Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Left - Authoritarian

Left - Centre

Left - Libertarian

Centre - Authoritarian

Centre - Centre

Centre - Libertarian

Right - Authoritarian

Right - Centre

Right - Libertarian

Other

Don't care to do the test / View poll

[Strife26]

Just a thought.

How about a special CC class, it'd require even more instruction than a regular CC, plus bimonthly mandatory training.

Quite frankly, in my experience, most people serious enough to go through a ton and a half of training (as opposed to walking into Scheels and buying a handgun) wouldn't qualify as the COWBOY FRATBOY.

[Andir]

Just a thought.

How about a special CC class, it'd require even more instruction than a regular CC, plus bimonthly mandatory training.

Quite frankly, in my experience, most people serious enough to go through a ton and a half of training (as opposed to walking into Scheels and buying a handgun) wouldn't qualify as the COWBOY FRATBOY.

What advantage would it have to a regular CC license?  The main things you can't do with a CC is carry in a class D liquor establishment, a public building (court, police station, etc.) or schools.  Well, that and in Ohio it mandates how many guns you can carry concealed(1).  At least, those are some of the restrictions in Ohio... and these laws are state specific.  It gets gray when you deal with cars and carry licenses with your car being a concealed environment and carrying a hunting rifle or something like that... but I'm rambling.  I assume you would require this special bi-monthly class for school carry?  That's a little absurd.  As it is with the regular CC you have to renew every 2 years with a refresher class every 2.5 years.  The problem with adding another layer to the licensing is identifying yourself to police and other public officials without placing them in a situation of determining if you are one license or another.

[Forumsdwarf]

But let's suppose for a moment that they do break into your house when you're there.  Guy's standing in your living room, pointing a pistol at you.

If he silently picks the lock then pads into the living room with catlike grace and could poison you instantly with one flick of his poisoned shuriken it doesn't help to own a gun.  Luckily most home intruders aren't Ninjas.  The sound of a screwdriver jimmying a window is unmistakable.

Yes, when I think "defusing a violent situation", the first things that comes to mind is "crossfire".

Well, yeah.  If the perp takes cover it impairs his ability to stalk new victims until the professionals arrive.  If he is too psycho to care maybe you'll get him before he gets you.  Or maybe the police arrive just as you return fire and mistake you for a hostile.  The outcome is unpredictable, but unpredictable survival is preferable to predictably getting killed.

You're trying to dress up what's really happening - a bunch of idiots with metal penises imagining themselves as the lead role of an action movie - in this formalized language of a military encounter.  In the real world, where people are not expecting a gunfight to break out at any moment, everyone in the room but the guy who broke in are going to be flatfooted every time.  The first guy to resist loses his head, then there's a shootout where maybe the original perpetrator goes down, taking several with him.  What exactly has been prevented that a locked door and better campus security would not? ...   I hate to break it to you, but allowing concealed carry on campuses will not turn the student body into a SWAT team. ... This whole conversation is an unending litany of machismo masquerading as expertise.

What locked door?  What campus security?  Arming oneself gives one a chance to survive situations not when these very practical and useful security measures succeed but when they fail.
The larger problem here is that you see firearms as symbols or totems rather than as tools.  "Metal penis".  "Action movie".  "SWAT team."  "Machismo."  In the real world firearms are tools that, taken together with proper training, improve a person's chances to survive a violent situation.
Fire extinguishers aren't metal penises, either.  They exist to put out fires.  One needn't be a firefighter to use one to put out a fire.  People learn CPR, too, even though they're not doctors.  We can't put out big fires and we can't do open heart surgery, but we can improve our chances of surviving a violent situation.  A bullet is a bullet, whether it comes from a SWAT sniper or a scared civilian who remembered his training at a moment of decision.
If the first CHL was caught flat-footed, the second one has time to react.  It's not an ideal scenario, but again it's not about "saving the day", it's about limiting the tragedy.

By definition, all statistics on gun violence, or crime prevented by gun violence, is anecdotal.  Mostly anecdotes made up by people who want to sound tough, in studies funded by people like Wayne LaPierre who watched too many old westerns and think the solution to urban crime is to turn America into Yemen.

"By definition" statistics are statistics and anecdotes anecdotes ... unless of course you're defending a belief system steeped in symbolism from the rude intrusion of reality, in which case whatever hand-waving is required to make the cognitive dissonance go away will be done.
I don't know about Yemen, but Detroit has a higher murder rate than Iraq.  Private ownership of firearms won't "solve" the crime problem, but wishing it away only leads to a false sense of security.
That doesn't mean I think CHL's have all the answers.  We're no more social scientists or urban planners than cowboys or SWAT wannabes.  We're taking sensible precautions against realistic threats.

Allowing people to carry concealed weapons just makes it that much easier for someone who wants to commit a crime to get the drop on someone else.  It will mean maybe a dozen guys will strut around campus with Colt .45s they've never fired, just waiting for someone to start trouble so they can save the day.  Your bullcrap about frat boys taking training is the most laughable thing I've heard in the whole thread.

Do you even know what the requirements are to get a license?  A presumptive CHL who has "never fired" his weapon couldn't have passed the training and so couldn't be a CHL.
Licensees, meanwhile, are hyper-law-abiding citizens far less likely to commit crimes than non-licensees.  We are trained in combat shooting and the legal parameters of self-defense, and our behavior regarding both self-defense and other areas of compliance with the law has been exemplary.
But what you're really attacking are symbols, in a kind of "Pink Floyd: The Wall" acid trip filled with strutting fratboy policemen and marching metal penises.  The science of statistics doesn't really have an answer for that.

[RedKing]

.
The larger problem here is that you see firearms as symbols or totems rather than as tools.  "Metal penis".  "Action movie".  "SWAT team."  "Machismo."  In the real world firearms are tools that, taken together with proper training, improve a person's chances to survive a violent situation.
Fire extinguishers aren't metal penises, either.  They exist to put out fires.  One needn't be a firefighter to use one to put out a fire.  People learn CPR, too, even though they're not doctors.  We can't put out big fires and we can't do open heart surgery, but we can improve our chances of surviving a violent situation.  A bullet is a bullet, whether it comes from a SWAT sniper or a scared civilian who remembered his training at a moment of decision.

And in an ideal world where we're all responsible, intelligent adults, you're correct. However, that's not the world most of us observe. Maybe you're right and guns aren't about proving your manhood *for you*. But I think Aqizzar and I both have plenty of experience with folks for whom there's definitely some fetishism going on.

By definition, all statistics on gun violence, or crime prevented by gun violence, is anecdotal.  Mostly anecdotes made up by people who want to sound tough, in studies funded by people like Wayne LaPierre who watched too many old westerns and think the solution to urban crime is to turn America into Yemen.

"By definition" statistics are statistics and anecdotes anecdotes ... unless of course you're defending a belief system steeped in symbolism from the rude intrusion of reality, in which case whatever hand-waving is required to make the cognitive dissonance go away will be done.
I don't know about Yemen, but Detroit has a higher murder rate than Iraq.  Private ownership of firearms won't "solve" the crime problem, but wishing it away only leads to a false sense of security.

I'm not even going to deal with how absurd that comparison is, or how it doesn't even support your point (both cities have high rates of private gun ownership), but I would point out that Ciudad Juarez has a higher death toll per capita than either of those cities, and the easy availability of firearms, particularly American-made automatics and easily converted semi-automatics, is a definite contributing factor. The Mexican border is awash in guns, and it's allowed what is essentially a gang turf war to spiral into the sort of mayhem usually reserved for disintegrating central African nations.

[Andir]

both cities have high rates of private gun ownership... but I would point out that Ciudad Juarez has a higher death toll per capita than either of those cities, and the easy availability of firearms, particularly American-made automatics and easily converted semi-automatics, is a definite contributing factor. The Mexican border is awash in guns, and it's allowed what is essentially a gang turf war to spiral into the sort of mayhem usually reserved for disintegrating central African nations.

Ah, the good old correlation being causation argument I see...

[Kebooo]

both cities have high rates of private gun ownership... but I would point out that Ciudad Juarez has a higher death toll per capita than either of those cities, and the easy availability of firearms, particularly American-made automatics and easily converted semi-automatics, is a definite contributing factor. The Mexican border is awash in guns, and it's allowed what is essentially a gang turf war to spiral into the sort of mayhem usually reserved for disintegrating central African nations.

Ah, the good old correlation being causation argument I see...

You called for a divine unicorn?

If we freely made firearms available in my middle/upper class, small Maine town, would the death toll go up?  Men with the motivation to murder will find ways to obtain firearms, one way or another.  The question becomes, do we deny a citizen's freedom to protect his own life with firearms so that a death toll may be lowered?  I would argue that the decrease in deaths would have to be pretty hefty to justify it.

[Char13magne]

both cities have high rates of private gun ownership... but I would point out that Ciudad Juarez has a higher death toll per capita than either of those cities, and the easy availability of firearms, particularly American-made automatics and easily converted semi-automatics, is a definite contributing factor. The Mexican border is awash in guns, and it's allowed what is essentially a gang turf war to spiral into the sort of mayhem usually reserved for disintegrating central African nations.

Ah, the good old correlation being causation argument I see...

You called for a divine unicorn?

If we freely made firearms available in my middle/upper class, small Maine town, would the death toll go up?  Men with the motivation to murder will find ways to obtain firearms, one way or another.  The question becomes, do we deny a citizen's freedom to protect his own life with firearms so that a death toll may be lowered?  I would argue that the decrease in deaths would have to be pretty hefty to justify it.

I realize that I'm just worsening the off-topicness of this newer portion of the thread, so my response is in spoiler form;

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The only thing I have a real problem with, are assault rifles being sold to civilians. That's just wrong.

[Haspen]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The only thing I have a real problem with, are assault rifles being sold to civilians. That's just wrong.

It seems I have the same problem, oh my.

[Andir]

If we freely made firearms available in my middle/upper class, small Maine town, would the death toll go up?  Men with the motivation to murder will find ways to obtain firearms, one way or another.  The question becomes, do we deny a citizen's freedom to protect his own life with firearms so that a death toll may be lowered?  I would argue that the decrease in deaths would have to be pretty hefty to justify it.

That's speculative, but if your "nearby" neighbor Vermont has any say... no.  The acceptance of firearms does not raise the death toll.

[Forumsdwarf]

But I think Aqizzar and I both have plenty of experience with folks for whom there's definitely some fetishism going on.

"Graphs or it didn't happen," as someone on this very thread once insisted not too long ago.

I can save you the trouble: a CHL is far less likely (over 5 times less likely in Texas) to commit a violent crime.  If CHL's have a fetish for anything it is for obeying the law.

it doesn't even support your point (both cities have high rates of private gun ownership), but I would point out that Ciudad Juarez has a higher death toll per capita than either of those cities, and the easy availability of firearms, particularly American-made automatics and easily converted semi-automatics, is a definite contributing factor. The Mexican border is awash in guns, and it's allowed what is essentially a gang turf war to spiral into the sort of mayhem usually reserved for disintegrating central African nations.

Reading comprehension?  "We're not social scientists or urban planners?"
My point was that the crime rate justifies the taking of precautions.  That's as true in Ciudad Juarez as Detroit.
It's not the responsibility of licensed gun owners to reduce the crime rate; it's our responsibility to use our weapons lawfully and safely.  Our track record on both counts speaks for itself.

The only thing I have a real problem with, are assault rifles being sold to civilians.

Already covered this.  Do me a favor and read the relevant part of the thread, then tell me whether you still think assault weapons should be banned.

[RedKing]

both cities have high rates of private gun ownership... but I would point out that Ciudad Juarez has a higher death toll per capita than either of those cities, and the easy availability of firearms, particularly American-made automatics and easily converted semi-automatics, is a definite contributing factor. The Mexican border is awash in guns, and it's allowed what is essentially a gang turf war to spiral into the sort of mayhem usually reserved for disintegrating central African nations.

Ah, the good old correlation being causation argument I see...

It IS causation.
Without easy access to the US-made, "legally" purchased firearms, it simply would not be possible to achieve the level of violence currently going on. If this was 10, 20 years ago when the cartels mostly had pistols and maybe a few light SMGs, the Federal police and army could keep a lid on it. Now, thanks to the black market of US-made assault weapons streaming over the border, the cartels are essentially fielding private armies.

You know what? Fuck it. If you're too obtuse to see the problem at hand, either because it's in someone else's backyard, or because it's an inconvenient wrinkle in your ideal world where all gun owners and merchants are fine upstanding citizens who are only concerned with defending the innocent, then no amount of argument is going to convince you otherwise. Do me a favor...take a vacation to Guadalajara. Take your SIG with you. See how far it helps you.
 

[Thief^]

Looking at the numbers on wikipedia it's hard to argue one way or the other about guns' influence on crime. On the one hand, you can compare the US to the UK, and notice that they have approximately the same non-firearm homicide rate, but the US also has 25-30 times the firearm homicide rate, on top of that (i.e. the US has three times the homicide rate of the UK, and almost all the extra is gun crime). On the other hand, Poland has more homicides than America, despite having roughly 7 times less gun crime (10 times less looking at the fraction of homicides which are gun crimes).

I am against general civilian ownership of guns, because they have a tendency to kill, and I don't believe ordinary people can be trusted to make that decision. But maybe that's just my upbringing in gunless UK talking.

EDIT: The above was written before RedKing's post, and I acknowledge that the numbers I'm working from are 10 years out of date, when RedKing alleges blackmarket gun imports to the US were relatively under control. Anyone got up-to-date numbers?



Back to the original topic:
I'm almost dead on the line, halfway to left. Apparently.
Economic Left/Right: -4.88, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.33
At the coming UK election I have a choice between:
Labour - Top right
Conservative - Top Right
Liberal Democrat - Rightish of center
BNP - Dead top
(no-one from the other parties are running here, so I can't vote for them).
Better still, Labour and Lib Dem make up 90% of the vote here, so it would be a miracle for a vote for anyone else to not be a complete waste.
It's annoying that I basically have a choice between authoritarian-rightish and centre-rightish and have no real left-right choice...

[Andir]

Looking at the numbers on wikipedia it's hard to argue one way or the other about guns' influence on crime. On the one hand, you can compare the US to the UK, and notice that they have approximately the same non-firearm homicide rate, but the US also has 25-30 times the firearm homicide rate, on top of that (i.e. the US has three times the homicide rate of the UK, and almost all the extra is gun crime). On the other hand, Poland has more homicides than America, despite having roughly 7 times less gun crime (10 times less looking at the fraction of homicides which are gun crimes).

What you're looking at is evidence that guns are merely tools.  Crime cannot be increased or decreased by removing these tools.

[Thief^]

What you're looking at is evidence that guns are merely tools.  Crime cannot be increased or decreased by removing these tools.

Not necessarily. Gun availability is probably a factor, but it's clearly not as simple as it is the only factor. I doubt it's even the strongest factor.

[Dwarf]

I think what you are missing is that with a gun, one can easily kill persons from a distance away with next to no effort, especially with sniper rifles readily available.