lostfan Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 And so ends my participation in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 03:44 PM) And so ends my participation in this thread. Good. You were pissing me off. I was just about to shoot you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 If you are going to say that all people who choose to carry or own guns for defense are deranged lunatics, then no logical argument can be had. You render any discussion pointless. And, your legal right to not get shot (which really is the right to not be a victim of crime) is full and well protected regardless of whether or not people carry or own guns. Those are two wholly seperate things. Using your logic that others can't carry guns because it infringes your right to not get shot, would mean that no person could ever carry any weapon ever. The job of the law is not to sanitize society of all risk - that is not possible or even prudent. Here is a better analogy - pollution. You have the right to not have someone else's pollution negatively, significantly, effect your health. This is why there are laws controlling pollution (well, one of a few reasons). So with guns, this is ALSO why its illegal to simply start spraying bullets in the air everywhere, or to fire a weapon in any irresponsible way, because it COULD negatively effect you. What the law does not allow for, nor should it, is to stop all pollution of any kind, or to stop people from possessing anything that may harm others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 03:45 PM) Good. You were pissing me off. I was just about to shoot you. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand hyperbole ruins another thread in the Buster. Thanks for playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 04:49 PM) If you are going to say that all people who choose to carry or own guns for defense are deranged lunatics, then no logical argument can be had. You render any discussion pointless. Which is why I'm done. Everyone should know that just because I'm against certain forms of gun control doesn't make me or anyone else a freaky gun nut (although there are definitely some who are completely obsessed) and it's kind of retarded to talk to anyone who acts like they think otherwise. Actually I haven't really seriously had anything to add since Duke parachuted into the thread b/c I know all of his arguments (I use the term loosely) basically by heart and I know it'll never go anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 04:50 PM) Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand hyperbole ruins another thread in the Buster. Thanks for playing. He was just being sarcastic, it was pretty lame though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 stop people from possessing anything that may harm others. Key word. Guns are designed to kill people, there is no may about it. If you're using a gun correctly you're either going to land somebody in the ER or in a body bag. Something tells me it wouldn't be the same if you could only carry a taser or a stun gun (things I have no problem with because the chances of a taser killing me are about as tiny as me being the victim of unprovoked violent crime). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 03:54 PM) He was just being sarcastic, it was pretty lame though. I was just citing the most recent post in a line of absurd, illogical arguments from the severely anti-gun crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 03:54 PM) Key word. Guns are designed to kill people, there is no may about it. If you're using a gun correctly you're either going to land somebody in the ER or in a body bag. Something tells me it wouldn't be the same if you could only carry a taser or a stun gun (things I have no problem with because the chances of a taser killing me are about as tiny as me being the victim of unprovoked violent crime). This is just not at all correct. A gun has many uses, which MAY include shooting a person. Or it may be shooting an animal, legally or illegally. Or shooting a target of some kind, legally. But a gun's most important use in our society is actually not any of those, and it goes directly to the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment - preventative power. 2A's main purpose was as a check against a potentially oppresive government. The fact that the public is well-armed mitigates that threat. In the self-defense situation, the individual right situation, the presence of a gun on a law-abiding citizen will reduce the likelihood of a criminal acting against that person. So its most important power is its presence - not its use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clyons Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 03:02 PM) I'm sorry, but that argument is essentially "I believe this and will continue to do so regardless of how illogical my position is shown to be." Would you prefer to attend a party where only the thugs have guns, or where there are more guns and both the thugs and responsible individuals have guns? That's not it all. Stats don't overrule logic in all cases, and I don't think they do in this debate. Every "party" is different; different people, different settings, different moods, different contexts. Stats from one have no bearing on another. Its like a poster said earlier; stats showing there's no crime in Boofoo, Hicksville where everyone has guns do not translate to Chicago, Illinois. As to your question; If there was a way of knowing in advance, I'd prefer to attend the party where there are more guns, and the bad guys are offset or outgunned. That's a no brainer. However, there's no way of knowing that ahead of time. In actual society, you won't know who's packing until somebody (the bad guy) draws. Once that happens, a dangerous situation exists, no matter what. The fact that a good guy might be present and able to draw back could reduce the danger or it might enhance it; once again that would depend upon the specific context and the characters. I don't see how that could ever be meaningfully measured or predicted in advance with statistics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 This is just not at all correct. A gun has many uses, which MAY include shooting a person. Or it may be shooting an animal, legally or illegally. Or shooting a target of some kind, legally. But a gun's most important use in our society is actually not any of those, and it goes directly to the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment - preventative power. 2A's main purpose was as a check against a potentially oppresive government. The fact that the public is well-armed mitigates that threat. In the self-defense situation, the individual right situation, the presence of a gun on a law-abiding citizen will reduce the likelihood of a criminal acting against that person. So its most important power is its presence - not its use. This is over firearm ownership, a right I have no problem with. My problem is people who want to bring guns in public and thus around me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 04:01 PM) This is over firearm ownership, a right I have no problem with. My problem is people who want to bring guns in public and thus around me. So people can own guns, but not carry them? That defeats the very purpose of 2A, not to mention you are placing your own fears over other peoples' constitutional rights. I'm sorry but that doesn't fly with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clyons Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 04:06 PM) So people can own guns, but not carry them? That defeats the very purpose of 2A, not to mention you are placing your own fears over other peoples' constitutional rights. I'm sorry but that doesn't fly with me. Own them, keep them in your home to protect your property, use them to hunt or shoot skeet, but don't take them to a bar like Plaxico Burress where you can shoot yourself, or someone around you. The constitution does not confer the right to carry a concealed weapon. Absent a permit, that's a crime in lots of places. Edited January 16, 2009 by PlaySumFnJurny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 So people can own guns, but not carry them? That defeats the very purpose of 2A, not to mention you are placing your own fears over other peoples' constitutional rights. I'm sorry but that doesn't fly with me. Huh? Is the government going to only be oppressive on week days from 8 til 5 while you're at work and away from your guns? You said the most important aspect of the 2A is a check and balance between the people and the government, I dont understand how not having your guns with you 100% of the time takes anything away from that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Funny how every mass shooting in the last decade has happened in a 'gun-free zones'. Maybe because the crazy bastards doing that knew that there wouldn't be anyone else there that was armed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted January 16, 2009 Author Share Posted January 16, 2009 Getting back to the original reason why I started this poll... The first part of the second amendment was created because the rich men who founded the country wanted to make sure that the masses would be placated. When they created the U.S. Constitution, it was to show the citizens of this new country that they would not be oppressed by the government like England did to the Colonists. "No taxation without representation!", "No restricting speech or press!" "No mandatory quartering of soldiers or taking away weapons!" A militia was necessary because there was no national army. There was no official state army. Just the groups of men who got together and helped George Washington fight the British. These men remembered how the British would take over their lives and restrict their personal freedom. So, in case trouble was ever about, they could gather up their hunting rifles and muskets, leave their family farms behind, and fight for their new country. America is a different place today than in 1789. The National Guard and military reserves take up the slack for those groups of men. When their state and country need them for their 5th tour of Iraq, they leave their family farms, drive to their military base, are given weapons that the government has trained them to use, and go fight for their country. Do you want guns to be off the streets? If a non murder gun crime is committed, don't put the person in jail, send them to the military. If they mess up there, they get the stockade. If you shoot someone and kill them, you get the death penalty. Simple as that. If you want to own a gun because you feel you need to protect yourself, sign up for the Army Reserves. Learn how to handle a gun, and serve your country a few weekends a year to keep your skills up to date, then you can own one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 04:18 PM) Funny how every mass shooting in the last decade has happened in a 'gun-free zones'. Maybe because the crazy bastards doing that knew that there wouldn't be anyone else there that was armed? The chances of being killed in a mass shooting in the U.S. has got to be what? 0.000001%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 04:24 PM) The chances of being killed in a mass shooting in the U.S. has got to be what? 0.000001%? And I bet those .000001% wish that they had a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I'm honestly surprised by the low percentage of gun owners in the poll. You'd think the gun owners that really support the 2nd Amendment would be in this thread quickly. That percentage is just surprisingly low, especially for an upper-Midwestern fanbase. I'd also be interested to know how many people own multiple firearms. I own a .22, 12 gauge, 20 gauge and a .30-06. Only fired the first three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I'm not sure about the whole everyone carrying a gun at all times thing. We may stop a few mass shootings, but we will also see more grocery clerks killed or "Hey you rear ended me, I'm pissed off and now I shot you". That kinda stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 04:30 PM) I'm not sure about the whole everyone carrying a gun at all times thing. We may stop a few mass shootings, but we will also see more grocery clerks killed or "Hey you rear ended me, I'm pissed off and now I shot you". That kinda stuff. But it isn't 'everyone', concealed carry is hard to get. And they don't go all Rambo like that. In fact, has never happened with a legit concealed cary permit holder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 04:33 PM) But it isn't 'everyone', concealed carry is hard to get. And they don't go all Rambo like that. In fact, has never happened with a legit concealed cary permit holder. As long as there is tough process. I just don't want anyone who feels like it, doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clyons Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 04:33 PM) But it isn't 'everyone', concealed carry is hard to get. The difficulty of getting a concealed carry permit significantly varies by jurisdiction. I think Florida is required to issue one to any sane, non-felon who applies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 04:40 PM) The difficulty of getting a concealed carry permit significantly varies by jurisdiction. I think Florida is required to issue one to any sane, non-felon who applies. http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/eligible.html You must be able to demonstrate competency with a firearm. Possible Reasons for Ineligibility: The physical inability to handle a firearm safely. A felony conviction (unless civil and firearm rights have been restored by the convicting authority). Having adjudication withheld or sentence suspended on a felony or misdemeanor crime of violence unless three years have elapsed since probation or other conditions set by the court have been fulfilled. A conviction for a misdemeanor crime of violence in the last three years. A conviction for violation of controlled substance laws or multiple arrests for such offenses. A record of drug or alcohol abuse. Two or more DUI convictions within the previous three years. Being committed to a mental institution or adjudged incompetent or mentally defective. Failing to provide proof of proficiency with a firearm. Having been issued a domestic violence injunction or an injunction against repeat violence that is currently in force. Renouncement of U.S. citizenship. A dishonorable discharge from the armed forces. Being a fugitive from justice. Awful lot of reasons there to deny someone a permit. care to try again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 03:40 PM) Getting a gun to hopefully prevent yourself from being that 1 in a million that's murdered each year? That's logical? Sigh. 500/3,000,000 doesn't equal 1,000,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts