only in texas can a man murder a child,and not get convicted

[mcatdog]

the fact that you think this is quantifiable shows how little you understand the issue

This, also, if it were quantifiable it wouldn't even matter because people have a right to self-defense. You don't lose that right just because some other assholes are irreponsible with it. That's the idea behind rights, trying to quantify a cost-benefit analysis is irrelevant. It's the same reason we don't let the police torture criminals, even if doing so would make them give up information that would save lives. The criminal has rights that take priority over the benefit to society that would come from torturing him.

In other words, even if it could be proven that gun control would save lives -- and I agree with you that it's impossible to prove -- I would still not support it.

[mcatdog]

these guys had the right to bear arms


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awskKWzjlhk

This is one of the best movie scenes ever.

[will641]

LOL @ the avg person being too stupid to make judgment calls etc....

if you stop to think about whether this is justified blah blah in the moment that could be your life. its not about stupidity. in moments like that you revert to instincts.

Thinking like this as a civilian (as opposed to someone in the military or police force) is 99.99% paranoia. The number of unnecessary and accidental deaths from guns far outweighs those very, very few times when a crime is deterred because a civilian pulls a gun.

really? i dont have the numbers on hand, but im pretty sure the chances of you getting murdered in your home when someone is breaking in is >.01%

[JKDS]

the fact that you think this is quantifiable shows how little you understand the issue

This, also, if it were quantifiable it wouldn't even matter because people have a right to self-defense. You don't lose that right just because some other assholes are irreponsible with it. That's the idea behind rights, trying to quantify a cost-benefit analysis is irrelevant. It's the same reason we don't let the police torture criminals, even if doing so would make them give up information that would save lives. The criminal has rights that take priority over the benefit to society that would come from torturing him.

In other words, even if it could be proven that gun control would save lives -- and I agree with you that it's impossible to prove -- I would still not support it.

this!

[will641]

the fact that you think this is quantifiable shows how little you understand the issue

This, also, if it were quantifiable it wouldn't even matter because people have a right to self-defense. You don't lose that right just because some other assholes are irreponsible with it. That's the idea behind rights, trying to quantify a cost-benefit analysis is irrelevant. It's the same reason we don't let the police torture criminals, even if doing so would make them give up information that would save lives. The criminal has rights that take priority over the benefit to society that would come from torturing him.

In other words, even if it could be proven that gun control would save lives -- and I agree with you that it's impossible to prove -- I would still not support it.

this!

and yeah, this is dead on. nice post mcat.

[spoonitnow]

the fact that you think this is quantifiable shows how little you understand the issue

This, also, if it were quantifiable it wouldn't even matter because people have a right to self-defense. You don't lose that right just because some other assholes are irreponsible with it. That's the idea behind rights, trying to quantify a cost-benefit analysis is irrelevant. It's the same reason we don't let the police torture criminals, even if doing so would make them give up information that would save lives. The criminal has rights that take priority over the benefit to society that would come from torturing him.

In other words, even if it could be proven that gun control would save lives -- and I agree with you that it's impossible to prove -- I would still not support it.

this!

and yeah, this is dead on. nice post mcat.

I'm assuming there was no pun intended?

[will641]

the fact that you think this is quantifiable shows how little you understand the issue

This, also, if it were quantifiable it wouldn't even matter because people have a right to self-defense. You don't lose that right just because some other assholes are irreponsible with it. That's the idea behind rights, trying to quantify a cost-benefit analysis is irrelevant. It's the same reason we don't let the police torture criminals, even if doing so would make them give up information that would save lives. The criminal has rights that take priority over the benefit to society that would come from torturing him.

In other words, even if it could be proven that gun control would save lives -- and I agree with you that it's impossible to prove -- I would still not support it.

this!

and yeah, this is dead on. nice post mcat.

I'm assuming there was no pun intended?

haha, no. i guess im just that good.

[DaddyDeez]

Not to sound like the jackass I typically am cast off as being, but what's so bad about some 13 year old piece of shit getting shot anyway. World population control has got to start some place, and it might as well be a dumbass kid who hasn't had a chance to knock up some stupid bitch dumb enough to have sex with him and fuck up the world even more with 6-7 retarded ass kids. You know each of those kids is going to knock up some trailer park slut at least 4-5 times each. Imagine the number of welfare checks that were avoided by this little bastard getting shot.

THIS^^^^^^^
IS
DEAD
ON

[XTR1000]

the fact that you think this is quantifiable shows how little you understand the issue

This, also, if it were quantifiable it wouldn't even matter because people have a right to self-defense. You don't lose that right just because some other assholes are irreponsible with it. That's the idea behind rights, trying to quantify a cost-benefit analysis is irrelevant. It's the same reason we don't let the police torture criminals, even if doing so would make them give up information that would save lives. The criminal has rights that take priority over the benefit to society that would come from torturing him.

In other words, even if it could be proven that gun control would save lives -- and I agree with you that it's impossible to prove -- I would still not support it.

from the robbers perspective it is a simple cost-benefit analysis. most of them probably arent aware of it, but in fact they are comparing their expected gain with the possible loss, which could be jail or, in this case, being shot to death. a robbers ev decreases immensly, once being killed becomes a real possibility.

[JL]

Not to sound like the jackass I typically am cast off as being, but what's so bad about some 13 year old piece of shit getting shot anyway. World population control has got to start some place, and it might as well be a dumbass kid who hasn't had a chance to knock up some stupid bitch dumb enough to have sex with him and fuck up the world even more with 6-7 retarded ass kids. You know each of those kids is going to knock up some trailer park slut at least 4-5 times each. Imagine the number of welfare checks that were avoided by this little bastard getting shot.

THIS^^^^^^^
IS
DEAD
ON

No this is harsh.
Everyone does dumbass shit when they are younger.
You can't just assume that the kid is going to become some worthless waste of skin and never change his ways.

It's ok!

Francisco Anguiano

[Renton]

Given the fact that we indeed have guns, this man was rightfully found not guilty. The shooting was totally within his given rights.

The title is some serious lol. I guess it wouldn't be as catchy if it said "only in texas can a man shoot a teenager for a legitimate reason, and not get convicted." But the title speaks well for how euphemized our society has become, and how we've already lost to the system of manufacturing consent.

Obviously the pivot point here is whether the guns should exist in the first place. Either A) you take away guns, and America becomes safe like every other country that has moved on to the 21st century, or you B) allow guns and just accept that Mr. Gonzalez has the right to be an evil piece of shit from time to time.

You can't have both, and to be honest, I'm not sure under our current system if Gonzalez should have even stood trial.

[Renton]

Not to sound like the jackass I typically am cast off as being, but what's so bad about some 13 year old piece of shit getting shot anyway. World population control has got to start some place, and it might as well be a dumbass kid who hasn't had a chance to knock up some stupid bitch dumb enough to have sex with him and fuck up the world even more with 6-7 retarded ass kids. You know each of those kids is going to knock up some trailer park slut at least 4-5 times each. Imagine the number of welfare checks that were avoided by this little bastard getting shot.

yes

[Renton]

Bottom line: the average person is too stupid to make judgment calls about who lives and who dies, which is why guns SHOULD be restricted.

Although that is 100% true, you do of course realize that you are getting into totalitarian territory?

Are you proposing we divide the country into the gun-wielding elite class that reigns over the gunless proletariat?

[Pelion]

Obviously the pivot point here is whether the guns should exist in the first place. Either A) you take away guns, and America becomes safe like every other country that has moved on to the 21st century, or you B) allow guns and just accept that Mr. Gonzalez has the right to be an evil piece of shit from time to time.

You can't have both, and to be honest, I'm not sure under our current system if Gonzalez should have even stood trial.

Or C) You have guns which are useable as a last resort for self defense and if someone uses one to take justice into their own hands or for revenge or in any situation where it is considered to be unjustified you treat it as a crime.

[Renton]

Obviously the pivot point here is whether the guns should exist in the first place. Either A) you take away guns, and America becomes safe like every other country that has moved on to the 21st century, or you B) allow guns and just accept that Mr. Gonzalez has the right to be an evil piece of shit from time to time.

You can't have both, and to be honest, I'm not sure under our current system if Gonzalez should have even stood trial.

Or C) You have guns which are useable as a last resort for self defense and if someone uses one to take justice into their own hands or for revenge or in any situation where it is considered to be unjustified you treat it as a crime.

Do you realize how many pages could be written about what constitutes "last resort," "vigilantism," and "revenge?" Those terms are subject to so much interpretation that they would never work as stipulations within a law.

Yeah in a perfect world that'd be great though.

[spoonitnow]

Not to sound like the jackass I typically am cast off as being, but what's so bad about some 13 year old piece of shit getting shot anyway. World population control has got to start some place, and it might as well be a dumbass kid who hasn't had a chance to knock up some stupid bitch dumb enough to have sex with him and fuck up the world even more with 6-7 retarded ass kids. You know each of those kids is going to knock up some trailer park slut at least 4-5 times each. Imagine the number of welfare checks that were avoided by this little bastard getting shot.

THIS^^^^^^^
IS
DEAD
ON

No this is harsh.
Everyone does dumbass shit when they are younger.
You can't just assume that the kid is going to become some worthless waste of skin and never change his ways.

I agree that it's harsh, but remember my premise: world population control has to start somewhere. It's not like this kid was going to win the Nobel Prize for curing cancer. His death is not really a great loss.

Moreover, not everyone gets a group of their friends and breaks into someone's house as a kid. If they're doing that when they're 13, what are they going to be doing when they're 15? 18? 25?

Of course it's possible he could turn his life around into something useful, but it's less likely than one of his peers who was home studying or something. That makes his death more +EV (or less -EV, whichever way you want to look at it) than the death of the hypothetical peer. That's why I'm not terribly upset about it.

[flomo]

some people like to shoot cans

like CANadiens

[JKDS]

of course, i see now. Everyone that isnt contributing a huge amount to society should just be shot for any ridiculous reason. i've been so blind. Next time i'm cut off in traffic...watch out! And i know what ill say in court, ill say "well he wasnt contributing to society, he wasnt gonna cure cancer or anything" and then ill be found not guilty because that matters more than the fact that i just took away some guys right to live, which is pretty much the most important right we have.

Did i miss the amazing argument that killed the whole "shot in the back" thing? He is well within his rights to shoot someone so he can protect himself, but how exactly is he protecting himself from a guy with his back turned to him? This sounds more like a pissed off redneck who thinks its ok to just shoot people because they did something wrong as opposed to caring about his right to live and giving him a trial of some kind.

[Pelion]

Did i miss the amazing argument that killed the whole "shot in the back" thing?

Didnt you read anything? Thats was for population control.

[2_Thumbs_Up]

I think the best argument for guns isn't even mentioned yet. Guns are needed to overthrow government if it turns bad. I've never heard a good counter-argument to this. Most people seem to assume that their own government will be good for eternity.

[spoonitnow]

of course, i see now. Everyone that isnt contributing a huge amount to society should just be shot for any ridiculous reason. i've been so blind. Next time i'm cut off in traffic...watch out! And i know what ill say in court, ill say "well he wasnt contributing to society, he wasnt gonna cure cancer or anything" and then ill be found not guilty because that matters more than the fact that i just took away some guys right to live, which is pretty much the most important right we have.

Did i miss the amazing argument that killed the whole "shot in the back" thing? He is well within his rights to shoot someone so he can protect himself, but how exactly is he protecting himself from a guy with his back turned to him? This sounds more like a pissed off redneck who thinks its ok to just shoot people because they did something wrong as opposed to caring about his right to live and giving him a trial of some kind.

None of this post is anywhere close to anything I said.

[oskar]

I'm a little bit shocked by the comments on here. Were talking about burglary... it's on the bottom end of the crime food chain. I got broken in once... broken in is a little harsh because I never lock my door. At 3 in the morning I heard some noise in the kitchen, got up to see whats going on and saw two guys looking very startled. I said "What do you think you're doing?" and they ran away. I looked the door, made sure nothing was missing and went back to sleep. I would't for a moment have thought that anyones life was seriously in danger there. I still don't lock my doors and I'm not armed... I don't even have a sharp knife.
I think you guys are watching too many movies.

[Pelion]

what is your point spoon?

Is it that it should be legal to shoot kids out of revenge?

It should be legal to shoot naughty kids out of revenge?

It should be legal to shoot naughty kids anyway?

It shouldnt be technically legal to shoot naughty kids but we shouldnt really care when someone does it anyway?

Or something else?

[spoonitnow]

what is your point spoon?

Is it that it should be legal to shoot kids out of revenge?

It should be legal to shoot naughty kids out of revenge?

It should be legal to shoot naughty kids anyway?

It shouldnt be technically legal to shoot naughty kids but we shouldnt really care when someone does it anyway?

Or something else?

My point is that there is some good to be found in this kid getting killed, despite the immediate reaction our moral compasses have against a child getting blown in half with a shotgun.

Anyone who believes there is no good in this kid getting shot is clearly irrational.

[Lukie]

I'm a little bit shocked by the comments on here. Were talking about burglary... it's on the bottom end of the crime food chain. I got broken in once... broken in is a little harsh because I never lock my door. At 3 in the morning I heard some noise in the kitchen, got up to see whats going on and saw two guys looking very startled. I said "What do you think you're doing?" and they ran away. I looked the door, made sure nothing was missing and went back to sleep. I would't for a moment have thought that anyones life was seriously in danger there. I still don't lock my doors and I'm not armed... I don't even have a sharp knife.
I think you guys are watching too many movies.

So in other words, you were completely defenseless, entirely at their mercy, they know your doors are unlocked and can come back whenever they want, you won't even call the police, have nothing to defend yourself with, and are basically banking on your misguided belief that everybody is a good person and you have nothing to worry about.

Also lol @ at burglary being at the bottom end of the 'crime food chain'. Semantics aside, if two guys break into my house, I'm going to whole-heartedly assume that they don't have the best intentions. Like am I missing something here? My house isn't for the public to enter, steal my stuff, inherently threaten my safety, etc...

[Lukie]

I'm a little bit shocked by the comments on here. Were talking about burglary... it's on the bottom end of the crime food chain. I got broken in once... broken in is a little harsh because I never lock my door. At 3 in the morning I heard some noise in the kitchen, got up to see whats going on and saw two guys looking very startled. I said "What do you think you're doing?" and they ran away. I looked the door, made sure nothing was missing and went back to sleep. I would't for a moment have thought that anyones life was seriously in danger there. I still don't lock my doors and I'm not armed... I don't even have a sharp knife.
I think you guys are watching too many movies.

And by way, this bothers me. If I were your neighbor, it would really bother me.

If you get robbed or maimed or family hurt because of your own lack of responsibility, preparedness, and foresight, fine. But your attitude (and many people who feel similarly) make it easier for criminals to operate. Nothing bad will ever happen to them from going into your place. They will never be in immiment danger, and will never be arrested and charged for their felonies. So what do they do? They go next door next, or wherever else...

goddamn

[euphoricism]

I'm a little bit shocked by the comments on here. Were talking about burglary... it's on the bottom end of the crime food chain. I got broken in once... broken in is a little harsh because I never lock my door. At 3 in the morning I heard some noise in the kitchen, got up to see whats going on and saw two guys looking very startled. I said "What do you think you're doing?" and they ran away. I looked the door, made sure nothing was missing and went back to sleep. I would't for a moment have thought that anyones life was seriously in danger there. I still don't lock my doors and I'm not armed... I don't even have a sharp knife.
I think you guys are watching too many movies.

You got the lucky end of a persons "fight or flight" mechanism. They chose flight. If they had chosen fight, I don't think you realize that you very well might be dead. It amuses me that after they left you decided it was a good time to lock your door, but you still don't do it every day.

That's brilliance right there.

[euphoricism]

Obviously the pivot point here is whether the guns should exist in the first place. Either A) you take away guns, and America becomes safe like every other country that has moved on to the 21st century, or you B) allow guns and just accept that Mr. Gonzalez has the right to be an evil piece of shit from time to time.

You can't have both, and to be honest, I'm not sure under our current system if Gonzalez should have even stood trial.

Or C) You have guns which are useable as a last resort for self defense and if someone uses one to take justice into their own hands or for revenge or in any situation where it is considered to be unjustified you treat it as a crime.

You're ignoring the fact that this is pretty much exactly what the law says.

Here's the florida law, since its the one I'm most familiar with after taking god knows how many classes on it:

A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

It goes on to define exactly what those forcible felonies are, but I don't think that's important here. Note however that the bolded area does NOT say "against themselves, their family, or any person to which they have a legal duty". It says if they see the imminent commission of a forcible felony ANYWHERE at ANYTIME, they can use deadly force IF he or she reasonably (and that reasonableness test is decided by the JURY) believes it to be necessary.

People most certainly HAVE been put in prison by a jury for violating the reasonableness test.

So in short, your premise is flawed.

[Lukie]

Euph-- I think Pelion was pointing out that's pretty much what the law is.

I think a lot of states are starting to get these things right with more liberalized CCW and castle doctrine laws.

[euphoricism]

CCW laws are not the answer. If our goal is to deter crime, rather than just kill people who commit crime, then open carry (as in, you can see that fucking glock on my hip and I ain't hiding it) should be an option.

In Florida open carry is specifically illegal and we're one of the most pro-gun states around. I think that's absurd. The idea behind CCW was that the criminals would never know who was carrying and who wasn't -- but criminals DO know that the odds of anyone in a given area carrying are still very very low. I can't think of any good reason not to allow both.

[JKDS]

what is your point spoon?

Is it that it should be legal to shoot kids out of revenge?

It should be legal to shoot naughty kids out of revenge?

It should be legal to shoot naughty kids anyway?

It shouldnt be technically legal to shoot naughty kids but we shouldnt really care when someone does it anyway?

Or something else?

My point is that there is some good to be found in this kid getting killed, despite the immediate reaction our moral compasses have against a child getting blown in half with a shotgun.

Anyone who believes there is no good in this kid getting shot is clearly irrational.

i agree, but there is more badness to be found in this kid getting killed which is why the moral compass goes against having a child getting blown in half in the first place.

[Lukie]

CCW laws are not the answer. If our goal is to deter crime, rather than just kill people who commit crime, then open carry (as in, you can see that fucking glock on my hip and I ain't hiding it) should be an option.

In Florida open carry is specifically illegal and we're one of the most pro-gun states around. I think that's absurd. The idea behind CCW was that the criminals would never know who was carrying and who wasn't -- but criminals DO know that the odds of anyone in a given area carrying are still very very low. I can't think of any good reason not to allow both.

I agree. I think concealed carry is a better option though, but that's just my personal opinion.

Also, re: Florida-- http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

In 1987, when Florida enacted such legislation, critics warned that the "Sunshine State" would become the "Gunshine State." Contrary to their predictions, homicide rates dropped faster than the national average. Further, through 1997, only one permit holder out of the over 350,000 permits issued, was convicted of homicide. (Source: Kleck, Gary Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 370. Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.) If the rest of the country behaved as Florida's permit holders did, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate in the world.

David Kopel, Research Director at the Independence Institute comments on Florida's concealed carry experience:

"What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit." ("More Permits Mean Less Crime..." Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1996, Monday, p. B-5)

there's a lot of good stuff in there...

John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime.

[euphoricism]

Well yeah concealed IS better, but only if its common.

Think of it like game theory. If only open carry is allowed, then a criminal can clearly see that the area he is in has no guns in it and he can do his crime. Therefore if we conceal the weapons he'll never know if there's a weapon around so he SHOULD be less inclined to commit a crime. However that ONLY works if there are a significant enough amount of weapons concealed in the populace to create a significant chance that someone has a weapon in order for there to be a deterrent effect. Since the amount of CCW permits is an incredibly small % of the populace, a criminal can certainly feel more comfortable doing his crime.

The answer is then allow open carry AND get more people with guns in their hands. However guns are quite expensive, and CCW permits themselves are another $150 or so. I guess that ensures that only the people who really want them (and would therefore hopefully act more responsible with them) will get them however it also keeps the # of guns low and therefore the deterrent effect low.

[triumphant cracker]

I'm a little bit shocked by the comments on here. Were talking about burglary... it's on the bottom end of the crime food chain. I got broken in once... broken in is a little harsh because I never lock my door. At 3 in the morning I heard some noise in the kitchen, got up to see whats going on and saw two guys looking very startled. I said "What do you think you're doing?" and they ran away. I looked the door, made sure nothing was missing and went back to sleep. I would't for a moment have thought that anyones life was seriously in danger there. I still don't lock my doors and I'm not armed... I don't even have a sharp knife.
I think you guys are watching too many movies.

ok ..you just admited that you STILL dont lock your doors after you found someone in your house....

where do you live?
never neverland?

you are foolish.

[Lukie]

Well yeah concealed IS better, but only if its common.

Think of it like game theory. If only open carry is allowed, then a criminal can clearly see that the area he is in has no guns in it and he can do his crime. Therefore if we conceal the weapons he'll never know if there's a weapon around so he SHOULD be less inclined to commit a crime. However that ONLY works if there are a significant enough amount of weapons concealed in the populace to create a significant chance that someone has a weapon in order for there to be a deterrent effect. Since the amount of CCW permits is an incredibly small % of the populace, a criminal can certainly feel more comfortable doing his crime.

The answer is then allow open carry AND get more people with guns in their hands. However guns are quite expensive, and CCW permits themselves are another $150 or so. I guess that ensures that only the people who really want them (and would therefore hopefully act more responsible with them) will get them however it also keeps the # of guns low and therefore the deterrent effect low.

How would you explain the overriding trend then? I.e. areas that have loose ccw and castle doctrine laws almost invariably see decreases in crime, whereas a place like Washington D.C. (where handguns were outright banned until recently) have very high rates of violent crime and was once known as the 'Murder capitol of the U.S'-- all while handguns were banned.

I see two flaws with your argument. First, even somebody who has a very-small chance to be armed can be a very big deterrant. You can't weight them equally... getting shot and maimed or killed is a much bigger loss than stealing somebody's wallet with $100 in it. It's similar to pascal's wager in this regard.

Second, you are making the flawed assumption that people are necessarily going to be making game theory perfect decisions. I'd argue that people who are going to be commiting violent crimes are generally pathetic people and are terrible at life and making life decisions, making my first point null and void anyway.

[will641]

I'm a little bit shocked by the comments on here. Were talking about burglary... it's on the bottom end of the crime food chain. I got broken in once... broken in is a little harsh because I never lock my door. At 3 in the morning I heard some noise in the kitchen, got up to see whats going on and saw two guys looking very startled. I said "What do you think you're doing?" and they ran away. I looked the door, made sure nothing was missing and went back to sleep. I would't for a moment have thought that anyones life was seriously in danger there. I still don't lock my doors and I'm not armed... I don't even have a sharp knife.
I think you guys are watching too many movies.

i think you watch too many michael moore movies.

[Lukie]

I'm a little bit shocked by the comments on here. Were talking about burglary... it's on the bottom end of the crime food chain. I got broken in once... broken in is a little harsh because I never lock my door. At 3 in the morning I heard some noise in the kitchen, got up to see whats going on and saw two guys looking very startled. I said "What do you think you're doing?" and they ran away. I looked the door, made sure nothing was missing and went back to sleep. I would't for a moment have thought that anyones life was seriously in danger there. I still don't lock my doors and I'm not armed... I don't even have a sharp knife.
I think you guys are watching too many movies.

Honestly, like I keep reading this and I'm completely bewildered. I mean, you can't even lock your door and call the police if you hear it get busted down? I'm not saying that's a perfect solution, but it's a whole lot better than doing nothing.

[mcatdog]

I think oskar should leave a glass of milk and some chocolate chip cookies on the table every night.

Edit: I don't want this post to come across as snarky since I complained about snarky posts earlier in the thread, but the way you handled the situation (and continue to handle it) puts your life in danger for no good reason.

[euphoricism]

Well yeah concealed IS better, but only if its common.

Think of it like game theory. If only open carry is allowed, then a criminal can clearly see that the area he is in has no guns in it and he can do his crime. Therefore if we conceal the weapons he'll never know if there's a weapon around so he SHOULD be less inclined to commit a crime. However that ONLY works if there are a significant enough amount of weapons concealed in the populace to create a significant chance that someone has a weapon in order for there to be a deterrent effect. Since the amount of CCW permits is an incredibly small % of the populace, a criminal can certainly feel more comfortable doing his crime.

The answer is then allow open carry AND get more people with guns in their hands. However guns are quite expensive, and CCW permits themselves are another $150 or so. I guess that ensures that only the people who really want them (and would therefore hopefully act more responsible with them) will get them however it also keeps the # of guns low and therefore the deterrent effect low.

How would you explain the overriding trend then? I.e. areas that have loose ccw and castle doctrine laws almost invariably see decreases in crime, whereas a place like Washington D.C. (where handguns were outright banned until recently) have very high rates of violent crime and was once known as the 'Murder capitol of the U.S'-- all while handguns were banned.

I see two flaws with your argument. First, even somebody who has a very-small chance to be armed can be a very big deterrant. You can't weight them equally... getting shot and maimed or killed is a much bigger loss than stealing somebody's wallet with $100 in it. It's similar to pascal's wager in this regard.

Second, you are making the flawed assumption that people are necessarily going to be making game theory perfect decisions. I'd argue that people who are going to be commiting violent crimes are generally pathetic people and are terrible at life and making life decisions, making my first point null and void anyway.

oh yes don't get me wrong, we KNOW that CCW permits have reduced crime rates. However it stands to reason that also allowing open carry would reduce it even further, and I have not found a good argument against that policy yet. The closest I've heard is "Itll be just like the wild west with gunfights in the streets!" which is fallacious for a number of reasons -- not the least being that the wild west had significantly lower rates of violent crimes precisely BECAUSE everyone had a gun on their hip.

[spoonitnow]

what is your point spoon?

Is it that it should be legal to shoot kids out of revenge?

It should be legal to shoot naughty kids out of revenge?

It should be legal to shoot naughty kids anyway?

It shouldnt be technically legal to shoot naughty kids but we shouldnt really care when someone does it anyway?

Or something else?

My point is that there is some good to be found in this kid getting killed, despite the immediate reaction our moral compasses have against a child getting blown in half with a shotgun.

Anyone who believes there is no good in this kid getting shot is clearly irrational.

i agree, but there is more badness to be found in this kid getting killed which is why the moral compass goes against having a child getting blown in half in the first place.

Eh, maybe. It's fairly subjective and we could go on with this for days and days with no end in sight. It would be much easier to evaluate if we were given more information what what exactly went on.

[Jack Sawyer]

How would you explain the overriding trend then? I.e. areas that have loose ccw and castle doctrine laws almost invariably see decreases in crime, whereas a place like Washington D.C. (where handguns were outright banned until recently) have very high rates of violent crime and was once known as the 'Murder capitol of the U.S'-- all while handguns were banned.

gentrification is seen as the main reason (apparently since '93), and not gun control

[Lukie]

Well yeah concealed IS better, but only if its common.

Think of it like game theory. If only open carry is allowed, then a criminal can clearly see that the area he is in has no guns in it and he can do his crime. Therefore if we conceal the weapons he'll never know if there's a weapon around so he SHOULD be less inclined to commit a crime. However that ONLY works if there are a significant enough amount of weapons concealed in the populace to create a significant chance that someone has a weapon in order for there to be a deterrent effect. Since the amount of CCW permits is an incredibly small % of the populace, a criminal can certainly feel more comfortable doing his crime.

The answer is then allow open carry AND get more people with guns in their hands. However guns are quite expensive, and CCW permits themselves are another $150 or so. I guess that ensures that only the people who really want them (and would therefore hopefully act more responsible with them) will get them however it also keeps the # of guns low and therefore the deterrent effect low.

How would you explain the overriding trend then? I.e. areas that have loose ccw and castle doctrine laws almost invariably see decreases in crime, whereas a place like Washington D.C. (where handguns were outright banned until recently) have very high rates of violent crime and was once known as the 'Murder capitol of the U.S'-- all while handguns were banned.

I see two flaws with your argument. First, even somebody who has a very-small chance to be armed can be a very big deterrant. You can't weight them equally... getting shot and maimed or killed is a much bigger loss than stealing somebody's wallet with $100 in it. It's similar to pascal's wager in this regard.

Second, you are making the flawed assumption that people are necessarily going to be making game theory perfect decisions. I'd argue that people who are going to be commiting violent crimes are generally pathetic people and are terrible at life and making life decisions, making my first point null and void anyway.

oh yes don't get me wrong, we KNOW that CCW permits have reduced crime rates. However it stands to reason that also allowing open carry would reduce it even further, and I have not found a good argument against that policy yet. The closest I've heard is "Itll be just like the wild west with gunfights in the streets!" which is fallacious for a number of reasons -- not the least being that the wild west had significantly lower rates of violent crimes precisely BECAUSE everyone had a gun on their hip.

I support the right to open carry. On an individual basis, I think CCW is a better choice for a variety of reasons. Like I said though, by no means do I see open carry as bad, it doesn't make me nervous, and I support the right to able to do it.

About the "it'll juts be like the wild west".. I think people get that crap from hollywood and base their opinions on that, be it consciously or subconsciously. It's quite sad, really.

Why would a criminal go through the process of getting a CCW permit (classes, fingerprinting, licensing, etc.)? Why would a criminal carry openly on their hip? It makes no sense. And by every account I've ever read, people who carry are like, the most law-abiding group of any, and it's not even close. Yet people still spew this vigilanteism and wild wild west crap like they believe it.. drives me crazy.

[bjsaust]

I think some people grossly overestimate the amount of thought and consideration a lot of people would give when faced with the situation of multiple intruders inside their home.

If I found multiple people breaking into my home, especially if my wife and son were home, I would not be giving consideration to their age and potential motivations.

[Jack Sawyer]

I think some people grossly overestimate the amount of thought and consideration a lot of people would give when faced with the situation of multiple intruders inside their home.

If I found multiple people breaking into my home, especially if my wife and son were home, I would not be giving consideration to their age and potential motivations.

Bottom line: the average person is too stupid to make judgment calls about who lives and who dies, which is why guns SHOULD be restricted.

[Jack Sawyer]

I support the right to open carry. On an individual basis, I think CCW is a better choice for a variety of reasons. Like I said though, by no means do I see open carry as bad, it doesn't make me nervous, and I support the right to able to do it.

About the "it'll juts be like the wild west".. I think people get that crap from hollywood and base their opinions on that, be it consciously or subconsciously. It's quite sad, really.

Why would a criminal go through the process of getting a CCW permit (classes, fingerprinting, licensing, etc.)? Why would a criminal carry openly on their hip? It makes no sense. And by every account I've ever read, people who carry are like, the most law-abiding group of any, and it's not even close. Yet people still spew this vigilanteism and wild wild west crap like they believe it.. drives me crazy.

I kind of see your point.

The problem I have with guns in civilian possesion is the finality of it all.
With this I mean, you cannot take the bullet back. You cannot unkill the motherfucker.


typical and related gun toting scenario: someone comes over to your homegame, but he or she brings a gun. would you allow this? can you trust this person to be fully responsible with his or her gun, and not draw it and shoot the motherfucker who two-outed/rivered him or her in a big pot? I would not. I would in fact fear him or her. I would not even make jokes with this person (serious business). Because this person would have the ability, the power, to directly take my life away if he/he saw me as somehow a threat. I do not know what he or she thinks is a threat (that nigga looked at me crosseyed I tell you he had bad intentions!) nor do I know when he or she might have mood swings or drunkeness or depression or whatever other kind of fucked up shit that will make this person draw and shoot.

And yes, the moment a person carries a gun, that person can technically draw it and shoot it at anytime he/she pleases. I have to trust that person that he/she does know the consequences of doing so, can remain cool-headed to actually draw the right conclusion on when to do so, and that he/she would not do so without valid reason. And I just don't. I can't. One misjudgment on that person's part and OOPS I'm gone.
Oh I trust a uniformed person to know what he or she is doing somewhat, but not Random Joe.


Lets go further: everyone at the game brings a gun. Would you feel comfortable in your own home in such a scenario? I mean its totally possible for someone to break in at the precise moment that you would have your homegame, and then all of you in tandem would make holes in this persons body. Its also possible that the person who broke in was just some poor homeless bastard looking for something to eat and was, of course, totally unarmed. Its also totally possible that one of the players can cave in to the emotional swings of a situation and draw out and shoot at that asshole who keeps rivering and taunting him and made him lose his salary.



the branches are endless, but the outcomes are all the same.





Sidenote: In Switzerland, every household has a gun. Switzerland has compulsory gun ownership for military age males, yet it has a far lower murder rate than the U.S. But Switzerland also has far stricter gun control laws. Even so, Switzerland has the second highest rate of handgun ownership and handgun murders in the industrialized world, after the U.S.

Switzerland is frequently cited as an example of a country with high gun ownership and a low murder rate. However, Switzerland also has a high degree of gun control, and actually makes a better argument for gun regulation than gun liberalization.

Switzerland keeps only a small standing army, and relies much more heavily on its militia system for national defense. This means that most able-bodied civilian men of military age keep weapons at home in case of a national emergency. These weapons are fully automatic, military assault rifles, and by law they must be kept locked up. Their issue of 72 rounds of ammunition must be sealed, and it is strictly accounted for. This complicates their use for criminal purposes, in that they are difficult to conceal, and their use will be eventually discovered by the authorities.

As for civilian weapons, the cantons (states) issue licenses for handgun purchases on a "must issue" basis. Most, but not all, cantons require handgun registration. Any ammunition bought on the private market is also registered. Ammunition can be bought unregistered at government subsidized shooting ranges, but, by law, one must use all the ammunition at the range. (Unfortunately, this law is not really enforced, and gives Swiss gun owners a way to collect unregistered ammunition.) Because so many people own rifles, there is no regulation on carrying them, but 15 of the 26 cantons have regulations on carrying handguns.

Despite these regulations, Switzerland has the second highest handgun ownership and handgun murder rate in the industrialized world.



Sidenote 2: Look at this shit, 1992 numbers but hey, the world did not change that freaking much

Handgun murders (1992) (2)

                Handgun    1992          Handgun Murder
Country         Murders    Population    Rate (per 100,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------
United States   13,429    254,521,000    5.28
Switzerland         97      6,828,023    1.42
Canada             128     27,351,509    0.47
Sweden              36      8,602,157    0.42
Australia           13     17,576,354    0.07
United Kingdom      33     57,797,514    0.06
Japan               60    124,460,481    0.05

[JKDS]

ok, lets take similar reasoning.

Would you let a professional body builder, MMA, wrestler (real), boxer, etc play at your home game? would you fear them?

[Galapogos]

ok, lets take similar reasoning.

Would you let a professional body builder, MMA, wrestler (real), boxer, etc play at your home game? would you fear them?

No, they're likely poor players and don't have the time to dedicate towards learning poker like we all do. ez money.

[Jack Sawyer]

Look at how the Chuck Liddell did at the WSOP

plus, you cannot "buy" muscle and martial arts know-how in 10 minutes over the counter (yeah I know you cannot buy guns in this satirical manner but you hopefully get my point)

I wish they sold that, instant muscle in a bottle, would sell like hot cakes

[Pelion]

ok, lets take similar reasoning.

Would you let a professional body builder, MMA, wrestler (real), boxer, etc play at your home game? would you fear them?

this comparison is way off. If they go crazy at you you and you have 2 other people in the room you could pretty easily over power them. Even if they are on their own they are very unlikely to kill you.

guns are 0 -> dead in about half a second.

Boxers have a lot more time to change their minds and a lot more time for others to react to them.

[spoonitnow]

Look at how the Chuck Liddell did at the WSOP

plus, you cannot "buy" muscle and martial arts know-how in 10 minutes over the counter (yeah I know you cannot buy guns in this satirical manner but you hopefully get my point)

I wish they sold that, instant muscle in a bottle, would sell like hot cakes

No but you can buy a set of steak knives for $2 at Wal-Mart and that's even better.

[Pelion]

Look at how the Chuck Liddell did at the WSOP

plus, you cannot "buy" muscle and martial arts know-how in 10 minutes over the counter (yeah I know you cannot buy guns in this satirical manner but you hopefully get my point)

I wish they sold that, instant muscle in a bottle, would sell like hot cakes

No but you can buy a set of steak knives for $2 at Wal-Mart and that's even better.

If someone showed up at my home game with a set of steak knives id reconsider letting them in.

[JKDS]

Look at how the Chuck Liddell did at the WSOP

plus, you cannot "buy" muscle and martial arts know-how in 10 minutes over the counter (yeah I know you cannot buy guns in this satirical manner but you hopefully get my point)

I wish they sold that, instant muscle in a bottle, would sell like hot cakes

i dont actually get your point. why does the time it takes to buy a gun have any impact at all? Do you know how much consideration a normal person gives before deciding on buying a gun? You think he comes to the home game with one just so he can shoot the mutha fucka that 2 outted him? Um, no...if he's carrying at all he is most likely doing it for some kind of defensive reason unless he is a cop. I dont think people who carry for that reason would just pull it out and fire.

[JKDS]

plus, you're all acting like he'll just pull it out for any silly reason...this isnt the case. the likelihood of him taking out the gun and firing it is pretty much the same as that of him just randomly attacking another guy. How often has this happened in your games and how often were there absolutely no warning signs beforehand?

[Lukie]

How would you explain the overriding trend then? I.e. areas that have loose ccw and castle doctrine laws almost invariably see decreases in crime, whereas a place like Washington D.C. (where handguns were outright banned until recently) have very high rates of violent crime and was once known as the 'Murder capitol of the U.S'-- all while handguns were banned.

gentrification is seen as the main reason (apparently since '93), and not gun control

Jack, a few points. I can go into more detail later but I'm short on time, but I just had to say a few things. I'll start from the bottom up from your big post (going purely by memory here).

How come you can google the gun politics situation in Washington DC and come up with gentrification, yet you won't also apply the same theories to why the U.S. handgun murder rate is higher than other industrial countries.

The fact is that the U.S. is a violent country. We have *non-firearm* homicide rates higher than some European countries' *total* homocide rates. Likewise, some countries, particularly in central america, have non-firearm homicide rates higher than OUR total murder rate.

You also have to consider that many of these other developed countries had remarkably low murder rates before they implimented any kind of gun control whatsoever.

You have some facts regarding Switzerland wrong. In addition, I've long been under the impression that their guns per capita was the highest in the world, and their gun crime among the lowest per capita in the world. If you can prove that wrong (or right), please do. I'll do a little more research on it when I have the time. Keep in mind, the country likely exists today because of their gun culture.

About your home poker game scenario, it's a bunch of crap and you know it. You're implying the same wild-west crap that irritates me so much. CCW holders for example, and as I've already pointed out and provided sources for, are the cream-of-the-crop law abiding citizens. So drum up any wild scenario you want, facts are facts.

I have a lot more to say.

[Pelion]

the likelihood of him taking out the gun and firing it is pretty much the same as that of him just randomly attacking another guy.

But the likelihood of him randomly attacking another guy is probably higher than the likelihood of a random person randomly attacking a guy if hes already in a place where he feels the need to bring a gun to your home.

[Renton]

About your home poker game scenario, it's a bunch of crap and you know it. You're implying the same wild-west crap that irritates me so much. CCW holders for example, and as I've already pointed out and provided sources for, are the cream-of-the-crop law abiding citizens. So drum up any wild scenario you want, facts are facts.

It's not a bunch of crap at all. It's merely an exaggeration to prove a point.

I forget who made the point, but it's really a matter of "Do you mind trusting your fellow man with your life?"

I personally don't. Call me a cynic, but I don't like playing the parlay, a non-zero percentage, that random dude #1 decides to just go fuckin apeshit today and shoot me. If our technology was evolved to a point where we could legally enforce intelligence and decency as requirements for handgun registration, then I'd feel a lot more comfortable with legalized guns.

Also, not to open up a whole other can of worms, but why do we even need handguns to begin with???? And where in the Second Amendment does it say we have the right to conceal arms? How many militias have you heard of that get into skirmish warfare with pistols like its Lethal Weapon fuckin two?

IMO in the most lax case scenario handguns and submachineguns at least should be outright banned, as they have NO GOOD REASON TO EXIST, other than to make it even more easy and fluid to pull it out and grease some unlucky motherfucker in a crime of passion.

[Trashcona]

About your home poker game scenario, it's a bunch of crap and you know it. You're implying the same wild-west crap that irritates me so much. CCW holders for example, and as I've already pointed out and provided sources for, are the cream-of-the-crop law abiding citizens. So drum up any wild scenario you want, facts are facts.

It's not a bunch of crap at all. It's merely an exaggeration to prove a point.

I forget who made the point, but it's really a matter of "Do you mind trusting your fellow man with your life?"

I personally don't. Call me a cynic, but I don't like playing the parlay, a non-zero percentage, that random dude #1 decides to just go fuckin apeshit today and shoot me. If our technology was evolved to a point where we could legally enforce intelligence and decency as requirements for handgun registration, then I'd feel a lot more comfortable with legalized guns.

Also, not to open up a whole other can of worms, but why do we even need handguns to begin with???? And where in the Second Amendment does it say we have the right to conceal arms? How many militias have you heard of that get into skirmish warfare with pistols like its Lethal Weapon fuckin two?

IMO in the most lax case scenario handguns and submachineguns at least should be outright banned, as they have NO GOOD REASON TO EXIST, other than to make it even more easy and fluid to pull it out and grease some unlucky motherfucker in a crime of passion.

Great stuff Renton

[Jack Sawyer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s376ZbPG-OM

[Lukie]

[quote="Renton"]

About your home poker game scenario, it's a bunch of crap and you know it. You're implying the same wild-west crap that irritates me so much. CCW holders for example, and as I've already pointed out and provided sources for, are the cream-of-the-crop law abiding citizens. So drum up any wild scenario you want, facts are facts.

It's not a bunch of crap at all. It's merely an exaggeration to prove a point.

so, like I said, it's a bunch of crap.

I forget who made the point, but it's really a matter of "Do you mind trusting your fellow man with your life?"

I personally don't. Call me a cynic, but I don't like playing the parlay, a non-zero percentage, that random dude #1 decides to just go fuckin apeshit today and shoot me. If our technology was evolved to a point where we could legally enforce intelligence and decency as requirements for handgun registration, then I'd feel a lot more comfortable with legalized guns.

There are something like 250,000,000 guns in the United States. Now, I'm not going to debate if this is a good or bad thing. What I will say though, and I believe very strongly in this, is that trying to ban them now would be a very bad thing. You'd then create an environment where criminals would obtain them illegally and the law-abiding citizen wouldn't be able to.

Did I ever make mention of the fact that CCW holders in Florida are 840 times *LESS* likely to commit a violent crime with a gun than non-permit holders? Considering that doesn't mesh up with your hypothetical situation (would you trust a fellow man with your life, at all), how would you respond to that? Is it possible that those who legally purchase, register, and perhaps carry firearms are overwhelmingly law abiding citizens?

Also, not to open up a whole other can of worms, but why do we even need handguns to begin with???? And where in the Second Amendment does it say we have the right to conceal arms? How many militias have you heard of that get into skirmish warfare with pistols like its Lethal Weapon fuckin two?

I'm not big on pulling the pro-2A card, even though I quite obviously support it. I stand behind it because I agree with what it entails. If you must though...

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.

It's very cut and dry from the standpoint of proper english. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is not a function of your interpretation on whether a well regulated militia is necessary or relevant in this day and age. It's saying, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. To take this further, people have suggested that 'people' in this sentence is related to 'a well regulated militia'. However, take a look at other amendments in the bill of rights, and it's quite clear what people is supposed to be referring to-- the overall population.

In the first amendment, [quote]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the *people* peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nobody debates the relevance of the word 'people' in the first amendment.

Likewise, nobody debates the relevance of the world 'people' in the fourth amendment protecting against unreasonable searches, et al.

IMO in the most lax case scenario handguns and submachineguns at least should be outright banned, as they have NO GOOD REASON TO EXIST, other than to make it even more easy and fluid to pull it out and grease some unlucky motherfucker in a crime of passion.

What about law enforcement? I'd argue that both handguns and submachine guns are great law enforcement tools. I'm surprised that you disagree.

[Renton]

I think you maybe misconstrued some of what I was saying, which was essentially:

1. I think that concealable weapons have no good reason to be obtainable by the public.

2. Banning said weapons doesn't infringe on second amendment rights, because it doesn't impede the ability of people to form a militia, since rifles are perfectly well suited to defending against a tyrannical government.


Now, taking away concealed weapons might infringe on one's ability to defend himself from criminals, as carrying a 12 gauge around everywhere isn't very feasible. Therefore, I can understand that as a gripe. But the second amendment doesn't say anything about defending against criminals, so it can't be used to defend HANDgun possession.

[will641]

How would you explain the overriding trend then? I.e. areas that have loose ccw and castle doctrine laws almost invariably see decreases in crime, whereas a place like Washington D.C. (where handguns were outright banned until recently) have very high rates of violent crime and was once known as the 'Murder capitol of the U.S'-- all while handguns were banned.

gentrification is seen as the main reason (apparently since '93), and not gun control

hmm, so are you implying that its the rich white yuppies that are shootin' people up?

pardon me, but lol.

[Jack Sawyer]

How would you explain the overriding trend then? I.e. areas that have loose ccw and castle doctrine laws almost invariably see decreases in crime, whereas a place like Washington D.C. (where handguns were outright banned until recently) have very high rates of violent crime and was once known as the 'Murder capitol of the U.S'-- all while handguns were banned.

gentrification is seen as the main reason (apparently since '93), and not gun control

hmm, so are you implying that its the rich white yuppies that are shootin' people up?

pardon me, but lol.

Crime in Washington, D.C. peaked in the early 1990s, when it was known as the murder capital of the United States. Crime rates have since declined substantially as gentrification has spread across many parts of the city.


so, a better line would be "gentrification is seen as the main reason for the decline in murders per capita in washinton d.c. (apparently since '93), and not gun control"

[triumphant cracker]

ok, lets take similar reasoning. Would you let a professional body builder, MMA, wrestler (real), boxer, etc play at your home game? would you fear them?

ok..what kind of stupid rational is that? are you for real?

someone show him the door. he's banned for stupidity.

[JKDS]

ok, lets take similar reasoning. Would you let a professional body builder, MMA, wrestler (real), boxer, etc play at your home game? would you fear them?

ok..what kind of stupid rational is that? are you for real?

someone show him the door. he's banned for stupidity.

lawl. counter arguement?

lets do something different. when was the last time you had to stop your poker game because someone just decided to go ape shit and start beating the shit out of another player? the state of mind of the guy going ape shit is equivalent to that of one pulling out a gun. The second however requires still more resolve to do, and as many people have posted, is actually LESS LIKELY because the people who buy guns legally are actually less likely to fire them illegally.

[will641]

How would you explain the overriding trend then? I.e. areas that have loose ccw and castle doctrine laws almost invariably see decreases in crime, whereas a place like Washington D.C. (where handguns were outright banned until recently) have very high rates of violent crime and was once known as the 'Murder capitol of the U.S'-- all while handguns were banned.

gentrification is seen as the main reason (apparently since '93), and not gun control

hmm, so are you implying that its the rich white yuppies that are shootin' people up?

pardon me, but lol.

Crime in Washington, D.C. peaked in the early 1990s, when it was known as the murder capital of the United States. Crime rates have since declined substantially as gentrification has spread across many parts of the city.


so, a better line would be "gentrification is seen as the main reason for the decline in murders per capita in washinton d.c. (apparently since '93), and not gun control"

sorry, i misinterpreted what you were saying.

also going back to lukie's point about the wild west crap. i mean this debate basically comes down to do you honestly think criminals will go through a process for getting a gun legally? the answer is no.

[triumphant cracker]

ok, lets take similar reasoning. Would you let a professional body builder, MMA, wrestler (real), boxer, etc play at your home game? would you fear them?

ok..what kind of stupid rational is that? are you for real?

someone show him the door. he's banned for stupidity.

lawl. counter arguement?

lets do something different. when was the last time you had to stop your poker game because someone just decided to go ape shit and start beating the shit out of another player? the state of mind of the guy going ape shit is equivalent to that of one pulling out a gun. The second however requires still more resolve to do, and as many people have posted, is actually LESS LIKELY because the people who buy guns legally are actually less likely to fire them illegally.

last year i was at a bar playin in a game near the airport and this guy did just that to someone....broke the guys nose, and got arrested (obv.) but that shit happens at places where people dont know each other. at my home games that would never happen. however they have flipped the table. wah. wah.

[Jack Sawyer]

seems like we were not the only ones having this controversial discussion


look what I found!
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/24...home-game-359/
followed by an apparent real-life enaction of the example I gave above on the first page of this FTR thread (everybody packin' heat), within same 2P2 thread as above
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=190
and another, with examples and rebuttals, both pro and con
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=207


and also related, but totally unrelated
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/54...e-197-post197/

[Lukie]

damnit i stopped responding to this thread because i've long gotten sick of talking about politics (all-around, with election coming up).

but jack, that last thread for example i actually remember, it's a confirmed troll post in BBV by somebody with 30-something life posts, not sure why you'd link to something like that to prove a point, lol.

[sarbox68]

Maybe I'm just a cynic but...
1. F-cked up people do f-cked up things
2. Criminals will do crimes
3. Something like 3% of the worlds population are clinical sociopaths

No f-kin way you're going to control for all the variables that go into someone's decision to commit a crime and the wherewithal to do it. 'Cause they were doing it long before we had guns, knives and anything sharp to poke people with. You got sh!t Ithey want? They will try and takes it - and use whatever's handy to do it.

Flip side of that is normal people don't go on f-kin killing sprees or turn into criminals just 'cause they now have a weapon - handgun, shotgun, or set of ginsu, whatevertf.

So if you can't make criminals disappear (never happened), and they will resort to whatever's available to commit their crime (always happened), you can't remove supply. So then your only choice is do you let the victim legally possess themselves of the wherewithall to defend themselves against something they didn't ask for.

Weapons from a defensive position are about leveling the odds. License 'em, regulate 'em, train on 'em - all essential sh!t I'm cool with. But for f-ks sake, focus on keeping them out of the hands of criminals and crazy b!tches first - then worry about the other 90+% of the rest of the population! Make them legally unavailable and all you've done is empower the criminal and the stone cold crazy.

I have no sympathy for people getting shot breaking into someone elses house. Or shot jacking somebody in a dark alley. Any more than I do some fool getting the clap from repeated unprotected sex. There's an easy solution - DON'T F-KIN DO IT!!!