>> ^MarineGunrock:

A lot of states require that you go through a short course to legally carry concealed. Not all, and yes, that's only to carry concealed. Still, this does mean you have at least SOME people who are trained.

What does a "short course" entail? An afternoon? A weekend? A week? In every domain I've been involved in, from software development to photography to martial arts, the rough consensus is that it takes 10000 hours to master a skill. I don't consider someone who has taken a "short course" trained, or even competent.
>> ^MarineGunrock:

As for the mugging scenario, if you had a concealed weapon and depending on where you holster it, you could say "okay, I'm reaching for my wallet and then just blast him.

Ok, let's assume I'm mugged by a guy with a gun. What makes you think you'll be able to draw your gun from it's concealed holster and "blast him" before he shoots you? Assuming he's already pointing a gun at you.

Besides, is human life really that cheap that you'd kill someone over your wallet? If I thought he was going to harm me in some way, that's a different story, but the death penalty for robbery seems kinda draconian to me. If someone is desperate enough to mug someone, they're probably in a pretty messed up way. I'd prefer to respond like this.

A lot of states require that you go through a short course to legally carry concealed. Not all, and yes, that's only to carry concealed. Still, this does mean you have at least SOME people who are trained.

As for the mugging scenario, if you had a concealed weapon and depending on where you holster it, you could say "okay, I'm reaching for my wallet and then just blast him.>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
@ChaosEngine:

Obvuiously an unloaded weapon is useless. The guy is an idiot. But you'd have to be a moron to think that never in the history of guns has someone that's legally carrying stopped a crime with their weapon. I read an article not more than a week ago about some guy who got caught in a mugging, but instead of handing over his wallet, he shot the crook.

@MarineGunrock, I'm not saying that a legally carried gun has never stopped a crime. What I'd like to know is how often it happens and what the percentage outcome is, i.e. average joe citizen tries to intervene with a gun and ends making it worse? better? I don't have any numbers, but I can't help but feel adding an amateur with firearms into a situation only makes it worse.
As for the mugging scenario, I'd hand over my wallet. Every time. Simply not worth the risk for the sake of a few bucks. Hell, I wouldn't even wish the mugger death over that.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

@ChaosEngine:

Obvuiously an unloaded weapon is useless. The guy is an idiot. But you'd have to be a moron to think that never in the history of guns has someone that's legally carrying stopped a crime with their weapon. I read an article not more than a week ago about some guy who got caught in a mugging, but instead of handing over his wallet, he shot the crook.


@MarineGunrock, I'm not saying that a legally carried gun has never stopped a crime. What I'd like to know is how often it happens and what the percentage outcome is, i.e. average joe citizen tries to intervene with a gun and ends making it worse? better? I don't have any numbers, but I can't help but feel adding an amateur with firearms into a situation only makes it worse.

As for the mugging scenario, I'd hand over my wallet. Every time. Simply not worth the risk for the sake of a few bucks. Hell, I wouldn't even wish the mugger death over that.

Right, because the US is the only country in which people get killed over measly sums of money. Besides, I bet that most mugger use a gun as a means of persuasion than would actually kill.>> ^sirex:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
@ChaosEngine:
I read an article not more than a week ago about some guy who got caught in a mugging, but instead of handing over his wallet, he shot the crook.

Seriously ? what kind of fucking retard attempts to kill a man over a wallet proberaly with $40 in it and a couple of library cards ?
Sometimes I swear the US is so screwed up they don't even know which way home is.

"How to get shot in the head, like a bitch."

Even if the guy doesn't have time to react, half of these risk him accidentally pulling the trigger. Unless you're starring in an action film, just give the mugger your money.

Way to post that pdf in every video about Chomsky, and hide when someone points out that its full of shit. Go back to posting inane, pun riddled one liners; your ad hominem attacks makes FOX news look classy and intelligent.

It takes less time to shoot a mugger than explain to him why his actions are morally wrong.

Facts are to liberals what DDT is to bugs. If you are over age 25 and still believing the likes of Chumpsky, you are one of those Lincoln referred to as "some of the people fooled all of the time."

BTW your "anti-capitalist" hero is worth 2 million dollars, which he hid in a trust to avoid taxation---taxation he demands for everyone else.

>> ^robdot:

im a 30 year pro firefighter. [...] we have maps to show us the corp line. and the addresses of those not in the city limits. i cant take my dept out of service to help you, and leave the citizens who do pay unprotected. or use up their resources. if you want depts to protect more people, you must pay up front for more vehicles, equipment, personnel , training, etc. extremely self evident.


I think the problem's that the FD drove out, told the guy to his face that there was nothing they would do (not could do - that's different), got out the marshmallows, and had a party while the guy's life burned down around him. They were there. They could have helped.

How about this? You're getting beat up by a mugger. An off-duty cop walks by. He decides he doesn't want the overtime pay so he just keeps walking. You end up in the hospital with four less teeth, internal bleeding, and broken bones. Is that acceptable?

I know, I know...the government is bad. Same song, different day.

I don't really give a rat's ass for the FCC. I don't even care about prioritizing between different types of data. Giving VOIP priority over filesharing traffic is fine and makes perfect sense, one's gap-sensitive and the other isn't. What I want is one simple rule. The -source- of the data packet cannot be used in that prioritization. IOW, all VOIP packets must be treated the same, all video must be treated the same, etc.

Allowing the big network providers to do WHAT THEY'VE ALREADY THREATENED TO DO is just stupid. Allowing them to do so because you're worried about something that -might- happen later is even more so. It's like allowing a mugger to stab you, because you're worried that fighting back or running will allow him to file a claim against your insurance.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

^Stormsinger
I think you are drawing a false dichotomy. There are 2 issues at hand there. Firstly, the government is already involved greatly in the situation and has made the situation very bad. Secondly, just because the government isn't involved with something doesn't mean we all become victimized automatically. For instance, google is a service that has done very well with little government involvement. Additionally, many people are very satisfied with their service. But for those who aren't, they have the choice not to partake of their services, it is what the market is all about. The government has broken this system in phone and radio, where is has eliminated competing markets to "clean" up the way broadcasting was done. What this has done is centralized power in the hands of the very few. For a robber Barron to work effectively, they need to be able to hold a market captive. This is hard to do when the market is allowed to work, but in cable and radio, and telco, this practice is illegal. So the government is the strongman that keeps most markets captive to monopolistic forces; like the wall street mess you pointed out. It was a mess, but when you combine mess with legal precedent you don't help the issue any more.
The government is very great at taking emerging markets and smashing all the small competition to make way for corporate takeovers. You can bet your dimes to dollars that Comcast and NBC will be at the table when all this Net Neutrality law business kicks in, and you can bet your hindquarters they will get to write in all sorts of exceptions that will apply to smaller ISPs and not themselves. I think it is fair to say that we all want to same goal here, as open communications as we can. I just want to make clear that the government, in this case the FCC, has a horrible track record, maybe the worst in government for openness and non-censorship. TV and radio are the ONLY mediums that get censored, in reality, the FCC represents the pinicale of the violation of the first amendment...why in the hell do we want them to help with the internet?

^xxovercastxx
I am sorry man. Really, I wasn't trying to be hostile. I was more frustrated that you were frustrating yourself. It seemed like you wanted to have a good conversation on the subject, but instead got tangentilized. My apologies. I would like to suggest, however, there is a third option. The main problem with both of those situations is choice. In ISPs, and in some net neutrality law, you really don't have any consumer choice. Both situations in reality, though, have come from a system of bad laws. If we were to remove the monopoly system that protects these mega media dirt bags, then consumers that don't like the NBC, Comcast pipes can leave. Right now, in many areas, that would be against the law, which is bull crap. We need to restore balance, I think that is something we all agree on, but the way to do so isn't with more bad legislation that could backfire, but to undo that which was a mistake from 50 years ago.

You know, a fresh coat of paint, better looking wood stalls, and some germanic ancestory sellers there, and I'd thought it was a Texas gun show. Not much of a difference between the seller's and those I've seen at some gun shows. And the prices aren't to off either...

Seriously, if your going to make an arguement for or against, showing stastics that heavily favor your arguement will never win over the other side.

If firearms did deter crime, why is crime still taking place in those areas? Last I checked, a firearm can't protect you from identity theft, nor a chemical spill. They do not protect you from guys on Wall Street, selling you a derviatives future contract that will ulimately fail, cus they engineered it to fail (i.e. Goldman Sachs). Or your business of shrimp, cus some group of idiots short-cutted design plans that spills 18K of oil barrels/day.

Yes, a firearm would protect me, when some mugger attacks to. So would my man-eating dog, platoon of USMC's, or Ashbringer (WoW sword). So to, to being observant of the enviroment and hence, not walking in to an ambush in the first place!

wonder if he could trick a mugger into thinking he has a balisong in his hand?

> Way too nice and unworn shoes for a "real" homeless dude.

I am sure he is also a mugger who steals peoples shoes.

"So, let me get this straight.. You wake up, you're tired because you're halfway through your sleep cycle, so instead of a melee weapon where you can see what you'll be swinging at, you instead grab a gun? Yeah, have fun shooting a loved one."

No, you identify the person first in either case. It's easier to shoot someone while tired than it is to get involved in a melee. You're more likely to win in other words. You can id someone within seconds of waking up, but only sleep will give you the alertness needed to fight a brawl.

"It doesn't matter if they bring a friend, the first thing you SHOULD be doing when you hear people in your house is calling the cops (hey look, that statement wasn't actually irrelevant after all!)."

Yes, that is the first thing you do if you aren't armed. If you are armed, you arm yourself, then you call the cops and hide.

The reason it wasn't relevant is because the police will take enough time to arrive that you may very well be dead by the time they get there.

"The only time you should be engaging them anyway is if they come after you."

Yes. And if they come after you, they are most likely to win, provided you don't have a gun. If you do, the odds are about 50/50 or better in your favor.

"And saner people realise that they'll be breaking into the house and getting the jump on you, hmm? So..What the fuck good does it do you then? Neither the bat OR the gun is any use because you're now either dead, or locked in a closet. Oh, and if they continue to search after that's happened, they get to steal your gun. yay."

Except as a matter of fact, break-ins do occur when the owner has a firearm, and when the owner is not expecting it, and even though the break in itself was a surprise, it's almost always the firearm toting homeowner that wins. Your hypothetical scenario logically supports your conclusion, but it is not representative of reality.

"Strength in combat is usually not a deciding factor, if you're not as strong as some, pick a lighter bat. You don't need to be sleeping beside a 32 oz. home run machine, a 24-26 ounce metal softball bat is less then 2 pounds and longer then a knife."

No seriously, how much experience do you have fighting with a baseball bat vs someone with a knife?

I contend that
A) A knife, even a short one is much more dangerous than a baseball bat (getting hit with a bat is painful and can break bones, but being stabbed is much worse).
B) Even a short knife has a longer reach than a baseball bat (because of the thrusting motion with arm vs swing motion).

The above isn't to invite discussion on what people should arm themselves with, it's to demonstrate that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

"He brings friends, you're probably SOL in the first place, but seriously.. "

If he brings friends you can easily bring them down if you're armed with a gun and they aren't, they will be the people who are SOL. If they are armed with guns (which is very rare), then you are much better off armed yourself.

"do you think that no burglars can be stopped without a gun? I'm genuinely curious now, because if the answer is yes, then what do you think they do in..say..Canada?"

I do think burglars can be stopped without a gun. It's just that keeping guns legal helps you a lot more than it helps them. As for Canada, I believe guns are legal there. As for what they do in any given place where it is not legal to own a firearm, for the most part they deal with whatever the perps want to do with them and then file a police report after the fact. Sometimes letting the police deal with it is the correct state of affairs (robbery), and sometimes barring citizens to the means of self defense is a terribly unjust state of affairs (rape, murder).

"a decent mugger/rapist/murder/gang, which again will have the advantage of surprise."
..so, how exactly do you draw and fire a gun if you've been taken by surprise? a "decent" any one of those would have a weapon pointed at you, and have your arms either up, or somewhere away from where a concealed weapon could be. And you call my logic flawed.

Your logic is perfect. If it were true that muggings worked like that, then a concealed weapon would do you no good.

Your facts however, are wrong.

Like your previous example, you constructed a hypothetical scenario, then force it to work out like you want it to, rather than looking at what actually happens in reality.

This is the typical (real) case: someone carrying a (concealed) firearm is mugged or otherwise held up while doing something else (so as a matter of course, they were taken by surprise). The usual result of this scenario is the perpetrator running away, rarely being shot, rarer still winning a confrontation. On the other hand, if you are not armed and the perpetrator wants more than your money, then all you can do is file a police report afterward, assuming he has no interest in killing you.

P.S. My last post wasn't meant to be laughed at. Neither is this one.

@Lowen: Long comment trying to be funny is long...and really not funny.

So, let me get this straight.. You wake up, you're tired because you're halfway through your sleep cycle, so instead of a melee weapon where you can see what you'll be swinging at, you instead grab a gun? Yeah, have fun shooting a loved one.

It doesn't matter if they bring a friend, the first thing you SHOULD be doing when you hear people in your house is calling the cops (hey look, that statement wasn't actually irrelevant after all!). The only time you should be engaging them anyway is if they come after you.

And saner people realise that they'll be breaking into the house and getting the jump on you, hmm? So..What the fuck good does it do you then? Neither the bat OR the gun is any use because you're now either dead, or locked in a closet. Oh, and if they continue to search after that's happened, they get to steal your gun. yay.

Strength in combat is usually not a deciding factor, if you're not as strong as some, pick a lighter bat. You don't need to be sleeping beside a 32 oz. home run machine, a 24-26 ounce metal softball bat is less then 2 pounds and longer then a knife.

He brings friends, you're probably SOL in the first place, but seriously.. do you think that no burglars can be stopped without a gun? I'm genuinely curious now, because if the answer is yes, then what do you think they do in..say..Canada?

"a decent mugger/rapist/murder/gang, which again will have the advantage of surprise."

..so, how exactly do you draw and fire a gun if you've been taken by surprise? a "decent" any one of those would have a weapon pointed at you, and have your arms either up, or somewhere away from where a concealed weapon could be. And you call my logic flawed.

The idea that banning guns to make the country safer is NOT laughable when you have a civil society that enjoys its freedoms and doesn't have guerilla forces as part of a rebellion. The reason those people exist is basically to "Fight the Man" and last time I checked, the U.S.A. doesn't exactly have that problem.

Hi Shepppard! Thanks for completely ignoring the factual basis of my post. Here it is for you AGAIN, stated more simply for you:

1: Firearms have been smuggled into prisons. They can be smuggled into a country. If they are illegal then by definition the only private citizens that can get their hands on them are criminals.

(hurp hurp, it's the old "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" bit.)

2: Weapons are assembled in the middle of nowhere (jungle camps, Pakistani villages, etc) and do not require extremely specialized machinery to make. Even if they could not be manufactured openly, and even if they could not be smuggled in, criminals would still have no trouble manufacturing firearms and ammunition. To put a stop to this, you'd have to ban or regulate a lot of tools and materials that have many constructive uses.

This is why it's vital that private citizens retain the right to carry firearms. Because you can't stop them from getting them.

Private citizens require firearms to make sure they can defend themselves against criminals? Seriously? you don't think people carry guns when they break into peoples houses? That's just naive.

Where did you get the idea that most break-ins are committed by people packing heat? I don't doubt it happens that some do have guns, but from all the break-in cases I've heard, the usual burlger/rapist is armed with something that's less obviously a weapon (and not as expensive as a gun), like a heavy pipe, wrench, or a knife.

If you're that worried that someone's gonna break into your house, sleep next to a bat. If neither side has a gun, it's basically which ever one has the bigger melee weapon wins, and last time I checked, if you're breaking into someones house, you don't take a claymore, They draw a knife, you pick up the bat. Problem solved.

Well, I guess we'll all have to yield to your vast experience and/or research in the field of "home defense melee combat".

1: Failing that, saner people will realize that someone breaking into your house is going to have the advantage of surprise and will probably be stronger than you (as an expert in this field I'm surprised you didn't mention strength as a deciding factor in melee combat). Making you SOL.

It's much less of a problem if you have a gun though. You might be terrible at baseball bat fencing after being woken up midway through your sleep cycle and fighting someone on nocturnal sleep cycle, but that is less of an issue with a gun, nor do guns care how strong you are.

2. If he brings friends, then you're almost certainly SOL.

A gun solves the issue of being outnumbered nicely, since fights end sooner it's less likely you'll end up fighting two people at the same instant, and makes you more or less immune to being immobilized by one while the other attacks (because you can kill them before they get that close).

Last but not least this has nothing to do with someone "breaking into our house". The chances of someone being a victim of any kind of robbery are very low, and in any case it's not robbery that's the problem.

This has to do with your personal safety wherever you are. If there was a way to tell a burglar from a rapist or murderer, I'd be all for letting them take whatever they want and letting the police sort things out, or not. Even if I don't get my stuff back, it's not worth killing someone over. Unfortunately, the only way to tell ahead of time is let them rape or murder you.

In addition to all the other terrible flaws with your "baseball bat" idea, it's utterly useless when you're anywhere other than at home or home base. Last I checked, people also get mugged, and you'll get funny looks carrying a baseball bat around, in addition to it being completely ineffective against a decent mugger/rapist/murder/gang, which again will have the advantage of surprise.

Again, this has nothing to do with my personal worries. The chances that any of this happens to anyone are very low, but should it happen you're completely utterly fucked without a gun.

I contend that passing a law forbidding private citizens from carrying firearms leads to situations where one person can kill many, with the many helpless. This is unconscionable.

oh, and as for your "Extra lols", Really? Do you think that the secret service doesn't care that there's loaded firearms at a rally for the president?
are you THAT naive? your country has a bit of a track record for assassinations and attempted assassinations. If there's ANY person carrying a weapon at a rally, you can bet your ass they're being watched like a hawk.

Yeah, except if you read the article you'd know the secret service wasn't worried because
A) the rallies took place well away from where the president was and they of course had that area secured (no firearms are allowed in a federal venue). As for our track record for assassinations, I can't recall one that had the assassin carrying openly while loudly demonstrating. Assassins like to keep a low profile, but I guess you wouldn't know that since you majored in "home defense melee combat" and not "underhanded techniques of murder for hire".

"There's a reason that the police force was invented, and contrary to common belief, no, it was not to go around tazing people."

Not relevant, even if true.

The police can't protect you unless they're aware that you're in danger, and they're near enough to help. Those two facts mean there would have be many, many more police to make them an effective means of self defense. As it is, they are not an effective means for the defense of your person.

Fun fact: retired police officers and military love carrying and owning firearms. I wonder why?

Really, your post shows that you're about as in touch with reality as the right wing idiots that watch fox news.

I haven't been in a situation where a police officer has pointed a gun/tazer at me outright but I have been confronted by police and I have had a gun pointed at me by police (I have never been arrested nor have I ever even gotten a ticket). But I know several people personally who have had a gun/tazer pulled out on them the moment the cop sees them, its not a pleasant experience and it makes that person very angry to be degraded by having their life in the hands of a normal PERSON.

In this situation the cop went up to a person walking down the street who matched the description of a person who just got in a fight. I doubt the cop knew the whole story of the confrontation or the person's past criminal record or anything. To get out of the car and start yelling at someone and pointing a weapon with NO explanation whatsoever even while being repeatedly asked is on par with a mugger walking up to you and asking for your wallet. "Get over here and get on your fucking knees"-as a weapon as pointed at you "Get on your knees and give me your fucking wallet"-as a weapon is pointed at you. And in both situations, as clearly seen in this video, if you ask questions like "WHY!?" you will get shot. If that shit wouldn't make the person in that situation angry I don't know what would. Add to that the stereotype, whether right or wrong, but many black people are scared/afraid/mistrustful of the police. Just look on the sift/youtube and see how many police brutality videos there are.

Now in this particular situation not only were the things I just said a factor but this guy was just in a fight and hes already fucking pissed off. Now this shit happens and he gets a gun pointed at him and then shot with a taser for asking "Why?" Take the Fundamental Attribution Error for the suspect to not just that fucking cop. I have seen so many cops act this way and think they are superior to the average citizen. That is not the case and theres so many god damn situations where cops think they have the right to treat people like shit if they don't down bow down and kiss the cop's ass because so many police offi... sorry, because so many PIGS have a fucking god complex its insane. And people go to jail or DIE because of it.