Sometimes I REALLY don't get the NRA.

[SFL Cat]

okay, fine, then we'll just let guys like this go to malls/campuses and basically shoot fish in a barrel until the cops show up.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

okay, fine, then we'll just let guys like this go to malls/campuses and basically shoot fish in a barrel until the cops show up.

as opposed the alternative, then yes

we have examples of the alternative should you like to experience it

[SFL Cat]

Hopefully someone you know won't be one of the 5-20 casualties that generally result in cases like this.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Hopefully someone you know won't be one of the 5-20 casualties that generally result in cases like this.

agree

[Oilers9911]

The only people that should be carrying guns around with them on the streets are cops and soldiers. Hunters, sure, going to a firing range for target practice, sure. Every day civilians walking around packing heat is just messed up.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Galaril

I don't see the American Revolution being needed in this country anytime soon.

Let's see how the election turns out first, m'kay.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Hopefully someone you know won't be one of the 5-20 casualties that generally result in cases like this.

You really think everyone having a gun would stop that? Yeah, the original Perp would kill less people, but you're talking about very confusing situations. Person A walks in starts shooting, person B pulls out a gun and guns down person A. Someone comes around the corner, sees a whole bunch of bodies and Person B holding a gun...


And the whole "people wouldn't shoot up a mall if they knew everyone was packing" argument is bogus. Most of these guys kill themselves. They're not worried about their own safety.

[bulletsponge]

so this law would allow you to have the right to own a gun, but if you exercise that right the government will have a database of it. Hmmm i wonder if everyone who likes this law would think its cool if that was applied to other constitutional rights? you have the right to free speech, but what ever you say will be noticed and put into a databank by the government.

this also sounds like it breaches the 4th admendment against illegal searches. the government can effectivly search your property (gun) without your consent. and since its likely illegal to remove (or will be soon after the law goes into effect) you cant remove a government tracking mechanism from your personal property. and knowing gun owners, the first thing they will do after buying a gun with this contraption is to remove it.

the constitition is there to protect us from the government, not to be our Mommy or Daddy

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Oilers9911

The only people that should be carrying guns around with them on the streets are cops and soldiers. Hunters, sure, going to a firing range for target practice, sure. Every day civilians walking around packing heat is just messed up.

Sorry, can't let this go without commenting on it. There's currently one state in the union that doesn't permit any form or fashion of concealed carry, and that's Illinois. While Wisconsin also doesn't have a concealed carry law, the state Supreme Court has ruled in some cases concealed carry is allowed (most notably business owners carrying in their place of work). Forty states have "Shall Issue" concealed carry laws, which means if you meet the standards set by the state, you cannot be denied a concealed carry license. Eight states have what are called "may issue" laws, in which you can be denied by the licensing authority even if you meet the qualifying standards.

The violent crime rate in the ten non-"Shall Issue" states was 27.3% higher than the forty "Shall Issue" states at the end of 2006. In 2004 the figure was 26.5%. That would seem to indicate that if concealed carry doesn't lower violent crime, it certainly doesn't make the states with "Shall Issue" laws more violent.

Additionally, a study was done back in 2000 that looked at the arrest rate (arrests, not convictions) of concealed carry licensees in Texas, comparing that arrest rate with the arrest rate of the general population. The study found that licensees were 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for a violent offense than the general population and 14 times less likely to be arrested for a non-violent offense than the general population.

And don't forget, with the exception of Vermont, a person who gets a concealed carry license in most states has to be 21, pass a state and/or federal background check, attend a mandated training course, pass a written test, pass a shooting skills test, and agree to have their fingerprints on file with the FBI and state police.

So what about concealed carry makes you think it's "messed up"?

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by bulletsponge

this also sounds like it breaches the 4th admendment against illegal searches. the government can effectivly search your property (gun) without your consent. and since its likely illegal to remove (or will be soon after the law goes into effect) you cant remove a government tracking mechanism from your personal property. and knowing gun owners, the first thing they will do after buying a gun with this contraption is to remove it.

The exact same thing could be said about license plates.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

And don't forget, with the exception of Vermont, a person who gets a concealed carry license in most states has to be 21, pass a state and/or federal background check, attend a mandated training course, pass a written test, pass a shooting skills test, and agree to have their fingerprints on file with the FBI and state police.

It doesnt make any sense to me that they'd be okay with this, and not be okay with "their gun being trackable"

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Oilers9911

The only people that should be carrying guns around with them on the streets are cops and soldiers. Hunters, sure, going to a firing range for target practice, sure. Every day civilians walking around packing heat is just messed up.

Silly naive Canadians

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Synovia

You really think everyone having a gun would stop that? Yeah, the original Perp would kill less people, but you're talking about very confusing situations. Person A walks in starts shooting, person B pulls out a gun and guns down person A. Someone comes around the corner, sees a whole bunch of bodies and Person B holding a gun...


And the whole "people wouldn't shoot up a mall if they knew everyone was packing" argument is bogus. Most of these guys kill themselves. They're not worried about their own safety.

That's a bit of a strawman argument. The majority of people in states with Shall Issue concealed carry still do not choose to become concealed carry licensees. I think it's fair to assume that if fewer places were posted "no guns allowed", you would see a modest rise in the number of concealed carry holders. But that change alone isn't going to convince you, or Oilers, or anyone else that they need to become gun owners, much less concealed carry licensees.

So I don't think you'd have to worry about there being too many people with guns. I think you'd still have to worry about there being one concealed carry holder when you need her. It would just up the odds a little bit.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Synovia

It doesnt make any sense to me that they'd be okay with this, and not be okay with "their gun being trackable"

Not every gun owner is a concealed carry holder. And a license that shows you're a concealed carry holder isn't exactly the same as a registration requirement for every firearm you own.

[Toddzilla]

Damn, a lot happened while I was napping

To sum it up:

(1) Yes, I purposely made a stupid statement - solicited mind you - in response to an unsolicited one. Cam, more often than not, is right. It doesn't make for intelligent debate. I've been in too many threads with Bubba it seems. My fault.

(2) I happen to have a very high opinion of the ACLU since they will defend anyone they see as having their constitutional rights violated. Their litmus test has nothing to do with the victim, since their position is to defend - in their eyes - constitution rights.

(3) That sounds to me an awful lot like the NRA to me. They come down on the side of the Constitution, NOT a particular person or group of people.

(4) I have no belief whatsoever that all or most gun owners are "god fearing-white nutjobs". That group is a tiny part of the intended constituency, similar to how "atheists and criminals" are a tiny part of the other. ISiddiqui hit it on the head, but it needs to come from me.

(5) I think my feelings about guns and firearms are well known, but that's really irrelevant to the topic. I think Cam hit this one out of the park so far as the technology goes.

All better?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Damn, a lot happened while I was napping

To sum it up:

(1) Yes, I purposely made a stupid statement - solicited mind you - in response to an unsolicited one. Cam, more often than not, is right. It doesn't make for intelligent debate. I've been in too many threads with Bubba it seems. My fault.

(2) I happen to have a very high opinion of the ACLU since they will defend anyone they see as having their constitutional rights violated. Their litmus test has nothing to do with the victim, since their position is to defend - in their eyes - constitution rights.

(3) That sounds to me an awful lot like the NRA to me. They come down on the side of the Constitution, NOT a particular person or group of people.

(4) I have no belief whatsoever that all or most gun owners are "god fearing-white nutjobs". That group is a tiny part of the intended constituency, similar to how "atheists and criminals" are a tiny part of the other. ISiddiqui hit it on the head, but it needs to come from me.

(5) I think my feelings about guns and firearms are well known, but that's really irrelevant to the topic. I think Cam hit this one out of the park so far as the technology goes.

All better?

Smooches. If I wasn't working I'd offer to buy you a beer at Glory Days. We could toast to the ACLU and the NRA.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Damn, a lot happened while I was napping

To sum it up:

(1) Yes, I purposely made a stupid statement - solicited mind you - in response to an unsolicited one. Cam, more often than not, is right. It doesn't make for intelligent debate. I've been in too many threads with Bubba it seems. My fault.

(2) I happen to have a very high opinion of the ACLU since they will defend anyone they see as promoting their hard-core lefty liberal new world order agenda as begun by their founder Communist Roger Baldwin while ignoring anyone elses' case that doesn't cater to their views.

Fixed it for ya! Sorry you can't think straight after going a few rounds with me, but not surprised.

[Toddzilla]

Go away, troll. This was an intelligent debate until you showed up.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Synovia

The exact same thing could be said about license plates.

Except for the simple fact that the cops can't just strip search a guy to check and see if they did anything to their gun unless they had reason. If someone drives without a license plate on their car, they have all the justification they need to pull them over.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Go away, troll. This was an intelligent debate until you showed up.

Just thought I would show up with a Troll-zilla like post on your view of things.

[CamEdwards]

this is the very definition of trolling. Can't contribute anything worthwhile to the conversation so it's "pay attention to ME!! pay attention to ME!!"

Way to annoy even the people who may be philosophically on the same side, Bubba.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Just thought I would show up with a Troll-zilla like post on your view of things.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

this is the very definition of trolling. Can't contribute anything worthwhile to the conversation so it's "pay attention to ME!! pay attention to ME!!"

Way to annoy even the people who may be philosophically on the same side, Bubba.

Cam is just dominating this thread from start to finish.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Radii

Cam is just dominating this thread from start to finish.

Well, it helps that Bubba is the Leeroy Jenkins of conservatism.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

this is the very definition of trolling.

Actually, the current signature of the piece of shit you're defending is pretty much the definition of trolling. If you want to jump in bed & defend that, that's your call but it sure as hell diminishes your credibility.

And I point that out as someone who thinks BW is pretty whack a great deal of the time.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Actually, the current signature of the piece of shit you're defending is pretty much the definition of trolling. If you want to jump in bed & defend that, that's your call but it sure as hell diminishes your credibility.

And I point that out as someone who thinks BW is pretty whack a great deal of the time.

Honestly Jon, I don't pay attention to people's signatures. They're like billboards as far as I'm concerned, I just don't see them anymore.

Having looked at Todd's sig, yes, I'd consider that trolling, especially if I was the recepient of said sig (though I suppose it's a different kind of trolling than what Bubba's doing). However, I never even mentioned Todd when it came to Bubba. I was berating Bubba over the fact that I took the time to make serious substantive arguments about this issue only to have him come along and jerk off all over this thread.

And lest I be accused of not responding to Jon calling Todd a "piece of shit"... I have four children in my house that provide me with enough refereeing over name-calling. If that's where this thread's headed, I'm checking out.

[DaddyTorgo]

I wonder what Noop's opinion of this is....

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Honestly Jon, I don't pay attention to people's signatures. They're like billboards as far as I'm concerned, I just don't see them anymore.

Having looked at Todd's sig, yes, I'd consider that trolling, especially if I was the recepient of said sig (though I suppose it's a different kind of trolling than what Bubba's doing). However, I never even mentioned Todd when it came to Bubba. I was berating Bubba over the fact that I took the time to make serious substantive arguments about this issue only to have him come along and jerk off all over this thread.

And lest I be accused of not responding to Jon calling Todd a "piece of shit"... I have four children in my house that provide me with enough refereeing over name-calling. If that's where this thread's headed, I'm checking out.

as a liberal, I <3 Cam. It's nice to have an intelligent, non-name-calling conservative to discuss things with on an intellectual level.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

as a liberal, I <3 Cam. It's nice to have an intelligent, non-name-calling conservative to discuss things with on an intellectual level.

To be fair, I did call Bubba the "Leeroy Jenkins of conservatism", which I suppose could be considered trolling in its own right. Whatever. I was annoyed.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

this is the very definition of trolling. Can't contribute anything worthwhile to the conversation so it's "pay attention to ME!! pay attention to ME!!"

Way to annoy even the people who may be philosophically on the same side, Bubba.

Well, alright...

1.) Couldn't resist proving my point that someone of the likes of said aftermentioned recipient of my previous verbal jab has made a career of doing exactly what I did to many of my points of view without ever getting called on it at all. So its never been about trolling per se, its always been about who does the trolling...aftermentioned person must have a life-time pass on it. Sorry it took place after your post but...

2.) My comments on the ACLU that were so praised to the high-heavens are valid. ACLU is clearly a biased organization that will defend NAMBLA in Massachussetts while ignoring a teacher being reprimanded for wearing a cross around her neck in New York. Plain double-standard. And founder Roger Baldwin was a Communist and did found that organization as a defender of Communists in America until after ww2 and the cold war started. Then it suddenly became all about 'the constitution.' Right.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, alright...

1.) Couldn't resist proving my point that someone of the likes of said aftermentioned recipient of my previous verbal jab has made a career of doing exactly what I did to many of my points of view without ever getting called on it at all. So its never been about trolling per se, its always been about who does the trolling...aftermentioned person must have a life-time pass on it. Sorry it took place after your post but...

2.) My comments on the ACLU that were so praised to the high-heavens are valid. ACLU is clearly a biased organization that will defend NAMBLA in Massachussetts while ignoring a teacher being reprimanded for wearing a cross around her neck in New York. Plain double-standard. And founder Roger Baldwin was a Communist and did found that organization as a defender of Communists in America until after ww2 and the cold war started. Then it suddenly became all about 'the constitution.' Right.

Bubba, if every post of yours was as thoughtful as this, you would soon lose the reputation you have.

I don't think anybody was arguing the ACLU isn't a liberal organization. I don't even think anybody was arguing that the ACLU hasn't represented "Communists" and "atheists". Hell, nobody can dispute that the ACLU is defending a group of wanna-be and maybe are child-rapists.

And nobody's disputing that Todd likes the ACLU. Not even Todd. But if you want to engage Todd in a debate about the cases the ACLU takes, you've got a strange way of doing it. And the way you went about it pissed me off because it was designed to attract attention to you rather than the or the serious arguments I was making about the validity of microstamping and concealed carry or even the ACLU.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

ACLU is clearly a biased organization that will defend NAMBLA in Massachussetts while ignoring a teacher being reprimanded for wearing a cross around her neck in New York.

What about when the ACLU in NJ defended a student who wanted to sing "Awesome God" in an after-school talent show and the school tried to stop her? Or how about when the ACLU in Iowa sued the state because a school tried to stop students from passing out religious literature (yes, Christian literature) during non-instructional time? Or how about when the ACLU sued the state of Missouri because a nurse was fired for wearing a cross on her uniform? Or how about when they defended two women in Massachusetts who were fired for refusing to work on Christmas Day? Or how about the many of cases where they support and defend pro-lifers protesting abortion clinics? And the many times they support and defend the rights of Christians to protest gay pride events?

I'm wondering how all of this, and much more, fits into the idea that they "will defend anyone they see as promoting their hard-core lefty liberal new world order agenda as begun by their founder Communist Roger Baldwin while ignoring anyone elses' case that doesn't cater to their views".

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sabotai

What about when the ACLU in NJ defended a student who wanted to sing "Awesome God" in an after-school talent show and the school tried to stop her? Or how about when the ACLU in Iowa sued the state because a school tried to stop students from passing out religious literature (yes, Christian literature) during non-instructional time? Or how about when the ACLU sued the state of Missouri because a nurse was fired for wearing a cross on her uniform? Or how about when they defended two women in Massachusetts who were fired for refusing to work on Christmas Day? Or how about the many of cases where they support and defend pro-lifers protesting abortion clinics? And the many times they support and defend the rights of Christians to protest gay pride events?

I'm wondering how all of this, and much more, fits into the idea that they "will defend anyone they see as promoting their hard-core lefty liberal new world order agenda as begun by their founder Communist Roger Baldwin while ignoring anyone elses' case that doesn't cater to their views".

sabotai FTW

I think we just tend to hear more about one side than the other because of the particular cases drawing media attention.

[JPhillips]

Bubba: Are you opposed to the Pledge of Allegiance? A Socialist came up with that as a way to get people comfortable with worshiping the state. And does that make Obama anti-socialist? It's all so confusing.

[Brian Swartz]

You really think everyone having a gun would stop that? Yeah, the original Perp would kill less people, but you're talking about very confusing situations. Person A walks in starts shooting, person B pulls out a gun and guns down person A. Someone comes around the corner, sees a whole bunch of bodies and Person B holding a gun...


And the whole "people wouldn't shoot up a mall if they knew everyone was packing" argument is bogus. Most of these guys kill themselves. They're not worried about their own safety.

Let's go to a fairly well-known example of what tends to happen in these situations. January, 2002, in Grundy, VA. Appalachian School of Law. A student is told they will be suspended because of bad grades. They take a handgun and kill three people, wounding three others, before being taken down by three other students.

Except the main reason the last three were able to take him down was because two of them had guns. None of them got confused and tried to shoot at the wrong person.

Bonus points for anyone who knows roughly what % of news outlets so much as mentioned, even in passing, that the students who took out the gunman did so with the aid of their own firearms.

Point being, the risk of accidental 'additional' deaths in these situations is FAR less than the risk of additional deaths caused by original gunman, to the point where they aren't even comparable.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Damn, a lot happened while I was napping

To sum it up:

(1) Yes, I purposely made a stupid statement - solicited mind you - in response to an unsolicited one. Cam, more often than not, is right. It doesn't make for intelligent debate. I've been in too many threads with Bubba it seems. My fault.

(

Since I was the one who started the stupid statement on what was at that point a good debate, I need to apologize for that statement. I'm not a fan of the ACLU because of a whole lot of reasons, but I should have not typed that very troll-like statement.

[Uncle Briggs]

Originally Posted by Synovia

And the whole "people wouldn't shoot up a mall if they knew everyone was packing" argument is bogus. Most of these guys kill themselves. They're not worried about their own safety.

They do care how they die. You know these people hate the cops more than random people at school or a mall. And yet, they never go after the cops, and kill themselves when the cops show up. They pick unarmed targets because they want the power, and they "win" if they die on their own terms. Don't credit these losers with having balls; that's one of their motivations.

[Phototropic]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Point being, the risk of accidental 'additional' deaths in these situations is FAR less than the risk of additional deaths caused by original gunman, to the point where they aren't even comparable.

What would you estimate as the risk of accidental (or non-accidental) death outside of these situations when everyone else is carrying a weapon?

[Brian Swartz]

I wouldn't have any idea what to estimate it at. These things have to evaluate in a more or less likely manner I think, trying to assign numbers to them would be pure conjecture IMO.

I think the deterrent effect is important though. There is no absolute safety anywhere in a modern society, but I think there's more of it when the criminal element has to be concerned about whether or not the average citizen might be carrying a weapon. Fundamentally, I think the body of evidence we have available points to the concept that the weapon itself is not the problem.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Phototropic

What would you estimate as the risk of accidental (or non-accidental) death outside of these situations when everyone else is carrying a weapon?

Again, not "Everyone" would be carrying concealed. Most states already have concealed carry.

In 2006, there were 730 accidental firearms deaths. There are (estimated) 60-80 million American gun owners.

In 2006 there were also 809 deaths from being struck by an object accidentally, 893 accidental deaths from natural heat or cold, 1,307 accidental suffocations, 3,306 accidental drownings, 3,369 deaths from fire or smoke inhalation, 4,272 deaths by accidental choking on something, 17,229 accidental fatalities from falls, 19,457 accidental poisoning fatalities and 44,757 car accident fatalities.

Since you're asking what you think the accidental firearm fatalities would be like outside of these mass shooting scenarios, I'm hopeful you'll find these statistics useful.

By the way, the number of accidental firearms fatalities is falling. In 1930 the number of accidental firearms fatalities was 3200. These numbers come from the National Safety Council's 2007 Injury Facts if you want to check them out for yourself.

[Phototropic]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Again, not "Everyone" would be carrying concealed. Most states already have concealed carry.

In 2006, there were 730 accidental firearms deaths. There are (estimated) 60-80 million American gun owners.

In 2006 there were also 809 deaths from being struck by an object accidentally, 893 accidental deaths from natural heat or cold, 1,307 accidental suffocations, 3,306 accidental drownings, 3,369 deaths from fire or smoke inhalation, 4,272 deaths by accidental choking on something, 17,229 accidental fatalities from falls, 19,457 accidental poisoning fatalities and 44,757 car accident fatalities.

Since you're asking what you think the accidental firearm fatalities would be like outside of these mass shooting scenarios, I'm hopeful you'll find these statistics useful.

By the way, the number of accidental firearms fatalities is falling. In 1930 the number of accidental firearms fatalities was 3200. These numbers come from the National Safety Council's 2007 Injury Facts if you want to check them out for yourself.

They are useful although I should have emphasized the non-accidental side more. I would imagine we'd see more attacks with a higher percentage of the populaton carrying a weapon. It sounds very callous, but school shootings have never really gotten to me. I understand that I would feel differently were I more closely affected, but in the grand scheme of things the proposed countermeasures seem extreme.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Phototropic

They are useful although I should have emphasized the non-accidental side more. I would imagine we'd see more attacks with a higher percentage of the populaton carrying a weapon. It sounds very callous, but school shootings have never really gotten to me. I understand that I would feel differently were I more closely affected, but in the grand scheme of things the proposed countermeasures seem extreme.

Well, you can check out the statistics I cited further up in the thread. "Shall Issue" concealed carry states have a much lower violent crime rate than states with limited concealed carry. I'm not saying that concealed carry is the reason, but concealed carry certainly doesn't appear to increase non-accidental shootings.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Again, not "Everyone" would be carrying concealed. Most states already have concealed carry.

Cam, most of your posts have been great, but you're responding right now to a train of thought that was started when someone basically said "I doubt school shootiings would happen if everyone carried a gun"

So yeah, for the purpose of that argument, everyone IS carrying a gun.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

By the way, the number of accidental firearms fatalities is falling. In 1930 the number of accidental firearms fatalities was 3200.

What was going on in 1930? Was this because of bad guns misfiring or going off unintentionally, or did they take suicides from the Great Depression into the count? That just seems ridiculous to have 5x as many shootings given the smaller population and everything.

[RainMaker]

My issue isn't so much with guns but with the fact a guy who spent a year in a mental hospital was able to get a gun so easily.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Synovia

Cam, most of your posts have been great, but you're responding right now to a train of thought that was started when someone basically said "I doubt school shootiings would happen if everyone carried a gun"

So yeah, for the purpose of that argument, everyone IS carrying a gun.

Actually it was SFL Cat, who said "I'm all for qualified individuals being able to carry guns. After all, we've just seen a fine example of how effective "gun free zones" are at Northern Illinois."

Not to be a dick in pointing this out, but you're the first person who brought up "everyone" carrying a firearm (though rkmsuf wasn't far behind). Either way, I don't think it makes much sense to have an argument about something that's never going to happen (100% rate of concealed carry).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

dola- and yes Flere, I still post here.

That was mostly a post by me, to be honest, because I expect you to be all over gun threads. I mean, showing up after 31 posts?! You're slipping, man!

Although, you've now made up for it.

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Or maybe someone could have dropped the perp while he was reloading.

Maybe someone would have pulled their trigger just as a screaming student ran in front of them. Maybe someone would have missed the perp and a ricochet would have killed another student. Maybe someone's gun, the night previously, may have been the vehicle of an accidental shooting during a late-night dorm party.

Extrapolating policy from a single incident doesn't make a lot of sense.