Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Ghostpanther]

near 40,000 posts and it still goes on. its very simple really. if you want to reduce gun related murder and gun related crimes all you have to do is introduce striker gun controls.

all this 2nd amendment, freedoms, stuff is just utter bullshit. i read an academic study into the right to bare arms, and it referenced 14th century english law to support its weakassed argument. truth is, arms dealers want to sell arms, and they buy influence through power hungry politicians. this approach also strengthens those politicians because all the have to keep them in power is to sell you fear. fear of house invasion, fear of religious fundamentalists, fear of a new cold war.

well guys, all you can do is eat your daily dose of bullshit and fear.

Lol! What? Not sure where you live , but you appear to have no clue how freedom works in the US and what the US Constitution stands for. ALL of it is about freedoms of some sort. There have been rulings made by the US Supreme Court on it's interpretation I do not agree with, but I respect it all and look at no parts as bullshit. None. :P

[PhaelixWW]

Bogus study? That sounds like you've read through the study, and read through all the evidence as to why it's bogus. Please, proceed.

After reading through for about 5 minutes, I'd found enough examples of misleading or dishonest practices in the "study" to be confident in calling it bogus, sure.

Wait, what? You know the study is bogus because you posted a refuting paper that you didn't even read?

Nope, I determined it was bogus before finding, let alone posting, the refuting study.

How do you know that the study you didn't read does that?

Because I read enough of the study to see the portions that said that. How can you not know that if you read your own study? Or did you not, in fact, read your own study? Can you seriously try to take me to task for not reading it when you didn't bother yourself? If you had, you'd know that I'm right about what I said.

Also: Arizona CCW permits. Wyoming CCW permits. Arkansas CCW permits.

Am I missing something here?

Yes, a lot. Clearly you have no idea what's going on.

Arizona, for starters:

Arizona residents at least 21 years old can carry a concealed weapon without a permit as of July 29, 2010. Arizona is only the third state in modern U.S. history (after Vermont and Alaska) to allow the carrying of concealed weapons without a permit, and it is the first state with a large urban population to do so.

Arizona is classified as a "shall issue" state. Even though Arizona law allows concealed carry by adults without permit, concealed carry permits are still available and issued by the Concealed Weapons Permit Unit of the Arizona Department of Public Safety for purposes of reciprocity with other states or for carrying firearms in certain regulated places.

...or Wyoming:

Effective July 2011, Wyoming became an unrestricted concealed carry state, following the example of Vermont, Alaska and Arizona. Prior issued concealed carry permits will still act as valid - for example, to be used as reciprocal permits in certain states - until their natural expiration.

...and then Arkansas:

In June 2013, Governor Mike Beebe signed Act 746 into law, which went into effect on August 15, 2013. Act 746 amended Arkansas firearms statutes pertaining to open and concealed carry by decriminalizeing open and concealed carry without a permit, provided the individual carrying either has not—or does not intend to—use the weapon to commit a crime.

[Rukentuts]

I have no idea how you can handwave Hemenway and cite Lott seriously Phaelix. The souble standard is rather glaring to say the least.

[TZucchini]

Yes, a lot. Clearly you have no idea what's going on.

Phaelix. While these states do not require a permit to concealed carry, they do still issue them. If you had bothered to click any of the links in my post, you would have been brought to a State website with instructions on how to obtain a CCW permit. And according to this article, it's a good idea for individuals to obtain a CCW permit, even though it's not required. I think they make some good points.

So when you assumed that:

any shooting death in Arizona, Wyoming, Arkansas, Alaska, and Vermont, because those states don't issue CCW permits, so the "study" decides that all gun owners are CCW.

...you were wrong. The only individual they appear to have done that for is Jared Loughner, who bought his firearms legally even though there was plenty of evidence of mental health issues. If Arizona had mental health checks, that shooting might have been prevented.

It's also worth it to note that this study starts in 2007, and the Constitutional Carry in Arizona started in 2010.

Furthermore, the two States that do not issue CCW permits, Alaska and Vermont, are not included in the study. Wyoming is also not included.


Either way you look at it, this was a very sloppy attempt to discredit the study, and to proclaim it "bogus" after a very brief and flawed analysis.

[Ghostpanther]

I just wanted to comment on your signature Pre 9-11 from a quote by Former Chief Justice Warren Burger....there are good reasons we have 9 Justices comprising the Supreme Court.

[TZucchini]

I just wanted to comment on your signature Pre 9-11 from a quote by Former Chief Justice Warren Burger....there are good reasons we have 9 Justices comprising the Supreme Court.

It's also interesting to note that Former Chief Justice Burger was a pretty staunch conservative. Just letting people know that even some of the most highly regarded Constitutional scholars don't agree on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

[Ghostpanther]

It's also interesting to note that Former Chief Justice Burger was a pretty staunch conservative. Just letting people know that even some of the most highly regarded Constitutional scholars don't agree on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

That is a good point. But even they can be wrong.

[TZucchini]

That is a good point. But even they can be wrong.

The simple fact that they can be wrong isn't an argument against their ideology.

[Ghostpanther]

The simple fact that they can be wrong isn't an argument against their ideology.

It is from the perspective of those who disagree with them. Being wrong is ...well...being wrong. And his opinion was not shared by most of the Supreme Court at the time. However, this is why I am happy to live in America and the reason we have 9 Justices is such a damn good concept.

[Mayhem]

It is from the perspective of those who disagree with them. Being wrong is ...well...being wrong. And his opinion was not shared by most of the Supreme Court at the time. However, this is why I am happy to live in America and the reason we have 9 Justices is such a damn good concept.

an opinion based legal system is a damn good concept?

[Rukentuts]

an opinion based legal system is a damn good concept?

It has some flaws, look at Scalia and Thomas and the laughable rulings they've presented over the years.

[TZucchini]

It is from the perspective of those who disagree with them. Being wrong is ...well...being wrong. And his opinion was not shared by most of the Supreme Court at the time. However, this is why I am happy to live in America and the reason we have 9 Justices is such a damn good concept.

Again. Disagreement is not an argument against ideology. If you think he's wrong, tell me why.

[Mayhem]

It has some flaws, look at Scalia and Thomas and the laughable rulings they've presented over the years.

yeah, i mean if you´d get the people into position that don´t base their opinion on gut feelings or money but on facts, but then it´s less of an opinion i guess

[Ghostpanther]

an opinion based legal system is a damn good concept?

A system which relies on the opinion of the majority is a good concept to the extent it keeps the opinion of the one from ruling.

- - - Updated - - -

Again. Disagreement is not an argument against ideology. If you think he's wrong, tell me why.

For one, I do not think organizations like the NRA is trying to fraud the American public. I am not a member of them however, but I believe they feel their purpose is to be a voice of support for the Second Amendment and to help protect that right by taking a stand against those who would take that right away. What other special interest groups would there be? Am I trying to fraud the forum readers here by taking a strong stand for the rights we have in the US under the Constitution?

There are other non gun related right's special interest groups which have or are taking a stand for what they believe in and I do not consider them trying to fraud the public even if I disagree with what they stand for. It is one of the rights we have as a free country.

[Mayhem]

A system which relies on the opinion of the majority is a good concept to the extent it keeps the opinion of the one from ruling.

you do understand that you´re talking about the opinion of 9 people representing 300+ million?

[Ghostpanther]

you do understand that you´re talking about the opinion of 9 people representing 300+ million?

Yes. Justices which are appointed by a President which was voted into office by the Majority of the State's electoral college. And that appointment then needs to be approved of by congress which once again has members voted into office by the majority of the people in their states.

[Mayhem]

Yes. Justices which are appointed by a President which was voted into office by the Majority of the State's electoral college. And that appointment then needs to be approved of by congress which once again has members voted into office by the majority of the people in their states.

oh alright, so 9 people representing 200+?

[Eroginous]

According to a BJS census, you're incorrect. The plurality of their time is spent on firearm skills.

You mean the study I linked? According to that study, police officers only spend about 12% of their academy time on firearm training (which includes everything about firearms, not just target practice). So yeah, that's not a 'majority.' That's also not very extensive.

[Ghostpanther]

oh alright, so 9 people representing 200+?

Over 500..lol. And they do not represent just them, but the American people, as the representatives by definition represent their citizens from their districts. Personally I do not think it is a perfect system, as I would rather see the Justices voted in during a general national election, but those who support a appointment system do have some good arguments. Anyway, it is a system which has been in existence now for over 200 years and works well overall.

If you disagree then well, if you are happy where you live, then stay there.

[TZucchini]

You mean the study I linked? According to that study, police officers only spend about 12% of their academy time on firearm training (which includes everything about firearms, not just target practice). So yeah, that's not a 'majority.' That's also not very extensive.

I didn't say it was a majority. I said it was a plurality.

Of all the topics they study, the spend the most time of firearm skills. That's compared to things like first aid, driving skills, and criminal law.