SkyDekker 1,465
Recommended Posts
Hence in Canada it is illegal to walk around with a firearm. That way we prevent people from constently shooting eachother 
Why don't they pass laws that make it illegal to shoot people, then they could carry guns.
never pull low......unless you are
SkyDekker 1,465
Quotethen they could carry guns.
Because it is easier and cheaper not to have guns. One less thing to remember before us Canadians walk out the door. We already have to remember our touque, the keys to our dogsled and to turn down the stove so that our igloo doesn't burn down while we are out.
QuoteQuotethen they could carry guns.
Because it is easier and cheaper not to have guns. One less thing to remember before us Canadians walk out the door. We already have to remember our touque, the keys to our dogsled and to turn down the stove so that our igloo doesn't burn down while we are out.
ehnever pull low......unless you are
JohnRich 4
QuoteAnd you seem very willing to attribute it in full to the concealed weapons permits
I made no such attribution. Those are words you are trying to cram into my mouth. I simply stated that murder is down 42%, despite the fact that most states now have concealed carry laws. Even if concealed carry didn't help drive that number down by itself, then it can certainly be said that it didn't have any negative effect on the murder rate.
QuoteI'd much rather not have my weapon concealed. What good will that do? Why not wear them on your hips so the bad guys know not to fuck with you.
Because then the bad guys simply know to leave *you* alone, and they go find some other innocent victim to attack. By requiring that all concealed carry licensees hide their firearms, it spreads the deterrence effect to *everyone* - because the criminals can't tell who might have a gun. Therefore, even the anti-gun folks benefit from the deterrent effect of those who go to the trouble to be licensed to carry a concealed firearm.
You're welcome.
QuoteAnd for that matter, why not just buy a taser gun for 400 bucks?
Tasers are only good for one shot, and even that one shot is sometimes ineffective. A handgun is better.
kallend 2,125
QuoteHence in Canada it is illegal to walk around with a firearm. That way we prevent people from constently shooting eachother
Why don't they pass laws that make it illegal to shoot people, then they could carry guns.
What would be the purpose of carrying a gun for defense if it is illegal to shoot people? You'd only need to carry it to the range or to go hunting, but not otherwise, so concealed carry laws would be unnecessary.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuoteHence in Canada it is illegal to walk around with a firearm. That way we prevent people from constently shooting eachother
Why don't they pass laws that make it illegal to shoot people, then they could carry guns.
What would be the purpose of carrying a gun for defense if it is illegal to shoot people? You'd only need to carry it to the range or to go hunting, but not otherwise, so concealed carry laws would be unnecessary.
Funny thing is, it's illegal here to walk around with a gun unless you are licensed (for the most part). And people legally carrying them account for virtually 0 of the crimes commited with them.
Once again, making guns illegal doesn't prevent anyone from shooting anyone else. It's obviously something else in the mix that accounts for the different stats.
QuoteQuoteHence in Canada it is illegal to walk around with a firearm. That way we prevent people from constently shooting eachother
Why don't they pass laws that make it illegal to shoot people, then they could carry guns.
What would be the purpose of carrying a gun for defense if it is illegal to shoot people? You'd only need to carry it to the range or to go hunting, but not otherwise, so concealed carry laws would be unnecessary.
Sounds great. As soon as the criminals stop carrying guns, we can too.
never pull low......unless you are
JohnRich 4
QuoteI have never understood this. Laws against running a red light do not stop all people from running a red light. In your logic, we might as well get rid of that law.
No, my logic applies to different kinds of laws. Let me see if I can explain what I mean here.
Some laws prohibit harmful or dangerous behavior, like running red lights, or armed robbery. Those are good laws that need to be on the books. They may not stop all people from doing those things, however, they are necessary in order to prosecute violators through the judicial system. If the law isn't on the books, we can't punish the behavior.
Then there are other types of laws, which go far beyond prohibiting dangerous and harmful behavior. And that's where many of the gun laws have gone. For example, prohibiting handgun magazines that hold over 10 rounds, or prohibiting guns with pistol grips, flash suppressors and bayonet lugs. These kinds of things do nothing to harm anyone by themselves. These are the type of useless laws which should be revoked.
The only way to hurt someone with a flash suppressor is to unscrew it from the end of your gun barrel and throw it at someone. But I can do that with a rock.
New "crimes" have been invented, based simply upon the ownership of certain firearms, or the possession of certain features on guns. They have nothing to do with actual wrongful behavior against others.
If someone uses a firearm to threaten or harm someone, we already have laws on the books to cover that; murder, aggravated assault, and so on. Those are the crimes they should be charged with, and punished severely.
But to turn law-abiding citizens who haven't hurt anyone, into criminals, just because they have a flash suppressor or a pistol grip stock, is ridiculous.
We should punish people for wrongful behavior, not over the technical features of the guns they own.
kallend 2,125
QuoteQuoteQuoteHence in Canada it is illegal to walk around with a firearm. That way we prevent people from constently shooting eachother
Why don't they pass laws that make it illegal to shoot people, then they could carry guns.
What would be the purpose of carrying a gun for defense if it is illegal to shoot people? You'd only need to carry it to the range or to go hunting, but not otherwise, so concealed carry laws would be unnecessary.
Sounds great. As soon as the criminals stop carrying guns, we can too.
I already stopped - in 1977.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,125
QuoteQuoteI have never understood this. Laws against running a red light do not stop all people from running a red light. In your logic, we might as well get rid of that law.
No, my logic applies to different kinds of laws. Let me see if I can explain what I mean here.
Some laws prohibit harmful or dangerous behavior, like running red lights, or armed robbery. Those are good laws that need to be on the books. They may not stop all people from doing those things, however, they are necessary in order to prosecute violators through the judicial system. If the law isn't on the books, we can't punish the behavior.
Then there are other types of laws, which go far beyond prohibiting dangerous and harmful behavior. And that's where many of the gun laws have gone. For example, prohibiting handgun magazines that hold over 10 rounds, or prohibiting guns with pistol grips, flash suppressors and bayonet lugs. These kinds of things do nothing to harm anyone by themselves. These are the type of useless laws which should be revoked.
The only way to hurt someone with a flash suppressor is to unscrew it from the end of your gun barrel and throw it at someone. But I can do that with a rock.
New "crimes" have been invented, based simply upon the ownership of certain firearms, or the possession of certain features on guns. They have nothing to do with actual wrongful behavior against others.
If someone uses a firearm to threaten or harm someone, we already have laws on the books to cover that; murder, aggravated assault, and so on. Those are the crimes they should be charged with, and punished severely.
But to turn law-abiding citizens who haven't hurt anyone, into criminals, just because they have a flash suppressor or a pistol grip stock, is ridiculous.
We should punish people for wrongful behavior, not over the technical features of the guns they own.
Rather like the "crimes" of owning certain types of plant leaves or certain chemicals, which in and of themselves do no harm to anyone by the act of ownership alone?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
JohnRich 4
QuoteU. of Chicago directory does not list a John Lott as a professor in any department.
Here is his biographical info:
John Lott
It looks like he was a professor at Yale, up to 2001, and at the University of Chicago prior to that, as well as many other schools. He has used the U. of Chicago for his publishing.
Your interrogation is moot anyway - you are falling prey to a poor debating method: attacking the person, rather than the argument. You seem to want to cast doubt upon his credentials, yet you've provided nothing factual or logical to refute his argument.
So, Professor Kallend, do you have a web site proving your status as a professor?
JohnRich 4
QuoteSo, fine, let's treat guns just as we treat cars... I would be in great favour of treating guns just like cars...
I'm glad to hear that. OK, let's treat guns just like cars. We'll register our guns just like cars and license gun owners, just like driver's licenses.
But in return, you'll have to grant gun owners the following favors, just like cars:
- No restrictions on owning high-performance guns,
like machine guns.
- No restrictions on "assault weapons" just because of
how they look.
- No restrictions on inexpensive guns.
- No restrictions on importation of guns.
- No background check for purchase of a gun.
- No waiting period for purchase of a gun.
- No government approval required prior to purchase
of a gun.
- No gun storage laws mandating how they must be
kept.
- No prohibitions on who can own guns.
- No restrictions on carrying guns in public places.
- No restrictions on traveling with guns interstate.
- No license revocations for first or second offenses of
laws.
- No restrictions limiting gun purchases to only your
state of residence.
- No restrictions on mailing guns interstate.
- No restrictions on purchasing guns by mail.
- No restrictions on adults aged 18 to 21 preventing
purchase of handguns.
- And all of the above apply uniformly nationwide, no
local exceptions.
Deal?
kallend 2,125
QuoteQuoteU. of Chicago directory does not list a John Lott as a professor in any department.
Here is his biographical info:
John Lott
"Visiting" does not hold faculty rank or voting rights anywhere, and is untenured and of temporary duration. Typically it's a holding pattern until you get something permanent.
I notice that in his gypsying around the country he has not managed to get appointed to a single tenured faculty position, let alone full professor.
"Assistant" does not mean he is a tenured Professor. It is an untenured appointment. The lowest tenured appointment is Associate Prof, and the highest rank is (full) Prof.
This guy's CV appears to look great but would not pass muster at the tenure committee of any university I know of.
Quote
So, Professor Kallend, do you have a web site proving your status as a professor?
Yes, my university's web site confirms me as a tenured FULL professor, both in physics and in engineering. Look it up.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
JohnRich 4
QuotePersonally I find the notion that one needs a gun to protect oneself assinine. But that probably has to do with the countries and cultures I grew up in.
Here are a lot of stories of people who have used firearms in self defense.
Armed Self Defense Stories
Not everyone is as fortunate as you to live in a crime-free neighborhood, work place and city.
JohnRich 4
QuoteI agree that SOME gun controls work. Namely, proficiency for CCW, no convicted felons, no insane people, tougher sentencing for crimes commited using a gun.
Huh? The existing laws against ex-felons possessing guns does not prevent them from getting guns. The recidivism statistics show that when released, many of them get more guns and commit more crimes.
QuoteSounds great. As soon as the criminals stop carrying guns, we can too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I already stopped - in 1977.
Wow! kallend carried a firearm until 1977. Very interesting, indeed! So, Prof. why did you stop? Why was it okay for you until 1977, but now that you've stopped, it's not okay for the rest of us? Or, have I just read too much into the vagueness of your arguments? I am very interested in your experience and decisions on this matter.
mike
Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.
QuoteQuoteI agree that SOME gun controls work. Namely, proficiency for CCW, no convicted felons, no insane people, tougher sentencing for crimes commited using a gun.
Huh? The existing laws against ex-felons possessing guns does not prevent them from getting guns. The recidivism statistics show that when released, many of them get more guns and commit more crimes.
But then they are breaking the law, and many of them are locked back up just for posessing the gun before they've commited a crime with it. I have no problem with that.
JohnRich 4
QuoteI work on the south side of Chicago (26 years this month), that's Al Capone territory, and I've not ever felt the need to defend myself with a gun. On the whole, avoiding confrontational situations works better than entering them armed and confident that you can out-draw the bad guys.
Chicago has one of the highest murder rates in the nation. There were more people murdered in Chicago last year, than there have been soldiers killed during the war in Iraq.
Chicago, in 2002, had 648 murders, 18,000 robberies, and 28,000 aggravated assaults.
And trying to avoid situations isn't perfect. Sometimes, despite your best efforts, crime finds you.
I hope your luck holds. Even if it doesn't, Chicago doesn't allow you to carry a gun to defend yourself. You have the right to be a victim, but not the right to protect yourself.
True, that is because the police can't do much until a crime has been comitted. Hence in Canada it is illegal to walk around with a firearm. That way we prevent people from constently shooting eachother
I know that manu pro-gun people do not believe that to be possible, but it seems to be working so far in Canada.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites