The Daily Skunk

31 responses so far ↓

• 1 protractor P // Nov 10, 2006 at 11:47 am

  I’m not sure machine guns belong in the hands of the general public, where does it end. Why shouldn’t a person be able to own a nuke, or a tank, or some other WMD if they can acquire the funds for it?

• 2 discob4thebreakdown // Nov 13, 2006 at 9:22 am

  I believe in the right to bear arms, but I don’t think that people should be allowed to carry a conealed weapon. In Nebraska, a law will be going into effect in January allowing people to carry concealed weapons. While I assume most of the people that apply for the licenses are mentally-stable, law-abiding citizens, I can’t help but worry that a few weirdos will get through the system. Now obviously, these people could easily possess and carry guns regardless of the law, but this only justifies their dangerous behavior. I don’t need justice to be rendered by fucking Joe Six-Pack and his hunting buddies. Also, the defense argument really falls flat with me. I feel safe wherever I go, and I work in the “most dangerous” (as decided by the local media) area of town. If you have to walk around with a gun all the time because you feel unsafe you have 3 options: 1) find new friends, 2) find new enemies, and/or 3) Move the fuck out. There are millions of places in this great nation where one can live without feeling scared for their safety. Only once in my life have I felt like things were getting sketchy and protection might be warranted and that was in downtown Minneapolis at 2 in the morning. That was my fault and I shouldn’t have put myself in that situation. Basically what my whole rant is about is that if your life is so intense that you feel that you need protection where ever you go, then fucking move or change your lifestyle.

  Also, machine guns are ridiculous and unnecessary for the general public to own. I grew up hunting and much of my family are avid hunters to this day, but none of them have yet found an animal in North Dakota or surrounding states that can’t be brought down by one or two shots from a deer rifle. Machine guns and semi-automatic assault rifles only breed the mindset that the owner is some kind of vigilante warrior who must protect the state by owning a gun that could cut a cow in half. Leave that shit to the military.

  If we ever need assault rifles for protection we are screwed anyway so I will probably just find my friends, a few cases of beer, and party til the nukes come raining down.

• 3 mongo // Nov 13, 2006 at 12:21 pm

  The only time anyone gets worked up about conceal/carry priveleges is when they are front page in the media. What you need to realize is that you have probably been within close proximity to someone who has had a concealed handgun on them. Was there a problem? Probably not. What you also need to understand is that not just anyone can get a permit to carry. There is a process of background checks, mandatory education and proving that you can safely and effectively operate a firearm. It is our right according to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

  As for the “few weirdos” that might get through the system. If a “weirdo” wants to do someone else harm they will, regardless of whether or not they have been issued a permit to carry. I think if you were able to look at the statistics and compare those who have comitted murder who have a concealed weapons permit to those who have killed who did not possess a permit. I think you would find that those who carry weapons for personal protection are in the minority when it comes to violent acts committed. Now I am only speculating here, but so are you.

  You also bring up an interesting point, how unnecessary semi-automatic assault rifles are. What is the difference between a semi-automatic assault rifle and your average semi-automatic deer hunting rifle? Nothing, except cosmetic differences. You can get them all in the same calibers.
  If you are proposing not being able to own a firearm that is the equivalent or a deer hunting rifle with superficial differences, I must ask where does this end? Does that mean that we should not be able to own semi-automatic shotguns or semi-automatic handguns? Hell, why don’t we ban pocket knives because they have the potential to cause harm in the wrong hands. Do you see how easily both sides of this argument get out of hand?
  I find it interesting that you are able to label some of those who enjoy the shooting sports as “vigilante warriors who must protect the state by owning a gun that could cut a cow in half.” I understand that this is something you feel passionate about Mr. Disco, but don’t be ridiculous.

  Shoot straight,
  mongo

• 4 discob4thebreakdown // Nov 13, 2006 at 3:20 pm

  I am well aware that I have been standing right next to someone with a concealed handgun. That scares the hell out of me. I don’t know this person or what they are capable of. Just because they jumped through a few hoops that our oh-so-inept government has established, I am supposed to feel OK? Hardly. I acknowledged the fact that a majority of people who get the concealed weapons permit are responsible, law-abiding citizens. Again, the whole point of my argument is why someone feels they need the protection a gun offers. I don’t feel the need and I have been in some sketchy situations. Like I said, if your life is so filled with danger and what-not, make some changes. I couldn’t imagine having to walk around with a gun all the time because people were out to get me. And, if you are going to use the defense of, “What about random crimes”, then I would have to say that one can’t live in fear. Live in fear, die in fear. This is not the Wild West.

  I know you probably think that I am some kind of freedom-hating liberal. Maybe I am, I have been called worse. But, it is my opinion and my opinion has been shaped by my life experiences. As was yours, I presume. I enjoyed hunting until I got too busy to keep up with it. Guns have a place in our society, but not next to my family at Applebee’s.

  I did not mean to refer to those who like the shooting sports as “vigilante warriors”. I was refering to those who feel the need to own a machine gun. A target is hit the same way by a .22 shell as by an M-16. I guess, I just don’t see the point. You ask where the difference ends. I believe it ends at intent and purpose. The purpose of a deer rifle is to kill deer and similar game. The purpose of an M-16 is to kill a shit-ton of people quickly and with extreme prejudice. Not saying that either can’t be used for both purposes, but you get my point. They make cars that go 160 miles per hour. I don’t need that, and neither does anyone else. At the very least, just because someone has a car that goes 160 miles per hour, I don’t want to be on the road with my family if they are weaving in and out of traffic, no matter how well-trained or responsible that driver is.

  Finally, Mongo, I appreciate your opinion and I hope nothing I have stated truly offends you or your ideals. I am just stating the principles that I base my life on. If I ever felt that my life was going to be in danger constantly, I would learn Karate. Chuck Norris never needed a damn gun.

  Don’t Shoot!!
  Disco…

• 5 oddnoteccentric // Nov 14, 2006 at 1:17 pm

  Disco
  How about this: why don’t you change your life and accept that owning firearms is a defining part of American culture (private ownership of firearms is the ultimate statement of individual liberty and national sovreignty). Our nation was built on the ideal of individual liberty; that very much included, and still includes, firearms ownership. Your expectation that we should all bend to your will is selfish; surely you can see that.
  I agree with your point that the gov’t is inept. However, that is our fault; we’ve voted them in and haven’t kept them in check.
  You are founding your arguement on personal experience rather than principle. That is usually a bad idea, as is basing an arguement on feeling or emotion. If we approach this issue, or any issue, with a “veil of ignorance,” a la Rawls, we will find objectivity and that we are more accepting of things in general, especially when relating the experiences of others to ours, and therefore their points of view. On this topic, you won’t jump to false conclusions based solely on your limited experience; and you will be able to open your mind, and that’s why we are all here, right?
  .22s aren’t shells, shotguns are; they are called cartridges or rounds. M16s don’t hit anything unless they are thrown or dropped, their projectiles do. Furthermore, the purpose of any and all firearms is merely to operate as designed. The use of the weapon is dictated by the individual operator, which we all are (in a philosophical sense, as well as in reality).
  Just because you don’t trust me doesn’t mean that you can will my rights to disappear. That is pure selfishness and fundamentally wrong. If you feel that I am attacking you, you are right. I believe you need to open your eyes and see the big picture; I am using the right to own guns as my medium to illustrate liberty, and therefore to argue for it. When bright people like yourself approach an issue (this issue) from the perspective of personal experience, or lack of it, you come to an incomplete conclusion. That denies you the opportunity to better yourself and improve your life; that’s dumb.
  My last point is that guns don’t provide protection, just a means to it. If I carry, which I almost always do, but don’t maintain vigilance, I am as good as disarmed. And on the other side, if I don’t carry but maintain vigilance, I am almost as good as armed, just not quite. So, to “steal from someone else and go out strong,” “better to have and not need than to need and not have.”

• 6 oddnoteccentric // Nov 14, 2006 at 1:27 pm

  ProtractorP
  We live in a world of slippery slopes. But you won’t hear arguements for the personal ownership of nuclear devices any time soon. The difference between a gun and a nuke is the difference between defensive and offensive. Offensive things generally don’t belong in a society, defensive things generally do.
  However, I happen to know a couple of people who currently own tanks who have not used them offensively. The ownership of something like a tank does not offer an avenue to crime or violence if the owner is not inclined toward that kind of thing. In these hands, tank ownership is not a danger to society and therefore acceptable. The same arguement can be used for public ownership of machine guns, suppressors, DDs, AOWs, SBRs and SBSs. I have several and have never committed acts of violence against anyone for any reason. These devices are for recreation, just as baseballs and waterskis are. You just haven’t experienced the responsible use of them. If you are willing, I would like to offer you the chance to do so. Please contact me directly.

• 7 discob4thebreakdown // Nov 14, 2006 at 3:53 pm

  I never once said that people should not be allowed to own guns. I advocate the ownership of guns for recreational purposes. I just do not see the point in carrying a gun for protection. I never expected that anyone bend to my will. I WAS STATING MY OPINION. I stated several times that I don’t understand what carrying a firearm does for a person besides potentially cause problems. I was looking for someone to rationally explain what carrying a concealed firearm does for you. Oddnoteccentric, please explain to me exactly WHY you feel the need to carry a weapon. How many times in your life have you thought to yourself, “You know what this party is missing? Sidearms.” Help me understand the principle behind it. I admit, I don’t understand. Why is your life so filled with excitement and danger? Fuck, I go to work, come home, walk my dog, watch TV, hang out with my girlfriend. At no point can I see how a gun will enhance those experiences or make me feel better about me exercising my “individual liberties”. Am I in the extreme minority of people who don’t have to run from thugs and murderers on a weekly basis? Just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean I can’t disagree with you. You say that owning a gun is the ultimate statement of individual liberty and I find that hard to agree with. Freedom of Speech carries so much more weight and is used more extensively (hence this website). You say that you are using the right to bear arms to demonstrate individual liberty. I am using my right to Free Speech to tell you that I think carrying a gun is unnecessary and that I don’t agree with you. That is ok, right?. It is legal to own a dog in the U.S., which I do. Dogs offer some sort of protection, but I don’t feel the need to bring it with me where ever I go. None of my close friends carry weapons, nor even think of it. You are trying to make it sound like I said all guns should be made illegal and that no one should own any firearms. That is not my point at all. Please don’t twist my words.

  Again, both of my posts were pointing out the fact that I don’t understand why one needs to carry a concealed weapon. I never said that guns need to outlawed, except for assault rifles and the like. Own all of the legal guns you want. That is your right. I hope you never need to use that weapon and I hope to hell that someday, you carrying a concealed weapon doesn’t lead to a tragedy caused by a mistake or accident.

• 8 AgentCrazyDiamond // Nov 14, 2006 at 5:36 pm

  If you get into a bar fight that starts going in favor of your opponent, a gun will level the playing field pretty quickly!

  If someone pulls a gun on you and demands your watch, you can pull your gun on them rather than give up your watch so eassily.

  After you shoot that guy that was gonna take your watch and you go to prison for it, a gun may prevent you from being raped in the prison shower.

  A gun could be very handy while driving on the interstate for some swift payback to the bastard that just cut you off.

  Now that I think about it, there are so many situations my life would be so much better if I carried a gun. The streets or Moorhead are pretty tough, I’m gonna head down to WalMart next Friday and get me some guns, yeeee haaawwwwww.

  /end sarcasm
  – just kidding

  Just because Viagra is legal doesn’t make it acceptable for some dude to be sitting beside me at TGIFriday’s with a boner in his pants.

  ok, now end the sarcasm, for real

  Imagine how you would feel if one time you did happen to have a gun, and it saved your life. Then also try to imagine if someone you were close to lost their life because someone with no evil intentions had a gun, but under the circumstances used the gun un-necessairly. It wasn’t necessary for them to have the gun, but they have the right to. It wasn’t necessary for them to use it, but they did for whatever reason, momentary lack of reason, accidentally or whatever.

  I’m not arguing for or against the rights that people have to own/conceal/shoot their guns, just thinking with my keyboard, and now its time for me to get the hell outta here!

  This argument will not ever be completely settled either way….

• 9 oddnoteccentric // Nov 14, 2006 at 5:52 pm

  All the liberties recognized (not granted, recognized) by the Bill of Rights are wonderful and categorically important. But the only one with teeth is the Second Amendment. Here is why: we can assemble; publish; pray; legislate that: soldiers not be forcibly quartered in our domiciles, we not be illegally detained, searched or have our stuff taken without due course of law; ask to not incriminate ourselves by testifying… but without a way to enforce government to do what it is charged to do and no more (an armed populace), these things don’t amount to anything (read about the Battle of Athens, TN, for an example). By armed populace I don’t just mean you and I having guns for self-defense, but also the general public having the right (not privalege) to arm itself (remember that this is what kept the Japanese from invading the continental US in WWII).
  This brings us to the answer to your important and very valid question: what does carrying a firearm do for me? First of all, it keeps me out of trouble. I am held to a higher standard by the law and personally when I carry: The law has specific penalties for being drunk with a firearm in possession or for committing crimes while in possession of a firearm. I am more aware of where I go in order to stay within the law: in MT, we can’t go into municipal buildings, liquor serving establishments, etc. while carrying; and I tend to stay away from areas of crime (dark alleys, etc.) so that something avoidable (mugging, etc.)doesn’t happen so that I would have to use a gun.
  Secondly, it keeps others out of trouble. Annually, roughly 40,000 crimes are committed using firearms while roughly 2,000,000 crimes are prevented using firearms in the US. Those numbers come from John Lott’s More Guns Less Crime and may be approximated. The point is that guns are used about 50 times more often toward defensive means than toward offensive means. The fact that guns are used improperly troubles us all, but the positive uses far outweigh the negative. Therefore, society benefits from individuals carrying for defensive purposes.
  Thirdly, much of the law enforcement community embraces legal concealed carry because it lightens the burden placed on them while empowering the populus against crime (as well as actually preventing crime; again see More Guns Less Crime for numbers and documentation). Furthermore, several court cases (Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, for example) recognize or confirm that the government or law enforcement do not have a duty to protect individuals from third-party harm. This means that you are on your own for protection from anything or anyone that wishes to do you harm. Feel free to take my words to mean that if you, too, are amply safe with a gun, you could and probably should carry in order to protect yourself and those around you, even in Applebee’s (remember the Luby’s restaurant incident in Texas?!).
  A few reasons exist to not carry. Among them are obvious things like knowing you are going to a destination where firearms are forbidden. But others exist, like if you are hot-headed, short-tempered or ill-trained. These reasons are not addressed by legislation, but are addressed by self-control and self-discipline and conscience. This puts the responsibility of firearms carry in the hands of the individual, not the populus or the lawmakers. The point where the law steps in should be when an individual commits a crime, not before.
  I am not advocating that everyone carry for a couple of reasons. First is training: not everyone is trained to be safe and competant with firearms. If we all knew how to responsibly use guns, crimes with guns would virtually stop. Second is the end responsibility of using the firearm defensively and to own the end result. In other words, not everyone can kill things, let alone people. Some of us feel that we can handle that and, correct or not, we will have to live with the consequences of killing man or beast. This does not indicate that I advocate vigilantism, just in protecting yourself, your party and your possessions (all of which is legal in many states, including mine).
  “Assault rifles and the like” are no more or less valid or dangerous than “Saturday night specials,” “high-powered rifles,” “large bore handguns,” or your grandfathers beloved side by side shotgun. What is a “legal gun”? One that maintains curfew and only shoots certain things? That is a farce. Guns can’t be legal or illegal. Behaviors, not objects, are legal or illegal. I will present a commentary on this matter in the future, since many people (no, I am not picking on you) are misinformed about guns, laws and the like.

• 10 Rolling Stone // Nov 14, 2006 at 9:32 pm

  Not sure about the whole nuclear bit but I do agree that the whole gun scene to be getting a little out of control. What are we promoting in this country? It seems to me that everyone is given the oppertunity to emulate their favorite gangster. We don’t need people walking around strapped thinking they are above the law. If anything, that will just promote violence rather than eliminate it. Just my opinion.

• 11 mongo // Nov 14, 2006 at 10:39 pm

  Some people will just never understand. Lack of experience around firearms seems to breed anti-gun attitudes. Let me ask you this Rolling Stone, when was the last time you saw someone emulating their favorite gangster? Who do you know that walks around “strapped” thinking they are above the law? My guess is that you barely know anything about firearms, and have little to no experience around them.

• 12 Rolling Stone // Nov 15, 2006 at 6:35 am

  Mongo, I am not sure if you live in a big city or follow the music industry or even sports for that matter. Why would I say that? Probably because celebrities and star athletes are idolized and emulated in this country last time I checked. Many in the “rap game” and “NBA” for instance have and carry a weapon. In other words, people in high status are doing it so what’s to say others won’t follow? Crime rates are high enough as it is, so how about we make it easier to carry a weapon around? Sound like a good idea to you because of it does your common sense may be lacking. I would agree that some people probably are competant enough to have and carry a weapon, but, people as a whole are irresponsible and should not be granted this access. So Mongo how are we to differentiate between someone who is competant enough to have a weapon versus someone who is incapable of having this right without discriminating?

• 13 furfeatherfins // Nov 15, 2006 at 9:21 am

  Oddnoteccentric,

  I’ve never met a DD that I didn’t like. We must get together sometime.

• 14 discob4thebreakdown // Nov 15, 2006 at 10:29 am

  A few points of contention. 1) Odd… thank you for rationally explaining why YOU carry a weapon. That is all I wanted in the first place. Are you saying that the only reason we are really free is because we have the right to own guns? Please. Most of the other rights are so much more important to the identity of our nation. The Pilgrims didn’t come here because of England’s tough Musket ownership laws. Martin Luther King Jr. wasn’t jailed and eventually assassinated because he was rallying for the right to carry concealed weapons.

  Furthermore, I am glad you could get your statistics from such an unbiased source. Obviously, John Lott is has no agenda in mind (end sarcasm). According to the U.S. Dept of Justice website, your (Lott’s) approximation of 40,000 crimes committed using firearms each year is a bit off. According to the Dept. of Justice, “Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005.” Now, I don’t really have a math brain, but to me 9% of 4.7 million is closer to ohhhh 423,000 than 40,000. Now, you also say that 2 million crimes were prevented by SOMEONE having a firearm. Now, this someone character could be an individual who has filled out the paperwork and has the right (legally) to carry a concealed weapon. This person ran into some bad luck and thankfully was able to thwart any danger by pulling his gun on the unsuspecting criminal. Now, while I admire the fact that Mr. Lott was able to publish this fine work of fiction, I find fallacies left and right in his twisting of statistics. I am going to assume that the statistic that states that 2 million crimes were prevented each year by gun ownership may be a tad off, maybe because his other numbers were so spot on. I would reckon that his numbers include those crimes that were stopped by guns that had POLICE OFFICERS controlling them. You also say, that if everyone had adequate training and was responsible with guns, that gun crimes would virtually disappear. Crimes involving guns will always exist, no matter how many law-abiding citizens are carrying guns. It seems to me that you are under the impression that if every single person was strapped that we could all hold hands and sing around a campfire, as long as our ammuition doesn’t fall in the fire.

  2) Rolling Stone brings up a valid point. We only need to open the sports section to hear about how a fight escalated because a member of the Indiana Pacers fired his gun into the air outside a nightclub (he had a permit to carry said sidearm). To quote 311, “Guns are for pussies”.

• 15 warriorzerosix // Nov 15, 2006 at 11:45 am

  Gun control? Get serious. Most people who own guns don’t commit crimes. To make clear what I mean by own guns I’ll define guns in this sense as legally, registered firearms. Legally owned guns are not the ones responsible for crime, albeit they have been known to cap off an irresponsible youngster fooling around with a device they don’t understand. Another funny thing about legal gun owners, and this refers to handgun owners, is that the research says the reason they go about packing is because they believe police protection to be inadequate. What would you rather have? A more expensive government due to an increased need for police, or, a few more responsible, yet kind of paranoid gun owners, carrying legally owned, and in many cases, concealed firearms?
  As far machine guns go, if that’s what it takes to make someone feel safe, chances are they would lack the courage to use such a weapon if the chance arose. People learn through enacting behavior, therefore the chances are that a person would learn to shoot other people (though informal means of training), seem rather slim. And if one of these gun-needy folk actually had to use a weapon in a self-defense shooting, do you think it’s possible that they would learn from the experience or would they be left trying to cope with the fact that they are responsible ending another person’s life? Aren’t hypothetical questions fun?
  Nukes? Please don’t be ridiculous. They should be saved just in case aliens attack. Governments shouldn’t even have them. War is a beautiful HUMAN phenomenon. Human in the sense that war begins with people, and ends with people. But that’s a completely different article. If people want guns, they should have them, as long as they go about procuring them legally, and use them justly, even if their use is just expensive bling-bling to keep the people they don’t know and people they most fear at bay. People are more likely to kill other people they know anyway. As I finish the little sick eugenicist at the back of my mind starts screaming, “let people have their guns, the sources of problems will sort themselves out.”

• 16 william // Nov 15, 2006 at 3:41 pm

  Warrior, I like what you have to say, especially in your first paragraph.
  As for the concealed weapon haters - To be redundant - For the most part it’s not the people who have a concealed to carry permit that are committing the crimes. Why would someone go through the steps of following the law to register their gun, get a permit that says they can carry and then go commit a crime with that gun? There isn’t any logic to that, its like saying I got a drivers license, I registered my car, and now I’m giong to go commit a crime with it. It doesn’t happen that way - people who are going to commit crime are going to do it no matter what the method.
  I think is hilarious that reason for most of us wanting a concealed to carry permit is being attributed to an NBA player or rapper having a gun and firing it in a crowd - ask most concealed to carry owners what they think of rappers or even an NBA player who does anything let alone carry a gun. Most couldn’t give 2 shits about these guys - the guys you are talking about are thugs and I would bet money on it that they don’t have a concealed to carry.
  Finally,Rolling Stone, I know this is going to sound like I’m attacking you, but I don’t mean for it to sound that way (please keep that in mind). Mongo does live in a “Big City” has for over 3 years; 2 million +. I lived there as well and guess what, every other week there was something on the news where someone got killed by some piece of shit thug(s) - as I watched these news reports I felt a hell of a lot better knowing that I had a gun by my bed at night or in my car. From the sounds of it Rolling Stone you’ve never lived in a big city, You can’t always dictate your surroundings (I know disco you will disagree with this), the city I lived in shit happens in areas where you don’t always expect it to… and when it does I’d rather be next to a couple of guys that I don’t know who are carrying concealed weapons than next to any one of you who don’t think they are necessary.

• 17 william // Nov 15, 2006 at 10:41 pm

  I need to clarify, in my last sentence I meant guys that have a concealed weapons permit and are carrying.

• 18 discob4thebreakdown // Nov 16, 2006 at 9:43 am

  William, to clarify, the USA Today reported that all three men involved in this altercation outside the nightclub were from the Indiana Pacers and all three (Jamaal Tinsley, Stephen Jackson, and Marquis Daniels) had permits to carry weapons. Now, regardless of whether some on here would refer to these guys as thugs, they had done things the legal way. Now, they get into a fight and fire shots into the air to disperse their attackers. The thing that puzzles me the most is the fact that Stephen Jackson had just been convicted of a misdemeanor assault for the altercation that took place in the stands at the Detroit Pistons game a while back. This is where I find the law to be bullshit. This guy is convicted of assault (a misdemeanor, but still) and he is allowed to keep his permit to carry a concealed weapon. He is obviously capable of committing assault (well, I am too, but I don’t have a Glock in my waistband) so why does he still have his gun permit. I would be interested to see if he keeps it after this little incident. If he does, someone would have some explaining to do. This is where the law fails those of us who see concealed weapons as unnecessary.

  I would hate to see this become a race issue. While (like this very topic) it is very easy to sit on the outside and criticize and stereotype, we must remember that this is not just a black or white issue. I cannot sit by and watch anyone correlate the use of weapons in crime to skin color. The media reports what it wants. Even if it is not purposeful, racism dictates what we see in the news. I would be willing to bet that if a white man and a black man commit the same crime, using the same weapon, in the same city, on the same day, that the black man’s crime gets on the news first or at the very least is reported before the white man’s.

  I agree with you William that things are different in a larger city, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t get mugged walking down the streets of Fargo, ND. Shit happens everywhere. But again, since I have moved to a “Big City” I still don’t feel any less safe than if I were walking down the streets of Bismarck. You have to be aware of your surroundings and be able to keep yourself out of situations where you might be at risk. Here’s a tip: Don’t walk through a dimly lit alley at 2 in the morning alone. I realize that crime can happen anywhere, but when you put yourself in these situations, things are bound to happen.(Of note, I am using the “Royal You”, as in “a person”, not attacking you, William).

  Anyway, I don’t believe that carrying a concealed weapon (with or without a permit) is necessary. Some of you do. That is fine. We could get into a battle of hypothetical situations, but that would get us nowhere. We might as well just agree to disagree.

• 19 william // Nov 16, 2006 at 12:51 pm

  First of all I agree, (and I know you aren’t attacking me, I appreciate your consideration) they should pull that guys permit. He obviously has issues. My guess is that none of those guys had anything on their record at the time the permit was issued to them - at least I hope. I’m all for a more strict system regulating the permits,sale of guns, etc. Even when it happens you are still going to see the same people commiting the crimes, the majority + of legally concealed weapon carriers don’t commit the crimes, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see more
  irrational behavior from that guy - and he will still carry a gun even if he gets his permit stripped.
  I don’t see any need to get into any discussions about racial relationships to crime with guns - those statistics speak for themselves.
  Something I can tell you about though is a few of the situations I remember seeing on the news less than a year ago when I lived in the city. These aren’t hypothetical - they really happened and innocent, unsuspecting people lost their lives. I can’t help but think that the outcome could have been different if one of the victims or someone (law abiding) around them would have had a concealed weapon at the time. Please excuse the details - they aren’t exact descriptions and I don’t have dates, references etc. Trust me though,I’m not making them up.

  The 1st: A guy gets kicked out of resteraunt cause he was drunk - he showed up drunk for a birthday party at the restaraunt, he comes back about a 1/2 hour later stands in the entry way and opens fire on the entire resteraunt killing around 9 people. This didn’t happen in a bad part of town, it was in St. Paul, MN, who could expect something like this to happen?

  2nd: A guy and his girlfriend came home one early evening to find 3 guys robbing their home (I think this was in Bloomington, MN, not in a bad part of town - and mind you they had no idea anyone was in their house when they came home), the robbers shot and killed the guy - the girl was shot steps from the backdoor as she was trying to run out. There was no way they could have dictated their situaion any differently.

  Thats just 2 examples and I can easily think of 3 more. Would a gun have helped the victims in this case? I don’t know, but if I had been involved in either one I would rather of had a gun than not.

  I agree that it is probably too easy for people to aquire a permit - I have taken the test and you don’t have to be highly intelligent to pass it.

  I can also see where you are coming from thinking that the system is failing you based on a few idividuals who decide to break the law. In reality though that is no more true than the system failing you because a person drives drunk, a cop who breaks the law, a person who makes a fraudulent insurance claim, or a printing press that makes counterfit documents. Should we outlaw acohol because it can lead to DUI? Outlaw insurance because it can lead to fraud? Outlaw a printing press because people can make counterfit documents with it? You see where I’m going with this.
  The system isn’t failing you here, it is a few lawless individuals that are failing the system. You can’t account for everyone’s actions and you can’t take something away from everyone because a very small minority are going to abuse the system.

  Wouldn’t you agree that a permit system is better than nothing at all?

• 20 AgentCrazyDiamond // Nov 16, 2006 at 4:29 pm

  Oh william, that is exactly why i’m all for you guys carrying around your concealed guns even though i’m prety sure that I never will.

  If we started to outlaw things because they led to crime, what would we be left with? nothing. get rid of alcohol because it leads to drunk driving, but without cars there would be no drunk driving, so get rid of them too. get rid of video games cause some whack jobs blame them, get rid marilyn manson, cause he causes crime, actually i guess there goes freedom of speech probably. get rid of chairs, cause people are often sitting on chairs when they plan their crime spree. get rid of fire, cause you know there won’t be any arson problems then.

  i see only one possible solution to removing crime. get rid of all people. maybe they are onto something over there in Iraq?!?!?!

• 21 william // Nov 16, 2006 at 4:36 pm

  Watch it CRAZYdiamond - I’m gonna nickname you Kerry if you make one more comment like that about Iraq, I like your overall thought process though.

• 22 AgentCrazyDiamond // Nov 16, 2006 at 4:44 pm

  oh yeah, i almost forgot, we have to also outlaw dead deer

• 23 furfeatherfins // Nov 16, 2006 at 7:36 pm

  Wow, what a popular and divisive topic. That happens to be my favorite kind. The best analogy that I’ve seen that deals with this issue is “if guns cause crimes, then pencils cause misspelled words”.

• 24 furfeatherfins // Nov 16, 2006 at 7:40 pm

  On the topic of idolizing douche bags and the resulting crimes that are committed, I really think that Bobby Brown is one cool SOB. Someone better check on my wife…

• 25 oddnoteccentric // Nov 16, 2006 at 7:45 pm

  If guns cause crime, then spoons made Rosie O’Donnell fat.

• 26 furfeatherfins // Nov 16, 2006 at 8:09 pm

  Disco,
  First let me start by saying that Discob4thebreakdown is a really “neat” name.

  This is really an issue of n (your n equals 3 which is an incredibly insufficient sample size for drawing conclusions about the populous as a whole). N is simply the specific size of the group being studied. Generally, the larger the sample size, the more reliable the study results and the more likely it is that the results can be applied to larger groups of people, things, etc. You can disgrace the statistics that Oddnoteccentric cites just as easily as I can suggest that your source is biased. Vicious cycle. There may not be a reliable source of information available. Often, the only way that happens is with peer-review and I don’t know of a source of crime statistics that goes through a peer-review process.

  It doesn’t take much intellect to recognize that if some evil-doer intends you harm with an ice-pick, pencil, sharpened-toothbrush, knife, bolt-cutter, corn cob, or any other inanimate object that you will be more easily able to defend yourself if you are carrying a firearm. Accordingly, it scares the feces out of me when people that aren’t comfortable with firearms desire to remove that recognized right from those that were born with genitalia.

  Note: I do not have a permit to carry concealed weapons and I have never applied for such a permit.

• 27 discob4thebreakdown // Nov 17, 2006 at 12:13 am

  1) Why is my name a point of contention? I am not sure if you are complimenting me or making some sort of snide remark about something as arbitrary as a screen name(could it really be the latter with a name like furfeatherfins??) It is the title of an EP released by the band Against Me basically referring to a party before things go to shit. Hence, the disco before the breakdown. I am not one for typing “b4″ instead of “before”, but the space to create a log-in name is limited to a certain amount of letters and I like the imagery of the name. Therefore, I was forced to go with “b4″ versus the preferred “before”. So sue me.
  2) My statistics (remember, this is coming from someone who has a lot of problems with the government) came from the Department of Justice. His statistics came from some random dude who happened to write a book supporting conceal and carry laws. Clearly, one is more respected and reliable than the other. Can you tell which? You can “suggest” that my source is biased all you want.
  3) In the last paragraph, you mentioned that it scares you to think of someone without “genitalia” trying to take away your right to carry a concealed weapon. While giving a lesson in maturity, you were making a backhanded comment about how those who do not favor conceal and carry laws (myself and a few others on this site) do not have “genitalia” (read: balls, for the folks at home). I hate to break it to you, as your 9th grade biology teacher might get embarrassed, but everyone has “genitalia”. Even women. They have female genitalia: a vagina if you will. Some lucky blokes even get both sets of genitalia. Hermaphrodites: look it up. Your attempt at wit kind of fell flat. Sometimes, trying to use big words to prove academic superiority has the opposite effect.

• 28 furfeatherfins // Nov 17, 2006 at 9:39 am

  Gaydancinggayband,

  1) I said your name was neat. Take your medication, eat liver with some fava beans and a bottle of Chianti, do whatever you need to do to, but settle down.

  2) Information from a government agency is called grey literature, which comprises scientific and technical reports, patent documents, conference papers, internal reports, government documents, newsletters, factsheets and theses, which are not readily available through commercial channels. The distinction between grey literature and peer-reviewed literature is a very important one. The peer review process allows fellow scientists, statisticians, etc. (with relevant expertise) to attack the methods, analysis, etc. of any type of research. This is critical because even the best scientists can overlook a crucial error in data collection methods, violated assumptions during analysis, and many other issues.

  The first sentence after 2) reads that you are the one with problems with the government. Is that what you meant? The Department of Justice is no less subject to politics than any other government office, department, etc., and as such THEY MAY WELL HAVE AN AGENDA AND EVEN IF THEY DON’T—IT DOESN’T MEAN THAT THE DATA WERE COLLECTED OR ANALYZED APPROPRIATELY.

  I would have initially agreed that US Department of Justice statistics are probably less biased than those of some random NRA-type. However, after looking into John Lott’s background I’ve changed my mind. His academic career and record of publication (peer-reviewed) suggests that he knows how to do analyses correctly and does (or he wouldn’t get anything published). Now the books are a different issue (probably not peer-reviewed), but I am willing to believe that he follows the same guidelines when writing for journals as books.

  3) Your lesson about genitalia was truly enlightening. And to be crystal clear, by enlightening I mean incredibly stupid. It is oh-so-clear that you had to look up genitalia. Please tell me you are no more than 8 years old. Do we need to revert back to the failure of the public school systems discussion? Of course a female has genitalia. Did you know that the sun heats the Earth? And to make sure that it is clear for the “folks at home”, don’t read genitalia as balls—read as male and female sex organs. If I had to look up hermaphrodites I would have just done everyone a favor and “snack on buckshot…”. You say “Sometimes, trying to use big words to prove academic superiority has the opposite effect.”. You are probably right. However, in this case that really makes me laugh. I had no intention of using big words. Since when is genitalia a big word? Is it because it has more than two syllables? WTF?!?!?!?! Back to your statement, while using big words can make you look silly if you use them incorrectly, YOU WILL ALWAYS LOOK FEEBLEMINDED WHEN YOU SUGGEST THAT SOMEONE IS USING BIG WORDS WHEN THEY CLEARLY ARE NOT.

  It’s like I’m working with the handicapped…

  I once heard it said that you should never argue with an idiot because bystanders won’t be able to tell who’s who. With that I quit arguing. I’m stupid. You’re smart. I was wrong. You were right. You’re the best. I’m the worst. You’re very good-looking. I’m not very attractive.

• 29 discob4thebreakdown // Nov 17, 2006 at 10:21 am

  “Accordingly, it scares the feces out of me when people that aren’t comfortable with firearms desire to remove that recognized right from those that were born with genitalia.”

  I, unfortunately, did not have to look up the word genitalia. You have this way of trying to make everyone around you appear ignorant to prop up your own ego. Do you really believe that I don’t know what genitalia means? You are the one that used it wrong, not me. Instead of admitting your mistake, you tried to find a way out of it by insulting me. You say that it scares the shit out of you when people who are scared of firearms try to take away the right to own them from people that were born with genitalia. That makes no sense at all. Your logic is flawed. Then you explain that I am supposed to read it as male and female sex organs. Ok…here goes nothing. “It scares the feces out me when people that aren’t comfortable with firearms desire to remove that recognized right from those that were born with male and female sex organs.” This makes even less sense. So, you are saying that I am trying to take away the right to carry concealed weapons from people with male AND female sex organs, i.e. hermaphrodites? I have no problem with hermaphrodites. Hermaphrodites are people, too. I say that if people with only one sex organ, male or female, are allowed to carry weapons, why shouldn’t they? You made a mistake, it is OK. Just admit it.

  Regardless of which source is more reliable. 40,000 crimes committed using guns per year seems like an astronmically low number considering our gun-crazy society. There are probably upwards of 40,000 gun crimes committed in California alone every year. 423,000 makes so much more sense and is much more believable. You have to agree with that. The only other explanation is that Oddnoteccentric made an error in his reporting and left off a zero. That is a possiblility and a minor error on his part. No big deal, I was going off of the information presented.

  You seem to be very intelligent, but you can’t seem to admit any of your mistakes. Oh, and save the homophobia for the frat party. I am sure the bros will get a kick out of it…

• 30 furfeatherfins // Nov 17, 2006 at 12:13 pm

  Sophmoric jokes do not equal incorrect word usage. Genitals include both male AND female sex organs. The statement that I made clearly implies that people opposed to conceal and carry or firearms in general are lacking any sex organs. That condition is called genital aplasia.

  I am many things, but homophobic is not one of them. My hypocrisy goes only so far. You see, I like to keep my options open.

• 31 oddnoteccentric // Nov 20, 2006 at 1:19 pm

  I misquoted Lott’s numbers. In order to take the attention away from that, I am going to provide some statistics from http://www.justfacts.com: In 1997, for example, roughly 8 million violent crimes were committed and roughly 700,000, or a little less than 9%, of those crimes were committed with a gun. Again in 1997, two thirds of the roughly 15,000 murders were committed with a gun. Furthermore, from a list of 11 surveys, the number of defensive uses of a firearm by a civilian ranges from 764,000 to 3,609,000. I think these numbers prove the point that the net gain to society (and therefore individuals) from allowing defensive gun use (and therefore concealed carry) is significant.
  One more point: this posting was intended to alert the reader of a series of laws that we all live under. Furthermore, this posting had nothing to do with the topic of concealed carry or personal defense, especially since one of the last people who used an NFA weapon in personal defense (and that of his fiancee) was dragged through the mud by prosecutors and ended up losing his job because of this event.[http://www.subguns.com/boards/mgmsgarchive.cgi?noframes;read=468242]
  I will address this topic again later, but feel free to continue the intellectual discussion of whether or not we should follow the rest of the world into a disarmed society model (and thereby become food for the wolves, whomever they may be).

Leave a Comment