Quake3World

Peenyuh wrote:You want me to read all of that stuff... about Canadian stats? I just want to see where that statement from menkent came from. I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that most shooting victims - other than cops - are unarmed. When I carried, back in da day, I was NEVER shot at or had another gun pointed at me. The only times that happened, were when I did NOT have my pistol on me.

I haven't read any of the data they posted (at least not that specific data), but I imagine it has a lot to do with idiots who have permits, and who brandish their weapons without using them or knowing how to use them, and get shot as a result because they escalated the situation -- usually for no reason, because, well they are idiots.

And that apparently happens a lot.

Carry permits (concealed or not) should not be NEARLY as easy to get as they are. I have one, and I was not only shocked at how easy it was to get, but I am now also SCARED TO FUCKING DEATH every time I think about all the stupid, irresponsible people who may potentially be carrying a gun under their jacket. I can tell you without exaggeration -- at least in my area -- that it is easier to get a handgun carry permit than it is to get a driver's license.

I am more worried about gun violence now, after seeing these people get permits, than I ever would have been before.


I didn't even get mine to carry around in public (and I don't do that). I mostly got mine because I like taking my pistol down to the campsite and doing some target-practice without worrying about being in some legal "gray area" by having a pistol and ammo in the back of the Pathfinder -- and because I can.

Peenyuh wrote:I just want to see where that statement from menkent came from. I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that most shooting victims - other than cops - are unarmed.

i didn't say that most shooting victims are armed. i said that being armed increases your chances of being shot. there is a difference. anyway:
http://works.bepress.com/dennis_culhane/88/ - click "Download the Paper" to view a 7 page pdf.
the article, btw, was published in the American Journal of Public Health.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:If you read all that stuff you'll learn a lot of pertinent things.

I'm on the first one now. But it isn't telling me anything I haven't heard before. Also, how do you include the stuff that isn't included in stats collected by government collectors who don't know where to look for it? And by biased collectors who have their own agenda and leave out data? It's like the anti-smoking lobby. Attributing all lung cancer deaths to cigarettes is ridiculous. "Your secondhand smoke is killing my children!" as he climbs into his death emitting Honda Prelude. The American prisons are filled with knot-heads who've killed or maimed unarmed people with their un-registered, illegally acquired firearms. I'm not a psychic, but I can see quite a few massacres that could have been lessened if a responsible, trained gun carrier had been present.

ROOK wrote:I haven't read any of the data they posted (at least not that specific data), but I imagine it has a lot to do with idiots who have permits, and who brandish their weapons without using them or knowing how to use them, and get shot as a result because they escalated the situation -- usually for no reason, because, well they are idiots.

And that apparently happens a lot.

Carry permits (concealed or not) should not be NEARLY as easy to get as they are. I have one, and I was not only shocked at how easy it was to get, but I am now also SCARED TO FUCKING DEATH every time I think about all the stupid, irresponsible people who may potentially be carrying a gun under their jacket. I can tell you without exaggeration -- at least in my area -- that it is easier to get a handgun carry permit than it is to get a driver's license.

I am more worried about gun violence now, after seeing these people get permits, than I ever would have been before.

I feel the same way about automobiles and drivers licenses.

R00k wrote:The idiocy of Gramps aside:

R00k wrote:Out of curiosity Puff, would your ideal solution to this problem be the repealing of our 2nd amendment? Or would you lean more towards America's banning of all guns that aren't specifically made for hunting?

Or something in between?

I'm not trying to defend concealed carrying or anything, so don't lump me in with that martian. Just trying to get a solid idea of what kind of solutions you support.

That's a big question and I'd probably want to spend a lot of time researching and such before giving an answer. I'm sorry I didn't answer directly when you asked before.

Without having taken the time I'd want to, I'll try to give a rough response.

Repealing the Second Amendment: I'd be awfully hesitant to mess with the Constitution so I'd probably first look for adequate solutions that didn't involve repealing. Do I think the Second is a mistake? Yes. My reason is, that I don't think it's protecting citizens from a (the potential of?) corrupt government. If the government goes to war against its citizens, small firearms will be no match for the domestic stockpiles of chemical weapons, attack helicopters, etc. The only hope in this day and age(imho) for those who might have to protect themselves from their own government is support from other citizens.

Now, I'm personally opposed to gun ownership but I also respect the idea of self-determination and democracy so the solution I'd propose to the 'gun issue' is a compromise of my ideals. It basically boils down to gun control. Hand guns, concealable and more lethal type weapons should be illegal or strictly controlled. The less guns around, the better.

menkent wrote:i didn't say that most shooting victims are armed. i said that being armed increases your chances of being shot. there is a difference. anyway:
http://works.bepress.com/dennis_culhane/88/ - click "Download the Paper" to view a 7 page pdf.
the article, btw, was published in the American Journal of Public Health.

Okay, this puts it in better perspective for me... 'specially along side ROOKs comments. I guess we could say that, of those in the general populous who carry guns, a large percentage are un-qualified to defend themselves in ANY situation. There must be better ways to make sure that the people who possess guns, legally,
are qualified in the use of them.

YourGrandpa wrote:

Geebs wrote:what, ANY reason like, for example, taking your gun out to 'protect' yourself? So you're at much higher risk of getting raped by a bunch of cops for a "grip slip" than you are of actually needing to defend yourself. Whereas if you don't conceal a weapon you can carry a fucking assault rifle without a problem....

Concealed carry laws are wierd. No wonder that you're contradicting yourself constantly

For someone who claims to be a doctor, you're quite stupid. Futhermore, your opinions are jaded and you're beyond reason.

Please refain from reading this topic in the future. It's only going to upset you more.

Thanks for playing.

Heh, I hit a nerve. I wonder how soon you'll be posting to deny it....

Peenyuh wrote:
I'm on the first one now. It's like the anti-smoking lobby. Attributing all lung cancer deaths to cigarettes is ridiculous. "Your secondhand smoke is killing my children!" as he climbs into his death emitting Honda Prelude.

Only adenocarcinomas and bronchial carcinoids are not associated with smoking, making up less than 20% of lung tumours. They found this out in a large study on British GPs (all of whom smoked like chimneys) and the tobacco industry has been putting out this misinformation since the 60s. It's worrying that you believe them

edit: fucking autocorrect

Geebs wrote:Only adenocarcinomas and bronchial carcinomas are not associated with lung cancer, making up less than 20% of lung tumours. They found this out in a large study on British GPs (all of whom smoked like chimneys) and the tobacco industry has been putting out this misinformation since the 60s. It's worrying that you believe them

I have NO idea what you just said. If you are denying Vehicle emissions have anything to do with lung cancer, with all due respect to your position as a doctor, but I will not believe that. That would be like saying that stupidity has nothing to do with gun deaths.

No, I'm saying that cigarette smoking is the single biggest risk factor for lung cancer. Cars are about as likely to give you lung cancer as a cigarette is to run you over

Peenyuh wrote:I feel the same way about automobiles and drivers licenses.

If you're just as scared at the thought of irresponsible and stupid people having drivers licenses as you are of irresponsible and stupid people having the legal right to carry guns into crowded public places, then you haven't thought about it very hard.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:That's a big question and I'd probably want to spend a lot of time researching and such before giving an answer. I'm sorry I didn't answer directly when you asked before.

Without having taken the time I'd want to, I'll try to give a rough response.

Repealing the Second Amendment: I'd be awfully hesitant to mess with the Constitution so I'd probably first look for adequate solutions that didn't involve repealing. Do I think the Second is a mistake? Yes. My reason is, that I don't think it's protecting citizens from a (the potential of?) corrupt government. If the government goes to war against its citizens, small firearms will be no match for the domestic stockpiles of chemical weapons, attack helicopters, etc. The only hope in this day and age(imho) for those who might have to protect themselves from their own government is support from other citizens.

Now, I'm personally opposed to gun ownership but I also respect the idea of self-determination and democracy so the solution I'd propose to the 'gun issue' is a compromise of my ideals. It basically boils down to gun control. Hand guns, concealable and more lethal type weapons should be illegal or strictly controlled. The less guns around, the better.

Fair enough. I tend to feel like the 2nd amendment is a good idea that has been hijacked by nuts. That may have been inevitable, but maybe not.

Having a .45 in your pocket sure isn't going to stop a military brigade from taking control of your neighborhood, I'll certainly grant you that. I honestly like the Swiss model, where everyone has to serve, and the military is spread over the homes of the population. That would resolve a whole lot of problems definitively.

I don't necessarily read the right to "bear" arms as the right to "own" arms anyway -- just the right to have free access to them and bear them in the event they are needed.

At times, I've wondered if a communal armory could serve that purpose - one where no one person could get weapons out by themselves, but a group of people could. If they were secured, you could even keep more powerful weapons there, and still manage to serve the purpose of the 2nd amendment. I'm not sure if this would be ideal -- it's just been the result of some idle thoughts. But too many people here equate "the right to bear arms" with "the right to have any weapon I damn well please, and to carry it around like a trophy wherever I go."
Too many people don't know or care what the intent behind the 2nd Amendment was to begin with.

don't need to repeal the second amendment, you just (finally) enforce the "well regulated militia" part. some fuckwitted redneck walking around walmart with a 357 strapped to his stinking armpit isn't a well regulated militia, it's a liability.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

ie- switzerland

The trouble with relying on a written constitution is that it doesn't actually lead to any greater consistency as interpretation becomes the problem. See also: the Bible or any other holy book

lol amatures!

eeyyy so

you carry a gun all the time?


has something been done to you?

have you done something to people?

lol @ morans that think more laws are the answer

while the only answer is less people

Fewer people. Specifically, fewer Dutcheez.

uh, yea. fewer.

also, we gunless. take it out on mexicans like the rest of the western world.

eeyyy so

you carry a gun all the time?


has something been done to you?

have you done something to people?

he's afraid plained. that's about it.

More Pics...

I got my EOTech 557G23FTS sight system today. Let me tell you that this is top notch gear.

Why does it look like a plastic kids toy?

U fraudin'?

Maybe because you're not familiar with what you're looking at.

plained wrote:eeyyy so

you carry a gun all the time?


has something been done to you?

have you done something to people?

I can't carry "all" of the time. There are simply places that civilians aren't allowed to bring firearms. Though it is humorous that people from other countries automatically think that you have to be afraid of something to carry a concealed firearm. But it's simply not the case. I'm no more worried about something bad happening to me than you are. In fact, I'm likely less worried. However, you guys are free to think what you like.

YourGrandpa wrote:Maybe because you're not familiar with what you're looking at.

Nope, pics of guns are everywhere. Yours look like kids toys. Waterpistols you bought for your son?