Open Carry March on Washington DC July 4th

[Conserative Morality]

Bigger undertakings will have bigger unintended consequences.

If we're discussing scale alone, scale increases the consequences. By observing the consequences in other countries, we can prepare accordingly. Weak and defeatist.

Bigger undertakings take longer amounts of time, more funding, and invite more opposition (look at Healthcare, for example).

No shit. They also have bigger returns.

Bigger undertakings are more difficult to undertake.

Pick one.

Defeatist. Why do you think we landed on the moon before the Russians? Because difficulty is not an obstacle for determination; only possibility.

[Edlichbury]

Time, funding, opposition, and difficulty are all pretty flawed reasons to not do something. For unintended consequences, I'd like to see what actual unintended consequences there has been. Hard to judge the value of something that isn't defined.

I got one for you: Ordinary folks disarmed, criminals armed, and police 20 minutes away....

Again, please show statistics. Until then, I'm holding with the studies that show a huge decline in murder, assault, and robbery rates after gun control.

[Alekera]

"Never bring a knife to a gunfight" ~Anon

Never bring a gun to a nukefight.

Nothing new that our government does.... But to note, I have rarely, if at all, seen any instance of a man bring a nuke to a gunfight.

[Ifreann]

Bulletproof vests. Locked doors. Alarm systems. More than one way out of the house. Police protective custody.

---

I can easily believe it from some of the "Man in your house, what do?" threads we've had. There's always a few people who come off as practically gleeful when describing how they'd kill the bad man.

ID TAKE OTE MY NINJA SORD AND SLIC HIS DICK OF AN CHOK HIM WIF IT.

LOL BUT IT WOULDN BE BIG NUF!

LOLOL

That'd be the gist, yes.

---

Bulletproof vests. Locked doors. Alarm systems. More than one way out of the house. Police protective custody.

---

I can easily believe it from some of the "Man in your house, what do?" threads we've had. There's always a few people who come off as practically gleeful when describing how they'd kill the bad man.

I shall cut off his head, shit down his neck, rape his corpse, and then eat his heart.

And not necessarily in that order.

---

Time, funding, opposition, and difficulty are all pretty flawed reasons to not do something. For unintended consequences, I'd like to see what actual unintended consequences there has been. Hard to judge the value of something that isn't defined.

I got one for you: Ordinary folks disarmed, criminals armed, and police 20 minutes away....

Knowing my house better than an intruder and having an alarm, I'm out a back window and out of there before the intruder even finds me.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Well, for starters it gives Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones ammunition for their crazy conspiracy ideas.

On a smaller side note, 'increased security' generally implies civil rights violations.
Edit: 'Smaller side note' is sarcasm

Civil rights being violated at an airport don't concern me nearly as much as death. You can get back your rights, but very few people got back from death.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the problem with gun-control advocates

That is as disgusting as those NRA advocates who (may not even exist, I've never seen them) want to require firearm ownership and/or carrying.

Edit: In fact, I'd call it worse, but that would be solely political. Seriously, are you even listening to yourself anymore?

You know WHY gun-rights advocates get so pissy about gun-control (besides how it is oftentimes pushed by people who have no idea what they're talking about)? It's because they happen to value rights.

You know what, I'm going to say it. Rights are more valuable than objective lives. Because that reasoning is shit, and responsible for more monstrosity than civilian firearm usage has ever caused.

[Mkuki]

Never bring a gun to a nukefight.

Nothing new that our government does.... But to note, I have rarely, if at all, seen any instance of a man bring a nuke to a gunfight.

Too bad. It's happened many times. Somewhere in the tens of thousands actually.

[Olivaero]

Time, funding, opposition, and difficulty are all pretty flawed reasons to not do something. For unintended consequences, I'd like to see what actual unintended consequences there has been. Hard to judge the value of something that isn't defined.

I got one for you: Ordinary folks disarmed, criminals armed, and police 20 minutes away....

You should probably increase police coverage and response time and work harder to disarm criminals then.

[The Steel Magnolia]

That there's only so many of and could take at least 2 minutes (Fastest response from regular ARMED police I've ever seen) to respond to a call. A lot of shit can happen in 2 minutes.

Then the cop will find me holding a bloody knife and dead body on the floor, along with some vomit I let out after realizing I just killed someone.

Doesn't really justify not allowing guns for personal defense though.

[Genivaria]

Then the cop will find me holding a bloody knife and dead body on the floor, along with some vomit I let out after realizing I just killed someone.

Doesn't really justify not allowing guns for personal defense though.

No that's what the gun violence statistics are for.

[Mkuki]

Civil rights being violated at an airport don't concern me nearly as much as death. You can get back your rights, but very few people got back from death.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the problem with gun-control advocates

That is as disgusting as those NRA advocates who (may not even exist, I've never seen them) want to require firearm ownership and/or carrying.

I dunno about NRA, but I heard about an article recently about a Georgia town that wanted to require their citizens to own a firearm.

[Ifreann]

I got one for you: Ordinary folks disarmed, criminals armed, and police 20 minutes away....

You should probably increase police coverage and response time and work harder to disarm criminals then.

The police are busy with the 10,000 armed terrorists threatening the government.

[The UK in Exile]

Civil rights being violated at an airport don't concern me nearly as much as death. You can get back your rights, but very few people got back from death.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the problem with gun-control advocates

That is as disgusting as those NRA advocates who (may not even exist, I've never seen them) want to require firearm ownership and/or carrying.

the problem with Gun control advocates is that they support metal detectors in airports?

[Edlichbury]

Time, funding, opposition, and difficulty are all pretty flawed reasons to not do something. For unintended consequences, I'd like to see what actual unintended consequences there has been. Hard to judge the value of something that isn't defined.

Well, it's pretty easy to spot one major one for a blanket ban.

1.5-2.5 million defensive gun uses in the US every year. Hard to have a defensive gun use without a gun. Of course, not all of these will result in dead people. But many will.

Yeah that is grade a bullshit. Quoth NYT:
"A new paper from the Violence Policy Center states that “for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700.” That comes to an annual average of 67,740 — not nothing, but nowhere near the N.R.A.’s 2 million or 2.5 million.

Readers can judge for themselves whether the V.P.C. or the N.R.A. is likely to have better numbers. The V.P.C. used data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The N.R.A.’s estimate is the result of a telephone survey conducted by a Florida State University criminologist."

Additionally, aggressive gun use is even higher than defensive use. In a pure cost-benefit analysis, gun control has the edge.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Well, it's pretty easy to spot one major one for a blanket ban.

1.5-2.5 million defensive gun uses in the US every year. Hard to have a defensive gun use without a gun. Of course, not all of these will result in dead people. But many will.

Yeah that is grade a bullshit. Quoth NYT:
"A new paper from the Violence Policy Center states that “for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700.” That comes to an annual average of 67,740 — not nothing, but nowhere near the N.R.A.’s 2 million or 2.5 million.

Readers can judge for themselves whether the V.P.C. or the N.R.A. is likely to have better numbers. The V.P.C. used data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The N.R.A.’s estimate is the result of a telephone survey conducted by a Florida State University criminologist."

Additionally, aggressive gun use is even higher than defensive use. In a pure cost-benefit analysis, gun control has the edge.

Have a link?

Edit: Also VPC is biased.

Edit^2: In fact, I should just laugh at that statistic right now. That's like me sourcing the NRA.

[Edlichbury]

Civil rights being violated at an airport don't concern me nearly as much as death. You can get back your rights, but very few people got back from death.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the problem with gun-control advocates

That is as disgusting as those NRA advocates who (may not even exist, I've never seen them) want to require firearm ownership and/or carrying.

Edit: In fact, I'd call it worse, but that would be solely political. Seriously, are you even listening to yourself anymore?

You know WHY gun-rights advocates get so pissy about gun-control (besides how it is oftentimes pushed by people who have no idea what they're talking about)? It's because they happen to value rights.

You know what, I'm going to say it. Rights are more valuable than objective lives. Because that reasoning is shit, and responsible for more monstrosity than civilian firearm usage has ever caused.

Keep your "rights" then. They will do you so much good in an early grave. Death eliminates all rights: from the perspective of maximizing rights, death is always the worst-case scenario.

I've said it once, I'll say it again: I will gladly trade my right to own guns and some privacy at the airport if that will prevent gun deaths.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Doesn't really justify not allowing guns for personal defense though.

No that's what the gun violence statistics are for.

Very true, if that's the argument you're going with.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the problem with gun-control advocates

That is as disgusting as those NRA advocates who (may not even exist, I've never seen them) want to require firearm ownership and/or carrying.

the problem with Gun control advocates is that they support metal detectors in airports?

That they think violating rights is A-OK.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the problem with gun-control advocates

That is as disgusting as those NRA advocates who (may not even exist, I've never seen them) want to require firearm ownership and/or carrying.

Edit: In fact, I'd call it worse, but that would be solely political. Seriously, are you even listening to yourself anymore?

You know WHY gun-rights advocates get so pissy about gun-control (besides how it is oftentimes pushed by people who have no idea what they're talking about)? It's because they happen to value rights.

You know what, I'm going to say it. Rights are more valuable than objective lives. Because that reasoning is shit, and responsible for more monstrosity than civilian firearm usage has ever caused.

Keep your "rights" then. They will do you so much good in an early grave. Death eliminates all rights: from the perspective of maximizing rights, death is always the worst-case scenario.

I've said it once, I'll say it again: I will gladly trade my right to own guns and some privacy at the airport if that will prevent gun deaths.

Good for you.

I won't.

[Edlichbury]

Yeah that is grade a bullshit. Quoth NYT:
"A new paper from the Violence Policy Center states that “for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700.” That comes to an annual average of 67,740 — not nothing, but nowhere near the N.R.A.’s 2 million or 2.5 million.

Readers can judge for themselves whether the V.P.C. or the N.R.A. is likely to have better numbers. The V.P.C. used data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The N.R.A.’s estimate is the result of a telephone survey conducted by a Florida State University criminologist."

Additionally, aggressive gun use is even higher than defensive use. In a pure cost-benefit analysis, gun control has the edge.

Have a link?

Edit: Also VPC is biased.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/201 ... e-gun-use/

And the NRA isn't? The defensive stat implies that nearly 1% of Americans use guns defensively each year, which borders on the impossible. Furthermore, from same source,

"The V.P.C. also found that in 2010 “there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm” reported to the F.B.I.’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Compare that with the number of criminal gun homicides in the same year: 8,275. "

I trust stats from the FBI far more than the NRA.

[Edlichbury]

the problem with Gun control advocates is that they support metal detectors in airports?

That they think violating rights is A-OK.

Killing another person doesn't violate their rights?

[Ifreann]

the problem with Gun control advocates is that they support metal detectors in airports?

That they think violating rights is A-OK.

I don't think you can infer "A-OK" from "Better than dying".

[The Steel Magnolia]

That they think violating rights is A-OK.

I don't think you can infer "A-OK" from "Better than dying".

As the David Dingwall quote goes...

"I'm entitled to my entitlements."

[Edlichbury]

Yeah that is grade a bullshit. Quoth NYT:
"A new paper from the Violence Policy Center states that “for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700.” That comes to an annual average of 67,740 — not nothing, but nowhere near the N.R.A.’s 2 million or 2.5 million.

Readers can judge for themselves whether the V.P.C. or the N.R.A. is likely to have better numbers. The V.P.C. used data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The N.R.A.’s estimate is the result of a telephone survey conducted by a Florida State University criminologist."

Additionally, aggressive gun use is even higher than defensive use. In a pure cost-benefit analysis, gun control has the edge.

Have a link?

Edit: Also VPC is biased.

Edit^2: In fact, I should just laugh at that statistic right now. That's like me sourcing the NRA.

http://www.stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance ... .myth0.pdf

Here's another, just in case.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Have a link?

Edit: Also VPC is biased.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/201 ... e-gun-use/

And the NRA isn't? The defensive stat implies that nearly 1% of Americans use guns defensively each year, which borders on the impossible. Furthermore, from same source,

"The V.P.C. also found that in 2010 “there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm” reported to the F.B.I.’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Compare that with the number of criminal gun homicides in the same year: 8,275. "

I trust stats from the FBI far more than the NRA.

And I trust studies and polls from news organizations and sociologists more than the VPC or the NRA.

Besides, I quite specifically mentioned defensive gun uses. Justifiable homocide is just one aspect of those.

[Genivaria]

No that's what the gun violence statistics are for.

Very true, if that's the argument you're going with.

Yes, the 'knife intruder' thing was in response to something different.