Supreme Court Gun Ban Ruling Expected Tomorrow

[bedub1]

Hows that working out for you guys?
Low crime rate?

not very well. too many criminals have guns and not enough good citizens...

[Juan_Bottom]

, nudge, nudge

winkwink saynomore saynomore

What's it like?

The sign at the school that says "no guns" only applies to the law abiding citizens. The kid with the gun who wants to kill everybody doesn't care what the sign says, he's a criminal and criminals doesn't follow laws. But the law abiding citizen that could help defend (with proper training which is VERY IMPORTANT) is now helpless. Why wait 5 minutes for a cop when it takes less than a second to draw a firearm? By carrying, you are given additional privileges, and as always, taking on an additional level of responsibility. Which means training and education.

This is pretty much the exact excuse Texas used to make it legal for it's citizens to carry concealed weapons. And really, for all Texas, it seems to be working.

not very well. too many criminals have guns and not enough good citizens...

Depends on where you are.

[bedub1]

The sign at the school that says "no guns" only applies to the law abiding citizens. The kid with the gun who wants to kill everybody doesn't care what the sign says, he's a criminal and criminals doesn't follow laws. But the law abiding citizen that could help defend (with proper training which is VERY IMPORTANT) is now helpless. Why wait 5 minutes for a cop when it takes less than a second to draw a firearm? By carrying, you are given additional privileges, and as always, taking on an additional level of responsibility. Which means training and education.

This is pretty much the exact excuse Texas used to make it legal for it's citizens to carry concealed weapons. And really, for all Texas, it seems to be working.

You being serious or sarcastic?

[Juan_Bottom]

The sign at the school that says "no guns" only applies to the law abiding citizens. The kid with the gun who wants to kill everybody doesn't care what the sign says, he's a criminal and criminals doesn't follow laws. But the law abiding citizen that could help defend (with proper training which is VERY IMPORTANT) is now helpless. Why wait 5 minutes for a cop when it takes less than a second to draw a firearm? By carrying, you are given additional privileges, and as always, taking on an additional level of responsibility. Which means training and education.

This is pretty much the exact excuse Texas used to make it legal for it's citizens to carry concealed weapons. And really, for all Texas, it seems to be working.

You being serious or sarcastic?

Serious! I watched a program on MSNBC about the Texas lawmaker who got the bill passed. The hour long program was against guns, yet they still didn't have much to say. Concealed guns seem to be working well for them.

[bedub1]

You are a criminal, and have 2 options. You can rob the bank that has 2 security guards. Or you can rob the bank that has 2 security guards, and all the customers inside have guns, training, and a desire to kill criminals.

I think we should make it a sport of killing criminals, never giving them a trial. Then criminals will have to think "Hmm....if I do this...i'm probably gunna get shot and die. Maybe I shouldn't do it". Where as now it's "if I get caught, I get a warm bed, tv, 3 good meals a day, and then let back out in 7 days."

[suggs]

Mate, you've already got the death penalty. On the face of it, a fairly serious deterrent, and yet, it doesn't deter.
I'll leave you to work out the connection.

[Snorri1234]

I think we should make it a sport of killing criminals, never giving them a trial.

Yes, that sounds like a rather excellent plan.

[Frigidus]

I think we should make it a sport of killing criminals, never giving them a trial.

Yes, that sounds like a rather excellent plan.

Oh yeah, America! This is why I'm never fully enjoying myself on the 4th of July.

[Juan_Bottom]

I think we should make it a sport of killing criminals

Just the ones that ment to do harm,...right? I'm sure that you heard about my little "incident."

Mate, you've already got the death penalty. On the face of it, a fairly serious deterrent, and yet, it doesn't deter.
I'll leave you to work out the connection.

The death penelty isn't a deterrant. It's revenge. Especially in Alabama(not an insult--it's just the only state that has the death penalty for rape--good for them)....

Of course, the supreme court just banned the death penalty for cases of child rape. Jerks.

[Jenos Ridan]

Hey, HC, Suggs, you are not alone. You share a viewpoint with a very august group of men:

[Iliad]

Hey, HC, Suggs, you are not alone. You share a viewpoint with a very august group of men:

And Godwin wins yet again.

Nappy if everyone having a gun=no crime
Please explain why America has so much more homicide(per capita and in total) than Australia?
Why the last shootout in Australia, was in 2002 in a Victorian uni in where a student killed 2 fellow students, while in the United states the last one was in 2007 where a student killed about 30?

[Juan_Bottom]

Nappy if everyone having a gun=no crime

I don't think anyone on here believes that. I think his poster is just an example of what a government will do, if it isn't held accountable by it's people. Which is something several pepeple, including myself have mentioned. It's just a way that guns are a detterant. Not A preventative.
It's also a rebuttal to DM's comment taht only a uncivilazied government allows it's people to own guns.

[MeDeFe]

It's also a rebuttal to DM's comment taht only a uncivilazied government allows it's people to own guns.

How is it a rebuttal of that comment? A rebuttal would be at least one example of a government generally accepted as "civilized" that allows people to own guns with no restrictions at all.

[Juan_Bottom]

It's also a rebuttal to DM's comment taht only a uncivilazied government allows it's people to own guns.

How is it a rebuttal of that comment? A rebuttal would be at least one example of a government generally accepted as "civilized" that allows people to own guns with no restrictions at all.

Because, though anyone can disagree(just to be a jerk) with me that America is civilized, NO ONE would dare say that POL POT was.
Whith a brief explination, I think it's a decent rebuttal. All of the worst governments of our time started by taking guns away.

[tzor]

Please explain why America has so much more homicide(per capita and in total) than Australia?

Neither per capita nor total can tell much of a story and offers no good basis for a proper comparison. One needs to consider all the other factors that might make a person not like another person, population densities, ethnic diversity, ethnic conflict, social unrest, general population of the deperate poor and so on and so forth. Cultural norms also come into play.

[Juan_Bottom]

Please explain why America has so much more homicide(per capita and in total) than Australia?

Neither per capita nor total can tell much of a story and offers no good basis for a proper comparison. One needs to consider all the other factors that might make a person not like another person, population densities, ethnic diversity, ethnic conflict, social unrest, general population of the deperate poor and so on and so forth. Cultural norms also come into play.

I've been saying that this whole time........

[The1exile]

Please explain why America has so much more homicide(per capita and in total) than Australia?

Neither per capita nor total can tell much of a story and offers no good basis for a proper comparison. One needs to consider all the other factors that might make a person not like another person, population densities, ethnic diversity, ethnic conflict, social unrest, general population of the deperate poor and so on and so forth. Cultural norms also come into play.

So which part of that would you blame instead of the higher proportion of gun ownership/nuts?

[The1exile]

All of the worst governments of our time started by taking guns away.

I disagree. I think a much more obvious cause of worse government would be that some nutter gets into power with crazy ideas.

[Juan_Bottom]

All of the worst governments of our time started by taking guns away.

I disagree. I think a much more obvious cause of worse government would be that some nutter gets into power with crazy ideas.

Please tell me that you know what I ment.

[The1exile]

Oh I know what you meant - you meant to justify your views on having guns, because you think it's alright, despite the increased homicide rates and no real effect on crime. I just don't think it was right.

[Juan_Bottom]

Oh I know what you meant - you meant to justify your views on having guns, because you think it's alright, despite the increased homicide rates and no real effect on crime. I just don't think it was right.

The point of the Right to Bear Arms has never actually been to curb crime, or to reduce homicides.

Seriously though, you have been following this thread, right? So you do get where I stand?
And I don't think your right either.

[The1exile]

The point of the Right to Bear Arms has never actually been to curb crime, or to reduce homicides.

Yes, I know. I just think it's a pity that you can think that the point of it - to allow the people to fight against their government, if I remember correctly, harking back to the minutemen - is worthy of the increased homicides etc.

Seriously though, you have been following this thread, right? So you do get where I stand?

I believe so, but as I said, I can still disagree. And you don't have to italicise right, it doesn;t have the same impact when you do it arbitrarily.

[tzor]

Yes, I know. I just think it's a pity that you can think that the point of it - to allow the people to fight against their government, if I remember correctly, harking back to the minutemen - is worthy of the increased homicides etc.

While I am in general a supporter of the right to bear arms, I disagree that it was ever designed to allow the people to fight against their government. Rather it was created to allow the people to fight for their government.

[The1exile]

I suppose it depends upon your definition of "for" - at it's most basic, I'd be inclined to think "if the government needs iits citizens to fight for them (on their behalf), they can arm them themselves". However, if you mean "fight for" as in "fight with the purpose of controlling, regulating or changing" their government, that's pretty much what I meant - it basically just makes revolt a more viable option, yes?

[tzor]

Well the article does state the purpose is for "a well armed militia," so should the Brittish decide to invade again, we can just ride ahead of them and ... they are in for another surprise. At least that was the theory, remember that at the time of the bill of rights there was a strong desire not to have a standing army. Standing armies was something that kings and tyrants had to impose their will on the people. So in that sense this is a stop gap against tyrany, by providing a reason not to have a standing army. Obviously that didn't work.