Arizona No Long Requires A Permit To Carry A Concealed Gun in Public

[Crazed Rabbit]

Huzzah! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100416/ap_on_re_us/us_xgr_concealed_weapons_arizona)


PHOENIX – Favoring the constitutional right to bear arms over others' concerns about gun safety, Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill making Arizona the third state allowing people to carry a concealed weapon without requiring a permit.

The measure takes effect 90 days after the current legislative session ends, which likely puts the effective date in July or August.

"I believe this legislation not only protects the Second Amendment rights of Arizona citizens, but restores those rights as well," Brewer, a Republican, said in a statement.

Alaska and Vermont now do not require permits to carry concealed weapons.

By eliminating the permit requirement, the Arizona legislation will allow people 21 or older to forego background checks and classes that are now required.

Supporters say the bill promotes constitutional rights and allows people to protect themselves from criminals, while critics worry it will lead to more shootings as people with less training have fewer restrictions on carrying weapons.

Some police officials are concerned the law will lead to more accidental gun discharges from people untrained in firearm safety, or that shooters in stressful situations will accidentally strike innocent bystanders with stray bullets.

"I know a lot of 21-year-olds; the maturity level is gravely concerning sometimes," said El Mirage Police Chief Mike Frazier, an Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police board member. "If you're going to be carrying a weapon you should know what the law is and how to use it."

However, the measure was supported by police unions representing rank-and-file officers, who said their best friend on the streets is a law-abiding citizen equipped to protect themselves or others.

One of the most victorious campaigns for gun rights in America has been the passing of laws allowing people to carry concealed weapons. 30 years ago only a handful of states allowed concealed carry even with a permit. Now only two states, Wisconsin and Illinois, don't allow it. And the vast majority of states that do have 'shall issue' laws, which means that a citizen must be granted a permit unless they're a criminal - the issuing authority can't forbid them on a whim.

And before you go on about how this will cause a rise in shootings, escalations, etc., consider that Arizona will be the third state, after Alaska and Vermont, to allow people to carry concealed guns without permits. So such fear mongering is likely to be swiftly struck down after a casual glance at the facts.

CR

[Subotan]

Because permits were the bane of the ordinary citizen, forcing the average gun owner to fill in *shock* forms, tick *gasp* boxes, and (I advise those with weak constitutions and the fairer sex to stop reading now) wait a few days!

[Beskar]

Because permits were the bane of the ordinary citizen, forcing the average gun owner to fill in *shock* forms, tick *gasp* boxes, and (I advise those with weak constitutions and the fairer sex to stop reading now) wait a few days!

Instead of law-biding citizens able to get guns, anyone from the street can and walk into the school next door.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I find it interesting that when America has no more wilderness, and is governed by the rule of Law that Americans now feel the need to carry guns. It was American legislatures, from a time when people understood weaponry, that passed the restrictions to begin with.

[Beskar]

I find it interesting that when America has no more wilderness, and is governed by the rule of Law that Americans now feel the need to carry guns. It was American legislatures, from a time when people understood weaponry, that passed the restrictions to begin with.

Guns were the originally to be used against the state to prevent exploitation from king, rogue outlaws and the rich. Now since the states has F15's, Nuclear weapons and a functional justice system...

[Strike For The South]

I find it interesting that when America has no more wilderness, and is governed by the rule of Law that Americans now feel the need to carry guns. It was American legislatures, from a time when people understood weaponry, that passed the restrictions to begin with.

pray tell these restrictions

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

pray tell these restrictions

How about the fact that 20 years ago most states didn't allow concealed carry?

That's the sign of a civilised, developed and functional State. Carrying a firearm to prevent robbery is a sign of lawlessness.

[Lemur]

But ... but Evil Obama is gonna take our guns away ... any minute now ...

[Tellos Athenaios]

Exactly. Why on earth would you celebrate that the USA has devolved so far towards Somali that it is a *good* thing to carry *concealed* guns? Because that is what you advertise with “Yay! You can carry weapons, and you can do so inconspicuously”.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

How has the US devolved towards Somalia?

Crime has been dropping since 1993 according to wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

[Crazed Rabbit]

I grow sick of the insistence that civilized states ban guns.

Do explain this, instead of simply saying banning weapons is civilized. Tell me how taking freedoms and preventing people from effectively defending themselves is 'civilized'.

And give me an example of such a civilized place; for clearly Britain, with chavs and hooligans and stabbings and shootings despite all its laws, is not. Indeed, America, aside from gang and drug related murders, has less violence than Britain.

And the legislatures passing laws against guns were passing laws against minorities, immigrants and homosexuals at the same time. Gun control in America started to prevent Black people from owning guns.


Because permits were the bane of the ordinary citizen, forcing the average gun owner to fill in *shock* forms, tick *gasp* boxes, and (I advise those with weak constitutions and the fairer sex to stop reading now) wait a few days!

How's the ban on photographing police in Britain working out for you? Speaking of which, surely you wouldn't mind filling out such a form before you spoke in public? You know, just outlining when and what you would be talking about, so the police could prevent hate speech. If you aren't a criminal you should agree.

Was the permit onerous? Not really. But I will still celebrate greater freedom.

CR

[Tellos Athenaios]

Here's my reasoning which may be why you and I disagree on the guns.

(1) In a decently run state there is no need for a private individual without license to carry guns (or any type of arms for that matter) in public space. After all, it is the duty of the state to provide the security for its citizens through the Rule of Law, no?
(2) The only purpose for a concealed gun is to pretend you do not have one; when in public. There is no point in pretense on your own private property, after all.
(3) The only purposes for guns in public in a decently run state is, as per (1), to enable law enforcement officers and similar agents to provide the security to the citizens.
(4) There is absolutely no point for law enforcement or similar agents to pretend that they do not carry weapons when in fact they do.
(5) Continuing with (3) it follows that their job is substantially easier if private citizens do not have unrestricted access to guns; and in particular that if they had, these guns should not be concealed.

Therefore (6) A celebration of the right to carry concealed guns is a sign of a state devolving so far that it is apparently unable to meet its security obligation towards it citizen; moreover it is a sign that society recognizes a need for private individuals to carry guns in order to provide for this security themselves. The latter part in particular would imply that citizens run a high risk of violent assault, to the point that concealment of your gun becomes a useful element of surprise in day to day business.

Now that scenario strikes me as the kind of country one would find in a certain location in the Horn of Africa.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

...except...violent crime rates have been decreasing since 1993

https://i39.tinypic.com/31361sh.gif


****

Basically, the gun laws aren't a sign that the USA is devolving into a criminal haven.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I know. So why this celebration? Perhaps you could please look a bit closer at PVC's post to see where I am coming from (with due hyperbole, otherwise it just looks utterly morose from this side of the Atlantic).

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I know. So why this celebration? Perhaps you could please look a bit closer at PVC's post to see where I am coming from (with due hyperbole, otherwise it just looks utterly morose from this side of the Atlantic).

One can celebrate a welfare bill being passed despite the fact that it means there are still poor people.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Er, yes. Not to put too fine a point on it but basically: apples and oranges. A welfare bill intends to aid poor people becoming less poor, generally speaking; it tends to aid a society in solving the problem of poverty. A concealed-guns-bill does not aid anyone who didn't have a gun in the first place (got to have gun before you can conceal the fact that you do). And it doesn't aid the Rule of Law at all.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Er, yes. Not to put too fine a point on it but basically: apples and oranges. A welfare bill intends to aid poor people becoming less poor, generally speaking; it tends to aid a society in solving the problem of poverty. Concealed-guns does not aid anyone who didn't have a gun in the first place (got to have gun before you can conceal the fact that you do). And it doesn't aid the Rule of Law at all.

Ok, but you just answered your own question then. If you believe that more people carrying concealed guns decreases the crime rate, then what you and PVC said is the equivalent of CR saying "Why are you guys celebrating your universal health care, it's just a sign that the UK is devolving towards [some country where people are sick all the time]".

[Crazed Rabbit]

Here's my reasoning which may be why you and I disagree on the guns.

(1) In a decently run state there is no need for a private individual without license to carry guns (or any type of arms for that matter) in public space. After all, it is the duty of the state to provide the security for its citizens through the Rule of Law, no?

No decently run state can eliminate crime. Therefore, and in absence of arguments against government tyranny, etc., there remains a reason to arm yourself.

Further, the actions of individuals in a free society should never, ever, be based on need. Free people should have to prove a 'need' to do something.


And it doesn't aid the Rule of Law at all.

According to the police, it does. Please see the bolded section in the OP;


However, the measure was supported by police unions representing rank-and-file officers, who said their best friend on the streets is a law-abiding citizen equipped to protect themselves or others.

Police support it because it aids the rule of law, by giving law abiding citizens the power to resist criminals who would break the rule of law.

CR

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And give me an example of such a civilized place; for clearly Britain, with chavs and hooligans and stabbings and shootings despite all its laws, is not. Indeed, America, aside from gang and drug related murders, has less violence than Britain.

This is false, we have less than 1/3 the shootings per capita in London than in New York, and an even lower number per capita nationally. Britian is a much safer place than America.

The capital saw 117 murders in the 12 months up to March: http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/New York saw 471 murders in 2009, according to the NYPD: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_statistics/cscity.pdf

These are official law-enforcement stats, CR.

[tibilicus]

So basically a celebration that the American gun lovers can carry on carrying around hand guns for no particular reason?

It's been asked but really, what do you need a gun for, especially in public? Attack from a wild mountain lion? Perhaps the British might return and the sudden need to form a local militia will arise? Or maybe you might need one to wave at the meter maid to avoid paying your parking fine?

It really is fascinating to see the right-wing of America celebrate in the past time of having rights for the sake of rights, no matter have negatively they affect crime levels. Oh and no permits, great idea. It's not like we need to make sure which type of people are buying weapons.

Edit:




Police support it because it aids the rule of law, by giving law abiding citizens the power to resist criminals who would break the rule of law.
CR

I'm sorry, what?! This isn't some western film where the bad guys walk into a saloon and ruffle up the locals only to be thwarted by John Wayne waiting in the corner with his revolver. Here in the UK not even the police carry guns and I'm pretty certain our crime level is bellow yours. Care to explain why that is? You know that shooting someone isn't the only way to uphold the law. Most of the NRA membership doesn't believe in gun ownership to uphold the law, they just like the way firing a gun down at the shooting range messages their alpha male egos.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Ok, but you just answered your own question then. If you believe that more people carrying concealed guns decreases the crime rate, then what you and PVC said is the equivalent of CR saying "Why are you guys celebrating your universal health care, it's just a sign that the UK is devolving towards [some country where people are sick all the time]".

@Sasaki If you believe that. Funnily enough there is a marked statistical correspondence between the non-law-abiding citizen and the gun-carrying-citizen. Many militia among gang members then?
And outside of the US, say in Mexico, I doubt that what the police is really waiting for would be a more permissive gun law in Mexico so it can get some militia to police the streets for them ...

So yes, @CR, the law-abiding-citizen militia may be the police's best friend in the USA (they definitely aren't over here, where police prefers you leave matters of law enforcement to trained professionals especially in violent situations); but that does not support the claim that concealed guns or even vanilla-guns aid the Rule of Law. It would call into question whether or not the Rule of Law was actually firmly established, though. And then we're back at PVC's post.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

@Sasaki If you believe that. Funnily enough there is a marked statistical correspondence between the non-law-abiding citizen and the gun-carrying-citizen. Many militia among gang members then?
And outside of the US, say in Mexico, I doubt that what the police is really waiting for would be a more permissive gun law in Mexico so it can get some militia to police the streets for them ...


Yes, if you believe that. I would think the thread would start with a discussion of whether that belief had merit, and not Somalian hyperbole :dizzy2:

[jabarto]

You know something is messed up if Crazed Rabbit and I both agree on something. :beam:

While I don't see the need for doing away with licenses, I do share CR's weariness with gun opposers. Because again, I think guns should be pretty heavily regulated, but I haven't seen a coherent arugment from the gun opposition crowd that doesn't essentially amount to "b-b-b-but guns are SCARY!".

But of course none of this matters, because when faced with the choice of cracking down on the actual causes of crime or banning something symbolic and claiming victory when nothing meaningful has actually happened, Americans will do the latter every single time.

[Tellos Athenaios]

But it did do so before Somali entered? PVC has been there before with the succinct post:


I find it interesting that when America has no more wilderness, and is governed by the rule of Law that Americans now feel the need to carry guns. It was American legislatures, from a time when people understood weaponry, that passed the restrictions to begin with.


At the risk of misinterpretation; allow me to phrase an hyperbolic question based on that post: "What is the use of lifting restrictions on guns for Americans, when they have no more wilderness and established the rule of Law in America?"

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

While I don't see the need for doing away with licenses, I do share CR's weariness with gun opposers. Because again, I think guns should be pretty heavily regulated, but I haven't seen a coherent arugment from the gun opposition crowd that doesn't essentially amount to "b-b-b-but guns are SCARY!".

I can strip and assemble an SA80 in about 1:30, and I haven't touched one in over 4 years, I still remember exactly where safety catch, change lever, dust cover, and TMH pins are. I can probably do it blindfolded, even. I can also use that rifle to bring you down at 100 yards stand, 50 yards running along my line of fire. That's not an "I can do that, on a good day" that's an, "I will hit you, you will suffer massive internal bleeding, maybe die".

With the scope I can hit you out to 400, which is getting towards the upper range of the standard weapon.

At the age of 23 years I really wish I didn't have these skills, and I am perenially terrified of the weapons I am proficient with.

This is not because "guns are scary" it is because they are absolutely useless for anything but killing. If two people pull guns it's an even bet someone will get shot, it might not be one of them. Put simply, "hand guns are made for killin', they ain't good for nothing else".

In Britain the Police do not carry guns, and until realatively recently they carried only a wooden truncheon. When the nightstick was introduced Police brutality more than doubled, and this resulted in the introduction of the Asp, and special training to disable by striking the joints. The reason Police do not usually carry guns here is that they are unlikely to encounter them, when they do they call in properly trained firearms officers, or better yet the SAS.

Clealry, not having guns works for us, because we have far fewer shootings.

However, I do not support the outright ban because I believe it glamorises these most uncivilised of weapons, and it is unnecessarily excessive.

[jabarto]

I can strip and assemble an SA80 in about 1:30, and I haven't touched one in over 4 years, I still remember exactly where safety catch, change lever, dust cover, and TMH pins are. I can probably do it blindfolded, even. I can also use that rifle to bring you down at 100 yards stand, 50 yards running along my line of fire. That's not an "I can do that, on a good day" that's an, "I will hit you, you will suffer massive internal bleeding, maybe die".

With the scope I can hit you out to 400, which is getting towards the upper range of the standard weapon.

At the age of 23 years I really wish I didn't have these skills, and I am perenially terrified of the weapons I am proficient with.

This is not because "guns are scary" it is because they are absolutely useless for anything but killing. If two people pull guns it's an even bet someone will get shot, it might not be one of them. Put simply, "hand guns are made for killin', they ain't good for nothing else".

In Britain the Police do not carry guns, and until realatively recently they carried only a wooden truncheon. When the nightstick was introduced Police brutality more than doubled, and this resulted in the introduction of the Asp, and special training to disable by striking the joints. The reason Police do not usually carry guns here is that they are unlikely to encounter them, when they do they call in properly trained firearms officers, or better yet the SAS.

Clealry, not having guns works for us, because we have far fewer shootings.

However, I do not support the outright ban because I believe it glamorises these most uncivilised of weapons, and it is unnecessarily excessive.

Well I must confess that I was in a bad mood and my comment might have been a little too acerbic, so I apologize if you found my attitude demeaning.

I would take issue with your assertion that it's the guns or lack thereof that are the problem. I would pose that the relative lack of crime has more to do with the "social safety nets" that are commonplace in Europe but gutted or absent over here. ANd as I said, America has a tendency to simply ban someting symptomatic of a larger problem and call it good. That's more what I have a problem with, not your individual stance or anyone elses.

Also I should probably point out that I don't like guns on a personal level, and would agree with you that they are uncivilized. I'm not a combative person on any level, but I'd much rather carry a hammer or something similar than a gun.

[PanzerJaeger]

But ... but Evil Obama is gonna take our guns away ... any minute now ...

This wouldn't be one of those "high class trolls" (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?127615-The-Nuclear-Summit&p=2470184&viewfull=1#post2470184) you've been accusing others of making, would it?


Most of the NRA membership doesn't believe in gun ownership to uphold the law, they just like the way firing a gun down at the shooting range messages their alpha male egos.

Do indulge my inquisitive nature by revealing your obviously deep sources within the NRA. Where did you come up with that information?

And, ignoring the pseudo intellectual dig about alpha male egos, what is wrong with enjoying sport shooting?




However, the measure was supported by police unions representing rank-and-file officers, who said their best friend on the streets is a law-abiding citizen equipped to protect themselves or others.

Yes. Everyone, including the police, understands that when law abiding citizens are allowed to carry, the community benefits. Everyone, except for Leftists who don't trust ordinary citizens with such rights. These carry laws have been around for a while now, and - shock - there aren't gunfights in the streets! The Wild West hasn't returned! Crime has gone down, and communities are safer. Smart police forces have even begun to work with citizens to sponsor safety courses and gun familiarization, forging better relationships with the people they protect. Win-win.

[Ironside]

Yes. Everyone, including the police, understands that when law abiding citizens are allowed to carry, the community benefits. Everyone, except for Leftists who don't trust ordinary citizens with such rights. These carry laws have been around for a while now, and - shock - there aren't gunfights in the streets! The Wild West hasn't returned! Crime has gone down, and communities are safer. Smart police forces have even begun to work with citizens to sponsor safety courses and gun familiarization, forging better relationships with the people they protect. Win-win.

Because Vermont, Alaska and Arizona are regions known for its organised crime and ghetto regions correct? :juggle2:

Anyway the main issue has more to do with perception than anything else. To carry a concealed handgun is to be prepared to use it. And to need a gun for self defense can hardly be a sign of the pinnacle of civilization, but more consitant with a distrust between the police and the rest of the population, combined with paranoia or real worry/fear for violent crimes.

To put it different, if the only ones feeling a need to carry a gun are ciminals, what exactly would be beficial with not outlawing it?

[Subotan]

How has the US devolved towards Somalia?

Crime has been dropping since 1993 according to wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
In every year since the Mid-Nineties, Crime has dropped in every Western Country (Except Belgium, lol Andres).

I grow sick of the insistence that civilized states ban guns.

Do explain this, instead of simply saying banning weapons is civilized. Tell me how taking freedoms and preventing people from effectively defending themselves is 'civilized'.

And give me an example of such a civilized place; for clearly Britain, with chavs and hooligans and stabbings and shootings despite all its laws, is not. Indeed, America, aside from gang and drug related murders, has less violence than Britain.
Violent crime has decreased massively under the Labour government, despite what the Daily Fail would rather us all panic think about.

I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea that Americans should own guns. I think it's daft, but it's in your constitution, so by all means, go nuts. Any attempt to decrease gun ownership is probably near-impossible, as there are so many of the damn things, as opposed to the UK where the strict gun laws are easy to enforce.

[Husar]

I think it's about time, I hear when you don't conceal your guns, Apache crews might obliterate you from afar... :rolleyes:

I mean yippeeyeay or so, I'm really happy that you people can carry guns in your boxers now...

I don't want to ruin your party like all the british folks, I also saw a police van at work today and they had a skull on black background in it, I wonder what that was for, maybe I should fear our pirate-police? (The women were hot though! just saying... :laugh4: )

[Rhyfelwyr]

What's with the Somalia rhetoric? It doesn't matter what civilised society you live in, the police are never there 24/7 to protect you. If some psycho jumped out of nowhere and tried to slash me, I know I would rather have a gun to deal with him than stand there defenceless because I didn't want to offend the ideals of a 'civilised' society.

[Ronin]

and what about having to face walking down the street knowing everyone you walk across might have a concealed firearm?

is it possible to have a simple disagreement with anyone? at a store, while driving your car? without having to worry about some guy that is having a worse day than usual going all "suburban rambo" on you?

what is the point of not having to fear being jumped by some "knife wielding psycho" anymore if you now have to worry about everyone around you?

I´d say that if citizens really feel the need for this then something is seriously screwed up in that society....even if crime numbers are going down the public sense of crime is certainly warped....but hey...not my neighborhood, not my problem.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You will get psychos anywhere. Either just the psychos can be armed, or everyone can be.

I know they do more damage with guns, but then it's not like if you ban them they won't be able to get them anymore. Gunchester aka Manchester is proof enough of that.

[Beskar]

You will get psychos anywhere. Either just the psychos can be armed, or everyone can be.

I know they do more damage with guns, but then it's not like if you ban them they won't be able to get them anymore. Gunchester aka Manchester is proof enough of that.

I haven't seen any guns in the City Centre.

[Crazed Rabbit]

This is false, we have less than 1/3 the shootings per capita in London than in New York, and an even lower number per capita nationally. Britian is a much safer place than America.

The capital saw 117 murders in the 12 months up to March: http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/New York saw 471 murders in 2009, according to the NYPD: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_statistics/cscity.pdf

These are official law-enforcement stats, CR.

I'm guessing you did not notice the part where I excluded gang and drug related murders.


It's been asked but really, what do you need a gun for, especially in public? Attack from a wild mountain lion? Perhaps the British might return and the sudden need to form a local militia will arise? Or maybe you might need one to wave at the meter maid to avoid paying your parking fine?

What silliness. Have you never heard of criminals? You know, people who attack you or try to rob you?


It really is fascinating to see the right-wing of America celebrate in the past time of having rights for the sake of rights, no matter have negatively they affect crime levels.

They don't negatively affect crime levels.


I'm sorry, what?! This isn't some western film where the bad guys walk into a saloon and ruffle up the locals only to be thwarted by John Wayne waiting in the corner with his revolver.

No, this is America, where a person who's carrying a gun can defend themselves. I'm just repeating what the police unions said. So don't bring out pathetic movie comparisons.


Most of the NRA membership doesn't believe in gun ownership to uphold the law, they just like the way firing a gun down at the shooting range messages their alpha male egos.

Bah! Pathetic ignorance.


So yes, @CR, the law-abiding-citizen militia may be the police's best friend in the USA (they definitely aren't over here, where police prefers you leave matters of law enforcement to trained professionals especially in violent situations); but that does not support the claim that concealed guns or even vanilla-guns aid the Rule of Law. It would call into question whether or not the Rule of Law was actually firmly established, though.

Given that police generally carry out the rule of law, I'd expect them to know what aids it. So I dare say it does support my claim.


Anyway the main issue has more to do with perception than anything else. To carry a concealed handgun is to be prepared to use it. And to need a gun for self defense can hardly be a sign of the pinnacle of civilization, but more consitant with a distrust between the police and the rest of the population, combined with paranoia or real worry/fear for violent crimes.

Carrying a gun and being prepared to use it is different from needing it. And distrust between police and citizens?

Good grief man, did you not see the part in the article showing that the police supported this bill? It's like most of the arguments against this don't even bother looking at even the OP quote. Instead you just bring up the same assumptions, made without evidence or knowledge, about guns.

I've yet to see one substantive argument in this thread; something that doesn't really on smugly asserting we aren't civilized for empowering citizens, or simply insult gun owners, or some other argument based on assumptions and totally ignoring the facts.

CR


This wouldn't be one of those "high class trolls" you've been accusing others of making, would it?

:laugh4:

[Beskar]

Crazed Rabbit might be onto something here. We should also change policies and allow countries to empower themselves with nuclear weapons. Nothing in the statistics suggest this wrong at all.

[Subotan]

You will get psychos anywhere. Either just the psychos can be armed, or everyone can be.

I know they do more damage with guns, but then it's not like if you ban them they won't be able to get them anymore. Gunchester aka Manchester is proof enough of that.
And Glasgow is a law-abiding citizen's paradise hmm?

[Lemur]

This wouldn't be one of those "high class trolls" you've been accusing others of making, would it?
Why would you say "others" when you're clearly referring to yourself? Odd.

Sure, you can take my joke as a troll if you like, or you could choose to see it for what it is: A comment on the fact that gun rights are doing fantastic in the U.S.A., that the current administration appears to harbor no intention of limiting gun rights, and yet there's a long-term (and unsustainable) run on AR-15s (http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=344520) and a bunch of ill-informed idiots (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/18/AR2010041802391.html) screaming about how the Obamanation is going to take the guns away.


Those coming to the "Restore the Constitution" rally give Obama no quarter for signing the law that permits them to bring their guns to Fort Hunt and Gravelly Point on the banks of the Potomac. Nor are they comforted by a broad expansion of gun rights in several states since his election.

So in other words, gun rights are alive and stronger than ever and being expanded by the current administration and many states ... so let's get angry! Grrrr!

[seireikhaan]

Ok, two things. First of all, cut it out with the Somalia references. Especially when you're not American. Its a bit insulting, to be honest.

Second of all, I don't quite comprehend why its so burdensome of the gov't to require people to have a permit to carry concealed weapons. I see no reason why not to at least require some basic background checks for people to carry a concealed handgun. I'm all for the right to defend one's self, but it seems illogical to not require a permit for people to hide lethal devices on themselves.

[Crazed Rabbit]

People already have to get background checks to buy guns.


a bunch of ill-informed idiots screaming about how the Obamanation is going to take the guns away.

:rolleyes:

Such miss-aimed insults don't help political discourse. And even in that biased article there was nothing resembling your characterization.

I don't think Obama's going to make a big anti-gun push. But that's because he's already doing a lot and there's staunch resistance to anti-gun laws. Nor do I give him much gun rights credit for signing a 'must pass' bill that contained an unrelated provision allowing guns in national parks according to state law. And such rallies that you spit upon are what symbolize the gun rights attitude of America, and hence part of the reason why Obama doesn't push for anti rights laws.


Crazed Rabbit might be onto something here. We should also change policies and allow countries to empower themselves with nuclear weapons. Nothing in the statistics suggest this wrong at all.

My complete lack of being impressed by the anti-gun arguments continues. Perhaps you could try coming back with something relevant? So few arguments address the issue directly. Instead we see this sort of indirect attack, skirting the issue but attempting to tarnish it by linking it with something the writer insists applies and is bad.

CR

[seireikhaan]

People already have to get background checks to buy guns.
Right, could you enlighten me what exactly acquiring a permit requires? I mean that genuinely.

[Lemur]

And such rallies that you spit upon are what symbolize the gun rights attitude of America, and hence part of the reason why Obama doesn't push for anti rights laws.
I would hope that gun rights are "symbolized" by something healthier than an armed demonstration against the Federal Government on the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing).

I'm pro-gun-rights, as are a lot of people who don't buy into the rightwing fringe.

[Beskar]

My complete lack of being impressed by the anti-gun arguments continues. Perhaps you could try coming back with something relevant? So few arguments address the issue directly. Instead we see this sort of indirect attack, skirting the issue but attempting to tarnish it by linking it with something the writer insists applies and is bad.

CR

But it is the same argument isn't it?

By empowering citizens to have guns, this will protect them from crime and the statistics will show that the neighbourhood becomes a safer place as no one will commit to a crime as they will be shot.
By empowering countries to have nuclear weapons, this will protect them from war and the statistics will show that the world becomes a safer place as no one will commit to a war as they will be nuked.

Let's look at the against argument.

By introducing disarmanment, the neighbourhood becomes safer as there won't be the weapons to use in the first place, so there is no fear of being shot.
By introducing disarmanment, the world becomes safer as there won't be the weapons to use in the first place, so there is no fear of being nuked.

Interesting. Where does this fail?

Weapons in the wrong hands causes the horrors in the first place. By allowing everyone to have these weapons, the chances that they go into the wrong hands are significantly multiplied.


For example, in Britain, we don't have any school shootings. In America, these seem to happen on a regular occurance. Kid gets victimised and bullied, this kid goes to school fully loaded and lets loose. In America, they only have to go to their local shop to pack heat, or just take it from the mantlepiece. In Britain, it is basically impossible to have access to any weapons unless you are a member of the KBG, CIA, or a global drug cartel. While these people might still have access to these weapons, the vast majority (over 98%) which could easily be committing the crime in the first place don't happen at all as they don't have access to these weapons.

Now apply this to countries. We have enforcement and regulation in place. Now, if we will give everyone the right to have nuclear weapons, if they go into the wrong hands, millions could die in a heartbeat. Sure, Russia and China have nuclear weapons already, so enforcement wasn't 100%, but do you want to give them to every tinpot dictator who wants to give the world a message?

[Pannonian]

@Sasaki If you believe that. Funnily enough there is a marked statistical correspondence between the non-law-abiding citizen and the gun-carrying-citizen. Many militia among gang members then?
And outside of the US, say in Mexico, I doubt that what the police is really waiting for would be a more permissive gun law in Mexico so it can get some militia to police the streets for them ...


America is something of an exception. In just about every other state there is a correlation between decreasing centralised authority (and hence decreased ability to provide security) and increasing localised armouries, probably because of the cost. The US has almost a religious belief in localised arms, and the prosperity to pay for that without being forced to by a threshold of decreasing security. But if it works for them, who are we outsiders to complain?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Right, could you enlighten me what exactly acquiring a permit requires? I mean that genuinely.

It depends on the state. In Washington, it just takes going to the Sherriff and getting fingerprinted, and then they do a background check and if you're not a criminal you get the permit in the mail. Other states, like Arizona previously, required gun safety classes.


I would hope that gun rights are "symbolized" by something healthier than an armed demonstration against the Federal Government on the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing.

How convenient of you to cherry pick that bit of information and ignore that it is also the date of the first battle in 1775 that began the revolutionary war. And what's so bad about 'armed demonstrations' - how does legally carrying a gun along with your sign make a protest 'unhealthy'?


Interesting. Where does this fail?

The criminals and despotic regimes will simply make more weapons (gee, like North Korea did and Iran is doing now) or they won't get rid of them in the first place. Your argument relies on criminals following the law when there is no incentive to do so, as though words on paper will change the physical properties of the universe and prevent them from arming themselves.


In America, these seem to happen on a regular occurance.

It doesn't. Nor can kids simply buy guns. Also, it was not guns but farm supplies that led to the dealiest attack on an American school.


Now apply this to countries. We have enforcement and regulation in place. Now, if we will give everyone the right to have nuclear weapons, if they go into the wrong hands, millions could die in a heartbeat. Sure, Russia and China have nuclear weapons already, so enforcement wasn't 100%, but do you want to give them to every tinpot dictator who wants to give the world a message?

All your 'enforcement and regulation' proved completely useless against North Korea, just as gun bans are useless in preventing criminals from getting guns. Heck, it seems even punk kids in England can get their hands on guns. It's not a matter of wanting to 'give' criminals guns. Allowing law abiding citizens does not 'give' criminals guns. It's a matter of recognizing that bans are useless if someone really wants what is banned.

CR

[ajaxfetish]

and what about having to face walking down the street knowing everyone you walk across might have a concealed firearm?
What about it?


I´d say that if citizens really feel the need for this then something is seriously screwed up in that society....even if crime numbers are going down the public sense of crime is certainly warped....but hey...not my neighborhood, not my problem.
I don't feel the need to carry a concealed weapon. I feel perfectly safe on the streets here. Does that mean I shouldn't have the right to? If no, why not?

Ajax

[pevergreen]

Does that mean I shouldn't have the right to? If no, why not?

Ok, so if you feel safe, why do you need to carry a gun. If your constitution says you can, I'm all for it, but having been raised in a city and state where its quite hard to get a gun. Reading CR's post on how to, makes it sound a bit harder than I've been told it is. ie open up a bank account, get a gun etc.

AFAIK gun crime is pretty darn low here in QLD, Australia. All I've seen of a gun is it sitting in the police officer's belt.

To get a gun here, I would have to do this:

Step 1 - Ensure you are eligible to apply
* Be a permanent resident of Queensland (proof will be required on application. Refer to Form 1 – Application for a Licence for further information)
* Be a fit and proper person
A person wanting to hold a Weapons Act licence or any existing licence holder must demonstrate that they are “fit and proper” to hold a licence.

Generally a person is not ”fit and proper” if, in Queensland or elsewhere:

* the person has been convicted of or discharged from custody on sentence, within 5 years immediately before the day the person applies for the issue or renewal of the licence, an offence relating or involving the following:

i) the misuse of drugs;
ii) the use or threatened use of violence;
iii) the use, carriage, discharge or possession of a weapon;

or:

* a domestic violence order, other than a temporary order has been made against the person within 5 years immediately before the day the person applies for the issue or renewal of the licence.

However, in determining a person’s “fit and proper” status for the issue, renewal, suspension or revocation of a licence an Authorised Officer must also consider:

i) the mental and physical fitness of the person; and

ii) whether a domestic violence order has been made against the person; and

iii) whether the person has stated anything false or misleading on or in connection with an application or renewal of application; and

iv) whether there is any criminal intelligence or other information to which the authorised officer has access; and

v) the public interest.
* A person is ineligible to hold a Weapons Act Licence if, within the past five years from the day before lodging their application, they have been convicted of offences including misuse of drugs, or weapons, and the use or threatened use of violence.
* A person is ineligible to hold a Weapons Act Licence if they are or have been the subject of a domestic violence protection order in the past five years from lodgement of application.
* Have a genuine reason for a licence
* Have access to secure storage
Step 2 - Select an appropriate licence & genuine reason http://www.police.qld.gov.au/programs/weaponsLicensing/obtain/typesOfLicences.htm

Step 3 - Obtain a Form 1 ‘Application for licence’

Step 4 - Obtain a Form 30 ‘Proof of Identity’ and attach two current passport sized photographs of yourself

Step 5 - Obtain a Form 1 Annexure for the type of licence & genuine reason you require

Step 6 - Complete an approved safety course

Step 7 - Complete the Form 1, Form 30 and Annexure ensuring all necessary and required supporting documentation is included

Step 8 - Lodge the application at your local police station and pay the prescribed fees

http://www.police.qld.gov.au/programs/weaponsLicensing/obtain/

Not easy to legally obtain and own a working gun in the city. Even the RSL clubs are having their guns checked out and made sure they meet regulations. http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/war-on-publicly-displayed-weapons/story-e6freon6-1225849263075

If you feel safe, why do you need to carry a concealed weapon? Couldnt that incite fear in others?

[ajaxfetish]

Ok, so if you feel safe, why do you need to carry a gun.
. . .
If you feel safe, why do you need to carry a concealed weapon? Couldnt that incite fear in others?
Um . . . I don't. I thought that was my point. I don't really like guns, personally. I haven't yet owned one, and I don't have any plans to, though I imagine future circumstances might change that. But whether or not I *need* to, I have the right to, and I need to hear some compelling arguments (something beyond assuring me that I'm afraid of the streets or that I don't need one so why should I be allowed to have one) for why that right should be taken away. As to inciting fear, someone could be carrying a concealed weapon illegally regardless of the law. I'm not about to start feeling afraid of everyone I meet, and I don't have time for someone else who does. Do you have an argument based on more than opinion that concealed carry laws make people more afraid than they are in their absence?

And of course there's the general pro-gun argument that making carrying weapons legal means a greater percentage of the people carrying weapons will have a respect for the law (since that'd be 0% if it's illegal).

Ajax

[Centurion1]

and Arizona are regions known for its organised crime and ghetto regions correct?

yeah well its right on the border so alot of ranchers get some drug runs every couple of nights.

getting rid of guns doesnt get rid of crime.

Examples-
My little auntie is chicago was walking home in the evening to there old house in the southside, lived there for 50 years. She gets mugged at knifepoint.

My grandma in san diego recently was attempted mugged walking home in hillcrest (LOL if you know about san diego, yes she lives there and yes she is heterosexual) and she got mugged by a lad with a bat. now she was shocked and she snapped NO and walked away and the guy left her alone but what if he hadn't......

now i have guns (for hunting) no pistols because pistols are for killing humans and nothing else but while i dont really care for concealed weapons i do not think that restricting guns gets rid of crime or even the ability of criminals to obtain weapons, not like they usually get them legally anyway.

[ajaxfetish]

now i have guns (for hunting) no pistols because pistols are for killing humans and nothing else
According to my acquaintances in the South, pistols are essential for hog hunting.

Ajax

[Seamus Fermanagh]

People who carry firearms prefer concealed carry in order not to gweeb out those around them -- as can happen whenever someone sees a non-police individual toting a gun along in plain sight (which is, by the way, completely legal here in the Old Dominion). Lots of people are scared of guns and react negatively to those carrying them openly.

Carrying a gun for personal defense is, however, a logical choice for many. Police efforts and the Rule of Law, though powerful on a macro level, are largely reactive in character. Absent a firearm, any number of individuals are incapable of effective personal defense against a physically powerful thug. The police are statistically unlikely to be able to prevent the crime, and however effective they are at removing the criminal from society and preventing a repeat occurrence, that doesn't alter the damage done to the first victim. The only police methodology known to prevent crime -- armed (though often not with firearms) police walking a beat and rousting anybody who doesn't "fit" the area properly -- is rife with the potential for corruption and racism of all sorts.

Would violence be less without guns? Would it make it easier for police to squelch crime (after the fact at least)? Yes. Violence and accidental violence is easier and deadlier with firearms than without and the number of people killed accidentally in a drive-by knife throwing or crossbow attack is small indeed. Here in the USA, removing firearms would be exceedingly difficult as there are so many of so many kinds and we have such a large nation. Moreover, there are quite a few folks who would fight such a confiscation. Were all of them somehow removed, there would be fewer killings, fewer lethal accidents, and quite possibly somewhat less robbery and the like.

The price of that is the consignment of all rights and liberties to the authorities -- for Mao was not entirely incorrect when he asserted that power comes from the barrel of a gun. Where the authorities are the only armed element of a society, the government can, potentially, exert a crushing level of control on the people. Most rebellions fail, and numerous regimes have maintained their power despite manifestly NOT benefiting the majority of their people directly or indirectly by using an effective monopoly on force to maintain their power despite opposition.

The classic counter for this is that a "healthy and civilized culture" has no need of this barbaric guarantee of personal freedom because the Rule of Law binds the powers of government sufficiently to allow this level of trust to be extended to the government. In effect, because democratic representation enacts the government, the people are the government and require nothing to defend themselves from themselves. I am glad we live in a comparative golden age where this principle actually does hold true for many societies. The development of a culture that respects the Rule of Law is vital, and a vital balance component even in places like the USA that still maintain that old "firearms" backup plan. Without the Rule of Law, lots of firearms tends to create Somalias and not Costa Ricas. I am, however, enough of a student of history to prefer the "barbaric" back-up plan.

[Lemur]

What Seamus said. And bonus points for using both "gweeb" and "squelch" in the same post.

[PanzerJaeger]

So in other words, gun rights are alive and stronger than ever and being expanded by the current administration and many states ... so let's get angry! Grrrr!

So you decided to jump into a thread that had absolutely nothing to do with Obama, where no one expressed any "angry!" attitudes towards him, and simultaneously defend him against nonexistent attacks and mischaracterize and insult those people who are against his agenda? Your obsession with Obama and defending him against percieved enemies is starting to border on the clinical.

In any event, you may want to re-read the article you linked to that supposedly highlighted stupid people angry against Obama over gun rights. It actually says:


The Atlanta area real estate agent organized the rally because he is upset about health-care reform, climate control, bank bailouts, drug laws and what he sees as President Obama's insistence on and the Democratic Congress's capitulation to a "totalitarian socialism" that tramples individual rights.

Now, we can argue about the veracity of those claims, but none of them are particularly focused on gun rights. In fact, the reason given for bringing guns was:


The brandishing of weapons is "not just an impotent symbol" but "a reminder of who we are," said Almond. "The founders knew that it is the tendency of government to expand itself and embrace its own power, and they knew the citizenry had to be reminded of that."

Again, whether you agree with the guy or not is not the issue. The point is that you seem to be under a fundamental misunderstanding about the reason these people bring weapons to rallies. Its about their interpretation of Seamus' point about standing up to oppressive government, not gun rights.

This is in line with every media account I've read so far of the reasons people are opposed to Obama's agenda. Healthcare, excessive spending, government expansion, poor attention to job creation, and the bailouts are all common themes among people who aren't impressed with Obama, but gun rights don't ever seem to rank very highly... or at all. So, what exactly was the point of your post, other than to troll?

[Subotan]

Methinks the money spent on firearms and handguns in USA would be better spent on tackling poverty and other causes of crime.

[G. Septimus]

Grand Theft Auto V Will be harder, since everybody has a Gun....
Hooah

[Lemur]

This is in line with every media account I've read so far of the reasons people are opposed to Obama's agenda. Healthcare, excessive spending, government expansion, poor attention to job creation, and the bailouts are all common themes among people who aren't impressed with Obama, but gun rights don't ever seem to rank very highly... or at all.
Mm-hmm, I guess nobdy's freaked out about the Obamanation taking their guns away (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/us/24guns.html); that must be some fevered fantasy (http://www.gunbanobama.com/) on my part (http://www.nraila.org/obama/).

Now, if your overall point, which you are arguing with such passion, is "You are a troll," why not tell me at length in PM, and allow CR's thread to continue on its merry way? Your obsession with it is starting to border on the clinical.

Continuing such a discussion via PM would be a good idea. SF


“The watchword for gun owners is stay ready,” said Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Association. “We have had some successes, but we know that the first chance Obama gets, he will pounce on us.”

Pounce! Grrr!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm guessing you did not notice the part where I excluded gang and drug related murders.

You didn't, you referred to our "chavs and hooligans" aqnd then claimed Britain was less safe than America, when our largest city and Capital sees proportionally far fewer homcides. America has more murders, more poverty, more violence, more racism, a more brutal penal system; and more guns. The "right to bare arms" is the right to commit lethal violence; this is probably whe in most of Europe owenership of weaponry is regulated and considered a privilage.

The more I look at America compared to my country; the more I question whether America is as civilised as Britain, or whether it just isn't actually like other "Western" Countries.

I mean, you guys elect your law enforcement!

[Pannonian]

The more I look at America compared to my country; the more I question whether America is as civilised as Britain, or whether it just isn't actually like other "Western" Countries.

I mean, you guys elect your law enforcement!

Like I said, America is the exception in the history of civilisation. Most civilisations prefer to minimise spending on local security, spending it instead on infrastructure to promote wealthmaking. But America is prosperous enough to spend on that on top of everything else, whilst fetishising the primacy of the individual over the state.


The "right to bare arms"

The thread celebrates the right to hide arms actually.

[Ironside]

Carrying a gun and being prepared to use it is different from needing it. And distrust between police and citizens?

Good grief man, did you not see the part in the article showing that the police supported this bill? It's like most of the arguments against this don't even bother looking at even the OP quote. Instead you just bring up the same assumptions, made without evidence or knowledge, about guns.

CR

What long and old thread is you the main driving poster? Still on first page.

Both the cop abuse and the cops getting killed on duty is signs of either distrust between the police and citizens and/or simply aggrevated violence.

[Rhyfelwyr]

While I understand the Constitutional argument for possessing guns with the "right to bare arms", what about the bit where is says this is only as part of a well regulated militia?

[Lemur]

what about the bit where is says this is only as part of a well regulated militia?
I think that's generally agreed to be ambiguous, since the "well-regulated militia," as described in the founding document, does not exist anymore (in any form that would be recognizable to the framers, that is). You could sort of make an argument that the National Guard is the closest cognate, but that's iffy.

More importantly, the "well-regulated militia" is just a preamble to the unambiguous "shall not be infringed" part, with which there is no argument. Wide restriction of gun ownership would be exactly as difficult as restriction of free speech and assembly; you would need a Constitutional amendment.*

*Although that makes me wonder about those horrible free speech zones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone), and whether or not they're even slightly constitutional.

[Idaho]

I'm guessing you did not notice the part where I excluded gang and drug related murders.

If I exclude all the money that Rupert Murdoch makes from media related businesses, I am almost as rich as him.
And if I exclude the rain that falls in south west england during the months of Jan - Nov, we have as dry a climate as Libya.

It's all fine with me. You yanks go ahead and arm everyone you like. If you are happy with a collosal murder rate and a tragically high accidental firearms death rate, then good for you.

[drone]

You didn't, you referred to our "chavs and hooligans" aqnd then claimed Britain was less safe than America, when our largest city and Capital sees proportionally far fewer homcides. America has more murders, more poverty, more violence, more racism, a more brutal penal system; and more guns. The "right to bare arms" is the right to commit lethal violence; this is probably whe in most of Europe owenership of weaponry is regulated and considered a privilage.

Your original comparison (London v New York) actually hurts your argument. The State of New York has the most strict gun laws of any state in the country, while the City of New York has even more restrictions. NYC is essentially a no carry zone, if you can somehow manage to legally own a gun, it is essentially restricted to your residence. So you are comparing 2 cities with very strict gun laws.

While I support gun ownership, I'm a little disappointed in this decision. In Virginia, open carry is legal, concealed carry take a permit which requires (IIRC) a background check, fingerprinting, and firearms safety course (essentially a how-to for concealed carry). I imagine we will be seeing a rise in the number of Arizonaons with gunshot wounds to the feet and genitalia. The class ought to be mandatory. Although the blown-off reproductive organs will liven up the News of the Weird thread.

I know a few people with concealed carry permits. A common reason is the ability to drive with the firearm in the car without worrying about the weird restrictions that could get you into trouble. I don't believe I can technically carry a firearm and ammunition in my car (hatchback will fold-down rear seats) without breaking the law, since there is a compartmental restriction on the weapon and ammunition. Getting a CCP would eliminate my worries.

Even with open and concealed carry, there are some places you are not allowed to carry. Airports, schools, churches, courts, places that serve alcohol, and any private property where the owner doesn't want you armed.

[ajaxfetish]

reply #35

I'm guessing you did not notice the part where I excluded gang and drug related murders.

reply #57

You didn't,

reply #11

America, aside from gang and drug related murders, has less violence than Britain.

edit:
Just for the record, I've lived in the US since I was 4 (that's 23 years now). Two years of that were spent in the environs of Long Beach, California, and one year of that in the inner city. I've spent time in some of the less savory parts of Salt Lake City. I've lived for over a decade in a community full of ranchers, truckers, and cowboys, where the deer hunt was as popular as Christmas.

I've never been shot at
I've never seen anyone shot at
I've never heard a gun fired at a living thing

I often get the impression that some of our posters have a very skewed idea of the 'American Gun Culture.' It seems like if I'm not packing heat and shooting people all willy-nilly, I'm not a true American. I've fired black powder rifles, 22s, and shotguns (haven't ever fired a handgun), and personally, I don't much like guns. They're loud, heavy, and never seem to hit what I'm aiming at. But if we were banning things for me disliking them, SUVs and texting would both be higher on the list.

Ajax

[Vladimir]

While I understand the Constitutional argument for possessing guns with the "right to bare arms", what about the bit where is says this is only as part of a well regulated militia?

It doesn't "only" say that. Context is important. This was back in the day when most men had their own firearms. Militia's weren't funded like the National Guard is today (as Lemur references); therefore, in order to have a militia you needed people, with guns, to call up in an emergency. That's why they used that verbiage. It's also part of an argument used by the left to restrict or remove that freedom. They say that having a national guard satisfies the intent of the second amendment which means we don't need private firearm ownership. A counterargument deals with federalization of the National Guard.

[Strike For The South]

Handguns are extremley important for two things. Taking down large preadators and for taking down boars after the dogs bay them.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Handguns are extremley important for two things. Taking down large preadators and for taking down boars after the dogs bay them.

Hehehe, don't ferget them snakes and tin cans.

[Husar]

large preadators

Like elephants, sharks and dinosaurs?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

reply #35


reply #57


reply #11


edit:
Just for the record, I've lived in the US since I was 4 (that's 23 years now). Two years of that were spent in the environs of Long Beach, California, and one year of that in the inner city. I've spent time in some of the less savory parts of Salt Lake City. I've lived for over a decade in a community full of ranchers, truckers, and cowboys, where the deer hunt was as popular as Christmas.

I've never been shot at
I've never seen anyone shot at
I've never heard a gun fired at a living thing

I often get the impression that some of our posters have a very skewed idea of the 'American Gun Culture.' It seems like if I'm not packing heat and shooting people all willy-nilly, I'm not a true American. I've fired black powder rifles, 22s, and shotguns (haven't ever fired a handgun), and personally, I don't much like guns. They're loud, heavy, and never seem to hit what I'm aiming at. But if we were banning things for me disliking them, SUVs and texting would both be higher on the list.

Ajax

Ah, I see, thanky you Ajax. Clearly I suffer from eye-skip, I apolagise unreservedly to CR.

HOWEVER, the fact remains that Britian is still much safer, as most homicides in London are also "gang and drug related".

[Centurion1]

According to my acquaintances in the South, pistols are essential for hog hunting.

Ajax

a high caliber hunting pistol like a .44 should not even been called a handgun it isnt anything likewhat you consider a pistol. it has a freaking stand. ive gone for hog and yes you often use a high caliber pistol.

a .22 that some lady is carrying in her purse in Arizona isnt going to be used for if she decides to go for peccary.

[ajaxfetish]

a .22 that some lady is carrying in her purse in Arizona isnt going to be used for if she decides to go for peccary.
Though surely you must admit that that would be freaking awesome.

Ajax

[Major Robert Dump]

There is the world I wished I lived in.

And there is the world I live in.

That is why I carry a gun.

And why I don't bother hyberbolizing about how if my state were this or that I would not need a weapon. And this coming from a guy who was whot when he was unarmed (reminds me, I need to post that pic)

KTHNXBYE

[HoreTore]

There is the worldcountry I wished I lived in.

And there is the worldcountry I live in.

That is why I carry a gun.

And why I don't bother hyberbolizing about how if my state were this or that I would not need a weapon. And this coming from a guy who was whot when he was unarmed (reminds me, I need to post that pic)

KTHNXBYE

Fixed it for ya.

Also CR, stating that "without gang and drug-related crime, x has less crime than y" is just nonsense. Gang and drug-related crime makes up almost all crime in every country. That's what criminals these days do, they sell drugs and form gangs.

[Major Robert Dump]

Fair enough. I do plan on retiring in another country, and when I do, it will most certainly be somewhere with low violent crime and hawt asian women. Until then, I still live in the states, so me carry da gunz

[HoreTore]

Fair enough. I do plan on retiring in another country, and when I do, it will most certainly be somewhere with low violent crime and hawt asian women. Until then, I still live in the states, so me carry da gunz

Scrap Europe from your plans then, my retirement plan is to take a trip to the forest and kill myself. Better than going senile in Auschwitz a norwegian retirement home....

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Scrap Europe from your plans then, my retirement plan is to take a trip to the forest and kill myself. Better than going senile in Auschwitz a norwegian retirement home....

Actually, GOING senile once your there is probably a sound coping strategy.

[Lemur]

Based on the quotes (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/19/second.amendment.rally/index.html?hpt=Sbin) coming out of the armed demonstrations yesterday, it does seem that a measurable number of protesters are convinced that their gun rights are going to be taken away. What is the basis for this, especially as gun rights are so obviously surging rather than receding?


"I'm not real happy with the direction the government's going in right now, and I believe that our Second Amendment rights are in trouble, with the political atmosphere that's in Washington right now," said Alan Addington of North Carolina. [...]

The Oath Keepers call on members to disobey any orders, as they put it, "to disarm the American people" or "to force citizens into detention camps." It's a pledge Rhodes recites in an anti-Obama DVD called "Fall of the Republic." [...]

But Rhodes said his group is not anti-government and not anti-Obama. So, who's talking about taking guns away?

"So, we have to wait until someone talks about it before we can say we won't do it?" he said.

[drone]

The people who think Obama is going to take away teh gunz obviously have very short memories. Gun rights are one of the main reasons the GOP was able to take back Congress in 1994. It hit at working class sportmen/hunters, and split up a solid Democrat demographic in the Midwest. If the Dems want to pass more gun control on the national level, they would be committing political suicide.

Being the paranoid cynic I am, I would say the whole "Obama's gonna take your guns" campaign is being secretly pushed by the firearms manufacturers. They are making a killing (pun intended) right now.

[Vladimir]

Based on the quotes (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/19/second.amendment.rally/index.html?hpt=Sbin) coming out of the armed demonstrations yesterday, it does seem that a measurable number of protesters are convinced that their gun rights are going to be taken away. What is the basis for this, especially as gun rights are so obviously surging rather than receding?


"I'm not real happy with the direction the government's going in right now, and I believe that our Second Amendment rights are in trouble, with the political atmosphere that's in Washington right now," said Alan Addington of North Carolina. [...]

The Oath Keepers call on members to disobey any orders, as they put it, "to disarm the American people" or "to force citizens into detention camps." It's a pledge Rhodes recites in an anti-Obama DVD called "Fall of the Republic." [...]

But Rhodes said his group is not anti-government and not anti-Obama. So, who's talking about taking guns away?

"So, we have to wait until someone talks about it before we can say we won't do it?" he said.

The demonstrations were very small indicating the level of national support. I suppose they're trying to piggyback the teabaggers.

[Pannonian]

The demonstrations were very small indicating the level of national support. I suppose they're trying to piggyback the teabaggers.

Should they be called the milk and sugars then?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Some more about the whole murder level difference:

The fact that most murders are gang related also means the vast majority of Americans are far removed from that world. There also seems to be a correlation between the closeness to the origin of drug trafficking and murder; Mexico is many times worse than the US.

Now, IIRC, due to Britain's higher non murder crime rate - ie assaults and the like - you're more likely to be a victim of crime in Britain than in America.

CR

[Banquo's Ghost]

Should they be called the milk and sugars then?

They seem quite sour, so perhaps best termed Lemons? :wink:

[HoreTore]

The fact that most murders are gang related also means the vast majority of Americans are far removed from that world.

....and this is different from any other country how?


There also seems to be a correlation between the closeness to the origin of drug trafficking and murder; Mexico is many times worse than the US.

You have Mexico - we have Poland, the Balts and the rest of the former USSR. Quit yer whining. We don't have "crack cocaine" here, which you get through mexico. Instead we have amfetamines, produced in eastern europe. The situation is the same.


Now, IIRC, due to Britain's higher non murder crime rate - ie assaults and the like - you're more likely to be a victim of crime in Britain than in America.

No, it only means that our gangbangers and drug trafficers beat each other up instead of killing each other in situations where yours would've shot each other.

[Rhyfelwyr]

To be fair, isn't it pretty well established that it's not difficult for the criminals to get guns in the UK? I'm pretty sure there was a Panorama show about it where gangs of chavs were walking about with them.

[Subotan]

The fact that most murders are gang related also means the vast majority of Americans are far removed from that world. There also seems to be a correlation between the closeness to the origin of drug trafficking and murder; Mexico is many times worse than the US.
Which in turn raises questions about the need for one of your majority of Americans to carry a handgun for self defence.


Now, IIRC, due to Britain's higher non murder crime rate - ie assaults and the like - you're more likely to be a victim of crime in Britain than in America.
I highly doubt that, unless you're referring to the phenomenon known as "Friday Night"

[Vladimir]

I highly doubt that, unless you're referring to the phenomenon known as "Friday Night"

In Iraq it's Thursday night. In Britain it's Saturday Night (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://popup.lala.com/popup/432627073620019166&ei=SgHOS_rnCIa0lQfqvZWgCw&sa=X&oi=music_play_track&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=2&ved=0CAcQ0wQoADAA&usg=AFQjCNE0iV9P98IjOwaRMN_I2EJvRDl76Q).

[Watchman]

Over here it's known (loosely translated) as "Sausage Stand Queue" and delivers primarily on Friday nights and the weekends...

And Elton's Saturday doesn't have enough FEVER! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBKPAZlo-OQ)

[ajaxfetish]

Which in turn raises questions about the need for one of your majority of Americans to carry a handgun for self defence.
Again, need is relevant how?

Ajax

[Subotan]

That appears to be the main justification for concealed weaponry, right?

[ajaxfetish]

No, the main justification is 2nd amendment-assured individual rights.

Ajax

[HoreTore]

Over here it's known (loosely translated) as "Sausage Stand Queue" and delivers primarily on Friday nights and the weekends...

And Elton's Saturday doesn't have enough FEVER! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBKPAZlo-OQ)

Taxi line here.

Which really goes to show that all the talk about cutting back drinking and such to reduce weekend violence is a bunch of :daisy:

The real problem is that people are all trying to get home at the same time, and our city's transportartion services can't handle the load. Send in a ton of buses, and the problem would've been solved instantly.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think I'm the only one satisfied with the status quo in terms of gun control right now. Waiting period, background check (including mental health check) and a permit and I think you should be good to go.

Am I the only one who thinks that crime (and thus the violent use of guns) can be halted better not by getting rid of guns but by legalizing marijuana (thus reducing the money and power of drug cartels smuggling in guns) and by reducing poverty as much as possible (a huge contributing factor of joining a gang)?

[Beskar]

and by reducing poverty as much as possible (a huge contributing factor of joining a gang)?

Keep your dirty commie talk out of here or you'll get teabagged by the teabaggers!

[a completely inoffensive name]

Keep your dirty commie talk out of here or you'll get teabagged by the teabaggers!

If the 15th wasnt a school day, I would have counter protested against them.

[Vladimir]

I think I'm the only one satisfied with the status quo in terms of gun control right now. Waiting period, background check (including mental health check) and a permit and I think you should be good to go.

Agreed on this point. The Constitution declares that the right to bear arms should not be infringed but it doesn't detail the acquisition process. A waiting period for handguns isn't unreasonable as the best defensive weapon is a shotgun. If all states had a conceal and carry application process the waiting period could begin when classes start. However, if one has a CCDW permit with intermittent renewal a waiting period isn't necessary.

I don't agree in the theory that mixing guns and legalized pot is the best way to reduce crime. The major drug cartels don't make much money on the leafy green stuff. Watch "Blow." The real money is in powder.

[Watchman]

I don't agree in the theory that mixing guns and legalized pot is the best way to reduce crime. The major drug cartels don't make much money on the leafy green stuff. Watch "Blow." The real money is in powder.The solution would seem rather obvious...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Now, IIRC, due to Britain's higher non murder crime rate - ie assaults and the like - you're more likely to be a victim of crime in Britain than in America.

I doubt this is true, let me check:

OK, London v New York:

London had about 1000 more rapes last year, and has seen a 34% rise this year (which suggests a recent problem, some areas are getting a 70-90% rise).

London has about 15,000 more roberies, slight rise this year, due mainly to a few areas (North and South of the city), and about 70,000 more burglaries.

Hmmm.... Overall tou seem to be 8 times more likely to be a victim of crime in London, but I can't find the NY stats, prejudicial crime (racism etc.), for car-crime, more genral gun-crime, etc., etc.

I am going to look into this more closely.

Still, looks like London has more crime, but you're much more likely to escape with your life.

[Lemur]

Still, looks like London has more crime, but you're much more likely to escape with your life.
You need to look at the per capita numbers to make any sense of this claim. Where's CountArach when you need him? I never saw a topic more in need of some statistical math and poll-smoking.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Total Crimes per-capita: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

Britain has about 5.5 extra crimes per 1,000 people.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You need to look at the per capita numbers to make any sense of this claim. Where's CountArach when you need him? I never saw a topic more in need of some statistical math and poll-smoking.

Yeah, I went looking. It's worth pointing out that Britain saw a rise in Crime corrulated with Labour's first five years, and an influx of immigrants from Eastern Europe. In more recent years this have begun to reverse, as with the murder rate, which is down about 50% in the capital since 2001.

[ajaxfetish]

Am I the only one who thinks that crime (and thus the violent use of guns) can be halted better not by getting rid of guns but by legalizing marijuana (thus reducing the money and power of drug cartels smuggling in guns) and by reducing poverty as much as possible (a huge contributing factor of joining a gang)?
No, you're not. I think both a speedy end to the war on drugs and better ideas for reducing poverty would have a much more significant effect than weapons legislation. One of these could be pretty quick and easy, if there was the political will for it, the other I don't know how best to solve.

Ajax

[drone]

OK, London v New York:
Again, you are comparing London to New York, which hurts your argument. You need to find another large US city that hasn't essentially banned firearms.

[Strike For The South]

Again, you are comparing London to New York, which hurts your argument. You need to find another large US city that hasn't essentially banned firearms.

DFW?

[Lemur]

Again, you are comparing London to New York, which hurts your argument. You need to find another large US city that hasn't essentially banned firearms.
Hmm, this is problematic, given that the weapons that reach NYC are most commonly bought in Virginia and driven north. This is an area where our patchwork system of states breaks down a little; what good is a total gun ban in NYC when a three-hour drive takes me to a place where I can buy as much boom-boom as I like, no questions asked?

The varying state regulations would have been much more meaningful when the average velocity was the walking speed of a horse.

Anyway, I'm finding this whole "who's more violent" debate very hard to follow. CR wants to exclude gang and drug-related violence, which seems like putting your thumb on the scale and leaning your whole body into it. drone argues that NYC has "essentially banned" firearms, which is true but meaningless. And nobody is comparing per capita crim rates, just totals, which are useless for this sort of debate.

If I weren't feverish, shaking and nauseous, I'd dive in and do some Googling for reasonable numbers, but the fact is that I'm sick as a dog, so I'll just stand here on the sidelines and complain, so long as that's okay with you folks.

[drone]

Hmm, this is problematic, given that the weapons that reach NYC are most commonly bought in Virginia and driven north. This is an area where our patchwork system of states breaks down a little; what good is a total gun ban in NYC when a three-hour drive takes me to a place where I can buy as much boom-boom as I like, no questions asked?

The varying state regulations would have been much more meaningful when the average velocity was the walking speed of a horse.
Shhhh. The commonwealth needs the tax income. :quiet:

Yes, there are guns transported to NYC, but that is an illegal act. Criminals will always get their guns. The OP is really about increased legal ownership and use. Comparing London vs New York City in this thread to make a point is like comparing apples to apples. Legal ownership in both is next to impossible. A better comparison for the point of this thread would be a large metro area where personal ownership of firearms is legal. DFW, Atlanta, etc.


If I weren't feverish, shaking and nauseous, I'd dive in and do some Googling for reasonable numbers, but the fact is that I'm sick as a dog, so I'll just stand here on the sidelines and complain, so long as that's okay with you folks.
You really shouldn't watch Gigli on a work night.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hmm, this is problematic, given that the weapons that reach NYC are most commonly bought in Virginia and driven north. This is an area where our patchwork system of states breaks down a little; what good is a total gun ban in NYC when a three-hour drive takes me to a place where I can buy as much boom-boom as I like, no questions asked?

You can't. If you live in NY, you can't buy pistols in other states. Heck, if you live in NYC you can't buy shotguns in other parts of the state and keep them in NYC. They have police checking gun store records for people who buy shotguns outside of NYC, and then the police go to their residences in NYC.

Illegally, however, you could probably get hold of pistols in NYC. Which just means the gun bans stops honest people.

I did some poking around with the FBI Uniform Crime Report (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html) and EU Commission Eurostat (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/crime/data/comparisons) (which averages murders over the years 2005-2007).

Some findings; Washington State (with rather lenient gun laws :beam: ) had a murder per 100k ratio of 3.4 in 2008, while England and Wales had 1.4, and Scotland had 2.17. Back in the USA, the state of Utah had a 1.56 rate. The USA as a whole had a 5.4 rate, which is only 55% of the rate from 1991.

In terms of violent crime, from the same sources, Washington State had 420 per 100k, while England and Wales had 2033 per 100k. Nationwide, the US had a 454.5 per 100k violent crime rate.

Looking at Washington and England, you're almost five times as likely to be a victim of violent crime in England, but over two times as likely to be a murder victim in Washington.

One more thing from the Eurostat report; Switzerland's murder rate 0.83 per 100,000, and a violent crime rate of 180 per 100,000.



And legalizing marijuana would be a great way to decease crime. Apparently pot accounts for 80% of the Mexican cartels' revenue, a figure I read rather recently.


A waiting period for handguns isn't unreasonable as the best defensive weapon is a shotgun.

That's one opinion. Consider a handgun is easier to aim in the confines of a house, generally has more bullets, and, very importantly, can be carried around outdoors, I do think it is unreasonable. We can run instant background checks; there's no reason to make people wait. People don't snap, go to buy a gun, and start killing people.

CR

[drone]

We can run instant background checks; there's no reason to make people wait. People don't snap, go to buy a gun, and start killing people.
I am always reminded of the classic Simpsons episode when Homer wants to buy a gun.


I've gotta wait five days!?! But I'm angry NOW!

[HoreTore]

I doubt this is true, let me check:

OK, London v New York:

London had about 1000 more rapes last year, and has seen a 34% rise this year (which suggests a recent problem, some areas are getting a 70-90% rise).

I honestly don't know why anyone even bothers to make raape statistics.

Since the vast majority of rapes are never reported, any statistic on it is useless. There simply no way to know if an increase or decrease in rapes is because of more/fewer rapes occurring, or simply more/fewer rapes being reported.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't agree in the theory that mixing guns and legalized pot is the best way to reduce crime. The major drug cartels don't make much money on the leafy green stuff. Watch "Blow." The real money is in powder.


And legalizing marijuana would be a great way to decease crime. Apparently pot accounts for 80% of the Mexican cartels' revenue, a figure I read rather recently.CR

I want some statistics on this, I'm not willing to legalize cocaine or harder drugs just to bring some numbers in one category down at the risk of raising the numbers of another drastically up.

[Centurion1]

vlad while pot is cheaper per unit it is sold in far greater numbers than blow. explains why grocery stores are empty of chips and other snacks on 4/20

[Vladimir]

vlad while pot is cheaper per unit it is sold in far greater numbers than blow. explains why grocery stores are empty of chips and other snacks on 4/20

That doesn't explain anything other than the fact that it's a pot smoker's holiday. No, I don't have the numbers but powder is easier to move, easier to distribute, can be cut a million different ways, and is more addictive. I guess that's kinda similar to handguns, oops.

If you're selling the green it's time to stop and move up to the big leagues.

[HoreTore]

That doesn't explain anything other than the fact that it's a pot smoker's holiday. No, I don't have the numbers but powder is easier to move, easier to distribute, can be cut a million different ways, and is more addictive. I guess that's kinda similar to handguns, oops.

If you're selling the green it's time to stop and move up to the big leagues.

When cocaine is discovered at the border, it's between 5-10 kilos. When pot is discovered, it's usually around a ton.

Cocaine and heroin may be more profitable, but pot is a larger industry, and asa such there's more money in it. Not to mention that pot can be grown here, you don't have to smuggle anything.

[Fragony]

Pot is very lucrative, few hundred for every square meter every two months.

[Vladimir]

When cocaine is discovered at the border, it's between 5-10 kilos. When pot is discovered, it's usually around a ton.

Cocaine and heroin may be more profitable, but pot is a larger industry, and asa such there's more money in it. Not to mention that pot can be grown here, you don't have to smuggle anything.

Profitability balanced by the market. I've lost track of the recent trends. Many people have moved up from Budweiser to Guinness but I'm not sure how the recent meth craze fits in.

This is still linked to gun permits. For the last hundred years or so Mexican mobs, revolutionaries, banditos, and drug runners have purchased their weapons in Texas where they're cheap and legal. That argues for better gun control if not more in some cases.

[HoreTore]

Profitability balanced by the market. I've lost track of the recent trends. Many people have moved up from Budweiser to Guinness but I'm not sure how the recent meth craze fits in.

Don't get your info from the media or police, they have it all wrong. If you want information on the drug market, you'll have to talk to the junkies and dealers.

[Vladimir]

Don't get your info from the media or police, they have it all wrong. If you want information on the drug market, you'll have to talk to the junkies and dealers.

I'll get right out there and do some comparison shopping. :laugh4:

I'll call it "market research" and claim it on my taxes.

[Crazed Rabbit]

This story says (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/07/politics/washingtonpost/main5368594.shtml) pot accounts for at least 60% of cartel revenues.

And this one details (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/08/pot.eradication/index.html) how the cartels are increasingly just growing pot in national parks so they don't have to smuggle anything.


This is still linked to gun permits. For the last hundred years or so Mexican mobs, revolutionaries, banditos, and drug runners have purchased their weapons in Texas where they're cheap and legal. That argues for better gun control if not more in some cases.

Such activity is already illegal. Making it more illegal wouldn't stop it. Heck, even if guns magically vanished from America, the cartels would just bribe more Mexican cops and soldiers to get the Mexican government's guns.

CR

[Centurion1]

Vladimir everyone has basically explained my point so it's not neccessary I believe to elaborate

[HoreTore]

I'll get right out there and do some comparison shopping. :laugh4:

I'll call it "market research" and claim it on my taxes.

This may surprise you, but...

Both dealers and users are normal human beings, and you can interact with them just like any other human being.

[PanzerJaeger]

This may surprise you, but...

Both dealers and users are normal human beings, and you can interact with them just like any other human being.

I would use caution, though, when randomly questioning your friendly local dealer about his inventories, profit margins, etc.

[Vladimir]

This may surprise you, but...

Both dealers and users are normal human beings, and you can interact with them just like any other human being.

Yes I know. Just thinking of the possibilites...Plus, lacking access to law enforcement test kits I'd need to sample the products, all in the name of science, of course.

[HoreTore]

I would use caution, though, when randomly questioning your friendly local dealer about his inventories, profit margins, etc.

First make friends, then you're free to talk about anything, just like with any other friend.

[Centurion1]

First make friends, then you're free to talk about anything, just like with any other friend.

NARQ NARQ WE HAVE A NARQ EVERYBODY!!!!!!!!!!!

[Beskar]

NARQ NARQ WE HAVE A NARQ EVERYBODY!!!!!!!!!!!

That just made you look really silly.

[Centurion1]

oh damn i spelled narc wrong. shoot.