Well I think a rope ladder or fire escape and a back window is a much better way of feeling safe from these supposed demonic intruders that bust into our houses all the time according to infomercials and gun magazines (the reading type, not the shooty type). Confronting whoever you hear enter your house with a gun is really just asking for an innocent death. Poor alice, the neighbor's maid who went through the wrong door on the other side of the duplex on her first day of work. If it's really about self defense if someone enters your home (how many people here has that actally happened to anyways? Random thug just breaks in? hmmm... none?) then poor Alice the maid is just a victim of gun violence too. So is next door neighbor lady who has been allowed in before to borrow some sugar, just dropping off some in return. I do actually have this relationship with my neighbor, and have previously gone over to let his dog out while he is gone for the day, because we trust each other. I wouldn't do that if I risked a shotgun blast for showing up at the wrong time. The reason we can have such a relationship is because we aren't all so pathetically scared of each other.

Guitardian I think that you are getting the concept of home invasion and self defence all wrong.

A home invader does not knock on the door, they kick it in. A maid coming for the day will use a key to enter the house, however most keys only fit the door to the correct house. I also highly doubt that you come at night and kick the door in when you let your neighbors dog out.

I have relationships with my neighbors as well, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to let them kick down the door to my house or just let them come in whenever they want, after all I may be in my underwear cleaning one of my guns. Two of my neighbors have emergency keys to my house and I have a copy of each of theirs.

We have had a lot of bad things going on lately in my neighborhood so we watch out for each other and we have a strong feeling that if our houses are broken into the people will most likely be armed.

In the past year: Burglary has gone up less than half a mile from my house, the neighbors across the street were busted for dealing drugs, a family friend's house was robbed and all of his guns were stolen, 2 carjackings, murder/suicide attempt in the house where the drug dealers were living, and awhile back we had a guy cut the head off of his kid in the house across the street. In the past two years the house two doors down from us was robbed twice. So, as I said before, my precaution is not without excuse.

Common sense says that if someone isn't expecting you at their house you don't just walk in uninvited. If you walk in uninvited in the middle of the night, well, you deserve a severe case of lead poisoning.

Uninvited is uninvited regardless of the time of day.

@Dogma. I also shouldn't HAVE to leave my house because someone decided to get stupid that night. If somebody gets a case of the stupid and breaks in a window or kicks in my front door his life is measured in minutes. I know all the ambush points in my house, I know if I'm alone I don't need to worry about innocents (a .45 won't penetrate enough to endanger anyone outside the home) and even if armed I feel confident I could win a gun fight.

Not everyone agrees with the castle law doctrines. I'm glad Mn has one in place and so long as it remains in place I'm going to exercise my right to take advantage of it if I have to.

dogma wrote:Honestly, I don't understand the logic behind the notion that the presence of guns prevents gun violence. Most places in the US do not feature armed civilians, and yet there is relatively little gun crime in the majority of the US. Conversely, there is a high level of civilian firearm possession in Somalia, and the level of gun crime is also very high. It does not seem as though firearms are effective deterrents in general, though it may stand to reason that they effectively deter crime in certain social situations.

It is a very strange fixation on guns as either the problem or the solution. The primary causes of the high rate of gun violence in Somalia is the lack of effective government.

Having more guns or having less guns really doesn't impact crime rates.

I think it may depend on the location as well as the status of banned weapons.

For example Chicago banned handguns and crime went up and when D.C repealed its handgun ban, crime went down. These are both very large cities though.

Even though I haven't found any articles saying so yet, I would believe that a handgun ban in a small town would have little effect or maybe even reduce the crime rate. Don't know and can't experiment so I just have to wait. Although I have heard stories about a town where they mandated all store owners to maintain and carry a firearm and according to them "crime didn't drop, it disappeared".



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also believe that the basic presence of the way guns work in deterring theft works as this.

A 42" tv is worth around 400-500 dollars. Now, if you throw in the chance that the people you are about to rob may have a firearm, you start to reconsider what you're willing to do to get 400-500 dollars.

It would be interesting to look at real crime stats from different countries with different gun ownership policies.

For example in the UK, about 1 in 31 households is legally armed, which you would think presents a significant danger to would-be burglars, yet there is a high rate of burglary.

I don't see any correlation between gun ownership and crime levels around the world.

Switzerland has high gun ownership and low crime levels. The USA has high gun ownership and significant (by European measures) crime levels. South Africa has high gun ownership and very high crime levels.

The relationship between a nation and its crime levels clearly isn't correlated with gun ownership. It's due to a variety of factors.

You can't really compare gun ownership in the U.S as a country to other countries around the world. Gun ownership in the US varies in different states and in different cities. You also have to look at the kind of weapons being banned.

halonachos wrote:
For example Chicago banned handguns and crime went up...

That's true, but the overall crime rate in Chicago has steadily decreased since shortly after the handgun ban was enacted in 1982, though that doesn't necessarily mean that the ban caused the drop. The ban itself was enacted due to significant increase in violent crime prior to 1982, which continued forward into the 90's.

halonachos wrote:You can't really compare gun ownership in the U.S as a country to other countries around the world. Gun ownership in the US varies in different states and in different cities. You also have to look at the kind of weapons being banned.

Of course you can. It just requires going into more detail.

Guitardian wrote:Well I think a rope ladder or fire escape and a back window is a much better way of feeling safe from these supposed demonic intruders that bust into our houses all the time according to infomercials and gun magazines (the reading type, not the shooty type). Confronting whoever you hear enter your house with a gun is really just asking for an innocent death. Poor alice, the neighbor's maid who went through the wrong door on the other side of the duplex on her first day of work. If it's really about self defense if someone enters your home (how many people here has that actally happened to anyways? Random thug just breaks in? hmmm... none?) then poor Alice the maid is just a victim of gun violence too. So is next door neighbor lady who has been allowed in before to borrow some sugar, just dropping off some in return. I do actually have this relationship with my neighbor, and have previously gone over to let his dog out while he is gone for the day, because we trust each other. I wouldn't do that if I risked a shotgun blast for showing up at the wrong time. The reason we can have such a relationship is because we aren't all so pathetically scared of each other.

An again you ignore the ancillariy factors. WHAT ABOUT CHILDREN? WHAT ABOUT AGED PARENTS? WHAT ABOUT YOUR PETS?
Are you really going t play dangly dangly when they can hear all that and be on you instantly. I know. We have them in each bedroom in case of fire. The thought is sustainable

dogma wrote:

Honestly, I don't understand the logic behind the notion that the presence of guns prevents gun violence. Most places in the US do not feature armed civilians, and yet there is relatively little gun crime in the majority of the US. Conversely, there is a high level of civilian firearm possession in Somalia, and the level of gun crime is also very high. It does not seem as though firearms are effective deterrents in general, though it may stand to reason that they effectively deter crime in certain social situations.

I'm not sure comparing Somalia to the United states is worthwhile. The United States is a developed nation with stable government and reasonably effective law enforcement, while Somalia, in the past, has not been. During periods of unrest in Somalia it might be difficult to even define what is crime and what is armed conflict.

The theory an armed citizen can prevent violence by responding immediately to a situation in areas or times when police may not be immediately available. As is, while I completely support CC in general, I'm leery about extending that to places where alcohol is served or college campuses, for different reasons.

Like many things, there isn't a lot of moderation and people tend to go to far once they grab hold of the reins of government, which is what we're seeing in my state.

You also have to compare all stats. Total homicides not just homicides by firearm.

Then you get into the fun of how those statistics are quantified and the definitions used.

Then you have to add the number of crimes averted by demonstrating with a firearm (the FBI put that at 2.5MM in one year).

Its all a joyous statistical exercise.

Frazzled wrote:You also have to compare all stats. Total homicides not just homicides by firearm.

Then you get into the fun of how those statistics are quantified and the definitions used.

Then you have to add the number of crimes averted by demonstrating with a firearm (the FBI put that at 2.5MM in one year).

Its all a joyous statistical exercise.

I don't understand why its relevant anyhow. We're a nation whose citizens are guaranteed the right to bear arms. There may be a certain amount of risk in that, and more importantly, a great deal of responsibility. Many times with questions of individual rights it is a case of freedom being inversely proportional to security. If you want more freedom, you're going to have to give up a little security.

Guitardian wrote:Well I think a rope ladder or fire escape and a back window is a much better way of feeling safe from these supposed demonic intruders that bust into our houses all the time according to infomercials and gun magazines (the reading type, not the shooty type). Confronting whoever you hear enter your house with a gun is really just asking for an innocent death. Poor alice, the neighbor's maid who went through the wrong door on the other side of the duplex on her first day of work. If it's really about self defense if someone enters your home (how many people here has that actally happened to anyways? Random thug just breaks in? hmmm... none?) then poor Alice the maid is just a victim of gun violence too. So is next door neighbor lady who has been allowed in before to borrow some sugar, just dropping off some in return. I do actually have this relationship with my neighbor, and have previously gone over to let his dog out while he is gone for the day, because we trust each other. I wouldn't do that if I risked a shotgun blast for showing up at the wrong time. The reason we can have such a relationship is because we aren't all so pathetically scared of each other.

The simple expedient of locking your doors will prevent your neighbors, the homeless, and enterprising animals from wandering in off of the street.

I do quite agree that if you frequently wake up to strangers in your home, or find them when you get home then you probably should not exercise any sort of right to home defense. That would be like using self defense standards in a 4 person dorm room- there's always someone visiting, and you usually don't know (or remember) your roommates' guest.

Most people do not much care for dorm-style life, or keep an open door policy once they have items of value and have moved away from college. I suppose I must applaud the strength of your convictions if you are that convinced that people are good and want to leave your house open to them. You are a far more trusting man than I am.

Gitzbitah wrote:

The simple expedient of locking your doors will prevent your neighbors, the homeless, and enterprising animals from wandering in off of the street.

I do quite agree that if you frequently wake up to strangers in your home, or find them when you get home then you probably should not exercise any sort of right to home defense. That would be like using self defense standards in a 4 person dorm room- there's always someone visiting, and you usually don't know (or remember) your roommates' guest.

Most people do not much care for dorm-style life, or keep an open door policy once they have items of value and have moved away from college. I suppose I must applaud the strength of your convictions if you are that convinced that people are good and want to leave your house open to them. You are a far more trusting man than I am.

We're sort of going in circles on whether or not its worthwhile to keep a loaded weapon in your home or what the effect of firearms politics is on crime. One thing I'm noticing, not in all cases, but it some of the people on both sides of this argument is a lot of fear. Ironically, I think the people who feel strongest about being armed and those who feel that weapons are inherently dangerous and should be banned except for hunting purposes are arguing from the very same premise, which I'm not sure is correct.

On one hand, you have the mode of thought that spree killings and gun crimes are just waiting to occur in large numbers as soon as people get their hands on weapons. On the other, you have the school of thought that you need to be armed everywhere at all times because of dangerous criminals that are lurking about in large numbers.

Is it really this bad? I know I haven't had any crime issues other than petty theft and vandalism in my neighborhood, and I certainly don't live in a high income area. There was a shooting in the mall where my FLGS is, but it was a targeted thing. I'm not afraid to go to the mall because someone got shot there. While I live in a medium size city, I've walked around in large cities without undue fear, though I certainly tried to stay aware of my surroundings, which is just a smart thing to do anyhow. There has always been violence of course, but I think the vast majority of people who own firearms are more or less responsible people. I don't think there are nearly as many violent criminals lurking around as people imagine, and your odds of being caught up in a spree shooting is vanishingly small.

Frankly I think everything was fine before we started tinkering with the law. That goes for things like the Brady bill and the so called assault weapons ban, and it also goes for the idea that we suddenly need to carry firearms where they've been traditionally restricted, like college campuses and bars.

Here's one to try to break this circular topic a bit. I'm not saying I agree or disagree at this point, but I'm throwing it out there. Lately civil libertarians have asserted that shopping malls, in spite of being private property, cannot restrict speech or art that the patrons or the mall find offensive ( outside of things that are already restricted in public places) because malls have become de facto public spaces and effectively not private property. Yet these same people have been strangely quiet when malls restrict C&C permit holders from carrying their weapon in the mall. Is this not hypocritical?

What if there are people who approve of free speech and disapprove of carrying of guns.

The fact that they are both allowed or guaranteed under the constitution does not compel one's personal convictions.

Kilkrazy wrote:What if there are people who approve of free speech and disapprove of carrying of guns.

The fact that they are both allowed or guaranteed under the constitution does not compel one's personal convictions.

I understand that. But the argument that has been used works on the idea that shopping malls are effectively public places and can't use private property rights as an excuse to trump individual rights because they are public. Shouldn't that work the same for rights guaranteed under another amendment?

I'm not necessarily saying how I feel, or that someone can't feel that way, but it seems like you'd have to make both arguments to make one.

I quite agree, this was becoming circular. My intention was to question guitardian's scenario of folks wandering into your house.

I don't think crime is by any means that bad. I've never been robbed or had my home broken into. My stance on the issue is entirely theoretical, and has only slightly more grounding in reality than my fear of the zombie apocalypse. I believe in having thought through jus about every scenario possible, and having some sort of plan. That makes you much less prone to panic when that one in a million chance strikes.

I am all for the right to bear arms, but I am against mixing alcohol and weapons. People make stupid decisions when they drink too much. The less permanent the consequences of those stupid decisions the better for everyone.

I think the mall issue is a freedom of speech problem, rather than a weapons issue. Private property shouldn't be forced to allow things that the owners and their patrons find offensive. Private property definitely should have the right to refuse weapons on their premises.

Grignard wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:What if there are people who approve of free speech and disapprove of carrying of guns.

The fact that they are both allowed or guaranteed under the constitution does not compel one's personal convictions.

I understand that. But the argument that has been used works on the idea that shopping malls are effectively public places and can't use private property rights as an excuse to trump individual rights because they are public. Shouldn't that work the same for rights guaranteed under another amendment?

I'm not necessarily saying how I feel, or that someone can't feel that way, but it seems like you'd have to make both arguments to make one.

Once you get into the nitty gritty detail it becomes more difficult.

For example, I would use the argument that if a shopping mall is allowed to ban free speech inside, it prevents consumers from making a legitimate protest outside a shop. It would be meaningless for this protest to be made at home -- the point of the protest is that it must be done in front of the company it concerns.

OTOH I would argue there is no reason for the general public to carry weapons in the mall since it already has security. The carrying of weapons in such circumstances is not for a practical purpose and only serves to validate a specific opinion about the right to bear arms. Against that, the more weapons in a place the more chance there is of an accident. Please note I am making this argument as a demonstration of the kind of argument I think could be made, which would be legitimate and sensible if I were a US civil libertarian.

Also note that the right of free speech is limited by things such as slander and calling out fire in a crowded theatre, so there are precedents for limitations of amendment rights.

I don't think shopping mall security guards would be much help when the shooting starts they would be panicked like anyone else. I sure wouldn't enter a gunfight for 6 bucks an hour. I personally don't like to go to malls in the first place because the place is crawling with hoomaans and I have no need for Hot Topic in my life, but on the occasions that I do, if a shooting spree erupted I would just be glad that I'm a little target and I can sprint when necessary and smart enough to get to cover the moment I hear the gunshots start. I do go to malls from time to time to buy christmas shopping and, while generally disgusted by them, don't feel a need for 'protection' while there, just a veil of tolerance for the annoying people everywhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I wonder if that is what causes random shooting guy to pick his target spot. The mall is full of everything he hates about life, complete with neon signs to remind him of things that don't matter. Also chock full of chunky, big, slow moving targets who represent society to him.

If everyone is panicking the more guns around the better, eh.

I reckon the random shooter picks at random, or perhaps just decides he doesn't like your face, or something.

There were some people Michael Ryan could have shot easily, but he let them off.

Thomas Hamilton was worse in the sense that he deliberately picked on young children who would have no way of imagining what was happening and defending themselves.

Kilkrazy wrote:If everyone is panicking the more guns around the better, eh.

I reckon the random shooter picks at random, or perhaps just decides he doesn't like your face, or something.

There were some people Michael Ryan could have shot easily, but he let them off.

Thomas Hamilton was worse in the sense that he deliberately picked on young children who would have no way of imagining what was happening and defending themselves.

Sorry I am not referencing who these people are, and am probably ignorant in my bliss.

Kilkrazy wrote:

halonachos wrote:You can't really compare gun ownership in the U.S as a country to other countries around the world. Gun ownership in the US varies in different states and in different cities. You also have to look at the kind of weapons being banned.

Of course you can. It just requires going into more detail.

Details would be incredibly difficult to obtain.
First you would need to detail the exact governmental structure of each country. Then you would have to detail the number of states/provinces states that ban weapons and what type of weapons. You would also have to detail which cities in each country also ban weapons and what kind of weapons. Then you would have to detail which places inside each city ban firearms. For example colleges, some allow carry some don't.

Besides that you have to look at what kind of ban each place has. Some allow concealed weapons licenses and others don't. Then you have to look at all of the abstract laws in place when it comes to certain firearms. Some automatic weapons can be owned without a license if they were manufactured and owned before a certain point in time while the majority of them require a class 3 license or something like that. Then you have to look at the number of households that do have firearms and how many they have and what type they are compared to the number of households that do not have any firearms. Look at Frazzled, I think he alone owns at least 50% of the nation's weapons.

There are also other weapons that could be classified as a firearm in some abstract way, such as airsoft guns or even potato guns. Then there's ballistic knives that could somehow manage to climb into bed with the firearm catagory.

Then not only that you would have to see what classifies as a certain type of firearm compared between each state/country/province, etc.

After that's all said and done you haven't even started getting the details on crime statistics and certain types of gun related deaths have occured.

Once you're done with all of this and make a nice graph, you're just going to get it attacked by some NRA activist or right wing politician who's going to demand more specifics so it's just a huge hassle and nobody can be paid enough to do that in my opinion.

Michael Ryan did the Hungerford Massacre.

Hamilton did the Dunblane Primary School massacre.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

halonachos wrote:You can't really compare gun ownership in the U.S as a country to other countries around the world. Gun ownership in the US varies in different states and in different cities. You also have to look at the kind of weapons being banned.

Of course you can. It just requires going into more detail.

Details would be incredibly difficult to obtain.
First you would need to detail the exact governmental structure of each country. Then you would have to detail the number of states/provinces states that ban weapons and what type of weapons. You would also have to detail which cities in each country also ban weapons and what kind of weapons. Then you would have to detail which places inside each city ban firearms. For example colleges, some allow carry some don't.

Besides that you have to look at what kind of ban each place has. Some allow concealed weapons licenses and others don't. Then you have to look at all of the abstract laws in place when it comes to certain firearms. Some automatic weapons can be owned without a license if they were manufactured and owned before a certain point in time while the majority of them require a class 3 license or something like that. Then you have to look at the number of households that do have firearms and how many they have and what type they are compared to the number of households that do not have any firearms. Look at Frazzled, I think he alone owns at least 50% of the nation's weapons.

There are also other weapons that could be classified as a firearm in some abstract way, such as airsoft guns or even potato guns. Then there's ballistic knives that could somehow manage to climb into bed with the firearm catagory.

Then not only that you would have to see what classifies as a certain type of firearm compared between each state/country/province, etc.

After that's all said and done you haven't even started getting the details on crime statistics and certain types of gun related deaths have occured.

Once you're done with all of this and make a nice graph, you're just going to get it attacked by some NRA activist or right wing politician who's going to demand more specifics so it's just a huge hassle and nobody can be paid enough to do that in my opinion.

So in your view all law enforcement is completely random?

If a mall security guard panics when shooting starts he was a piss poor choice for security guard. As well security guards (at least where I live) start off around $14/hour; cops around $16/hour. So security guard, while not as glamorous as a cop, pays nearly as well (though most are part time so annual pay will be much less).

Our (my cities) mall is tiny so it's security guard has an easy job and is only armed with pepper spray and a baton. Our high school has 2 actual policeman that patrol it daily. Kind of worrying when the HS has tighter security than the mall. Of course that also attributes to lots of paranoia as well.

I would like to think that security guards are selected and trained to have the ability to provide security.

Assuming it is true, doesn't it support my point about why free speech should be allowed in a shopping mall but not guns?

No doubt the laws on this vary from state to state.

I think they are meant to make people scared to shoplift. Their presence makes people less willing to take the risk of being caught.

Guitardian wrote:I do go to malls from time to time to buy christmas shopping and, while generally disgusted by them, don't feel a need for 'protection' while there, just a veil of tolerance for the annoying people everywhere.

I bet you strangle puppies too, huh?

sA

Yeah actually I like beating up gay people in malls. And puppies. Where the feth did that come from?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
noticed you edited out the irrelevant homophobia reference (edited 1 time)?

It just seemed a very boorish and anti-social statement to make. It's called 'society'.

Homo. Google it yourself. I did include "(...think about it...)" but clearly you didn't have the faculty.

sA

You and I both know what the common usage of the word 'homophobia' refers to. Don't try to be so obtuse in future.

Grignard wrote:
I'm not sure comparing Somalia to the United states is worthwhile. The United States is a developed nation with stable government and reasonably effective law enforcement, while Somalia, in the past, has not been. During periods of unrest in Somalia it might be difficult to even define what is crime and what is armed conflict.

That's sort of my point. Firearm possession does not appear to be a correlate of total crime.

Grignard wrote:
The theory an armed citizen can prevent violence by responding immediately to a situation in areas or times when police may not be immediately available. As is, while I completely support CC in general, I'm leery about extending that to places where alcohol is served or college campuses, for different reasons.

The ultimate issue is related to security forces. How do you determine who is a benign gun handler, and who is a malicious one?

You don't. You simply assume all gun handlers are malicious, and ban them from the premises.

Well if it understood that nobody else is expected to be carrying, why would anyone go to the premise armed if not for a malicious intent? If the only reason for carrying a defensive weapon is for defense, why take one somewhere you know nobody else has one?

Frazzled wrote:
Then you have to add the number of crimes averted by demonstrating with a firearm (the FBI put that at 2.5MM in one year).

Do you have a source for that?

Frazzled wrote:
Its all a joyous statistical exercise.

And it all depends on the definitions proffered via argument. Sure, you can change the terms of the debate, but you must indicate when you are doing so.

Guitardian wrote:Well if it understood that nobody else is expected to be carrying, why would anyone go to the premise armed if not for a malicious intent? If the only reason for carrying a defensive weapon is for defense, why take one somewhere you know nobody else has one?

Becuase you don'tknow. "Gun free" zones are the ones most likely to be hit by a mass murdering nutjob.

Guitardian wrote:Well if it understood that nobody else is expected to be carrying, why would anyone go to the premise armed if not for a malicious intent? If the only reason for carrying a defensive weapon is for defense, why take one somewhere you know nobody else has one?

Because that's not true. People are carrying because other people are carrying. Why shouldn't a man take a gun as defense against a knife-attack, if he can?

sA

Frazzled wrote:
Becuase you don'tknow. "Gun free" zones are the ones most likely to be hit by a mass murdering nutjob.

No, historically that's false. There have been more mass murders in areas which have no particular relationship to guns, than those that have an explicitly intolerant relationship to them. Note how the majority of mass shootings occurred before stringent gun regulation became a reality.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Becuase you don'tknow. "Gun free" zones are the ones most likely to be hit by a mass murdering nutjob.

No, historically that's false. There have been more mass murders in areas which have no particular relationship to guns, than those that have an explicitly intolerant relationship to them. Note how the majority of mass shootings occurred before stringent gun regulation became a reality.

Sauce on that please?

Just look at criminal history in any major US metropolitan area. Chicago is a good test case, actually.

Mass shootings were relatively common in the 70's and 80's, even in areas with minimal firearm regulation.

Gun law in US municipalities does not, generally, correlate with gun crime. The truth is that its unlikely that a civilian will intercede in a physical altercation in which he is not directly threatened. After all, flight is almost always far safer than fight.

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Becuase you don'tknow. "Gun free" zones are the ones most likely to be hit by a mass murdering nutjob.

No, historically that's false. There have been more mass murders in areas which have no particular relationship to guns, than those that have an explicitly intolerant relationship to them. Note how the majority of mass shootings occurred before stringent gun regulation became a reality.

Sauce on that please?

What kind of sauce?

My biggest problem with "gun free" zones, other than the obvious Constitutional problems, is that they should probably be called "I don't get it, and I'm a naive little infant" zones.

It's called "concealed carry" for a reason. If you can't enforce something, not even a little, then saying you're enforcing it makes you delusional. Unless you've got a metal detector at every single egress point, it's not a gun free zone. It's just your opinion that there shouldn't be guns there, and nobody cares.

Plus, If I'm carrying a weapon concealed, and I find myself in a situation where I need it, I am WAY WAY beyond caring about the stupid little signs you put up.

Why do it? It's like having a "world peace zone." Nice dream. Go tell everyone at the drum circle what a genius you are.

I think you'd be surprised at how many people will deliberately abandon a weapon when entering nominally benign circumstances. Of the people I knew with concealed carry permits, almost all of them would obey posted signs.

The purpose of said signs is an extension of this fact. If law-abiding people obey signs, then people not obeying said signs are not law abiding. Granted, this is an extension of the idea that laws create criminals, but I think there is at least some element of psychological intent to be considered. Someone who knowingly disobeys a sign on a certain property is someone who has at least some level of disregard for that property, and its inhabitants.

Phryxis wrote:My biggest problem with "gun free" zones, other than the obvious Constitutional problems, is that they should probably be called "I don't get it, and I'm a naive little infant" zones.

It's called "concealed carry" for a reason. If you can't enforce something, not even a little, then saying you're enforcing it makes you delusional. Unless you've got a metal detector at every single egress point, it's not a gun free zone. It's just your opinion that there shouldn't be guns there, and nobody cares.

Plus, If I'm carrying a weapon concealed, and I find myself in a situation where I need it, I am WAY WAY beyond caring about the stupid little signs you put up.

Why do it? It's like having a "world peace zone." Nice dream. Go tell everyone at the drum circle what a genius you are.

requoted for truthiness.

I think you'd be surprised at how many people will deliberately abandon a weapon when entering nominally benign circumstances. Of the people I knew with concealed carry permits, almost all of them would obey posted signs.

I do in some cases, but not in others.

For example, I sometimes carry into a movie theater. Screw you, movie theater.

I don't think it's fair (and in most cases it's also illegal) to carry into an alcohol serving establishment. Even if you don't plan to drink, if you go to a place with drunk people, you have to understand that they might do drunk things at you. It's just not fair to them to start shooting them for being drunk. If you don't accept the dangers inherant to drunk people, don't go near them.

dogma wrote:I think you'd be surprised at how many people will deliberately abandon a weapon when entering nominally benign circumstances. Of the people I knew with concealed carry permits, almost all of them would obey posted signs.

The purpose of said signs is an extension of this fact. If law-abiding people obey signs, then people not obeying said signs are not law abiding. Granted, this is an extension of the idea that laws create criminals, but I think there is at least some element of psychological intent to be considered. Someone who knowingly disobeys a sign on a certain property is someone who has at least some level of disregard for that property, and its inhabitants.

Here's a thing about signs though, people can go around them and the sign itself doesn't stop anyone if they do happen to carry. I will give an example from a book I read, written by a member of my church who was a member of a liasion group during the cold war in eastern germany.

There was a small russian port that the US government wanted information about so he was supposed to find a way to infiltrate it. Well, it just so happened that there was a ferry that civilians could take to get into the port. Needless to say, he used the ferry to get in and snapped some photos and hid his camera. As he was leaving he was stopped by a russian guard who pointed to a sign near the main entrance saying that american liasions were not allowed entrance. Here's the catch, the sign only showed on the land based entrance and not on the water based entrance. After pointing this out and saying that he simply did not know, he got off scott free.

Sure, some people don't obey signs. The point isn't that they're perfect preventive measures, but that they do prevent some undesirable behavior for the fact that some people do obey them at least some of the time.

And really, how expensive or intrusive is a sign on the door that reads 'guns prohibited on these premises'?

I never carry into places posted. Getting caught is a felony. Felons lose their gun rights.

Now I feel places like the mall should allow guns. Bars and banks I can see a reason for prohibition of guns.

But I have mine on me whenever and wherever I'm allowed.

One guy in my city even goes so far as to wear his holstered gun CLEARLY in plain sight. Concealed doesn't actually mean hidden. It just has to be holstered and unbrandished. A holstered gun IS technically hidden inside the holster.

And really, how expensive or intrusive is a sign on the door that reads 'guns prohibited on these premises'?

Sure, I guess if you view it as being "worth a try" there's some sense to it.

I've just always viewed it as being unConstitutional douchebaggery that doesn't even work. It's like saying "I don't respect your rights, and that's all I have to say about that."

I never carry into places posted. Getting caught is a felony.

I hear you, but at the same time, getting caught without a gun when you needed it is probably worse.

Concealed doesn't actually mean hidden.

Actually, it does. Laws vary by state, so perhaps there are some localities where this is true, but I'm not aware of any of them.

I live in Colorado. Open carry is legal without any type of permit. So that means you can walk around with a pistol in a holster, and you're ok. Although I wouldn't count on cops knowing that. Concealed carry is also legal, but a permit is required.

To further complicate matters, if you have a concealed carry permit, you can no longer open carry. I'm not certain on this, but I believe that's accurate.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Grignard wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:What if there are people who approve of free speech and disapprove of carrying of guns.

The fact that they are both allowed or guaranteed under the constitution does not compel one's personal convictions.

I understand that. But the argument that has been used works on the idea that shopping malls are effectively public places and can't use private property rights as an excuse to trump individual rights because they are public. Shouldn't that work the same for rights guaranteed under another amendment?

I'm not necessarily saying how I feel, or that someone can't feel that way, but it seems like you'd have to make both arguments to make one.

Once you get into the nitty gritty detail it becomes more difficult.

For example, I would use the argument that if a shopping mall is allowed to ban free speech inside, it prevents consumers from making a legitimate protest outside a shop. It would be meaningless for this protest to be made at home -- the point of the protest is that it must be done in front of the company it concerns.

OTOH I would argue there is no reason for the general public to carry weapons in the mall since it already has security. The carrying of weapons in such circumstances is not for a practical purpose and only serves to validate a specific opinion about the right to bear arms. Against that, the more weapons in a place the more chance there is of an accident. Please note I am making this argument as a demonstration of the kind of argument I think could be made, which would be legitimate and sensible if I were a US civil libertarian.

Also note that the right of free speech is limited by things such as slander and calling out fire in a crowded theatre, so there are precedents for limitations of amendment rights.

Personally I think malls, unfortunately, should be able to limit what people wear and say in their property. I'm not necessarily a fan of some of these policies, but it is their property.

What I found interesting is that the people who support the right to protest in front of shops or wear contraversial shirt slogans are making their case that a mall is effectively no longer true private property and by their nature are public spaces, therefore the constitution protects their right to speak as they like. Someone could argue that if they have a permit that allows them to carry on public land ( On the road, walking down the sidewalk, in parks*) then if a mall is a public space for free speech then it is a public space as far as carrying their weapon.

Personally I would have no problem with someone around me who has a C&C permit and a weapon in the mall. I'd probably never become aware of it. I also think that a mall *is* private property and can ask you not to carry the weapon on their property. I just think that the free speech thing in malls is kind of the same argument, and I think the mall can decide what goes on in both cases.

* Parks are currently a bone of contention in Knox country TN. Currently firearms are forbidden, along with fireworks, alcohol, and hitting golf balls if the park is not also a golf course. There is debate about allowing permit holders to carry in parks.

Also, private property has limits too. Obviously the mall can't break your fingers for shoplifting just because its private property. But where do property rights end and individual rights begin? Its very sticky and I'm not sure how I feel about all of these issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

The ultimate issue is related to security forces. How do you determine who is a benign gun handler, and who is a malicious one?

You don't. You simply assume all gun handlers are malicious, and ban them from the premises.

Can you not request that they produce a permit if someone reports them with a gun? Sure, I guess there is a fear element in approaching someone with a firearm if you're not armed, but I seriously doubt someone will start shooting just because they're asked to leave.

UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE WILL RUIN THIS COUNTRY!

Seriously do you think that the average TAX payer wants to dish out more money for the government?

If you do go to England. Their they have taxes so ridiculusly high its not even funny.

Other than that I love Gunz my uncle has an MG42, MP44, 5/6 Kar 98s, and some stuff that I can't remember. I myself have a kar 98. I like shooting them and taking em apart to understand them.

I am a non-average taxpayer (just can't vote) and I don't object to taxes if they are used towards everyone's betterment, including my own. Reality is far different than fantasy though.

So long as they don't make me try to claim my guns on my W2 I won't have a problem.

Phryxis wrote:
Sure, I guess if you view it as being "worth a try" there's some sense to it.

I've just always viewed it as being unConstitutional douchebaggery that doesn't even work. It's like saying "I don't respect your rights, and that's all I have to say about that."

If the sign is on private property, then it isn't unconstitutional. The Constitution does not generally grant rights in the course of dealing with non-governmental entities. The obvious exception being the abolition of slavery.

Of course, there is the argument from civil rights to consider, but that doesn't seem to be a popular line of reasoning amongst gun advocates.

I suppose I could make a claim that my 'civil rights' could include not being at risk from being randomly injured or killed by someone else's civil rights to own a gun?

Our rights extend as far as our power to protect them. Our power to protect them, we think, involves owning our own protection, and also this is allowing those that chose to abuse that right the ability to abuse my own, by picking and choosing where they shoot whether I'm there, gun cocked, etc, or not. They shoot first, so I guess I don't really have rights because I'm not walking around the mall like some kind of SWAT cop just waiting for it to randomly happen with my gun loaded and ready.

Guitardian wrote:I suppose I could make a claim that my 'civil rights' could include not being at risk from being randomly injured or killed by someone else's civil rights to own a gun?

You're confusing Civil Rights with Human Rights.

sA

Well, one other issue is that if carrying a firearm is considered a civil right, and therefore subject to civil rights protections, one must subsequently ask what other 'creeds' are subject to such protection.

We just do, I know it's weid.

That's what I figured right at the start, and I wanted someone else to say it.

Kilkrazy wrote:That's what I figured right at the start, and I wanted someone else to say it.

Good .

Don't try to understand Americans and guns. Just know we are better than you all.

I'll never understand how the British have such fethed up teeth nor do I try so please don't try to understand our gun love.

dogma wrote:Well, one other issue is that if carrying a firearm is considered a civil right, and therefore subject to civil rights protections, one must subsequently ask what other 'creeds' are subject to such protection.

I'm going to shorten and simplify all of these:

1.) Freedom of Speech, Press, Petition and Assembly.*
2.) The Right to Bear Arms. *
3.) Soldiers cannot be forcefully quartered into someone's home during peace time, with congressional support can be put into affect in war times.
4.) Makes Search and Seizures without a warrant illegal.*
5.) Indictments, Due Process, Self-Incrimination, and double Jeopardy, and rules for Eminent Domain
6.) Right to a fair and speedy public trial, to notice of accusations, to confront the accuser, to subpoenas, and to counsel.
7.) Right to Trial by Jury in Civil Cases.
8.) No excessive bail or fines, or cruel and unusual punishment.
9.) Unenumerated Rights
10.) Limits Power of Federal government to only those specifically granted to it by the constitution.
11.) Immunity of states from out-of-state citizens and foreigners not living within the state borders. Began Sovereign Immunity.
12.) Revised presidential election procedures.
13.) Abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude except in the case as punishment for a crime. The second part has since been erradicated by the 8th amendment.
14.) Defines citizenship and solves some civil war issues that had come up afterwards.
15.) Prohibits denial of suffrage because of race and color.
16.) Brings in income tax
17.) direct election of senators
18.) no more beer
19.) Women's suffrage
20.) Sets time for when congress and president become active
21.) repeals 18th amendment
22.) limits president to 2 terms maximum with 10 years at the most.
23.) Washington D.C. recognized in electoral college.
24.) No more poll taxes.
25.) Presidential Succession
26.) voting age set to 18
27.) No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Well there is our constitution. The ones constantly infringed upon by either laws, rules, idiocy or intentionally over looked have a star beside them.

Nothing you have listed deals in civil rights.

Additionally, exempting the abolition of slavery, none of the rights enumerated by the Constitution apply to any non-governmental actor.

This is nothing more than a case of my knowing the explicit text of the Constitution, and you not knowing it.

Just putting an orkmoticon on a gratuitous nationalist insult does not make it "all right", Fateweaver.

Isn't the OP of this thread somewhat of an insult, Killkrazy?

If you think it is then please click the yellow triangle to complain.

Monster Rain wrote:Isn't the OP of this thread somewhat of an insult, Killkrazy?

Question vs. Statement

Truth vs. Fallacy

Americans in general like guns. That is not insulting.

British people do not have bad oral hygeine. That is insulting.

sA

smiling Assassin wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Isn't the OP of this thread somewhat of an insult, Killkrazy?

Question vs. Statement

Truth vs. Fallacy

Americans in general like guns. That is not insulting.

British people do not have bad oral hygeine. That is insulting.

sA

It wasn't insulting but I'm not so sure the original assumption of this thread is true, namely, that Americans in general like guns. Depending on what you mean by like, I don't see a majority when averaged out throughout the country.

Fair play.

"In general" probably takes it too far, but America's probably the most gun-obsessed (as far as that goes, as you say probably not too far) western nation. No?

sA

I think its fair to state that Americans 'in general' appear to enjoy firearms. At least given the statistics relating to their ownership.

smiling Assassin wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Isn't the OP of this thread somewhat of an insult, Killkrazy?

Question vs. Statement

Truth vs. Fallacy

Americans in general like guns. That is not insulting.

British people do not have bad oral hygeine. That is insulting.

sA

Austin Powers wasn't a documentary? Okay...

Henners91 wrote:Hey all,

For starters, I'm not that against guns... I mean, I can see both sides, I can appreciate guns as machines though I don't know too much about them and I wouldn't say no to owning one.

But ack, Americans actually scare me with their knowledge about guns: Go on YouTube and you see them arguing for days about little bits, and of course, some people actually seem to be sexually aroused by their weaponry (the same kinds of people who'd wear sunglasses indoors and drive a Hummer/SUV: Over-compensators), do less-freakish Americans feel the same way?

I'm not trying to be inciteful but I have to say I notice a difference between the UK and the US when it comes to weapons, I almost get the feeling that Americans kind of devalue life itself when they get in long-arse arguments about killing power and such: Why is this something to feel prideful over?

Fair enough you have your Second Amendment rights to buy the armoury of a small nation, but does that privilege naturally lead to such attitudes? I even heard that Texas was offering a bounty for DEAD burglars rather than living ones, though that may just be an urban legend... I guess the best way to describe how I perceive trigger-happy Yanks would be to ask Americans to watch The Eagle has Landed and keep a close eye on the American Colonel

Hippy rant over.

The wording there in the OP could reasonably be construed as insulting. I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to post it but to crack down on someone for saying something equally(subjective, I know) upsetting is hypocritical, no?

Anyway, not to derail the thread anymore I'll let it go at that.

dogma wrote:I think its fair to state that Americans 'in general' appear to enjoy firearms. At least given the statistics relating to their ownership.

Or course it is. Had the OP read something like "Americans in general seem to enjoy owning firearms. Why is this?" I don't think there would be an issue.

smiling Assassin wrote:Fair play.

"In general" probably takes it too far, but America's probably the most gun-obsessed (as far as that goes, as you say probably not too far) western nation. No?

sA

Wait- how is that less inflammatory than 'in general Americans like guns'? Either way it is definitely true, but this just seems more apt to provoke controversy.

On the other hand, it does appear that British dental hygiene is not bad. Due to the weird collection dates of statistics for the DFMT index, I wasn't able to find comparative data for 2 recent years for the US and the UK with my google-fu.

You can't spell Americans without guns. Otherwise you get British. We used guns to throw off the yoke of the tyrant King George, and we will continue to have guns until such time as we are convinced that no one else poses a threat to us. We've tried sitting back and staying out of it- and Japan decided to launch a sneak attack! We learned our lesson. Be nasty enough that no one wants to fight you, or shoot first. These are the American paths to peace.

We invented 'scorched Earth' and used it on our own people. Sherman's march to the sea was totally barbaric and American. Were it to happen today, we would hear 'Ride of the Valkyries' as his men ravished town after town in a smoky montage.

We drove the buffalo, and the Indians, from our plains at gun point. Other countries are known for their touching dramas and insightful social commentaries- we brought you the Western, and the buddy-cop movie. Both are dedicated to glorifying gun violence.

When we bury our honored dead, we have a 21 gun salute. We don't build monuments to them, or give them riches and servants. Americans go into the afterlife with covering fire!

Americans don't just love guns- on some deep level, we are one with guns.

Gitzbitah wrote:

smiling Assassin wrote:Fair play.

"In general" probably takes it too far, but America's probably the most gun-obsessed (as far as that goes, as you say probably not too far) western nation. No?

sA

Wait- how is that less inflammatory than 'in general Americans like guns'? Either way it is definitely true, but this just seems more apt to provoke controversy.

Nahh, it's just less incorrect factually.

sA

Ah, very good. Carry on then.

dogma wrote:I think its fair to state that Americans 'in general' appear to enjoy firearms. At least given the statistics relating to their ownership.

Keep in mind that gun owners tend to have many guns, which would increase the per capita amount. I have seven firearms, one of which is a piece of crap I was given, and I don't consider myself a hardcore firearms enthusiast.

Americans 'invented' scorched earth? Ill have to google it when i get home.. Im sure my history teacher told me it was someone else... :-)

It was the Ancient Greeks, iirc.

sA

Let's see what those ancients Greeks say when they see our guns.

Mm. They had flamethrowers.

sA

Well, it seems this thread has pretty much ran its course now, not to worry, I'm sure there'll be another, nigh on identical one any moment now