Quote from thisnameistaken :

I suppose in lieu of any evidence you could just look at violent crime numbers and see if there's a significant fall in states where concealed carry permits were introduced. If there isn't then those nice wild west people probably aren't helping, they're just getting their guns stolen and used to commit crimes (something the statistics do show).

No effect, says science.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 3.2003.tb00002.x/abstract


More research that shows no effect, either way (gun control or decontrol):

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato ... urnal/2001/1/cj26n1-6.pdf

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/2/77.full

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=878132

There's a lot more where that came from, too. Occasionally, you will find an interesting outlier that disagrees, either citing decreased crime rate with increased gun control (as a study in Australia did after the firearms ban and collection program) or an increase of gun ownership and decrease in gun control laws leading to less crime (like Lott's work and subsequent book, "More Guns, Less Crime"), but for each example you will not only find 2 or 3 other studies that contradict, but you will also find shaky ground under the outlier studies, like a lack of peer-review on the Australian work, and an inconsistent model in Lott's work. In the case of the Aussie study there were two other studies conducted which used the exact same data and instead came to a "no effect" conclusion.

The violence problem is socioeconomic in nature and nowhere near as simple as "remove the guns" or "add more guns".

This is only marginally related, but it's a great read: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01 ... l?pagewanted=all&_r=0

This one, too: http://www.motherjones.com/env ... /lead-crime-link-gasoline

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

This one, too: http://www.motherjones.com/env ... /lead-crime-link-gasoline

How long until 'lead is a conspiracy' talks begin?

Oh, I'm sure they have already.

Quote from Mustangman759 :

Well some people were more affected than others. And I will tell you it is completely different when its so close to home and not in another state. trust me it hits home and makes you think about how that could have been any school.

People seen getting shot: two
People seen that were shot to death.... 5? 6? The last one was a block from the house. They shot the guy and dumped him in a little drainage ditch beside the road.
You think you get used to it but you never do. It still messes with your head.
One night while racing some aussies, I had to bail and chase off a burglar. He was trying to get in the front door. I swung the door open and drew my gun. We just sort of looked stupid at each other for a second and then he took off. He wasn't armed and he didn't even have a pry tool. I chased after him halfway thru the front yard. He ran off down the street. I let him go.
From time to time I think about that and I still flip it over and over if I should've shot him. All kinds of thoughts go thru your mind when this happens.
like:
Is this for real?
Maybe the idiot's lost?
Maybe he has friends?
Where's his car?
All kinds of crazy stuff even though I knew he was trying to break in.

All you folks for gun control - well good for you. I think I'll control my own guns thank you very much.

The only gun control of some sort i would like to see is a resticion on assualt rifles and other weapons. A pistol doesnt need to be changed imo, i think a pistol is plent for personal protection... Do you really need an assualt rifle?

Quote from MadCat360 :

The violence problem is socioeconomic in nature and nowhere near as simple as "remove the guns" or "add more guns".

Exactly, which implies that the only solution for it is changing the system, and that, at the end of the day, is a hard enough feat to achieve having the right to own guns.

Its unconstitutional. The second amendment was not added primarily for personal protection, and so banning weapons because they don't fit into that restrictive purpose doesn't take into account the intent of the amendment which was to keep and bear arms in order to protect the State. Pistols are not so useful in that role anymore.

The signers knew that an armed society was was a major limiting factor in how much control the central government could impose. The biggest threat to freedom was known to be the government, the power capable of infringing on that right for the gain of politicians and others.

That being said, there's no reason armed citizens shouldn't be 'well regulated'. Background checks, waiting periods, training and qualifying are all reasonable regulations.

Quote from Yuri Laszlo :

Exactly, which implies that the only solution for it is changing the system, and that, at the end of the day, is a hard enough feat to achieve having the right to own guns.

I certainly implies that improving the socioeconomic conditions should help the situation. It also implies that things will improve as humans evolve socially and genetically. Historically this is the case.

The simple fact of the matter is, people are looking for overnight solutions that yield results within their lifetime that, realistically, may actually take hundreds or thousands of years. Progress marches, but it does not do so at the pace we prescribe.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

This is only marginally related, but it's a great read: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01 ... l?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Forgiveness is great but in the end it is a question of will he do it again. The way I see it is that punishment is not what the justice is about. Especially in serious crimes. Punishment does work well for smaller crimes like speeding, shoplifting and such because there is acts as a deterrent.

But generally forgiving and possibly making the mistake of letting these people out too soon (or at all, or letting them live) who have done serious crimes can have such tragic consequences that in the end one needs to ask is it a good thing to make things differently just so some people can feel good about it?

I'm more than happy to let people sort out their lives out but when it comes to people who have history of domestic violence and who once got so mad that he shot his wife to the face with shotgun I'm a bit hesitant to believe that it is not safe for society to have these people walking around free. Even if it makes the killer's relatives and family friends feel more good about it. There are "mistakes" the society can only give us the chance to do only once imho.

Quote from flymike91 :

Its unconstitutional. The second amendment was not added primarily for personal protection, and so banning weapons because they don't fit into that restrictive purpose doesn't take into account the intent of the amendment which was to keep and bear arms in order to protect the State. Pistols are not so useful in that role anymore.

The signers knew that an armed society was was a major limiting factor in how much control the central government could impose. The biggest threat to freedom was known to be the government, the power capable of infringing on that right for the gain of politicians and others.

That being said, there's no reason armed citizens shouldn't be 'well regulated'. Background checks, waiting periods, training and qualifying are all reasonable regulations.

When the constitution was signed, the "right to bear arms" was the right to own a musket that could fire a few very inaccurate rounds per minute. Today, the "right to bear arms" is the right to own a finely engineered instrument of death.

Beside that, the constitution itself was by its nature intended to be constantly revised and rewritten. As Thomas Jefferson put it: " No society can make a perpetual Constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation ...... Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."

Before you fall back on the ridiculous "it's unconstitutional" defence, you should consider that the current constitution itself is unconstitutional.

"I'm an amendment to be,
Yes, an amendment to be,
And I'm hoping that they'll ratify me"

That spoof educational film from The Simpsons is brilliant.
I haven't seen the episode for years but the lyrics are so good I remember them clearly. :-)
The liberal freaks really do go too far.

The American constitution is a weird thing. Pointless really. Nothing is set in stone, but people seem to want to feel that it is.

Quote from sinbad :

"I'm an amendment to be,
Yes, an amendment to be,
And I'm hoping that they'll ratify me"

That spoof educational film from The Simpsons is brilliant.

I haven't seen it but was it a parody of School House Rock's "I'm Just A Bill"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4ND1tBsMw0

Quote from flymike91 :

Its unconstitutional. The second amendment was not added primarily for personal protection, and so banning weapons because they don't fit into that restrictive purpose doesn't take into account the intent of the amendment which was to keep and bear arms in order to protect the State. Pistols are not so useful in that role anymore.

Didn't we already establish that assault rifles are just as effective as pistols against tanks and jets? Why are you still trotting out that stupid argument?

Quote from flymike91 :

The signers knew that an armed society was was a major limiting factor in how much control the central government could impose.

The most dependable thing to empower any form of government is primarily division amongst the people being governed. What authority fears even more than intelligence is unity. It's easily deduced then that governments have rarely anything to be afraid of.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

I haven't seen it but was it a parody of School House Rock's "I'm Just A Bill"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4ND1tBsMw0

Hah yes!
Thanks for posting that, never seen it before.
It makes this even funnier. And I know who had the more talented composer too!
http://vimeo.com/24701987

this is so OT

Of course it's all off topic, cus we're not allowed to discuss any actual facts relating to this or you'll find yourself abused by those who believe the propoganda that their fed everyday.

And clearly here any questions raised about the fantasy that is the official story are simply a conspiracy theory.........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAsVmzBX8F0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXksKWJV8lc
http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/281314.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMpnG5AwoRc




Take a look at the bullet holes in the car belonging to Lauren Rousseau, who was reportedly killed in the Sandy Hook shootings.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new ... e-1.1223210#ixzz2GQJSQmoE
A specialist in National Security and Constitutional Law said that there were three shooters at Sandy Hook massacre that left 26 people, including 20 children, dead
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... p;feature=player_embedded
http://leaksource.wordpress.co ... ook-school-mass-shooting/
http://www.examiner.com/video/ ... e.com/watch?v=gnXyzzn-3tY


And why does the second ammendment exist, the right to bear arms ?
Let's listen to the people who created the constitution for the reason this is there.....

The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- The Federalist, No. 46
- James Madison

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." -- The Federalist, No. 29
- Alexander Hamilton

"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." -- Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775
- Thomas Paine

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
- Patrick Henry

"While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny."
- Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that axists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
- Noah Webster An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peacable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possesions."
- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

"... of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trail by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms.... If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny."
- James Monroe

It's just a shame that since 911 you've given up much of your constitution, and if you read the above quotes, you'll understand why you are no longer allowed weapons...........

No those bullet holes cant be photoshopped. Also, it is true there was a second man found in the woods.

*bites tongue, closes browser*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... p;list=PL97003FBB99FAFACB

America's disgrace in the 1992 LA riots is the best example of how the government cannot protect you, and will not protect you in the event of a real outbreak of mass violence. Is there any reason to believe this kind of civil unrest cannot happen again?

Quote from flymike91 :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... p;list=PL97003FBB99FAFACB

America's disgrace in the 1992 LA riots is the best example of how the government cannot protect you, and will not protect you in the event of a real outbreak of mass violence. Is there any reason to believe this kind of civil unrest cannot happen again?

Are you old enough to remember that event? You seem to have a pretty weird attitude towards it.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

Are you old enough to remember that event? You seem to have a pretty weird attitude towards it.

Judging by his username, he was born in 1991.. which would make him 21 as of now.. or 1 year old at that posted clip.

I think he'd have a solid recollection and understanding of those events at 1 year old.

I have the same or probably more understanding of events as they unfolded as everyone else in the world who was not in Los Angeles in 1992. Being a Californian, this event is described in retrospect as being one that brought shame to the state (the failure of police to do their jobs protecting lives and property) and everyone involved in the looting and murders who might otherwise have never done such things. I have watched the videos of innocent people who were on their way home from work and were dragged from their cars and beaten to death for absolutely no reason other than "everyone else is doing it" or "because he was white."

I don't feel the need to die just because everyone else is, so I keep and bear arms every day.

I too bear arms wherever I go.

They are from the grizzly I wrestled last summer.

Nobody ****s with me now.