concealed weapons
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
No it needs a police force
Exactly! And where do the police come from? Government! Aha! It's the government controlling the markets!
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)No they would be enforcing the law, not manipulating the markets and downing them in bureaucracy.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
No they would be enforcing the law, not manipulating the markets and downing them in bureaucracy.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
The law is REGULATION. Why you are incapable of seeing something so basic is beyond comprehension. Bureaucracy is the result of the need to document people following the rules. Feel free to resort to insults when your programming hits
if (cantwinargument) reply.insultthem();If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
They do not seem to keep track of how many of those were the result of a registered firearm being used.
The data for that probably just doesn't exist. Most states do not require firearms to be registered. If I buy one from a dealer they will run a background check and have me take a little true/false test. Most the questions are along the lines of "Are you crazy?", "Are you stalking someone?", "Are you on drugs?" etc. If I buy the gun from a private party, none of this happens. Permitting issues really only apply if I want to carry a gun concealed in my pocket, etc. Most every place you can carry a gun concealed with a permit you can carry the gun openly without one. Open carry just tends to raise a lot more eyebrows.
thrakazog wrote:
The data for that probably just doesn't exist. Most states do not require firearms to be registered.
OK, then I await advice on how Richard's comment makes any sense, I guess....
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
No they would be enforcing the law, not manipulating the markets and downing them in bureaucracy.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
Enforcing laws = Making sure people follow the rules = Watching them to be sure they're following the rules = Regulation If you can't get that through your skull, then this entire conversation is pointless, and you should go get therapy QUICKLY.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
The law is REGULATION. Why you are incapable of seeing something so basic is beyond comprehension. Bureaucracy is the result of the need to document people following the rules. Feel free to resort to insults when your programming hits
if (cantwinargument) reply.insultthem();If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
The law is REGULATION.
No the law is not regulation. The law makes it illegal to steal, the law makes it illegal to defraud. The law could be written as one sentence. Regulatory codes takes volumes upon volumes of text for just a single entity, such as a car tire size, crash testing, mileage, and emissions. The bureaucracy requires even more resources and all of this only causes the economy to crumble.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Enforcing laws = Making sure people follow the rules = Watching them to be sure they're following the rules = Regulation If you can't get that through your skull, then this entire conversation is pointless, and you should go get therapy QUICKLY.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)You started trying to sell me more nonsense regulation, but you have squirmed down to a level where basic property rights, personal liberty, free markets, and so on is the regulation.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
You started trying to sell me more nonsense regulation, but you have squirmed down to a level where basic property rights, personal liberty, free markets, and so on is the regulation.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You started trying to sell me more nonsense regulation
Excuse me? Where did I say that? Link? I've been trying to explain to you that any form of fraud prevention, which you merely term "enforcement," IS regulation. I think you understand that now. Now if you're assuming that by "regulation," I meant price fixing, inflation control, etc... Well that's you reading into it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You started trying to sell me more nonsense regulation
Excuse me? Where did I say that? Link? I've been trying to explain to you that any form of fraud prevention, which you merely term "enforcement," IS regulation. I think you understand that now. Now if you're assuming that by "regulation," I meant price fixing, inflation control, etc... Well that's you reading into it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)You are trying to redefine words. A law is a law, a regulation is a regulation. There is a difference between the two. I know your puny little ass has a hard time understanding. You effeminate NYC turd life growing up domesticated and enclosed in a compact highly survailed with terror police with sub-machine guns in the subways. You don't have a car, and you spend your free time in a lonely apartment writing fairtales of Xen and shit. :doh:
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
thrakazog wrote:
The data for that probably just doesn't exist. Most states do not require firearms to be registered.
OK, then I await advice on how Richard's comment makes any sense, I guess....
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
You are trying to redefine words. A law is a law, a regulation is a regulation. There is a difference between the two. I know your puny little ass has a hard time understanding. You effeminate NYC turd life growing up domesticated and enclosed in a compact highly survailed with terror police with sub-machine guns in the subways. You don't have a car, and you spend your free time in a lonely apartment writing fairtales of Xen and shit. :doh:
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
Actually, I grew up in the suburbs, with a car, a yard... Hell, even a swingset, when I was little... I moved to the city by choice, because this is where the best jobs are. You keep talking about freedom, but anyone someone exercises that freedom by choosing something you disagree with, you insult them. But hey... That's freedom, right? You're entirely free to be a complete bigot. You and Gordon Brown should have a little chat. But MEANWHILE...
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are trying to redefine words. A law is a law, a regulation is a regulation. There is a difference between the two.
Regulation[^]: 1. a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority, esp. to regulate conduct. (Dictionary.com) Law[^]: 1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision. (Dictionary.com) (Emphasis added) Man, I knew this would make my point, but I didn't expect them to actually use them to define each other... In the first definition of each, no less... Care to rethink your argument?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Actually, I grew up in the suburbs, with a car, a yard... Hell, even a swingset, when I was little... I moved to the city by choice, because this is where the best jobs are. You keep talking about freedom, but anyone someone exercises that freedom by choosing something you disagree with, you insult them. But hey... That's freedom, right? You're entirely free to be a complete bigot. You and Gordon Brown should have a little chat. But MEANWHILE...
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are trying to redefine words. A law is a law, a regulation is a regulation. There is a difference between the two.
Regulation[^]: 1. a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority, esp. to regulate conduct. (Dictionary.com) Law[^]: 1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision. (Dictionary.com) (Emphasis added) Man, I knew this would make my point, but I didn't expect them to actually use them to define each other... In the first definition of each, no less... Care to rethink your argument?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)You don't have the right to support a corrupt government that takes people's rights and property.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
You don't have the right to support a corrupt government that takes people's rights and property.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
Ok, that's a pretty huge change of subject, so I'll take that as your acknowledgement that regulation is necessary, and we move on...
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You don't have the right to support a corrupt government that takes people's rights and property.
Actually, I do, so long as that "support" doesn't violate any laws. You need to get it through your head that freedom is a two-way street. You're free to advocate your dissatisfaction with government, and we're free to disagree with you. You're free to regurgitate Alex Jones, and we're free to laugh at you for it. I can never remember who said this originally, but the quote went, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it." Now, if we lived in Iran, you'd have been locked up, tortured, and executed by now for speaking against the government... I linked over to the WP article on that from a news article this morning, and started reading about it a bit... You know if I went there, they would actually execute me for being an atheist? That's a scary thought.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ok, that's a pretty huge change of subject, so I'll take that as your acknowledgement that regulation is necessary, and we move on...
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You don't have the right to support a corrupt government that takes people's rights and property.
Actually, I do, so long as that "support" doesn't violate any laws. You need to get it through your head that freedom is a two-way street. You're free to advocate your dissatisfaction with government, and we're free to disagree with you. You're free to regurgitate Alex Jones, and we're free to laugh at you for it. I can never remember who said this originally, but the quote went, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it." Now, if we lived in Iran, you'd have been locked up, tortured, and executed by now for speaking against the government... I linked over to the WP article on that from a news article this morning, and started reading about it a bit... You know if I went there, they would actually execute me for being an atheist? That's a scary thought.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Actually, I do, so long as that "support" doesn't violate any laws.
It does violate laws, you are aiding and abiding high treasonous criminals.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Actually, I do, so long as that "support" doesn't violate any laws.
It does violate laws, you are aiding and abiding high treasonous criminals.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It does violate laws, you are aiding and abiding high treasonous criminals
Only if you can prove that the government is treasonous (Impossible by definition) and criminal. Anyway... I don't support the government... I tolerate it for now. Despite how you keep trying to identify me as a brainwashed servant of Uncle Sam, I do think for myself, and right now I consider our government to be "good enough." It's not even close to perfect, but it's tolerable for the moment.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Really the real cause of the suicides is antidepressants and the like that explicitly state that a major side-effect is suicide. Give me a fucking break. People are so miserable because of the chemicalized foods, destructive drugs pushed by doctors and governments, and rampant tyranny causing great misery to the people.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Really the real cause of the suicides is antidepressants and the like that explicitly state that a major side-effect is suicide.
The biochemical explanation for why antidepressants increase suicide risk is well known. Can you tell me what it is and marginally increase your credibility?
- F
-
RichardM1 wrote:
It does not happen "all the time". It almost never happens
Never happens. Surely having guns floating around when someone goes postal[^] is not a good thing. Only in action movies you you reckon? I find myself wondering what movies you watch.
Steve
Nice. Surely just spouting off with no facts is not a good thing. Count how many people have died from legally concealed carry permitted persons' weapons. in the last 2 years, 161 from this "obviously" pro gun site[^] This includes cases where the permit had no effect on the case, such as a stored gun used by someone else, obviously unconcealable weapons, and self defense cases. It isn't good, but you might want to do something about the death rate of cyclists or snuff users, too.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Look up statistics on the use of legally concealed weapons for crimes
But if you flood society with 'legal' guns, you make it easier for criminals to get them.
RichardM1 wrote:
The wrong hands already have them. It's getting them into the right hands that counts.
Do you have any statistics on the mythically common occurence of US gun owners shooting to defend their life or property ? If it does keep your crime rates lower, why are they so high still ? 'The wrong hands have them' is a furphy, as if flooding society makes no difference, because criminals can just pray to the gun fairy and get guns that way.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
But if you flood society with 'legal' guns, you make it easier for criminals to get them.
I know, self evident, right? Common sense? You want to take something from me, the onus is on you to prove it.
Christian Graus wrote:
Do you have any statistics on the mythically common occurence of US gun owners shooting to defend their life or property ?
Christian Graus wrote:
If it does keep your crime rates lower, why are they so high still ?
Because we are pansies in dealing with criminals.
Christian Graus wrote:
'The wrong hands have them' is a furphy, as if flooding society makes no difference, because criminals can just pray to the gun fairy and get guns that way.
Nice. NZ is a furphy. :rolleyes: Have you done any research, are is this all just 'common sense'? How well has the gun ban done for Oz? Made a really big difference, hasn't it?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
According to the CDC, the number of accidental shooting deaths in 2006, the last year they have numbers, was 642. They do not seem to keep track of how many of those were the result of a registered firearm being used. You're making a different distinction, 'killed by someone with a permit'. This would exclude, for example, if a man has a permit and his son plays with the gun. However, if that happens, it's a death caused by the policy of letting people own firearms, so I think it's still meaningful. Please explain how you can only find one death in the space of years, when the CDC can find 5,150 from 2000 to 2006 ( I'm making some assumptions on your use of the word 'years', their data goes before 2000 ), and doesn't seem to track which guns were registered. What's your source of data ? Knock yourself out[^]
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Please explain how you can only find one death in the space of years, when the CDC can find 5,150 from 2000 to 2006 ( I'm making some assumptions on your use of the word 'years', their data goes before 2000 ), and doesn't seem to track which guns were registered.
The thread is about concealed weapons and their danger, not guns and their danger. The data I saw was older and covered 2 years, and was accidental death caused
Christian Graus wrote:
Knock yourself out[^]
But, since you asked... During the 1999-2006 period, there were < 6k unintentional firearm deaths. 6.5k Unintentional Pedal cyclist Deaths 13k Unintentional Natural/environmental Deaths 27k unintentional di-hydrogen mon-oxide inhalation death 45k unintentional suffocation deaths 134k unintentional falling death 148k unintentional poisoning deaths 375k unintentional transportation deaths Why are you focusing on unintentional gun deaths when there are more unintentional pedal cyclist deaths? It looks like the US needs more bike control, or better controls on that damned environment (are those all global warming related?). Look at what DHMO is doing, it should be outlawed, damn it! If you were to focus on the actual statistics, you would be bitching and whining about poisons around the house and car safety. Why do you pick on guns, in particular?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are a hater of humans
Haters of humans and human nature are more likely to be pro-gun. You seem to be jumping to unwarranted conclusions. Instead of getting all excited:
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are a hater of humans
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
not permitted to defend themselves
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
they are to be subjects
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
serve their masters
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
humans are stupid and pathetic,
why not argue the point, which is this. The guns are causing more problems than they're solving! You just need to look at the deaths by firearms statistics in your country to see that. It would be nice to live in fairy land where guns never fall into the wrong hands, but we live in the real world. Compare how many foreign invasions have been fought off to the numerous less desirable consequences of the right to bear arms.
Steve
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
The guns are causing more problems than they're solving! You just need to look at the deaths by firearms statistics in your country to see that. It would be nice to live in fairy land where guns never fall into the wrong hands, but we live in the real world. Compare how many foreign invasions have been fought off to the numerous less desirable consequences of the right to bear arms.
It really sucks that guns have fallen into the wrong hands. But those hands are not mine. I own my weapons legally. I have committed no crimes with them. Nobody has been accidentally shot with them. Why do I want to give them up? There are bad people out there with guns. They are not going to give them up because you want them to. I chose to remain armed, just in case, and because I enjoy shooting.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Actually, I grew up in the suburbs, with a car, a yard... Hell, even a swingset, when I was little... I moved to the city by choice, because this is where the best jobs are. You keep talking about freedom, but anyone someone exercises that freedom by choosing something you disagree with, you insult them. But hey... That's freedom, right? You're entirely free to be a complete bigot. You and Gordon Brown should have a little chat. But MEANWHILE...
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are trying to redefine words. A law is a law, a regulation is a regulation. There is a difference between the two.
Regulation[^]: 1. a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority, esp. to regulate conduct. (Dictionary.com) Law[^]: 1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision. (Dictionary.com) (Emphasis added) Man, I knew this would make my point, but I didn't expect them to actually use them to define each other... In the first definition of each, no less... Care to rethink your argument?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)In the US, laws are passed by the legislative branch. Regulation are made by agencies that are part of the executive branch. For instance, a lot of the things the IRS does is enforce regulations they have made that they believe support the tax laws made by congress.
Opacity, the new Transparency.