Senate Gun Control

Alcohol has contributed to more problems there than guns(I speak as someone who lived there.
Even so it all boils down to the free will choice of people and I don't know what drives some people to do what they do.
Also not all of Anchorage is the same, some areas are worse than others. Yes there are creepy people there, but not everyone is like that.

 

jesus, i come back here after a whole month and not a gotdamm thing has changed. NERD STASIS

 

One of the rankings was murder, the other was violent crime. Neither was the population, and the poulation really isn't relevant as they're rates, not total counts.

 

That article is inaccurate. Yes, guns are prohibited from the concert venue where some performances will be held (required by state law), but other than that the only restriction on carrying is for any business that has posted that it doesn't allow firearms.

The display guns in the gun show portion of the conference are required to be disabled (usually by removing the firing pin), but that is a requirement from the convention center, not the NRA. That does not apply to private guns carried for self defense. Attendees can carry as long as they comply with Tennessee laws. (Guns bought at the convention also have to be picked up from a licensed dealer in the buyer's home state, but that is federal law.)

 

If you didn't comply with the law, would your Gun-totin' peers judge you less of a man because you couldn't carry?

 

It's still amusing that an organization built on not restricting gun rights or the ability to carry a gun is...restricting the ability to carry a gun in a small way. Gun control for me but none for thee, 'eh?

 

The NRA has always advocated that people follow the law, even when they disagree with the law. In this case, it's not the NRA that is restricting the ability to carry. It's Tennessee law.

 

If the police want to end the fascination then they should stop carrying and using them.

 

Surprised no one has posted this yet, "Gun rights trump gun control" http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...in-major-public-opinion-shift/article/2563304

 

So public opinion is wrong on something in the US.

Wow.

Someone help me up, off the floor, where I fell. In response. To that shocking news.

And in a right wing publication?

I just. Wow.

 

Would you prefer the aricle the New York Times ran on last year's poll? Or how about the Op-Ed they ran by Charles Blow on this year's Pew poll?

Or, you could just look at the actual poll by the Pew Research Center. (Of course, their analysis shows a certain amount of bias, not considering that part of the reason that crime rates have dropped is because of the increased support for gun rights.)

Of course, your arguments aren't helped by the mass shooting in Chicago that was stopped by a concealed carrier over the weekend.

 

Yes, you're right. All those other nations of imbeciles armed to the teeth were powerless to fight back against tyranny and gun violence!

 

If he'd had a gun he could have shot him then the teacher wouldn't have been visibly shaken.

 

And in contrast, there's this story: Shopper Pulls Gun to Protect Man Being Assaulted

No one in favor of gun rights has suggested that guns are the only solution. They are but one tool among many that can be used for self-defense. But they are an important tool. Just because you can use a screwdriver to drive a screw doesn't mean that you should never use a drill to do so. You use the best tool that you have that fits the situation.

 

Sorry for digging up a month old post, but I was perusing the thread and this particular post caught my eye as I don't think anyone responded to it. Kimball_Kinnison posted I think earlier in the thread what is defined as the militia under the United States Code Title 10 IIRC. To my knowledge, that definition has not been narrowed or changed in its application. I have to wonder if you are blurring the line between what the federal government defines as the militia, and organizations or groups that call themselves a militia.

I think that I need to clarify that Open Carry Texas (OCT) isn't designed to be a militia type organization from what I understand, but purely an advocacy and awareness group of the laws and rights. I currently live in the state and most people I have talked to have mixed reactions to the group. As it stands, there have been bills introduced into the state legislature for open carry of handguns (this current session and the previous), but I haven't read the language of the current bill. In Texas open carry of long guns/rifles (not handguns) is currently legal, no license required. However, Texas is also a shall-issue state for Concealed Handgun Licenses (CHL). Information and facts regarding the process is readily available via a Google search I believe. The whole open vs. concealed carry issue varies from person to person on their feelings of it.

There isn't anything technically wrong with advocacy groups, in fact I think they can be positive in building awareness regarding firearms. The problem that people have with these open carry groups is the manner in which they do their demonstrations for advocacy. The demonstrations include marches with rifles displayed openly (think slung behind the back) and going to places like Starbucks as an exercise of rights afforded under the law. As far as promoting responsible ownership, I think that there are probably more effective organizations to do this.

 

There are some significant issues with that study, as reported elsewhere. I don't have time to pull up the sources at the moment, but I can provide them later, if anyone wants.

First of all, the homicide rate was already falling in Connecticut 2 years before they passed the law, at a time when the national homicide rate was also falling. Historically, Connecticut's homicide rate has been roughly in line with the national rate. However, in 1995 (right before the law was passed), Connecticut's rate spiked. After that, it returned to its usual level relative to the the national homicide rate.

Second, note that they ended the study in 2005, only looking at the ten years after the law was passed. A large part of that is because since 2005, Connecticut's homicide rate (as compared to the national rate) has skyrocketed. If they had extended the study to 2006, it would have only shown a 16% decrease over 11 years (rather than a 40% decrease over 10 years). If they had gone through 2010 (for which the data was available to them), they would have seen an increase over the 1995 crime levels.

Third, they picked only two comparison states, which happened to have increases in crime relative to the national rate over the study period. One of them, Massachusetts, implemented a similar law in 1998, which provided no significant change in the crime rates relative to the national rate.

Fourth (just an observation), the study was done by the Bloomberg School of Public Health, which is heavily funded by Michael Bloomberg, a blatant partisan on the issue of gun control. Is there any other field in which you would uncritically tout the claims of a study funded by such a naked partisan?

 

Too little, too late. The time to do anything about gun control this generation was right after Sandy Hook when at least the Senate was still in Democratic control.

 

I do appreciate the synergy between racial issues and gun violence that U.S. society has shoved into our faces.