-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Mass shooting stopped by CCW holder
Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
her209
No Lifer
Yeah, just one more, "If you ban guns from [insert location] then only the criminals will have guns!"
Jesus, do I really have to spell it out for you? NeoV stated, in effect, that he didn't think having CCW in bars was a good thing. This implies a gun ban in bars. I replied saying that gun bans in bars saved lives. daniel1113 replied stating that bars where CCW are allowed to carry, also saved lives. I post link to article where murder occurs in bar bathroom. You jump all over me because perpetrator does not have CCW license.
Then why require CCW licenses at all? I've asked this question before on another thread, if a person without a CCW shot and killed a criminal in the act of committing a crime against them or someone else, would you, then be against CCW licenses to carry?
JD50
Lifer
No, daniel1113 did not say that, he even clarified what he meant in a later post to Sirjonk. You must have missed it.
He was responding directly to your wild assertion that not allowing a CCW holder to carry their weapon into a bar saved lives. It was an ignorant comment, and you know it. Maybe you have some stats to back it up, so if you do, please post them. For your statement to be true, you would have to show lives that would have been saved if a CCW holder was not allowed to carry their firearm into a bar. This means that you need to find some statistics of a person with a CCW shooting up a bar. You MIGHT be able to find one or two times that that has happened, and in the grand scheme of things, that means absolutely nothing.
IMO, the only good reason for a CCW license is to help the Police in determining whether or not someone should be carrying a firearm. I think shall issue states are the way to go, meaning, unless you have committed a felony, been in a mental institution, etc... then they have to issue you a CCW license. I live in a shall issue state, but I have not gone and gotten a CCW yet, I stopped carrying a couple of years ago when I quit my job as a cop.
Really though, I'd just like for you to clarify your original statement that you seem to be backing away from. Maybe we all misunderstood you, if so, here's your set us straight.
Please show us these "countless" number of people that have been killed by a CCW holder in a bar. Whose lives WOULD have been saved if certain states that currently allow you to carry in a bar, would change that law? Any stats you could find that show a CCW holder murdering someone, mainly in a bar, would be great, thanks.
m1ldslide1
Platinum Member
http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/yourchild/guns.htm
Cliffs:
I was surprised to see that accidental deaths are only 214. But seriously, let's imagine that there are magically no guns available: I can see a good portion of the suicides remaining, maybe even 90% assuming that kids know how to slash their wrists properly. The homicides would drop by probably 90%. Pure conjecture I know, but how many drive-by stabbings, gangland baseball bat fights, and pipe-bomb retaliations are there going to really be? If you can look me straight in the avatar and say that these 2000 kids would still be dead without firearms, then I'll go ahead and assume that you're a fucking idiot.
That said, the magical world where there's no personal ownership of weapons is a fantasyland. So then maybe its time to seriously address the root issues of violent crime. Oh wait, I said that already, and nobody responded. It's easier to yell back and forth over the surface issue I guess and ignore the real causes. Politics as usual in this country. :disgust:
Cliffs:
I was surprised to see that accidental deaths are only 214. But seriously, let's imagine that there are magically no guns available: I can see a good portion of the suicides remaining, maybe even 90% assuming that kids know how to slash their wrists properly. The homicides would drop by probably 90%. Pure conjecture I know, but how many drive-by stabbings, gangland baseball bat fights, and pipe-bomb retaliations are there going to really be? If you can look me straight in the avatar and say that these 2000 kids would still be dead without firearms, then I'll go ahead and assume that you're a fucking idiot.
That said, the magical world where there's no personal ownership of weapons is a fantasyland. So then maybe its time to seriously address the root issues of violent crime. Oh wait, I said that already, and nobody responded. It's easier to yell back and forth over the surface issue I guess and ignore the real causes. Politics as usual in this country. :disgust:
JD50
Lifer
I said pretty much the same thing. But don't hold your breath, you're not going to get a response from the rabid anti-gun crowd. They are wasting their time arguing against guns, if they cared as much as they say they do, they'd be spending all of that energy on something the real problems of crime and poverty, not guns. It's much easier to argue against guns and claim that if you just made guns illegal than all of our problems would be solved. It's much more difficult to find and correct the real problems.
daniel1113
Diamond Member
daniel1113 bangs his head against the wall, grabs his 12 gauge and AR-15 and heads to the range for the day.
daniel1113
Diamond Member
Actually, I have, and the vast majority of murders in this country are premeditated. Plus, as I mentioned above, there are far more defense uses of guns in this country than criminal uses. However, I really don't care about the statistics. For the most part, numbers can be found to support any point of view, but my position is based around natural rights which are not subject to statistics.
I guess you haven't seen the murder statistics compared to countries with stricter gun control.
EDIT: By the way, you don't have a natural right of gun ownership, but rather a constitutional right to at least some sort of gun use, the sort of which is hopefully about to be decided.
daniel1113
Diamond Member
Sigh. Once again, statistics are pointless, especially between countries. I could easily find numbers that show that countries like the UK have higher violent crime rates and increasing murder rates, but it proves nothing.
And our constitutional right is based on the natural right to self-defense against ALL enemies, domestic and foreign. They are one and the same. Plus, there is no doubt that the supreme court will rule in favor of an individual right. The question is whether or not that right can be restricted any more than, say, the first amendment.
m1ldslide1
Platinum Member
I don't know, the way I interpret it is that yes, you have a right to bear arms for defense, but also so that a motivated minority can forcibly overthrow the government if they deem necessary - just like in the revolutionary war. I would imagine that the RW was fresh enough in the minds of the founding fathers that they indeed had this in mind for the future. Maybe not as much as they had in mind future british invasions, but it had to be a strong consideration all the same. I'm certainly no constitutional scholar though.
No. There is a strong correlation in developed countries between the murder rate and gun ownership. The UK has a much lower murder rate than the U.S.
You don't really know yet what the constitutional right is, but it's actually not as simple as you make out. First, there is no natural right of gun ownership despite what you claim it's based on-- because guns weren't invented for much of human history, this should be obvious. They are not one and the same. In addition, you obviously don't know much about the history of the Second Amendment to make that claim; it was created almost exclusively in response to fears of a standing federal army being used to oppress the states.
her209
No Lifer
LOL... are you dense? You want me to prove something that you have assumed my position on and then in the very same breath, you say "Oh, and by the way, whatever you come with doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things." I love it!
I've provided an instance that is contrary to the belief that "Guns deter people from committing crimes" however, you seem to be hung up on the shooter not having a CCW permit part. But for shits and giggles, why don't you explain away this incident? Maybe the shooter was illegally carrying when he wasn't supposed to. Maybe the incident happened in a state other than the two states daniel1113 mentioned. But hey, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't mean anything.
[/quote]
What part of "right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" does the state not understand?
Shooting a weapon at a target range gives many people pleasure, having a weapon also provides some people with comfort (safety).
Alcohol is for pleasure and ends up getting a person intoxicated....no danger there, especially while driving or operating machinery.
Knives, what are they for? Chopping, cutting, stabbing things....
Cigarettes are for pleasure, but have a little downside called cancer....
The list could go on and on, and I would suppose you would call for a ban on all these things and much more (expand it to baseball bats, etc).
Ownership of a gun doesn't make you a murderer of fellow human beings. Your assumption that it does is very unrealistic.
Do you think of police officers as killers waiting to be unleashed because of your perceived need to fulfill their duty as gun owners?
Let's look at it this way: if you have the right to shoot-your-mouth-off in these forums (freedom of speech), then everybody else can have the right to own a gun of their choosing and target practice with it (right to bear arms).
What other rights are you and your kind looking to take away?
JD50
Lifer
Huh? I asked you to explain your position and explain your original statement. You're the one that said that not allowing CCWs in a bar saves lives, I didn't assume anything. And yet again, you are changing peoples words. Just as daniel1113 never said "daniel1113 replied stating that bars where CCW are allowed to carry, also saved lives.", I never said "Oh, and by the way, whatever you come with doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things.". You need to actually start reading what people say instead of what you want them to say. I said "ou MIGHT be able to find one or two times that that has happened, and in the grand scheme of things, that means absolutely nothing." I can't really make that statement much simpler, but I'll give it a shot. Please provide statistics that prove that banning CCWs from bars has saved lives, ONE OR TWO ISOLATED INCIDENTS DON'T REALLY PROVE YOUR PONIT. Does that make more sense to you? Showing a news story of one or two isolated incidents, out of the millions of people that carry legally, doesn't make much of a difference, especially since you used the term "countless lives have been saved", countless is usually a little more than one or two.
This is ridiculous. You are just linking random news stories and you don't even know the context. Basically what you are saying is if ONE crime is committed in an area that allows CCW, then the premise that "allowing CCWs deters criminals" is wrong. That is absurd. You need to actually look at the statistics, not random news stories. Are you really this bad at this kind of debate? Here, I'll show you how ridiculous this is.
Her202 - You shouldn't wear your seatbelt. Seatbelts don't save lives.
JD50 - You are wrong, seatbelts do save lives, look at the statistics.
Her202 - Oh really? Well then why don't you explain this away Woman wearing seatbelt killed when ejected from crashed car in Kitchener, Ont.
JD50 - Ummm....that's one incident, it doesn't really mean anything when you look at the big picture.
Do you see how ridiculous that is? Here is what you should be doing.
Her202 - You shouldn't wear your seatbelt. Seatbelts don't save lives.
JD50 - You are wrong, seatbelts do save lives. Look at the statistics.
Her202 - Here are the statistics, and it looks like you're right 63% of people killed in car accidents are not wearing seat belts.
Wow, see how dumb it is to provide one or two instances of something happening instead of actual statistics to prove your point? Now I'm not saying that I'm right and you're wrong about not allowing CCWs in bars saving countless lives, I'm just asking for some proof (statistics). And again, I don't know why you are so stuck on "Guns deter people from committing crimes". Neither myself, nor Daniel1113 made this argument. You, however, made the argument that a countless number of lives have been saved because people are not allowed to carry guns into bars. It's obvious to me that you haven't even taken a look at the statistics, and you just said what you thought sounded good. Here's your chance to pwn me an daniel1113. Back up this statement with some statistics and prove us wrong...
Goodluck.
Did anyone stop to think that the CCW owner in question MAY have been a cop or Federal officer? If the "Bar" also served food (like TGI Fridays or Bennigans), then it's AOK for these guys to eat dinner there. If they aren't drinking, then they can hang there all night long.
Also, the officer may choose to not tell their identity as an officer, if it hampers their job performance in any way.
Just a thought.
Also, the officer may choose to not tell their identity as an officer, if it hampers their job performance in any way.
Just a thought.
While the gun culture has created the "armed citizen", it has also created the "crazed shooter" problem. -1 gun culture (or, rather, -3).
Au contraire. Did you have a point?
EDIT:
Note to self: don't go on gun rampage inside a bar filled with 300 bikers.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
