You guys and your guns...

[Coito ergo sum]

law-abiding citizen

No such thing, only people who have broken the laws and havent been caught

Is this the state of the debate in this thread?

Yes, absolutely, couldn't you tell? Anyone who has a want or an alleged need for a gun is a "nut." The argument works back from there.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And people carp at me for being terse.

[Wumbologist]

law-abiding citizen

No such thing, only people who have broken the laws and havent been caught

Unless you count civil traffic infractions (which objectively don't count), I'm about as law-abiding as it gets. There's nothing for me to get caught for, and my squeaky-clean perfect criminal record reflects that.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

law-abiding citizen

No such thing, only people who have broken the laws and havent been caught

Unless you count civil traffic infractions (which objectively don't count), I'm about as law-abiding as it gets. There's nothing for me to get caught for, and my squeaky-clean perfect criminal record reflects that.

I never worry about cops because I've nothing to hide. I think Ayaan would faint before she did anything illegal. That's why I was so amused by MrJ's comment, it was absurd and quite on par for this thread.

[MrJonno]

Driving a deadly piece of machinery at faster than speeds the state/society safe counts for me. Being creative on taxes and insurance is about as middle class as you can get (never touched the black economy by paying cash in hand?)

You then have all sorts of abusive behaviour that if a policeman was around could get you into trouble, the use of alcohol to get sex (could be illegal but often unprovable ie someone was drunk enough to regret it but not drunk to ever prove lack of consent), age of consent in general does anyone take any notice of that when you are young.

You then have copyright theft you might not have done that but millions have, the list goes on while most of us don't have any skeletons literaly in the closet I'm sure there is a nice long rap sheet there somewhere

[Gawdzilla Sama]

S---T---R---E---T---C---H---I---N---G

[Coito ergo sum]

I think "law abiding" is a term that refers to laws that are malum in se, and not mere malum prohibitum. There is a huge difference between crimes like assaults and robberies, and parking with your car bumper extending beyond the "no parking this side of sign" sign....

[Seth]

Wumbologist

The study showed that people who carry hand guns had an increased likelihood of being shot, and indeed, killed, by more than 400%. This margin is not something to shake off lightly. It shows that carrying a gun is dangerous to whoever carries it.

The study included a demographic analysis of the people in the study, and showed that most of those who carried a gun and were shot were in what would otherwise be low risk demographics - older people, educated people, successful people, female people. So the principle applies not just to criminals, but to anyone who carries a gun.

Do not get fooled by the typical scientist reluctance to commit to firm conclusions. The study clearly points out that carrying a gun, far from helping with self defense, actually and substantially increases risk.

Found the actual study:

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewconten ... is_culhane

CTRL+F: License

Reader has finished searching the document. No matches were found.


Oh, interesting. They did such a careful demographic analysis and didn't bother to check whether the people in their study were even licensed to carry a gun. If the study includes people carrying illegally for criminal purposes it absolutely doesn't come as a surprise that they got the results they did. It also means absolutely nothing for the law-abiding citizen who carries a gun. Show me a study that is restricted to law-abiding concealed carry holders only and we'll discuss that.

Yup. That study has been well debunked. It was bogus because it focused primarily on inner city gang members and criminals and NOT law abiding citizens with carry permits. It also confused correlation with causation.

But, let's suppose arguendo that my chances of being involved in a shooting are increased by carrying a gun. All that means is that it is all the more imperative that I be permitted to do so, and that I remain proficient and carry the right firearms to terminate any threat I might encounter. This is true of course because I am a law abiding citizen who has an absolute right to defend myself against criminality, whereas the criminal thugs who might choose to attempt to victimize me have no rights at all to do so.

[Seth]

I think "law abiding" is a term that refers to laws that are malum in se, and not mere malum prohibitum. There is a huge difference between crimes like assaults and robberies, and parking with your car bumper extending beyond the "no parking this side of sign" sign....

Not to idiot hoplophobes who are such statists that they accept the silly notion that the government is going to protect them from the perpetrators of malum in se crimes. They haven't the ability to distinguish between the two so they throw up red herring arguments constantly to try to bolster their stupid and ignorant positions.

[mistermack]

Oh, interesting. They did such a careful demographic analysis and didn't bother to check whether the people in their study were even licensed to carry a gun. If the study includes people carrying illegally for criminal purposes it absolutely doesn't come as a surprise that they got the results they did. It also means absolutely nothing for the law-abiding citizen who carries a gun. Show me a study that is restricted to law-abiding concealed carry holders only and we'll discuss that.

Are you sure about that?

We excluded selfinflicted,
unintentional, and police-related
shootings (an officer shooting someone or
being shot), and gun injuries of undetermined
intent. We excluded individuals younger than
21 years because it was not legal for them to
possess a firearm in Philadelphia and, as such,
the relationship we sought to investigate was
functionally different enough to prompt separate
study of this age group.

Considering all the things they excluded, the real picture is much worse.

[MrJonno]

I think "law abiding" is a term that refers to laws that are malum in se, and not mere malum prohibitum. There is a huge difference between crimes like assaults and robberies, and parking with your car bumper extending beyond the "no parking this side of sign" sign....

The biggest difference between someone who commits a serious violent offence and those who don't is generally environment. As environment can change fundamentally there isnt one, ie if a country has a 100 million people that's a 100million people people who are capable of cracking up and using whatever there is avaliable to cause as much carnage as they can

The division betwen good law abiding citizen and bady evil violent criminal is absurd artifical and blurred to say the least. Its basically moral absolutism bullshit who want a deity or the equilvalent in their life

[Wumbologist]

Are you sure about that?

Quite.

We excluded selfinflicted,
unintentional, and police-related
shootings (an officer shooting someone or
being shot), and gun injuries of undetermined
intent. We excluded individuals younger than
21 years because it was not legal for them to
possess a firearm in Philadelphia and, as such,
the relationship we sought to investigate was
functionally different enough to prompt separate
study of this age group.

Considering all the things they excluded, the real picture is much worse.

They excluded under-21's, big deal. For all we know, not a single one of their over 21 sample had a carry permit.

[mistermack]

They excluded under-21's, big deal. For all we know, not a single one of their over 21 sample had a carry permit.

Your faith in carry permits is ludicrous.
For a start, to apply for one means you are a gun-nut.
Then there's George Zimmeman. Captain of the watch, and permit carrier.
And loony gun nut, kills an innocent child.
If permit holders don't stand more than the 4x chance of dying from gunshot, I'd be surprised and disappointed.
And of course they didn't count the people that these wankers killed. Just the wankers themselves.

[Coito ergo sum]

They excluded under-21's, big deal. For all we know, not a single one of their over 21 sample had a carry permit.

Your faith in carry permits is ludicrous.
For a start, to apply for one means you are a gun-nut.

Must be nice to have found religion.

[Wumbologist]

They excluded under-21's, big deal. For all we know, not a single one of their over 21 sample had a carry permit.

Your faith in carry permits is ludicrous.
For a start, to apply for one means you are a gun-nut.
Then there's George Zimmeman. Captain of the watch, and permit carrier.
And loony gun nut, kills an innocent child.
If permit holders don't stand more than the 4x chance of dying from gunshot, I'd be surprised and disappointed.
And of course they didn't count the people that these wankers killed. Just the wankers themselves.

Cool story, bro.