Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You said you ceded the point. That was no apology, and you most certainly did not say sorry. You can try and paraphrase your post to convey a different meaning, but you came out swinging, twisting my words, demanding I say sorry for something I was right about, and not giving any quarter. So expect the same treatment in return.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
You said you ceded the point. That was no apology, and you most certainly did not say sorry. You can try and paraphrase your post to convey a different meaning, but you came out swinging, twisting my words, demanding I say sorry for something I was right about, and not giving any quarter. So expect the same treatment in return.

You two need to either slug it out or feth it out.

And sudddenly, this thread takes a turn for the weird sexy.

 Ouze wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
Quick question, was that Obama quote taken out of Context?

I don't remember him saying that, and it seems like something that would be taken out of context.. If not, wow.

A guy who was a professor at the same time as Obama at University of Chicago claims Obama said. That guy was John Lott, who is a full time gun rights lobbyist. And the quote is contradicted by Obama's statements that are actually on the record. So the amount of believability in that quote is basically completely fething zero.

That it would be spread around guns rights activists anyway shouldn't come as any great surprise. There is a basic disinterest in reality within the community. Not that anti-gun groups are much better... leading to the really woeful state of debate you get in the issue.

I too can find no citation to indicate he actually ever said that, and the one guy who claims he did has a a pretty... morally flexible history.

Anyway, murders have been sliding in Chicago for a long time well before concealed carry was permitted.



I'm open to the idea concealed carry reduces crime but this seems inadequate to support the premise. I don't really know how to prove it or disprove it, it's just my gut instinct.

How do you prove a negatve? Knowwhatimean?

And not too soon!

 kronk wrote:
You two need to either slug it out or feth it out.

 Ouze wrote:
And sudddenly, this thread takes a turn for the weird sexy.

Jello wrestling it is

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
This line gets trotted out every time gun rights are restored to the population and guess what? The streets don't run red with blood

That is debatable... I will concede that people who own guns for 'self defense' are, by and large, safe and responsible. But 300,000 is a lot of weapons, and it's not like they go stale. Some of those guns might still be functioning 100 years from now. You can't say who's hands they will end up in. It could be people who aren't even born yet. Some will be stolen, some will be involved in murders, suicides, accidents, a lot can happen in that time... Eventually they feed back into the gun problem, and then what? More guns?

And please don't tell me that murders and suicides are going to happen anyway, because that is only true for the most dedicated and premeditated cases. People need motive and opportunity. Enabling people to carry around 24/7 a device where they can just kill someone by pressing a button, makes the 'opportunity' factor a certainty.

 Smacks wrote:
The USA: hands out gun permits like candy...

Except that they aren't. I live in a gun friendly State (Indiana), anyone with a gun permit;
- has passed a criminal background check
- is not an alcohol/drug abuser
- has no convictions (felony or misdemeanor) for domestic violence
- is not a felon
- has not been convicted for the unsafe handling of a firearm
- is not prone to violent or emotionally unstable conduct
- does not suffer from mental health issues

Yeah that doesn't mean anything. Most people can easily jump through those hoops. People like Anders Breivik (Norway) and Elliot Rodger were able to appear normal enough to acquire their guns legally. That is still handing them out like candy.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
But here is something I think does need saying.

The USA=/=The UK.

Got that? We have our own unique issues that lead to the gun violence in the states. We have a flourishing drug trade, disenfranchisement of minorities and so on. These issues may be present in the UK but they are more pronounced here. Not only that, but the solution to gun violence over there won't work here. Just outlawing them won't solve gun violence. It's sort of a "Once the genie is out of the bottle issue". We need a different solution if we really want to cut down on the shootings. Perhaps one outside of gun control.

For the sake of friendly discussion, I will agree with you absolutely. The genie is out the bottle, and outlawing guns would be problematic (to say the least). But gun rights people aren't helping either. More guns isn't better. It's like drinking more whiskey to cure your hangover. Which will totally work in the short term, but eventually you have to face your problems. You have what I would consider a nightmare scenario where all criminals and sociopaths have easy black-market (and sometimes legal) access to firearms, and some people have been stockpiling weapons and ammo like the apocalypse is coming. I don't know how you're ever going to fix it. You should probably try though.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 kronk wrote:
You two need to either slug it out or feth it out.

 Ouze wrote:
And sudddenly, this thread takes a turn for the weird sexy.

Jello wrestling it is

Depends. Does that fall under either the OK or IN definition of sodomy?

 Smacks wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
This line gets trotted out every time gun rights are restored to the population and guess what? The streets don't run red with blood

That is debatable... I will concede that people who own guns for 'self defense' are, by and large, safe and responsible. But 300,000 is a lot of weapons, and it's not like they go stale. .

Ignorance.

Its not 300,000. Its 300,000,000.

 Frazzled wrote:
Ignorance.

Its not 300,000. Its 300,000,000.

Sorry to step on your wiener, but...

The demand has slowed this summer, but Mr. Pearson expects the state to issue about 300,000 concealed carry permits when all is said and done.

Sorry I thought you meant firearms.

And Don't EVER step on my wiener or you'll get the teeth!

 whembly wrote:

How do you prove a negatve? Knowwhatimean?

No, as we aren't discussing a negative.

However, if we were, the simplest form of proof would be MTT.

 Frazzled wrote:
Sorry I thought you meant firearms.

Hehe, after seeing all those Orks coming to get me, I'm glad I didn't.

 Smacks wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Ignorance.

Its not 300,000. Its 300,000,000.

Sorry to step on your wiener, but...

The demand has slowed this summer, but Mr. Pearson expects the state to issue about 300,000 concealed carry permits when all is said and done.

A very large number of those people likely already had guns. All they got was a permit to carry the weapon concealed on their person.

 Smacks wrote:
That is debatable... I will concede that people who own guns for 'self defense' are, by and large, safe and responsible. But 300,000 is a lot of weapons, and it's not like they go stale. Some of those guns might still be functioning 100 years from now. You can't say who's hands they will end up in. It could be people who aren't even born yet. Some will be stolen, some will be involved in murders, suicides, accidents, a lot can happen in that time... Eventually they feed back into the gun problem, and then what? More guns?

So your argument is that we should not permit people to exercise their lawful rights because at some undetermined point in the future there exists the vague possibility that someone might do something bad, or that an unspecified type of accident may happen? That's how you're starting your argument?

 Smacks wrote:
And please don't tell me that murders and suicides are going to happen anyway, because that is only true for the most dedicated and premeditated cases. People need motive and opportunity. Enabling people to carry around 24/7 a device where they can just kill someone by pressing a button, makes the 'opportunity' factor a certainty.

People have been killing each other long before firearms existed. Also there are less homicides committed by those private citizens who carry than by police.
Also rates of suicide are highest in cities with rivers. Do you want to ban rivers too?

 Smacks wrote:
Yeah that doesn't mean anything. Most people can easily jump through those hoops. People like Anders Breivik (Norway) and Elliot Rodger were able to appear normal enough to acquire their guns legally. That is still handing them out like candy.

Safeguards now mean nothing? Just dismissing things out of hand makes any sort of discussion difficult, especially when you attempt to compare what a Norwegian did to the US's Second Amendment. Elliot Rodger was not disqualified from owning firearms, nor the knife that he used to kill as many people as the firearms he used. I don't hear you clamoring to ban knives, or cars as he attempted to run people over. His videos should have raised red flags with the LEOs and sheriffs involved. His parents were aware but didn't contact the relevant authorities which would have likely resulted in him losing his firearms. But not the knife or car

 Smacks wrote:
For the sake of friendly discussion, I will agree with you absolutely. The genie is out the bottle, and outlawing guns would be problematic (to say the least). But gun rights people aren't helping either. More guns isn't better. It's like drinking more whiskey to cure your hangover. Which will totally work in the short term, but eventually you have to face your problems. You have what I would consider a nightmare scenario where all criminals and sociopaths have easy black-market (and sometimes legal) access to firearms, and some people have been stockpiling weapons and ammo like the apocalypse is coming. I don't know how you're ever going to fix it. You should probably try though.

This paragraph is so wrong I don't even know where to begin



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Depends. Does that fall under either the OK or IN definition of sodomy?

I don't know. When does "cede" mean "sorry"?

Y'know what? I say we give everybody whatever gun they want and just let them go to town. Survival of the fit, er, I mean, most patriotic.

Just wait until I flee the country.

 Etna's Vassal wrote:
Y'know what? I say we give everybody whatever gun they want and just let them go to town. Survival of the fit, er, I mean, most patriotic.

Just wait until I flee the country.

Tickets for two please to australia please.

Wussies. Once Texas has proven itself in the arena of happy fun time, it will bestride the world like a colossus! Naturally, it will go after Australia first, as Australia is a fellow deathworld and texas can't afford to give it time to prepare.

God Made Australia to train the Faithful!

 Frazzled wrote:
Wussies. Once Texas has proven itself in the arena of happy fun time, it will bestride the world like a colossus! Naturally, it will go after Australia first, as Australia is a fellow deathworld and texas can't afford to give it time to prepare.

God Made Australia to train the Faithful!

Who says I'm afraid of gun manics. I'm afraid of the my Exes. If they got their hands on weaponry, I am pretty sure I would be dead at the end of the month if we had people let their feelings out like the purge.

Now that I can respect.

All my exes live in Texas, thats why I live in Tennessee...

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
...
So your argument is that we should not permit people to exercise their lawful rights because at some undetermined point in the future there exists the vague possibility that someone might do something bad, or that an unspecified type of accident may happen? That's how you're starting your argument?
...
People have been killing each other long before firearms existed. Also there are less homicides committed by those private citizens who carry than by police.
Also rates of suicide are highest in cities with rivers. Do you want to ban rivers too?
...
Safeguards now mean nothing? Just dismissing things out of hand makes any sort of discussion difficult, especially when you attempt to compare what a Norwegian did to the US's Second Amendment. Elliot Rodger was not disqualified from owning firearms, nor the knife that he used to kill as many people as the firearms he used. I don't hear you clamoring to ban knives, or cars as he attempted to run people over. His videos should have raised red flags with the LEOs and sheriffs involved. His parents were aware but didn't contact the relevant authorities which would have likely resulted in him losing his firearms. But not the knife or car

People certainly should be allowed to exercise their legal rights. But those rights should be open to discussion when there are serious social problems. Dogmatically hiding behind the 2nd amendment is obtuse. And it's not a 'vague possibility' you have a statistically high rate of violence and deaths involving guns. You allow people to carry guns in public spaces under the premise "I might want to kill someone who threatens me". These guns are purchased often to kill (hypothetical) people, by people who are obviously open to the idea of shooting someone.

With regards to outlawing cars, knifes and rivers. I think they are separate issues which are probably worth discussing. I actually think it would be great if cars were fewer and safer, or even drove themselves! There are way too many dangerous idiots on the road. There is also an effort in the UK now to reduce knife crime. You can't carry a knife in public, or buy a knife if you are under 18. And I don't see a problem with making knifes less offensive. I'm personally able to get by with a bread knife, scissors and scalpel. None of which are particularly offensive. I'm also in favour of making rivers safer. Pretty railings, good lighting, places for people to climb out. Monitoring of suicide hot-spots. What's wrong with that?

But really cars, rivers and knives serve a purpose, I think life would be difficult without those things. Guns aren't nearly as necessary. Everyone in the UK get by just fine (better) without them, and a lot of people in the US do too. In the USA they might be more necessary because so many other people have guns, but that just brings the problem back full circle.

This paragraph is so wrong I don't even know where to begin

Do you really think there is a right and wrong? Surely we both want to same things right? Good honest people to be able to enjoy life safely, less crime etc... What exactly is important to you? Why not begin there.

My wife is from Texas (sort of- she was born in Spain over a can of Texas soil), so not everyone from Texas is a gun nut (sorry, automatic weapons enthusiast). Yeah, we'll go with that.

You're only a Texan once the Lone Star beacon has been activated: with a combination of barbeque, pickup truck diesel exhaust, tequila, and gunpowder. This usually occurs in kindergarten.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I don't know. When does "cede" mean "sorry"?

For feths sake...

 Frazzled wrote:
You're only a Texan once the Lone Star beacon has been activated: with a combination of barbeque, pickup truck diesel exhaust, tequila, and gunpowder. This usually occurs in kindergarten.

Don't forget, that truck has to have a gun rack with at least ten guns. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

 Etna's Vassal wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You're only a Texan once the Lone Star beacon has been activated: with a combination of barbeque, pickup truck diesel exhaust, tequila, and gunpowder. This usually occurs in kindergarten.

Don't forget, that truck has to have a gun rack with at least ten guns. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

That's dated...

Now, it's copious amount of Queso Cheese.

 Smacks wrote:
People certainly should be allowed to exercise their legal rights

Good. Then this discussion should be concluded here.

 Smacks wrote:
But those rights should be open to discussion when there are serious social problems. Dogmatically hiding behind the 2nd amendment is obtuse. And it's not a 'vague possibility' you have a statistically high rate of violence and deaths involving guns. You allow people to carry guns in public spaces under the premise "I might want to kill someone who threatens me". These guns are purchased often to kill (hypothetical) people, by people who are obviously open to the idea of shooting someone.

Another textbook example that everything before the 'But" was and then engaging in a wonderful statistical analysis, which lacks statistics, and the fallacy that gun owners are obviously open to visiting violence on other people and completely ignoring self defense. So you're already starting from a false premise

 Smacks wrote:
With regards to outlawing cars, knifes and rivers. I think they are separate issues which are probably worth discussing. I actually think it would be great if cars were fewer and safer, or even drove themselves! There are way too many dangerous idiots on the road. There is also an effort in the UK now to reduce knife crime. You can't carry a knife in public, or buy a knife if you are under 18. And I don't see a problem with making knifes less offensive. I'm personally able to get by with a bread knife, scissors and scalpel. None of which are particularly offensive. I'm also in favour of making rivers safer. Pretty railings, good lighting, places for people to climb out. Monitoring of suicide hot-spots. What's wrong with that?

But really cars, rivers and knives serve a purpose, I think life would be difficult without those things. Guns aren't nearly as necessary. Everyone in the UK get by just fine (better) without them, and a lot of people in the US do too. In the USA they might be more necessary because so many other people have guns, but that just brings the problem back full circle.

Thus completely ignoring why people have firearms other than "because so many other people have guns"

 Smacks wrote:
Do you really think there is a right and wrong? Surely we both want to same things right? Good honest people to be able to enjoy life safely, less crime etc... What exactly is important to you? Why not begin there.

To have my legal rights respected. If you cannot abide by that then the discussion isn't going to progress.

That's right dude! Your 2nd amendment right allows you to have what-the-feth-ever gun you want. Assault rifles, bazookas, tanks (self-propelled guns), whatever! whoever has the most and biggest guns wins.

C'mon, where does the 2nd amendment end and sanity begin?

 Etna's Vassal wrote:
That's right dude! Your 2nd amendment right allows you to have what-the-feth-ever gun you want. Assault rifles, bazookas, tanks (self-propelled guns), whatever! whoever has the most and biggest guns wins.

C'mon, where does the 2nd amendment end and sanity begin?

How about reading what the 2nd amendment actually states? That's a good start.

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

So, define arms. Everything I listed above (and then some) could be defined as "arms".