New Conceal and Carry Law in Minnesota
Home > Home Recording Forum > Talkin' Smack > New Conceal and Carry Law in Minnesota
Posted on May 30, 2003 05:26 am
dbmasters
Administrator Since: Apr 03, 2002
I will prologue this by saying I am a strong supporter of sportsmans right and the right to keep and bear arms, I have several guns myself and most everybody I know does.
Minnesota just passed a conceal and carry law that makes it easier for people to get permits to carry, which I think is fine, it's the "conceal" part I don't like, I think they should be worn on the hip like Clint Eastwood, but whatever...moot point.
Now everybody against guns, those being private citizens to organized groups (often churches I just heard) are protesting the new law. Which I find funny since any establishment still has the right to prohibit firearms from their establishments.
Don't know exactly why I wrote this other than to say if anyone is up for a good laugh, pay attention to Minnesota news for a while, it's bound to be interesting.
www.startribune.com/
[ Back to Top ]
May 30, 2003 07:28 am funny. my second amendment has been telling me my whole life that ive been aloud to have a gun. i dont understand why people arnt using this right. it was created to protect you from a govt that could ponetially some day be to your risk. but if you you want a good laugh why dont you guys watch whats going on in china. can anyone figure out why a communist country with a population of 1.4 billion are about to declare war on us? now if youll excuse me. my coffee and scotch awaits.
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Since: May 10, 2002
May 30, 2003 11:17 am Yeeow! Hornets nest! I'm outa here. Let the scuds begin!
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
May 30, 2003 12:14 pm Anti-U.S. Russo-Chinese alliance may be in works
www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs...ol=968705899037
it's more like creating a balance of power rather than starting a war. no country is insane enough to get mutually assured destruction going even if our country looks out of control.
concealed weapons are big time important when it comes to deterring crime. and they need to be concealed rather than carried eastwood-style. criminals have a much harder time trying to get up the gonads to mug someone when they know that there might be a gun hidden within reach for that person. it also equalizes the power that men and women have, which affects crimes like rape. carrying the weapons exposed allows for people to be easily identified, whereas concealed creates a large number of unknowns. it creates a "halo effect" where people who aren't carrying the guns get the deterrence factor as if they were. i think it's great that MN has passed this. the statistics and gun control arguments point clearly to the need for concealed weaponry permits to be available to law-abiding, mentally healthy citizens.
church and parents' groups have been doing stuff to pass gun control for a long time, but they aren't looking at the objective truth and statistics. they're looking at their mental picture that someone is going to accidentally be shot as a result of this. that's true, but the possibility of that is far less than the possibility that an innocent person's life will be saved because of this, "halo effect" or full on confrontation.
sorry about the tirade. i just did a lot of research on both sides of the argument, and that's a boiled down version of the result.
May 30, 2003 02:39 pm Honestly, I am quite shocked to hear you agree with that bill, pleasantly surprised I might add.
Given you position on the war and war in general (that was maybe assumed on my part) I sort of expected you to be very anti-gun.
My mistake, let's go to the shooting range sometime ;-)
I think concealing or wearing in the open each have their pros and cons, but either way I think is better than neither way.
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
May 30, 2003 03:33 pm yeah it's probably pretty easy to come to the conclusion that i'm a "liberal" because of the war stuff. the main reason i was against all that is because i follow a bunch of websites that are very suspicious of our government in general, and do their best to watch for inconsistencies and stuff. when the run-up to the war in iraq started, it was clear that they were trying to manufacture excuses. when the public's attention was introduced to this by the media, it was done in an extremely slanted way. things like saddam's threat to the US and our "friends" in the area were focused upon, while things such as the real possible effects were overlooked. now we're seeing that WMDs aren't there (with excuses from the bush administration), iraq is going to hell, etc.
WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz:
news.independent.co.uk/wo...sp?story=410730
US prepares military repression in Iraq:
www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/iraq-m30.shtml
there's an awful lot going on. i seriously feel like we're in the twilight zone or something.
yeah let's hit up the range. i'm not bad! :-)
May 30, 2003 03:36 pm I actually read both of those stories earlier today. Interesting, but still, whether Saddam had WMD or not was not a large factor in my personal support for the war...tho it was the excuse GW gave for starting it, it wasn't swaying my opinion much...rut row raggy, let's not start this up again...
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
May 30, 2003 07:05 pm you're piquing my curiosity, dB!
May 30, 2003 07:34 pm Mwahahahahaha
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
May 30, 2003 11:16 pm foiled again!
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Jun 01, 2003 10:58 pm I personally would rather have it tucked in a shoulder holster, but I agree with you dB that I would rather have it seen and not concealed.
Can anyone say VIGALANTE AND POSSE. I can just see the bars in this town now. Metal detectors and a pat down at the door. I personally dont want to be in a bar when some stupid moron with a gun gets tanked and pissed up and decides to shoot his budy because he lost a bet or something stupid. Or the ticked off husband looking for his wife messing with the milk man out at the bar.
Also, lets take a look at road rage in Minnessota, can you say 100 car pile up on 35W north bound at 62 and crosstown. I can see a big messs coming to town allready.
But I do stillagree, we should be allowed to carry just not concealed.
glynbMember
Since: Dec 16, 2002
Jun 03, 2003 07:33 am Speaking as someone from the UK I find it hard to understand why anyone in a modern (generaly) law abiding society would need to walk around armed with a lethal weapon.
We don't routinely carry guns here in Europe and generaly have a lower violent/ murder crime rate than the U.S. - OK you could get into the chicken and egg argument, but i can't help thinking its because guns are so readily available in the States is why so many people get shot!
Look, the deal in society is that we all agree to put down our weapons in return for protection from the State who are allowed to use force to keep the peace. That's what society is all about. If we take the right to bears arms thing to its extreme don't bother with a police force, just give everyone a gun and let us all get on with it like a cowboy movie defending our own homes and families - doesn't sound very sensible right?
Carrying a concealed gun doesn't stop you from being mugged, because the mugger has the element of surprise on his side.
Jun 03, 2003 07:41 am Well, I think there is ample reason for some people to carry guns. My father is a machinist, and obviously has to go to the steel yards quite frequently to either pick up steel, or even worse, bring scrap up for recycling. I have gone with him at times. I dunno about the UK, but here the steel yards are not exactly the nicest part of town. And when we are up selling $3000 worth of premium brass scrap and most every one else in there is homeless folks selling their aluminum cans for $3 you better damn well believe that we are going to protect ourselves.
My father in law and brother in law are in the heating and air conditioning business, quite often going into not-so-nice areas of town to fix things...I for one am glad they can arm themselves given they actually go into people houses that they don't know in bad areas.
I don't think anyone should be allowed to carry guns, but I do think people with a clean record, of sound mind and a responsible member of society should be allowed to protect him/her self and his/her family.
Your argument about the police force is dodgy, there is still authority and respect involved along with penalties over and above any typical penalty for shooting at a cop...as well there should be. And the people I describe above wouldn't do that, as they are capable of showing respect to the authority figures, the guns are for protection for when the authorities are NOT around.
Quote:
my second amendment has been telling me my whole life that ive been aloud to have a gun. i dont understand why people arnt using this right
MKF, there is a big difference between HAVING a gun and CARRYING a gun.
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Jun 03, 2003 11:50 am being in society doesn't mean surrendering to the State. the framers of the US constitution understood that all governments, including the one they were creating, could be corrupted and power could be centralized in the executive branch. smell familiar, anyone?
a lot of gun control proponents say this, but here goes. pretty much every major act of genocide was preceded by the ruler removing all the guns from that population. considering that most of the governments that serve us have engaged in genocide (including the US), we still need to be cautious (not paranoid).
the whole europe vs. US gun crime rate thing was addressed in bowling for columbine (however deceptively edited it was) and many other places. the explanation that makes the most sense to me is that americans are subjected to larger amounts of sensationalism (read: propaganda) than elsewhere.
it's not about being a cowboy, and it's not about defying any police force.
having a gun gives you a lot of options when dealing with a mugger. depends if they've got a gun, and all that jazz.
very important:
"...people with a clean record, of sound mind and a responsible member of society should be allowed to protect him/her self and his/her family." - db
"...concealed weaponry permits to be available to law-abiding, mentally healthy citizens" - me
we can put down our weapons when we eliminate crime and corruption completely. that's when we will be able to call society "advanced."
Jun 03, 2003 11:57 am Agreed, and it goes beyond acts of genecide, one of the keys for any totalitarian government to achieve and keep power is by disarming it's citizens, whether or not killing them is involved, controlling them is, and this is most easily achievable when they are unable to defend themselves...obviously.
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Jun 03, 2003 10:39 pm I will be unpacking my Glock form storage now and it will ride with me on important dates. As dB stated, there are certain areas no one goes because of the risk of being mugged, beaten, or even killed for a few lousy dollars. And to me, having been robbed in my old house while sleeping. And having some young jerk break into my house and steel years of creative effort that cant be replaced from me, you better believe I have the right to protect my family and my property.
And might I add, nicely put Minkus and dB as well.
glynbMember
Since: Dec 16, 2002
Jun 04, 2003 07:10 am Well the trouble with the 'sound mind' argument is that people change over time, and people get angry/emotional/drunk/unstable.
True story. A guy went through the high street in a Scotish town a few years back shooting everything in sight, before the cops finaly shot him dead. He had his weapon legaly and was a meMber of a GUN CLUB. Presumably when he got his weapons he appeared to be of 'sound mind'.
As musicians we can all think of occasions in bars where things have got out of hand, after alcohol consumption. Imagine that if each guy had a gun available!
In the UK many young men are routinely carrying knives, that's bad enough, but what if it were guns?
Similarly, in a domestic situation partners get angry with each other and often violent, if there's a gun available....it's not just a rolling pin that gets thrown!
If you say there are parts of town where it is dangerous to go then isn't THAT the issue that should be tackled? Maybe that area needs better policing, or demolishing, or investment, etc. Clean up the area! Not let it fester and expect everyone to go around with a lethal weapon just in case!
Anarchy is just below the surface. Look at Iraq. If everyone starts carrying lethal weapons around with them and starts to settle scores with them we desolve into anarchy - and that's not good for home recording, not at all!
Jun 04, 2003 07:13 am Well, then it is up to the establishment to not allow weapons inside. One of the key pieces of this legislation is that it still allows any building/business owner the right to NOT allow weapons inside.
Quote:
If you say there are parts of town where it is dangerous to go then isn't THAT the issue that should be tackled?
Agreed, but do I have the power to change a city, well, over the long term yes, in theory, but living in the now I am concerned about one thing, protecting number one. THAT I can have immediate control over, or a lot more anyway.
No, anarchy is not just below the surface, it could be, but it does not HAVE to be.
Jun 04, 2003 07:25 am i like guns, i have two shotguns, but the thought of having to use them against someone leaves me cold. hell, the them or me arguments fine, and it'd be them rather than me, but i can't even consider the aftermath to my headstate.
either you arm everyone or no-one, and the last people to use their legal right in america to oppose the government by force (as far as i know on the UK) was Waco. Now that looked great!!!
i don't surrender to the government, thats what democracy is about. and although its not a view i share, it's this perceived right through might approach that has lead to a lot of us-bashing. if one only believes one can control its destiny simply by peace through superior firepower then it couild get very messy.
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Jun 04, 2003 12:22 pm stories like that scottish pub are going to happen whether or not concealed weapon permits are issued.
iraq is a lot more complicated than a lot of people with guns. those people were supposed to turn in their guns, but they won't. the news every day reports leaders there talking about how if the US doesn't go home and leave iraq to the iraqis, they're going to rise up. not exactly a "developed" country at the moment.
the whole waco thing isn't what it appears to be. the operative word in that situation is "hamfisted."
glynbMember
Since: Dec 16, 2002
Jun 05, 2003 07:09 am "stories like that scottish pub are going to happen whether or not concealed weapon permits are issued."
I understand where you're coming from. Tragedies will always happen, people will become unstable and hurt others, yes of course. However, I used the story to illustrate how it could be if more people in the UK could get hold of guns routinely like they can in the US. If that guy had gone berserk and walked down the high street armed with a stick, a chair, or even a sword then the damage would have been far less.
"iraq is a lot more complicated than a lot of people with guns. those people were supposed to turn in their guns, but they won't. "
Exactly. Would you turn in yours for the good of all? I would bet not. Once everyone has a gun they won't let go. That's why we must never allow the general population to get hold of guns in the UK. To their credit the present UK Government banned all hand guns just after they got in. Are we therefore less 'free' than you Americans?
The IRAQ thing is so volatile BECAUSE so many have guns and could use them on US troops. If they only had broken bottles or kitchen knives it wouldn't be quite so bad!
" like guns, i have two shotguns, but the thought of having to use them against someone leaves me cold. hell, the them or me arguments fine, and it'd be them rather than me, but i can't even consider the aftermath to my headstate."
You said it! Men like guns, they are a fun toy, like a nice new piece of recording equipment. Look how many birds I shot, aren't I cool! Only they kill people as well as animals.
As to your mind afterwards, well people have ways of justifying killing to themselves, providing they feel it was 'fair' - like protecting your home against a burglar, or going to fight in a war and shooting an enemy - defending your country.
Surrendering to government? Yes, we all do that, otherwise democracy wouldn't work. In a natural state man would live in anarchy - all against all with the strngest winning. In a civilised society we have rules and agree to do what the Governmeent says in return for protection and peace, so we can go about our business unhindred. OK, its not perfect, but it works for miost of the time, thats why we pay taxes and obey policemen etc. The alternative is too horrible to contemplate, but you got a glimpse of it recently in Iraq. People even wanted Sadam back rather than anarchy!
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Jun 05, 2003 12:20 pm "However, I used the story to illustrate how it could be if more people in the UK could get hold of guns routinely like they can in the US."
people can get guns no matter what, legal or illegal.
"Would you turn in yours for the good of all?"
i think the point we're debating now is whether or not turning in all your guns helps everyone or not. you've also got to think about the times where guns are helpful (beyond hunting for FOOD).
"To their credit the present UK Government banned all hand guns just after they got in. Are we therefore less 'free' than you Americans?"
if you define "free" as liberty vs. gov't intrusion (the way most people do), then yes. history isn't going to be looking back kindly on the present UK gov't.
iraq would be volatile without guns. the armies that we thought were our buddies going in are turning out to have ulterior motives that were clear before the war started. it was infantile for our governments to think that we could use the kurdish forces and that they wouldn't work to develop an independent kurdistan.
did you hear the stories about how people with kalashnikovs scared off looters time and time again? that's the good way guns work, but it's not sensational enough to fit into the news.
we all surrender a portion of our liberties to our respective governments. lots of people believe that they don't need their liberties surrounding guns, but lots do. i do. so did the framers of my country's constitution. it's protection against tyranny.
speaking of tyranny, it's nice to know that, in order to support social security and medicare under today's spending limits, we would have to raise income tax to 66% NOW. the longer we wait, the more it will be. don't we all have a wonderful, nonviolent future ahead?
glynbMember
Since: Dec 16, 2002
Jun 06, 2003 07:32 am "we all surrender a portion of our liberties to our respective governments. lots of people believe that they don't need their liberties surrounding guns, but lots do. i do."
- It's all about perception I guess. You have a feeling that you like to have lethal weapons available to you 'just in case'? That really is more about what's in your head than any real need for a gun for protection (I don't mean that in an insulting way). But Just because you LIKE to have a gun around doesn't mean its really the best thing for your society as a whole.
" so did the framers of my country's constitution. it's protection against tyranny."
Thats was over 200 years ago for goodness sake! There was no police force to speak of then. The Country was exploited by us (the British), there were hostile natives around and no-one to protect people from them, not to mention keeping those slaves under control! The U.S. really has moved on in terms of security since then and is mostly peaceful !
"speaking of tyranny, it's nice to know that, in order to support social security and medicare under today's spending limits, we would have to raise income tax to 66% NOW. the longer we wait, the more it will be. don't we all have a wonderful, nonviolent future ahead?"
I'm not sure where this fits in. Presumably you are infering that the US may slip into anarchy at some future stage and then you'll need your weapon for self-defence? The trouble is everyone else will be doing the same!
I don't know where you get your figures from re-taxation? We in the UK (and other European Countries) have a health service which treats all people regardless of ability to pay insurance premiums. Now it isn't brilliant, but it does work, and we don't pay anywhere near the 66% that is a joke scaremongering figure.
Noone likes paying taxes, me included. What you have to ask is what are taxes for? In theory, they pay for things for all of us which we can't provide on our own - like armies to defend us, roads to drive on, social security for when we lose our jobs, street cleaning, street lighting, security services to tackle the terrorists/tradeunionists, etc, and in some countries health care for when we're sick. Tax isn't imposed for its own sake becuase a politician thinks its a vote winner, it is there for a purpose to provide things for the common good.
Just think of tax as like paying an insurance premium to the State - doesn't seem quite as bad then!
- I know that will upset a lot of people who point to waste of taxpayers money - but there is a lot of waste in the private sector too (that's another story).
Jun 06, 2003 07:44 am Yes, taxes are necessary, I don't mind paying them cuz I like roads to drive on, city parks for my kids to play in, street lights, police and fire departments and all that good stuff.
However, like glynb said, there is a lot of waste, we all know it so DON'T anyone turn this into a thread about that.
As far as my choice, or my liking to have a gun and whether or not it is good for society, well, really whther I have a gun (or several) or not does not impact society at all. As my guns (well, all but that one) are locked up and safe, the only thing endangered by them is the local deer and rabbit populations.
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Jun 06, 2003 11:27 am yeah my point was not about waste. my point is that if you allow a gov't to exploit a population, they will. when guns leave the hands of ordinary citizens, rendering them pretty much completely subservient to their government, the stage is set for government exploitation in one area.
my source for the 66% tax figure was in articles about how the bush administration suppressed a study that their own guy did about the effects that his tax cuts will have.
i personally don't own a gun. it's far too complex to do that here in southern CA. i don't know if i ever would. that's my prerogative, but i would like to have the choice. so i do not LIKE to have a gun around.
this stuff isn't in my head. you can read writings of james madison or thomas jefferson or any of those folks, and they're not just talking about hunting. they fought a bloody war against the tyrant who was their king at the time. they wanted the US populace to be able to resist tyrannical measures, such as a 66% income tax rate.
i don't mind paying taxes. it's clear just how necessary they are. i do wish that i could bonk some heads over our new record in military spending, though.
cool movie. all are paid actors. the scene is scripted.
Jun 06, 2003 11:51 am Quote:
my source for the 66% tax figure was in articles about how the bush administration suppressed a study that their own guy did about the effects that his tax cuts will have.
Yup, to cover the expenses accumulated during the spenting spree of the Clinton administration.
"cool movie. all are paid actors. the scene is scripted."
No way, I thought it was real! :-P hehe
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Jun 06, 2003 12:37 pm ha ha yeah, i was just saying that because while situations like that are interesting and amusing, our perceptions are based upon that. think of how many people have seen that and automatically think about that when conjuring up mental images about gun control. you think about little kids finding daddy's gun, loaded, and playing cops and robbers. you don't think about the crime that never was or the lady who escaped rape by pulling a gun on a goon who was approaching her, and watching him back off. it's sensationalism. something that we have to consciously avoid.
clinton definitely was a mess, but i think it's going to end up that bush II will be elected absolute worst president in US history. he might lose to rutherford b. hayes, though.
Jun 06, 2003 12:49 pm Well, I disagree with that 150%, but I am not starting that one again...
MatMusic EnthusiastMember
Since: Jan 24, 2003
Jun 08, 2003 11:34 am Did you guys see "Bowling for Columbine"?
I'm just wondering what you guys thought about that.
Sure the information may be slightly manipulated to reinforce the point Moore is trying to make, but I believe he does have a point.
I think the only people that should be allowed to carry weapons are policemen. If you want to hunt or shoot for sports fine, get a license and use your guns for that. You don't want more guns floating around do you? It only creates more tension through paranoia and more accidents waiting to happen. Anyway, just my 2 cents on that.
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Jun 08, 2003 12:30 pm i addressed bowling for columbine in my post timestamped: Jun 03, 2003 11:50 am.
you might think that the only people who have guns should be policemen, but one of the big points with that is that criminals can get guns through non-legitimate means if they want to. and an awful lot want to, especially if the population in their area is helpless in that regard. the whole point of concealed weaponry is to balance that out in a way that creates a large "unknown" to criminals so that they can't tell who is packing heat and who isn't.
back to bowling for columbine, even if we have concealed weaponry permits issued to the correct people, the media (news) cartels will only report on the accidents, because they're clearly tragic and they help them get more ratings. they won't talk about all the people who are helped by it and all the crime that has been deterred. "news" today is purely entertainment designed to bring up ratings so that the channels can charge a premium for advertising at that time. the media cartels don't have much interest in providing a local community service to anyone. thanks to the FCC for opening the floodgates to make this problem far worse on monday.
Jun 08, 2003 02:00 pm I have got to see that Bowling for Columbine, I never have, but have heard much about it.
Only a police force having guns is how every single totalitarian gov't since the dawn of time got into power. By disarming it's citizens. Mat, in theory, and in a utopian world I think it's an ideal situation, but in the real world it just doesn't fly.
MatMusic EnthusiastMember
Since: Jan 24, 2003
Jun 09, 2003 01:18 pm Yeah I understand, but I think I have a problem with just circulating more guns around with less restrictions. I dunno what the solution is...I am well aware that criminals can get guns easily if they want to through unlegitimate means. Should there be more guns crackdown type thing? I just have a feeling the US government doesn't really care about that because guns are in the consitution. I really don't know. Politics is not really my bag, but Db, watch 'Bowling for Columbine', then let me know what you think about the figures.
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Jun 09, 2003 01:51 pm sadly, the solution is the lesser of two evils until we get society to the point where we can abandon all that and skip around with flowers in our hair.
the US government doesn't need to intervene more with guns. look at the humongous injustice called the "war on drugs". also, the "war on terror". a "war on violence" would make even less sense.
MatMusic EnthusiastMember
Since: Jan 24, 2003
Jun 09, 2003 10:44 pm nod
Jun 10, 2003 06:51 am criminals will get guns whatever, but the harder it is to get them the better, surely?
as for the guns stop crime line? b***s*** (IMHO). guns increase violent crime, and the fact that a person can pull a gun on another simply means they can pull one back.
a black belt can defend themselves very easily from pretty much anything.
in the uk we dont have guns carried legally on the street, we use democracy to decide our government, and to think that americans will rise up against an oppressive government is pretty laughable to me.
Tim McVey, for instance, was that a legitimate protest?
What is needed is a change in attitude, not a change in law first, because laws are just rules that some people obey.
I don't see a subservient weak population in the Uk because we're not armed, and i think you americans are selling yourselves short if you think it wouldn't be the smae there (although it probably needed to start after the second world war.
Jun 10, 2003 07:07 am Quote:
and to think that americans will rise up against an oppressive government is pretty laughable to me
Well, first we would need an oppresive gov't to rise up against, and I don't feel oppressed at all...A blackbelt can also do absolutely nothing from over 10 feet away...
I don't see the UK being subservient either, tho I am not in the UK, I don't se the US as being so either, whether or not you have guns doesn't make you subservient or not, I see nothing wrong with not having them just the same as I see nothing wrong with law-abiding people having them.
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Jun 10, 2003 11:21 am there wasn't much of an argument there. you just spouted things without any real coherence or reason.
why don't guns stop crime? it's not a line...it's backed up by statistics.
black belts got knocked down the food chain when gunpowder was invented.
as for democracy in the UK, i like how democracy ensured that majority opinion ruled in deciding on iraq (sarcasm). not to mention how the government can censor anything they want to. having a democratic form of government is good, but parliament and common criminals are pretty far removed.
it's clear that the OKC bombing was a heinous crime. what does gun control have to do with that?
as for change in attitude, i said two posts before: "sadly, the solution is the lesser of two evils until we get society to the point where we can abandon all that and skip around with flowers in our hair."
i do feel that our government is oppressive to a certain degree. i do NOT think that they're oppressive to the point where armed resistance is necessary, and i honestly think that we can work out whatever we need to within the framework of society. but, it would be funny to see a "people's uprising" where 20-something percent of the fighters are obese.
the reactions that people are having over this issue are very interesting. it's best to be coherent.
Jun 10, 2003 02:44 pm i can see we won't ever agree!!! ;)
its just my point that what i deem excessive force may not be deemed that by another person, and to my eyes that means that to be sure of an equal footing in any situation that might get a bit 'hot', i may feel the need to be armed. i do not feel that way in a society where guns are extremely controled.
i know bad people use guns, they always will, but at least at the moment i know where not to go with regards to bad people (dB's steel works post noted).
good people in a good frame of mind with a gun is as harmless as the same person without a gun, but it doesn't take a hell of a lot to get some people riled.
i guess my point is that a person with a gun can always do more damage than one without, unless of course you realy do believe that, as minkus said 'black belts got knocked down the food chain when gunpowder was invented' and we are actually a food chain where might is right. i just don't like that attitude (not in anyone here, i mean in general).
oh, and sorry if i didn't make a lot of sense before, but people get like that sometimes, irrational! :)
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Jun 10, 2003 04:40 pm what you're saying is very valid, but it speaks of individual circumstances rather than those of a particular society on the whole. it seems like when we discuss far-reaching issues like this, the "big picture" perspective is the preferable one. this means correlating crime rates and accident rates and all that jazz. remarkably complex, in this case!
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Since: May 10, 2002
Jun 11, 2003 09:37 am Simply as complex as the human psyche. Ever played chess with yourself and won? If it can be thought some deranged moron will probably try it. The old phrase "have you taken leave of your sences". I think we have all experienced that. The have not justifies his actions as being opressed and therefore life threatened. The have is faced with kill or be killed in a literal obvious sence. Those of us not involved are left to decide if the action was self defence or greed. Regardless of scale, we are left to quantify satisfaction and this can not be done. If we don't have it we tend to want it. If we do have it others tend to want it. It, only needs to have preceived value. And here we enter the mystic relm of perception. Yehaa! beam me up Scotty!
CrashIgnorance Is StrengthMember
Since: Nov 10, 2002
Jun 11, 2003 03:56 pm Very interesting reading.......
Here in Arizona we have gun laws that would make you Brits cringe. You can get a concealed permit, (allows you to carry a concealed weapon) for around $300 and 16hrs of class time, at least thats what it was a few years ago when they passed the law. You can legally carry a gun if it is in the open. It's nothing to see a biker on his Harley with his piece strapped to his leg. There are bars I frequent that have signs by the door, "Check Your Weapon" and behind the bar is a pegboard, you give the barkeep your weapon and he hangs it behind the bar in full view. Used to have them in grocery stores too but ya dont see that too much anymore, at least not in town, we're getting so civilized here. When the concealed law was enacted there were a lot of women and retired folks who took advantage of it. We wonder how many gray-haired, little old ladies crusin the swap meet are packin! Probably most of them. hahahaha. Has it reduced crime, no. Has the murder rate dropped or gone up, no. Do you wear your weapon into a bank, no. Do the criminals-gangs still get illegal weapons, yes. Are the people any more safe than they were before, maybe, but there have been cases where the robber has disarmed the victim, pistol whipped him, and robbed him not only of his wallet, but his gun too. (dont pull it as a threat, if you pull it you MUST use it - big decisions indeed). Our police force is very skiddish also, they never know when a gun will pop up, so if you get stopped for a tail light being out you had better show them both of your hands as they approach your car or you will find a gun up your nose.
As far as protecting ourselves from our government, they have bigger guns than us. Untrained rabble never stands up to trained troops. Although my grandfathers fought union busters and federal troops in the coal fields of W.Va. during the 1930's. They had running gunbattles with them on more than one occasion and ultimately won the war to unionize. But today Corporatism has a firm grip on this country and if we dont do something soon it will be too late, but I aint gonna go there.
glynbMember
Since: Dec 16, 2002
Jun 12, 2003 06:50 am Well the 'guns cut crime' argument doesn't hold water. if you compare the homicide rates of say London, England with major US cities like New York.
The story of what its like in Arizona is absolutely astonishing, especialy to someone who has lived in the UK and never seen a handgun close up. When I think of all the crazy people I've ever met in my life and then think 'what if they could get hold of a gun' - doesn't bare thinking about.
Trouble is its very difficult to get rid of the 'gun mentality' once its endemic in the culture of a nation. The UK Gvt banned all hand guns and made sure the culture won't get started here, most of Europe the only people you'll find with guns are armed police officers. I don't think the people of western Europe are any less free than in the U.S.
Sadly I think many men like having guns for the macho image side of it. Like the guy on the Harley - what other purpose would there be in rding around with a gun strapped to your leg other than to look hard/macho.
On another issue I can never understand why civilised people think its fun t go out and kill wonderful non-human creatures not for food, but for FUN. But I guess thats a whole other debate. But not unrelated to the 'killing is macho' mind-set IMO.
Jun 12, 2003 07:04 am The Arizona laws sound much like the ones that are in Minnesota now.
Personally, I am really sick of arguing about this. If guns aren't part of your culture, thats fine, I couldn't care less, but they ARE part of my culture, I was raised by a hunter as a hunter, I was raised with respect for my fellow man and for guns, how to take care of them, how to safely use them and I plan to teach my children the same lessons my dad taught me.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it has nothing to do with anything macho or the like, I anjoy shooting, I enjoy hunting.
If you have a problem with it, well, tough crap.
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Jun 12, 2003 10:10 am while things like crash's experience are interesting i agree with db that this is starting to get a bit old. so i'll say a final piece on this:
the guns vs crime connection has been well-documented. there are plenty of factors, and it isn't as simple as a gun culture or what can be done with guns. this type of thing is for social analysts to work out, and i hope that they can someday agree on a conclusion that's the best for society.
glynbMember
Since: Dec 16, 2002
Jun 13, 2003 06:38 am dbMasters
You kicked off this debate
...so its only right that you finish it.
Jun 13, 2003 06:51 am hey, i've had guns pulled on me. i'd be just damned happy to see 'em all disappear
Jun 13, 2003 06:55 am I had a gun pulled on me once, and I kicked his ***...that stupid punk had a pretty slwo trigger finger...
Jun 13, 2003 07:09 am it's happened to me twice, once was a robbery, for five pounds (i think about $7.5), so i let them have it, the guy was of his face on crack.
the second was someone i 'knew', one messy night i was sitting in theit house when he put the nozzle against my temple from behind me. if he hadn't been on hallucinogens at the time i wouldn't have been worried, but he was.
it's the closest i've ever come to actually opening bowels.
i waited until his madness had passed, which luckily it did, and then i broke his face.
i hear he's in the big house now.
its like the old adage, people kill people, guns just make it easier, it ain't gonna stop violent crime or start it.
anyone in the uk who believes our cities are gun free are fooling themselves, when i lived on estates they were almost as common as the illegal dirt bikes that got raced around.
Jun 13, 2003 07:17 am It's called a "barrel" not a nozzle ;-)
You're right, people kill people, Which is why I believe in people control, not the control of an inanimate object...
Or, as the bumper sticker says:
"Gun control means using both hands"
or
"Guns don't kill people, I kill people"
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Jun 13, 2003 10:41 am a little advice to everyone: if you want to know about an issue, look into both the side with which you're naturally predisposed to identify AND the opposite side. you can't really understand gun control unless you understand the pro and anti arguments.
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Jun 13, 2003 04:37 pm Very well put all of you. A very nice ending to a very debatable subject. And as Minkus so eloquantly put it, you really do have to look at both sides of an issue, and do it as if you belonged on that side. It really does enlighten you when you take the time to understand the what and why of each side before passing judgement.
glynbMember
Since: Dec 16, 2002
Jun 17, 2003 03:59 am "...as Minkus so eloquantly put it, you really do have to look at both sides of an issue, and do it as if you belonged on that side. It really does enlighten you when you take the time to understand the what and why of each side before passing judgement."
I'm not sure that people here haven't understood the argument from the other side. Just because someone holds a view doesn't mean they don't see the issue from 'the other side'.
I see the other side's argument. If I carried a gun with me I would be able to defend myself if attacked and frighten off intruders into my house and if the Government ever came for me I could shoot their gestapo. And it would make me feel stronger than I really am. Yes, I understand that viewpoint.
But what outways all of that is the fact that if I have the gun, so does every other f@#ker in the neighbourhood! And that makes society a more dangerous place for everyone. Including the burglar and the guy who has road rage who I crossed and the heroin addict whose desperate for a fix, etc etc. So I and society don't gain any advantage by me having a weapon (unless very few other people have one).
I don't know where pixie lived (lives?) in the UK, but his experience is unusual IMO. Maybe in certain districts of the big cities like Glasgow, Manchester and London, Liverpool etc, but for most areas in the UK meeting someone with a gun is a very rare and troubling experience. Though sadly, becoming more possible.
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Jun 17, 2003 05:17 pm sorry glynb, if that's your perception of the meat of the pro-gun argument, then you don't know the pro-gun argument as well as you think you do.
glynbMember
Since: Dec 16, 2002
Jun 18, 2003 10:27 am "sorry glynb, if that's your perception of the meat of the pro-gun argument, then you don't know the pro-gun argument as well as you think you do."
- Which kind of implies that if I DID know the pro-gun lobby argument 'fully' then i would inevitably change my opinion!
I guess one could argue that way for anybody who holds opposite views to your own, and it's not really something that can be debated!
In closing all i can say is I have considered the views and arguments of the pro-gun lobby, having heard them many times before & have come to the conclusion that they are mistaken.
But I think this thing has run its course and we're going round in circles now. Still, nice to air the subject, I 'm sure we can all agree on that at least!
