Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Ghostpanther]

Not eating at a restaurant because they wont permit you to exercise a basic right granted to us by the Constitution is radical now?

Awesome. I'm a radical.

Boom. New Title!

Lol! My thoughts too. See my above edit of my post.

[Rukentuts]

Bringing loaded rifles into a fast food joint is kinda radical.

[giantenemyboat]

Read this and sit down: hsxDOTsagepubDOTcom/content/5/1/64.short

"Using a case-control design comparing homicide victims with matched nonvictims, Kellermann et al. (1993) concluded that keeping a gun in one's home increased the risk of being murdered by a factor of 2.7. The authors' underlying assumption was that a significant elevation in homicide risk derived from the risk of being murdered with a gun kept in the victim's home. This article shows that homicides are rarely committed with guns belonging to members of the victim's home and that such killings could be responsible for no more than a 2.4% increase in the relative risk of being murdered. Guns in one's own home have little to do with homicide risk. Scholars need to attend more closely to the mechanisms by which an alleged causal effect is supposed to operate and to consider their plausibility before concluding that an association reflects a causal effect."

You know the Kellermann and etc studies that get linked to death? Only a tiny minority of the homicides were committed with household guns, the vast majority were with external guns that did not belong to the household and were brought from elsewhere. PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT AN UNCRITICAL READER OF THIS STUDY WOULD ASSUME. The devil is in the fuckin' details folks!

Repeat after me. Correlation. Is. Not. Causation.

More fun can be found here, (these guys eviscerate studies like Kellermann): wwwDOTdemocraticundergroundDOTcom/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x334436

gunculture2point0DOTwordpressDOTcom/2013/02/19/understanding-case-control-studies-of-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor/

Link to full study: libgenDOTorg/scimag/get.php?doi=10.1177%2F1088767901005001005

This thread needs to die already because nobody is offerring any substantive arguments besides the same crap studies that have been addressed numerous times being reposted over and over again.

[TwoNineMarine]

Lol! My thoughts too. See my above edit of my post.

Haha /highfive

I'm gonna sign all my posts with 'Radical TwoNineMarine' from now on.

- - - Updated - - -

Bringing loaded rifles into a fast food joint is kinda radical.

I agree.

But refusing to eat at said restaurant because they won't let you exercise that right is not.

But either way I got a sweet new title out of it. So all in all it's a good day.

[TZucchini]

Not eating at a restaurant because they wont permit you to exercise a basic right granted to us by the Constitution is radical now?

Awesome. I'm a radical.

Boom. New Title!

Concealed carry is not a Constitutionally protected right.

[Ghostpanther]

Bringing loaded rifles into a fast food joint is kinda radical.

I was in Walmart the other day grocery shopping and this guy without any uniform on at all, dress pretty much redneck like, was carrying pistol outside in a holster in plain view. Actually hung low, for quick draw access...lol. In Ohio, it is perfectly legal to carry a weapon out in the open anywhere as long as their is not a prohibition against it by the store or town.

[Rukentuts]

Concealed carry is not a Constitutionally protected right.

Neither is bringing a weapon into a private firm or residence without consent.

[Ghostpanther]

Concealed carry is not a Constitutionally protected right.

To carry is.

[TZucchini]

To carry is.

According to who?

Heller DC established that firearm ownership in your home is the Constitutional floor.

[Ghostpanther]

According to who?

Heller DC established that firearm ownership in your home is the Constitutional floor.

The right to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed. But that interpretation is more than likely left up to the states to decide. But I happen to agree with how Ohio does it.

[Ehrenpanzer]

This whole "The right to bear arms" needs an overhaul. I seriously doubt if the King of England or his servants are going to be banging on your door anyday soon with the intention of forcing you to surrender your lands or pay taxes. I will agree that the posession of rifles, shotguns and handguns are fine. But really..other then "derp its the constitution duh-huck" do you possibly need to have military grade firepower for?

[Ghostpanther]

This whole "The right to bear arms" needs an overhaul. I seriously doubt if the King of England or his servants are going to be banging on your door anyday soon with the intention of forcing you to surrender your lands or pay taxes. I will agree that the posession of rifles, shotguns and handguns are fine. But really..other then "derp its the constitution duh-huck" do you possibly need to have military grade firepower for?

I do not have a gun to protect myself from the government. Lol! And even back then, there were other dangers besides the servants of the King of England to be concerned about. Like today, there are those who will in order to steal something from your home, who have no hesitations to take you out too. If I felt all they would do is steal something, then I would not try to stop them other than calling 911. But I would be foolish to take that risk.

[Ehrenpanzer]

I do not have a gun to protect myself from the government. Lol! And even back then, there were other dangers besides the servants of the King of England to be concerned about. Like today, there are those who will in order to steal something from your home, who have no hesitations to take you out too. If I felt all they would do is steal something, then I would not try to stop them other than calling 911. But I would be foolish to take that risk.

Absolutely...I myself own a Glock 9 for that exact reason. But that is why the right to bear arms exists in the first place, was to protect you from agents of the King of England...and to see people here trying to argue that they have the constitutional right to own an FN Scar-L or something of that caliber is ridiculous...

[Zoranon]

Absolutely...I myself own a Glock 9 for that exact reason. But that is why the right to bear arms exists in the first place, was to protect you from agents of the King of England...and to see people here trying to argue that they have the constitutional right to own an FN Scar-L or something of that caliber is ridiculous...

Scar has a lower caliber than your glock...

Besides, what military grade weapons are you speaking of? Assault rifles are already almost impossible to get.

[Ghostpanther]

Absolutely...I myself own a Glock 9 for that exact reason. But that is why the right to bear arms exists in the first place, was to protect you from agents of the King of England...and to see people here trying to argue that they have the constitutional right to own an FN Scar-L or something of that caliber is ridiculous...

I think they added that provision to the Constitution because of knowing how other countries had tried to disarm the citizenry in order to make them easier to control, but which left them in a weak position to defend themselves against other enemies and being in a new country with criminals and savages running loose, it was a important provision to have. And even today, with criminals still running loose, it is a important provision.

[Eroginous]

i agree with you, but where did you get the idea of this pricetag from, or the idea that increasing costs to reduce number of guns, was this promoted anywhere? if so that´s ridiculous

Someone threw out the idea earlier in the thread. I think $5000 was just an example given as an outrageous base cost for all guns.

That's probably the reason for the ban, actually. They don't want bullets flying over a fucking burrito.

No, the reason for the ban is to:

1. Make news headlines. Chick Filet got a bunch of press about being against homosexuality and it probably boosted sales to christian fundamentalists all over the country. Say you're anti gun and watch the liberals flock to Chipotle.

2. Make a political statement. The leadership of Chipotle is probably comprised of liberals and they're probably donating to anti gun campaigns. Makes sense to officially announce your political stance to support causes you donate to.

Seriously, if you can't spend 15 minutes at a fast food joint without a gun, you need some introspection.

People who carry a firearm on a daily basis often become so used to it they treat it like a cellphone or wallet - don't go anywhere without it. Just because someone has a firearm doesn't mean 'bullets will fly over burritos' and it certainly doesn't mean that people have some sort of a mental issue because they like to be armed no matter where they go.

Chipotle coming out against guns in their restaurants is meant to slight people who support gun rights, most of which are going to shrug it off without a second thought. Meanwhile you and other anti gun people are celebrating it like some sort of victory in the fight against gun rights. It's a bit childish, like you just passive aggressively won an argument the other person wasn't even participating in.

[Rukentuts]

No, the reason for the ban is to:

Can I borrow your crystal ball? You seem to know more about their business than they do while not being involved at all.

They were banned because some dumb assholes decided to carry loaded rifles into a restaurant and cause a scene. Period. Chipotle had intentionally stayed out of the political issue until they were dragged into it by these morons.

[Eroginous]

Can I borrow your crystal ball? You seem to know more about their business than they do while not being involved at all.

You don't need a crystal ball to understand why a company might do something like this. It's not difficult.

They were banned because some dumb assholes decided to carry loaded rifles into a restaurant and cause a scene. Period. Chipotle had intentionally stayed out of the political issue until they were dragged into it by these morons.

A couple guys openly carry rifles into a chipotle to order lunch, and they automatically become dumb assholes who caused a scene, even though they peacefully ate their lunch and moved on without incident?

What about the Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America members who filed a petition? They aren't the assholes for blowing shit out of proportion over a non issue?

You're sure not biased or anything...

[petej0]

Chipotle coming out against guns in their restaurants is meant to slight people who support gun rights, most of which are going to shrug it off without a second thought. Meanwhile you and other anti gun people are celebrating it like some sort of victory in the fight against gun rights. It's a bit childish, like you just passive aggressively won an argument the other person wasn't even participating in.

What is funny about these businesses against having guns in their establishment is, if you have a conceal carry permit, how is anyone to know you had a gun in their business? lol.

[Rukentuts]

You don't need a crystal ball to understand why a company might do something like this. It's not difficult.

Yeah, that's why they allowed guns until now.

A couple guys openly carry rifles into a chipotle to order lunch, and they automatically become dumb assholes who caused a scene, even though they peacefully ate their lunch and moved on without incident?

That's right, a couple of people that intentionally bring loaded rifles into a restaurant in order to cause a scene are fucking morons.