The Gaming Den

PhoneLobster at [unixtime wrote:1126591405[/unixtime]]
Shooting deaths are dropping. Word on the street (OK, the media) credits it to the effect of improved gun control laws kicking in.

Actually, when fewer citizens have guns, shooting deaths do become less common because criminals have the power. They can draw a gun and mug some guy and just take his wallet and leave him alive. Where as if the other guy was armed, it's quite possible that one side will end up dead. So while shooting deaths tend to go down, armed robberies and other violent crimes go up because criminals are more empowered. Having more guns will make shooting deaths more common, but you'll also see a decline in other violent crime.

I really can't see the benefit of having criminals be the only ones with guns. Where is the logic in that?

Oddly, at least here in NSW the most populous state (I don't know the other states figures) the only crime figures NOT to drop in recent years were shootings and armed hold ups.

Until just recently as the gun laws kicked in.

Your half assed claim that its better someone die than a wallet change hands is also totally sus.

I'd rather someone point a gun (or more likely with sane gun laws, another weapon) at me and take my wallet than engage in a shoot out to the death and anyone who says otherwise is a total idiot.

I'm sorry to say it but "contents of wallet" vs "gun fight at the OK coral" one of those is sane the other is INsane.

If guns gave anyone freedom we wouldn't have had to send troops to Afganistan.

Here are two workable proposals which I feel would decrease gun fatalities:

1. Mandate gun safety and handling classes. For everyone. As part of being a citizen of a country which beleives in the right to bear arms, you should know how to handle a gun safely, even if don't intend to own a gun and/or oppose the right to bear arms.

2. Local governments in highly populated areas should consider any discharge of a firearm within city limits to be reckless endangerment. You can keep your guns, you can take 'em hunting, you can take 'em to the shooting range, but if you forget to clear the barrel before cleaning your gun or really need to shoot that racoon going through your trash, then you get a citation and a fine for being an idiot.

Actually, Guns give americans the only freedom they have left: The fact that a government can't totally crush a largely armed citizenry.

they took our freedom of speech. they've taken our freedom of religion. They've taken our freedom against unreasonable search and seizure. They've taken our right to due process. They've taken our protection against cruel and unusual punishments.

Now, if the citizenry is disarmed, then the government can go about dismanlting the last vestiges of democracy without resistance.

To expand on a point I made before, if the government would give me back the rights they took, and proved to me that they could get guns away from criminals, then I might reconsider my stance on gun control. (However, the police in my town have proven that they're very good at harassing people for minor crimes, but you could kill someone in my town and they wouldn't even look for you. But get pulled over for a dead inspection, and they're calling for backup. I'm not joking.)

Until then, I'm quite prepared to move into the mountains to protect my right to bear arms. I'm not a bad outdoorsman, I could live quite happily in the mountains for a long time.

And for the record, even if I am armed at the time, if someone points a gun at me and asks for my wallet, they're getting my wallet. It's foolish to try to beat someone who has the drop on you. Possesions can be replaced, it's not worth shooting someone over a few bucks. This is one area where phonelobster and I are in complete agreement.

Article about disarming citizens in the Big Easy.

Crissa wrote:The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about firearms.

The deputy AG disagrees with you.

PhoneLobster wrote:I'm sorry to say it but "contents of wallet" vs "gun fight at the OK coral" one of those is sane the other is INsane.

You say that as if those were your options. Why would you entrust your health and life to the kindness of an armed criminal?

wrote:Why would you entrust your health and life to the kindness of an armed criminal?

What the count said. Plus even an armed criminal will tend to be smart enough to know, police and courts care a lot less about an armed hold up than actually shooting an unarmed citizen. If they can pull it off without shooting they have less chance of being caught plus less chance of spending less time in prison if they are caught.

As to the rest of the counts stuff. Well. So guns are stopping the government from coming and "crushing" the civilians hey?

And what precisely do they need to crush. You said it yourself Count. As far as you are concerned they have ALREADY taken all your rights and freedoms, they have you right where they want you.

Face it, from what you say (and I don't entirely disagree on that front), you ARE crushed, and your guns did diddly.

Indeed as far as the corrupt oppressive government is concerned you all having the capacity to shoot the crap out of each other is a profit making industry that also helps keep the poor in their place.

Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:they took our freedom of speech. they've taken our freedom of religion. They've taken our freedom against unreasonable search and seizure. They've taken our right to due process. They've taken our protection against cruel and unusual punishments.

Piffle.

Speech: Look at that crybaby mother in Texas. She's speaking against the government, and is getting airtime on every news network. Michael Moore keeps making movies.

Religion: When did Congress establish the Tjurtj of America? Which bill took away my ability to praise Eris and her sacred Chao? Or the Force?

Unreasonable Search and Seizure: Perhaps we have different concepts of "reasonable"?

Due Process of Law: Whether what we're doing is legal depends entirely on which lawyer you listen to, so I'll give you this one.

Cruel and Unusual Punishment: ... uhm, I'm a bloodthirsty psychopath, so I'm really not the best judge of this, but I'm regularly distressed at how soft on crime we are, so they probably haven't taken this one away, either.

Possesions can be replaced, it's not worth shooting someone over a few bucks.

But criminals keep doing it, don't they?

I'll grant that it's better to hand over your wallet. If that doesn't appease them they're going to kill you; making a play can only improve your chances.

PhoneLobster wrote:Plus even an armed criminal will tend to be smart enough to know, police and courts care a lot less about an armed hold up than actually shooting an unarmed citizen. If they can pull it off without shooting they have less chance of being caught plus less chance of spending less time in prison if they are caught.

?

Are you enjoying your visit to planet Earth? Most criminals aren't smart. They're aggressive and impetuous, often drugged up.

"They aren't handing over their money fast enough, shoot 'em!"
"They didn't have any money, better shoot 'em!"
"He touched my stereo, I'll chop off his head!"

Sir_Neil at [unixtime wrote:1126678379[/unixtime]]

Are you enjoying your visit to planet Earth? Most criminals aren't smart. They're aggressive and impetuous, often drugged up.

Actually, most criminals are simply responding to circumstances that have gone beyond their control.

So on the one hand.

Some folks who reacon that criminals will shoot you every time because they think you touched their stereo.

On the other hand a general belief that the mugger is after your money and would rather not attract extra attention from the police.

Have you ever actually had to talk to poor people or are you totally secure in your all white upper middle class gated community?

I haven't exactly grown up on the street myself, but I have spent almost my entire life in one of the poorest and most crime ridden areas in my country.

And unlike people obsessed with the utterly disproven policies of "tough on crime" criminals are not congenitally insane. I know because I grew up with them.

As to the rest of Sir Neil's post I'm pulling a variant of my comment about election fixing way back in this thread (or was it the marxism one?). If you don't know what the count was referring to you clearly don't want to know.

Sir_Neil at [unixtime wrote:1126678379[/unixtime]]
Speech: Look at that crybaby mother in Texas. She's speaking against the government, and is getting airtime on every news network. Michael Moore keeps making movies.

And people keep dragging them throughn the mud. calling them "Unamerican" and whatever nonsense the republicnas are spouting when they have no reasonable argument.

Religion: When did Congress establish the Tjurtj of America? Which bill took away my ability to praise Eris and her sacred Chao? Or the Force?

Perhaps it's different from where you live, but in the area where I live, the local governments have said specifically that freedom of religion only applies to judeo-christian beliefs. It's technically against the constitution to do so, but no one's stopping them because the religious right have a pretty firm grip on W's nuts right now.

Unreasonable Search and Seizure: Perhaps we have different concepts of "reasonable"?

Due Process of Law: Whether what we're doing is legal depends entirely on which lawyer you listen to, so I'll give you this one.

Cruel and Unusual Punishment: ... uhm, I'm a bloodthirsty psychopath, so I'm really not the best judge of this, but I'm regularly distressed at how soft on crime we are, so they probably haven't taken this one away, either.

Perhaps you've forgotten all the American citizens in Guantanemo bay that aren't getting trials. And I bet you that even if most of them weren't Al Qaeda before going in, I bet being thrown in a prison and tortured would change their opinions about the USA.

Count_Arioch_the_28th at [unixtime wrote:1126690749[/unixtime]]

Sir_Neil at [unixtime wrote:1126678379[/unixtime]]
Speech: Look at that crybaby mother in Texas. She's speaking against the government, and is getting airtime on every news network. Michael Moore keeps making movies.

And people keep dragging them throughn the mud. calling them "Unamerican" and whatever nonsense the republicnas are spouting when they have no reasonable argument.

You have a strange idea of what freedom of speech means. The First Amendment (applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment) prevents the government from locking you up for saying what you believe. It doesn't prevent other people from criticizing you for what you say. If you have a thin skin, you really don't want to live in a country with free speech.

Religion: When did Congress establish the Tjurtj of America? Which bill took away my ability to praise Eris and her sacred Chao? Or the Force?

Perhaps it's different from where you live, but in the area where I live, the local governments have said specifically that freedom of religion only applies to judeo-christian beliefs. It's technically against the constitution to do so, but no one's stopping them because the religious right have a pretty firm grip on W's nuts right now.

I think that's a southern regional thing. Of course, Sir Neil does live in the South, too.

Unreasonable Search and Seizure: Perhaps we have different concepts of "reasonable"?

Due Process of Law: Whether what we're doing is legal depends entirely on which lawyer you listen to, so I'll give you this one.

Cruel and Unusual Punishment: ... uhm, I'm a bloodthirsty psychopath, so I'm really not the best judge of this, but I'm regularly distressed at how soft on crime we are, so they probably haven't taken this one away, either.

Perhaps you've forgotten all the American citizens in Guantanemo bay that aren't getting trials. And I bet you that even if most of them weren't Al Qaeda before going in, I bet being thrown in a prison and tortured would change their opinions about the USA.

I agree that the Bush administration is trying to bend or break all kinds of constitutional rights in the pursuit of the War on Terror. However, the courts aren't giving them the free pass they were in the first year or two after 9/11. Our judicial system lost its head like everyone else in the face of catastrophe, but it looks like the ship is starting to right itself.



All that said--on the question of "well-regulated militias": This is one of the most misunderstood passages in the Constitution. "Militias" at that time were closer to the infamous Michigan Militia than to the modern National Guard. They were organizations of average farmers who got together periodically and drilled in preparation for a clampdown on North America by the British army. So if you go by original intent, the U.S. Constitution actually enshrines the right of citizens to band together into paramilitary organizations with the express purpose of overthrowing the government if it oversteps its bounds. Now, such organizations aren't going to be very effective at overthrowing anything these days unless private citizens are granted the right to own tanks and jet fighters, but still....

Sir_Neil at [unixtime wrote:1126662054[/unixtime]]The deputy AG disagrees with you.

The Attourney General is an asshole.

And not a constitutional scholar or judge.

...So he could believe it was pink, for all it matters.

-Crissa

Actually, the Attorney General is a Constitutional Scholar.

Game On,
fbmf

Perhaps it's different from where you live, but in the area where I live, the local governments have said specifically that freedom of religion only applies to judeo-christian beliefs. It's technically against the constitution to do so, but no one's stopping them because the religious right have a pretty firm grip on W's nuts right now.

Which is funny, because W doesn't have the power to stop that whether the religious right is lovingly stroking his schlong or not. If it's as bad you say, then man up and take them to court. The ACLU will probably work the case pro-bono if they think they can get enough publicity out of it. But it's not like the President is sitting in the oval office twirling his handlebar mustache over what the the local government in a Virginia town is doing.

PhoneLobster wrote:Some folks who reacon that criminals will shoot you every time because they think you touched their stereo.

Every time? No, but each quote was an actual explaination given to police interrogators by the murderers. Maybe criminals are different Down Under?

Have you ever actually had to talk to poor people or are you totally secure in your all white upper middle class gated community?

I and all my coworkers are poor. And when you work security, you talk to all kinds of people.

(FWIW, I couldn't join an all-white community without bringing down their average.)

Count Arioch wrote:Perhaps it's different from where you live, but in the area where I live, the local governments have said specifically that freedom of religion only applies to judeo-christian beliefs.

Ah. I thought the religious loons were strongest back in the Carolinas, and even they didn't have the votes to pull that off. What did they do, specifically? Reading about fundy scum is truly heartwarming, since it makes my blood boil.

Perhaps you've forgotten all the American citizens in Guantanemo bay that aren't getting trials.

As of 6 Jul 05, they are only holding foreign nationals there.

"'But the Pentagon isn’t sending Americans to Gitmo, only foreigners.' That’s true but that’s only a political decision — one that can easily be rescinded, especially if the president and the Pentagon are able to achieve their goal of total independence at Gitmo — that is, no federal court interference with their 'wartime' operations."

And as AMW points out, the Supreme court has started riding the executive branch's ass about things like that.

I'd like to say that I stand corrected on the Gitmo issue then.

I'll try to find the story if I can, I'm a bit fuzzy on the details. But trust me, living so close to Jerry Falwell's church tends to give fundies some balls where I live.

Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:...living so close to Jerry Falwell's church...

*shudder*

You poor guy.

Now I'm having flashbacks. A billboard showing several people's legs from the knees down as white sillouettes on a green field, with the caption, "There's a place for you at the Florence Baptist Temple".

Everytime we passed it, I'd think, "Under your booted heels?"

*shudder*

Anyone here read Freakonomics?

It makes a damn good argument for why guns are just fine and dandy in the hands of civilians.*

Simple question: what's more dangerous to your kids... a gun in the house, or a pool in the yard?

Don't answer, I'm obviously setting this up for some good ol' fashioned rhetoric. The pool is far more dangerous.

Granted, the optimum safety would be to have neither, but I find the pro-gun arguments sufficiently convincing to not make such a damn fuss about how many guns the civies own.

It's like that Darwin award given to the guy who tried to rob a gun shop. He got the drop on all the cutomers, but in the end, it didn't really matter. He was turned into ground beef a la lead.


And yes, the wording of the second Amendment is ambigous enough. Let me post it here now.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Two ways to interpret that, both valid.

1. Militia WITH Arms Shall not be infringed.
2. Militia Shall not be infringed; Arms shall not be infringed.

One of those interpretations removes a right from The People. One less right... is that really what we want?

And why have none of the gun-control advocates replied to the observation that some countries with extremely low violence rates have high gun ownership?




*He also advances the thesis that the crime reduction witnessed after the 80s can best be attributed to abortion. While his argument is not as convincing, it is an interesting point of view nonetheless, and somewhat supported. He notes there is virtually no evidence that shows any gun-control efforts have done anything to reduce violent crime.

null wrote:And why have none of the gun-control advocates replied to the observation that some countries with extremely low violence rates have high gun ownership?

Hadn't noticed anyone making the claim.

It is true though. But its that whole poverty/culture thing thing long since mentioned.

You yanks have one of the worst societies in the western world on both fronts, you can't get away with extra fire arms the way Canada can.

But as Frank long since pointed out here. Gun control helps, but it is NOTHING in the face of social equality when it comes to dealing with all forms of crime and death.

The pool vs gun observation is a farce as well. The gun continues to be dangerous to adults in a way that pools do not (failing anything else I can use my gun I keep in my house to go down to the main street and kill twenty or thirty people, ala Port Arthur).

And notably a gun brings no actual benefit (it making you more likely to be killed by an intruder for instance) while a pool can bring years of health and happyness and help teach a skill that genuinely can save your life (the ability to swim) and can't be turned against you in a struggle with a burgular to put a hole in your head.

You had to pick a pool, rapa. You just had to...

Despite the fact that I often had to go haul my baby brother's little butt out of our swimming pool (damned kid genius found 1001 ways to get into the damned thing), I would still rather have a pool in my house than a gun. Despite the fact that my mom used to keep a shotgun by her bedroom door to scare away the drug-dealers that lived in the neighborhood, I'd still rather have a pool in my house than a gun.

Now, I realize that unlike a lot of people, I don't think a gun makes me secure. Personally, it's a reminder of how insecure I am. And over the years, I've learned that what actually helps me sleep at night is a decent lock on the door, having someone else in the house (a noisy and alert pet works just as well), and being able to get to a phone to call for help.

Maj at [unixtime wrote:1126817512[/unixtime]]
Now, I realize that unlike a lot of people, I don't think a gun makes me secure. Personally, it's a reminder of how insecure I am. And over the years, I've learned that what actually helps me sleep at night is a decent lock on the door, having someone else in the house (a noisy and alert pet works just as well), and being able to get to a phone to call for help.

Well this is really what it's about, the feeling of security.

Me personally, I realize that locks can be broken, no matter how good, and that the police take a while to respond. Personally I'd feel safer knowing that I could at least put up a good fight if my home was invaded.

And overall it's what works for everyone. If you're ok with just having a good lock and a phone, then that's cool, nobody is forcing you to carry around a gun. On the other hand, if some people feel more secure with guns, why not allow them to have guns?

THat isn't to say everyone should be allowed to get a gun. Not allowing people with mental illnesses to purchase firearms is a good precaution against random shootings. Similarly, people who have been shown to have violent tempers, who do road rage crime and get in a lot of bar fights, should similarly be restricted as to their ownership. But trying to prevent everyone from owning a gun is pointless. It just makes your citizens easier targets.

Of course, if the lock breaks, the house is invaded, what security does a gun buy you?

Most home invasions are against drug dealers and transporters. They're already armed.

Weapons make an already tense situation worse not better.

-Crissa

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1125992684[/unixtime]]

RandomCasualty at [unixtime wrote:1122605216[/unixtime]]Handing out guns to civilians is a great deterrant to street crime, like armed roberries, muggings, rapes, hate crimes and so on. It works because it forces every violent criminal to consider that he could be against not only the police, but the entirety of society.

I think we can agree that the events in New Orleans pretty much proved this false.

An armed society is not a polite society.

-Crissa

What events in New Orleans? Apparently, most of the reported violent crimes were urban myths.

AW wrote:What events in New Orleans?

Well thats the other thing about crime (mentioned somewhere here in the past).

Everyone thinks there is more of it because of irresponsible media coverage.

People are then afraid to go out at night or let their kids play outside.*

Other folks tool up with dangerous weapons more likely to be used by them in a moment of misguided anger or fumbling stupidity.

The whole of society acts as if its under seige even though crime rates are generally dropping. (not that thats going to last with the current economic outlook)

*This is one thing that really annoys me. People in Australia just plain don't walk anywhere, or hang around outside. Its lonely out there on the streets, and you can mistake most of populated Australia for a recently abandoned ghost town, everyone hiding in their houses behind drawn curtains their entire lives, not going anywhere or talking to anyone.

You need to find a suburb heavily dominated by migrants before you find people who actually understand that the outdoors exists and you are allowed to hang around in it without being arrested for thought crimes. (though if Howard has his way with his latest raft of insane law making all those swarthy brown skinned blokes WILL be arrested for thought crimes, but lets not get into that)

Absentminded_Wizard at [unixtime wrote:1127787156[/unixtime]]What events in New Orleans? Apparently, most of the reported violent crimes were urban myths.

Yes, quite.

None of the crime in those false reports was armed people defending themselves.

So, this helps your position how?

It does, however, supports my position that the armed people were not polite; and that the unarmed people were quite alot more safe than we were told. Well, safe being a relative term.

-Crissa