences and need to be justified. Or at least have a sunset, like the AWB. We're going to quickly see how worthless that legislation was when the sky doesn't fall over the next year or two. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Douva 0 #117 August 24, 2004 Quote"Sure, if someone is intent on carrying a gun in a bar, a law isn't going to stop them" So what will stop them?.... A sense of civic responsibility? Harsh words? Rejection by their peers? The Lion from wizard of Oz saying "Put em up, Put em uuuuup?" Well, by all means, what we really need is a half dozen armed drunks trying to stop him. There's no way the end result to that situation could be anything but positive.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Douva 0 #118 August 24, 2004 QuoteQuote Who says the laws are ineffective? Sure, if someone is intent on carrying a gun in a bar, a law isn't going to stop them, but that doesn't mean it doesn't stop anybody. OK, so it doesn't stop the people who are a danger to society, and doesn't prevent real crimes. OK. QuoteIt keeps me from carrying in a bar. It keeps my friends from carrying in bars. I'm sure it keeps hundreds of thousands of people from carrying in bars. If we weren't worried about breaking the law, we wouldn't have gone through the trouble and expense of getting licensed to carry our handguns in the first place. You weren't planning on breaking real laws anyway, so what value is there in a law that keeps you and your friends from carrying in a bar? It hasn't stopped a serious crime (which was it's stated purpose) so what good is it? Don't tell me you're so naive as to think this law was implemented to keep bars from being robbed. Its stated purpose is not to keep dangerous criminals from carrying in bars; it's stated purpose is to keep people from getting drunk while carrying. Therefore, in many cases, it is serving its stated purpose.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Douva 0 #119 August 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt's fair to ask: "prove that this law has value." But you can't reasonably say, "Prove that something has NOT happened because of this law." How exactly do you prove that? Should we find an alternate dimension where the law wasn't put in place and document the multiple incidents that occurred as a result? Can you say the number of bad things has gone down as a result of something? That is a change, something that can be proven, or at least demonstrated. According to your logic, no law can ever be proven effective or ineffective. That is not the case. Your problem is you are not thinking creatively because you have already accepted it, and think other should do the same or don't matter. Kennedy, if the basic concept of "proving a negative" is too difficult for you to grasp, there is no point in me continuing to debate you.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Douva 0 #120 August 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt keeps me from carrying in a bar. It keeps my friends from carrying in bars. I'm sure it keeps hundreds of thousands of people from carrying in bars. If we weren't worried about breaking the law, we wouldn't have gone through the trouble and expense of getting licensed to carry our handguns in the first place. You weren't planning on breaking real laws anyway, so what value is there in a law that keeps you and your friends from carrying in a bar? It hasn't stopped a serious crime (which was it's stated purpose) so what good is it? Oh, but Kennedy, it caused him to leave his gun behind so that just in case he got to the bar and then became a raving, violent psychopath, he would be without his gun and couldn't do as much damage. You know, because the government must treat us all based on the worst things we might do. And someone like Douva simply can't control his impulses, and doesn't know himself that he won't just go berserk in the bar if he happened to have his gun. (That's sarcasm, Douva -- it's not meant in seriousness.) - Actually, I seldom drink, so logically, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to carry in a bar. Perhaps everyone in this thread arguing for concealed carry in bars would be okay carrying in a bar. But the fact remains that alcohol undermines common sense, and every aspect of carrying a concealed weapon, from the logic behind it to its practical applications, hinges on common sense. I would rather accept that I loose the right to carry when I enter an establishment dedicated to the loosening of inhibitions than see an increase in violence by concealed carry holders that would fuel the flames of the antigun lobby. Do you support concealed carry in venues dedicate to the consumption of other drugs, or are you only concerned with alcohol consumption? You keep throwing facts and figures at me, but how do you dispute the studies that identify alcohol as a catalyst behind the majority of the "wild west" shootouts? Most of your arguments make sense, but you continue to disregard the fact that the more alcohol you consume, the less sense has to do with anything. --DouvaI don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Douva 0 #121 August 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote It's fair to ask: "prove that this law has value." Quote But you can't reasonably say, "Prove that something has NOT happened because of this law." How exactly do you prove that? Should we find an alternate dimension where the law wasn't put in place and document the multiple incidents that occurred as a result? If you can't show that a law has value, but it can clearly be demonstrated that it hurts people, then the law should be repealed. If it's too hard to do, then tough luck, eh? Good social science is not that hard, it's just unfortunately filled with unethical and/or math challenged people. Take waiting periods that have the intent of enforcing a cooling off period. They don't work, and it's pretty logical why that is so. It's not hard to look at the numbers, both of killers who waited the 3/5/10 days or just resorted to illegal purchases or alternative weapons. And we also know that women have died waiting to get their weapon so they have a fighting chance against their ex. Your debating tactic - you can't prove a negative - has no value in the real world. Virtually all laws have consequences and need to be justified. Or at least have a sunset, like the AWB. We're going to quickly see how worthless that legislation was when the sky doesn't fall over the next year or two. Again, you're comparing apples to oranges. Waiting periods were designed to reduce crime. It is easy to determine whether or not crime went down after a law was enacted. Disallowing carry in bars was not designed to reduce crime; it was designed to prevent crimes that might result from mixing newly enacted concealed carry laws with alcohol. There is no old data to compare current statistics to. Therefore, my point that you "can't prove a negative" was indeed very solid. Obviously, there is no way I can prove that these laws prevented crimes from happening, rather than the crimes simply not occurring because they never would have occurred without the laws. I was not using a "debating tactic," trying to win some sort of nonexistent match on a technicality; I was pointing out a very real flaw in your logic. --DouvaI don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #122 August 24, 2004 "It would help in persuading us if there could be a SCRAP of success shown to have come from gun control in the U.K. before we stole the guns from American citizens." I've posted it before, and can't be assed posting it again for you, in summary guns banned, crime reduction of 5% last year where I live, look it up yourself. Fucking Google man! I've also posted ad nauseam that one can not take crime statistics and gun control policy for one society and apply them to another as a comparison. A notion first brought to my attention during a civilised discussion with Johnrich, an opinion expounded in extensive research by one of our pro gun lobbyists. When will you pay attention to this widely accepted statement? When they prise your current opinion from your cold dead hands? And finally, as an advocate of change, even though you deny this in your post, it is up to those proposing the change to justify it. Relaxing gun control simply will not fly here. I don't have to justify the status quo and its just not a big issue for us.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #123 August 24, 2004 QuoteDon't tell me you're so naive as to think this law was implemented to keep bars from being robbed. Its stated purpose is not to keep dangerous criminals from carrying in bars; it's stated purpose is to keep people from getting drunk while carrying. Therefore, in many cases, it is serving its stated purpose. Except with those people who carry their concealed guns into the bar and get drunk anyway, and *whew* manage to not have any fights or shooting incidents, thank goodness! The law serves its purpose for everyone but anyone who wants to carry concealed into the bar despite the law. And um, since the guns are concealed, no one knows how often the law is flouted, do they. For all YOU know, Douva, 75% of all bar patrons might have concealed guns that you, by definition, don't know about, and nothing is happening. Or maybe 0.002 percent are carrying guns and that's why there are few incidents that we hear about. How could either of us claim that we know how many people are or are not carrying concealed guns in bars, since by definition the guns are not seen or detected? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #124 August 24, 2004 QuoteActually, I seldom drink, so logically, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to carry in a bar. Perhaps everyone in this thread arguing for concealed carry in bars would be okay carrying in a bar. But the fact remains that alcohol undermines common sense, and every aspect of carrying a concealed weapon, from the logic behind it to its practical applications, hinges on common sense. I would rather accept that I loose the right to carry when I enter an establishment dedicated to the loosening of inhibitions than see an increase in violence by concealed carry holders that would fuel the flames of the antigun lobby. "Now who's being naive, Kay?" Do you really think that the anti-gun lobby only engages its anti-gun-ness in response to real-world incidents and dangers?? Consider the fact that violent crime is at like a ten or fifteen year low in the U.S.; is lower in places with concealed carry laws than without; and gun-related accidental deaths have declined in every year, steadily, since statistics began to be kept. And yet the anti-gun lobby still is active in trying to take away our gun rights. So let's not pretend that "being on our best behavior" is going to keep that particular wolf away from the door. Puhlease. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #125 August 24, 2004 >Take waiting periods that have the intent of enforcing a cooling off period. They don't work . . . A suspected Al Qaeda member was recently arrested in Oregon while waiting to pick up weapons at a gun shop. Personally, I am glad he could not walk out of the store with them. Arming Al Qaeda members is not the purpose of the second amendment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 5 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Douva 0 #117 August 24, 2004 Quote"Sure, if someone is intent on carrying a gun in a bar, a law isn't going to stop them" So what will stop them?.... A sense of civic responsibility? Harsh words? Rejection by their peers? The Lion from wizard of Oz saying "Put em up, Put em uuuuup?" Well, by all means, what we really need is a half dozen armed drunks trying to stop him. There's no way the end result to that situation could be anything but positive.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douva 0 #118 August 24, 2004 QuoteQuote Who says the laws are ineffective? Sure, if someone is intent on carrying a gun in a bar, a law isn't going to stop them, but that doesn't mean it doesn't stop anybody. OK, so it doesn't stop the people who are a danger to society, and doesn't prevent real crimes. OK. QuoteIt keeps me from carrying in a bar. It keeps my friends from carrying in bars. I'm sure it keeps hundreds of thousands of people from carrying in bars. If we weren't worried about breaking the law, we wouldn't have gone through the trouble and expense of getting licensed to carry our handguns in the first place. You weren't planning on breaking real laws anyway, so what value is there in a law that keeps you and your friends from carrying in a bar? It hasn't stopped a serious crime (which was it's stated purpose) so what good is it? Don't tell me you're so naive as to think this law was implemented to keep bars from being robbed. Its stated purpose is not to keep dangerous criminals from carrying in bars; it's stated purpose is to keep people from getting drunk while carrying. Therefore, in many cases, it is serving its stated purpose.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douva 0 #119 August 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt's fair to ask: "prove that this law has value." But you can't reasonably say, "Prove that something has NOT happened because of this law." How exactly do you prove that? Should we find an alternate dimension where the law wasn't put in place and document the multiple incidents that occurred as a result? Can you say the number of bad things has gone down as a result of something? That is a change, something that can be proven, or at least demonstrated. According to your logic, no law can ever be proven effective or ineffective. That is not the case. Your problem is you are not thinking creatively because you have already accepted it, and think other should do the same or don't matter. Kennedy, if the basic concept of "proving a negative" is too difficult for you to grasp, there is no point in me continuing to debate you.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douva 0 #120 August 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt keeps me from carrying in a bar. It keeps my friends from carrying in bars. I'm sure it keeps hundreds of thousands of people from carrying in bars. If we weren't worried about breaking the law, we wouldn't have gone through the trouble and expense of getting licensed to carry our handguns in the first place. You weren't planning on breaking real laws anyway, so what value is there in a law that keeps you and your friends from carrying in a bar? It hasn't stopped a serious crime (which was it's stated purpose) so what good is it? Oh, but Kennedy, it caused him to leave his gun behind so that just in case he got to the bar and then became a raving, violent psychopath, he would be without his gun and couldn't do as much damage. You know, because the government must treat us all based on the worst things we might do. And someone like Douva simply can't control his impulses, and doesn't know himself that he won't just go berserk in the bar if he happened to have his gun. (That's sarcasm, Douva -- it's not meant in seriousness.) - Actually, I seldom drink, so logically, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to carry in a bar. Perhaps everyone in this thread arguing for concealed carry in bars would be okay carrying in a bar. But the fact remains that alcohol undermines common sense, and every aspect of carrying a concealed weapon, from the logic behind it to its practical applications, hinges on common sense. I would rather accept that I loose the right to carry when I enter an establishment dedicated to the loosening of inhibitions than see an increase in violence by concealed carry holders that would fuel the flames of the antigun lobby. Do you support concealed carry in venues dedicate to the consumption of other drugs, or are you only concerned with alcohol consumption? You keep throwing facts and figures at me, but how do you dispute the studies that identify alcohol as a catalyst behind the majority of the "wild west" shootouts? Most of your arguments make sense, but you continue to disregard the fact that the more alcohol you consume, the less sense has to do with anything. --DouvaI don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douva 0 #121 August 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote It's fair to ask: "prove that this law has value." Quote But you can't reasonably say, "Prove that something has NOT happened because of this law." How exactly do you prove that? Should we find an alternate dimension where the law wasn't put in place and document the multiple incidents that occurred as a result? If you can't show that a law has value, but it can clearly be demonstrated that it hurts people, then the law should be repealed. If it's too hard to do, then tough luck, eh? Good social science is not that hard, it's just unfortunately filled with unethical and/or math challenged people. Take waiting periods that have the intent of enforcing a cooling off period. They don't work, and it's pretty logical why that is so. It's not hard to look at the numbers, both of killers who waited the 3/5/10 days or just resorted to illegal purchases or alternative weapons. And we also know that women have died waiting to get their weapon so they have a fighting chance against their ex. Your debating tactic - you can't prove a negative - has no value in the real world. Virtually all laws have consequences and need to be justified. Or at least have a sunset, like the AWB. We're going to quickly see how worthless that legislation was when the sky doesn't fall over the next year or two. Again, you're comparing apples to oranges. Waiting periods were designed to reduce crime. It is easy to determine whether or not crime went down after a law was enacted. Disallowing carry in bars was not designed to reduce crime; it was designed to prevent crimes that might result from mixing newly enacted concealed carry laws with alcohol. There is no old data to compare current statistics to. Therefore, my point that you "can't prove a negative" was indeed very solid. Obviously, there is no way I can prove that these laws prevented crimes from happening, rather than the crimes simply not occurring because they never would have occurred without the laws. I was not using a "debating tactic," trying to win some sort of nonexistent match on a technicality; I was pointing out a very real flaw in your logic. --DouvaI don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #122 August 24, 2004 "It would help in persuading us if there could be a SCRAP of success shown to have come from gun control in the U.K. before we stole the guns from American citizens." I've posted it before, and can't be assed posting it again for you, in summary guns banned, crime reduction of 5% last year where I live, look it up yourself. Fucking Google man! I've also posted ad nauseam that one can not take crime statistics and gun control policy for one society and apply them to another as a comparison. A notion first brought to my attention during a civilised discussion with Johnrich, an opinion expounded in extensive research by one of our pro gun lobbyists. When will you pay attention to this widely accepted statement? When they prise your current opinion from your cold dead hands? And finally, as an advocate of change, even though you deny this in your post, it is up to those proposing the change to justify it. Relaxing gun control simply will not fly here. I don't have to justify the status quo and its just not a big issue for us.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #123 August 24, 2004 QuoteDon't tell me you're so naive as to think this law was implemented to keep bars from being robbed. Its stated purpose is not to keep dangerous criminals from carrying in bars; it's stated purpose is to keep people from getting drunk while carrying. Therefore, in many cases, it is serving its stated purpose. Except with those people who carry their concealed guns into the bar and get drunk anyway, and *whew* manage to not have any fights or shooting incidents, thank goodness! The law serves its purpose for everyone but anyone who wants to carry concealed into the bar despite the law. And um, since the guns are concealed, no one knows how often the law is flouted, do they. For all YOU know, Douva, 75% of all bar patrons might have concealed guns that you, by definition, don't know about, and nothing is happening. Or maybe 0.002 percent are carrying guns and that's why there are few incidents that we hear about. How could either of us claim that we know how many people are or are not carrying concealed guns in bars, since by definition the guns are not seen or detected? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #124 August 24, 2004 QuoteActually, I seldom drink, so logically, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to carry in a bar. Perhaps everyone in this thread arguing for concealed carry in bars would be okay carrying in a bar. But the fact remains that alcohol undermines common sense, and every aspect of carrying a concealed weapon, from the logic behind it to its practical applications, hinges on common sense. I would rather accept that I loose the right to carry when I enter an establishment dedicated to the loosening of inhibitions than see an increase in violence by concealed carry holders that would fuel the flames of the antigun lobby. "Now who's being naive, Kay?" Do you really think that the anti-gun lobby only engages its anti-gun-ness in response to real-world incidents and dangers?? Consider the fact that violent crime is at like a ten or fifteen year low in the U.S.; is lower in places with concealed carry laws than without; and gun-related accidental deaths have declined in every year, steadily, since statistics began to be kept. And yet the anti-gun lobby still is active in trying to take away our gun rights. So let's not pretend that "being on our best behavior" is going to keep that particular wolf away from the door. Puhlease. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #125 August 24, 2004 >Take waiting periods that have the intent of enforcing a cooling off period. They don't work . . . A suspected Al Qaeda member was recently arrested in Oregon while waiting to pick up weapons at a gun shop. Personally, I am glad he could not walk out of the store with them. Arming Al Qaeda members is not the purpose of the second amendment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 5 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
nacmacfeegle 0 #122 August 24, 2004 "It would help in persuading us if there could be a SCRAP of success shown to have come from gun control in the U.K. before we stole the guns from American citizens." I've posted it before, and can't be assed posting it again for you, in summary guns banned, crime reduction of 5% last year where I live, look it up yourself. Fucking Google man! I've also posted ad nauseam that one can not take crime statistics and gun control policy for one society and apply them to another as a comparison. A notion first brought to my attention during a civilised discussion with Johnrich, an opinion expounded in extensive research by one of our pro gun lobbyists. When will you pay attention to this widely accepted statement? When they prise your current opinion from your cold dead hands? And finally, as an advocate of change, even though you deny this in your post, it is up to those proposing the change to justify it. Relaxing gun control simply will not fly here. I don't have to justify the status quo and its just not a big issue for us.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #123 August 24, 2004 QuoteDon't tell me you're so naive as to think this law was implemented to keep bars from being robbed. Its stated purpose is not to keep dangerous criminals from carrying in bars; it's stated purpose is to keep people from getting drunk while carrying. Therefore, in many cases, it is serving its stated purpose. Except with those people who carry their concealed guns into the bar and get drunk anyway, and *whew* manage to not have any fights or shooting incidents, thank goodness! The law serves its purpose for everyone but anyone who wants to carry concealed into the bar despite the law. And um, since the guns are concealed, no one knows how often the law is flouted, do they. For all YOU know, Douva, 75% of all bar patrons might have concealed guns that you, by definition, don't know about, and nothing is happening. Or maybe 0.002 percent are carrying guns and that's why there are few incidents that we hear about. How could either of us claim that we know how many people are or are not carrying concealed guns in bars, since by definition the guns are not seen or detected? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #124 August 24, 2004 QuoteActually, I seldom drink, so logically, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to carry in a bar. Perhaps everyone in this thread arguing for concealed carry in bars would be okay carrying in a bar. But the fact remains that alcohol undermines common sense, and every aspect of carrying a concealed weapon, from the logic behind it to its practical applications, hinges on common sense. I would rather accept that I loose the right to carry when I enter an establishment dedicated to the loosening of inhibitions than see an increase in violence by concealed carry holders that would fuel the flames of the antigun lobby. "Now who's being naive, Kay?" Do you really think that the anti-gun lobby only engages its anti-gun-ness in response to real-world incidents and dangers?? Consider the fact that violent crime is at like a ten or fifteen year low in the U.S.; is lower in places with concealed carry laws than without; and gun-related accidental deaths have declined in every year, steadily, since statistics began to be kept. And yet the anti-gun lobby still is active in trying to take away our gun rights. So let's not pretend that "being on our best behavior" is going to keep that particular wolf away from the door. Puhlease. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #125 August 24, 2004 >Take waiting periods that have the intent of enforcing a cooling off period. They don't work . . . A suspected Al Qaeda member was recently arrested in Oregon while waiting to pick up weapons at a gun shop. Personally, I am glad he could not walk out of the store with them. Arming Al Qaeda members is not the purpose of the second amendment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
