Concealed Weapons (or more specifically, handguns)

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Demetrius

Interesting. Got a source on this? It looks pretty important to the whole issue.

According to the DoJ website, for the last year data is available Vermont had 16 homicides, something like 3 of which were gun-related. So Demetrius might have been hyperbolizing a bit, but really not by much.

Though I suspect if you tried to run say, the state of New York the same way as you would Vermont, you'd get pretty significantly different results.

EDIT: Looking at a list of per-capita data I just want to say, DC I was expecting but hey Alaska, WTF?

...adding that DC excepted, it seems like the states leading in gun fatalities seem to be those more libertarian on gun policy.

[Sesshoumaru]

Well, most of what I found is on EBSCOhost, and Im pretty sure you need a login account (I got there via my school's account). SOme names you could look for are: Gary Kleck, David Kopel, John R. Lott Jr, and Florenz Plassmann; they're all academics who have published studies on the matter (on the pro-gun side). I think Don Kates has published some stuff too. Most of them also have books (John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns are both good, although you can skip More Guns because his second book is basically a remake of the first thats aimed at a broader audience, so he doesn't get as technical with the info).

As for SkyShot, this site may be able to help you, http://www.packing.org/ (although it might just deal with concealed handgun laws).

[Nique]

It seems like the immediate consequences of loosening gun-control laws would be very difficult to live with. I mean, every situation the police find themselves in after that is a standoff if the perp decides he/she wants it to be.

Drunk driver keeps a shotgun in the backseat suddenly get's a little too irriatated with the officer flashing his lights behind him?

Some kids spay painting a wall get a little too scared when the police show up and start getting trigger happy?

Or some people decide, now that they have the ability, to play vigalante. All it would take is some jerk cutting off some bigger jerk on the highway and then, you are exacting "justice" all on yout oen. Of course, these people are already inside potential weapons (the 3000+lbs cars, of course) so maybe this is a non-issue?

Of course, larger crimes become more difficult. If your criminal talents include 'mugging' and 'mugging' only, odds are you aren't going to feel ok about it knowing that your potential victim is also packing heat.

Robbing a bank or ATM becomes nearly immpossible when the security gaurds and all the customers have a gun pointed at your head.

[Skyshot]

According to the DoJ website, for the last year data is available Vermont had 16 homicides, something like 3 of which were gun-related. So Demetrius might have been hyperbolizing a bit, but really not by much.

Are you kidding? The reality is three hundred percent of his claim! He can't be trusted!

Sesshoumaru -- thanks; it did. The "weapons" definition seems to leave improvised weaponry open (although they covered themselves with the "means and includes" clause), but other than that, I got what I was after.

[Fifthfiend]

Are you kidding? The reality is three hundred percent of his claim! He can't be trusted!

Technically more than that, as the one-year data indicated three deaths while he referenced a multi-year time frame. Though technically technically the data available was for 2004, so it's at least possible the citizens of Vermont all collectively decided to stop shooting guns at each other from 2005 onward.

[Sesshoumaru]

Well Nique, you'[ve basically parroted what anti-gun groups like the Brady Campaign (formally Handgun Control Inc., until they decided that it sounded 'too radical' or something) have fear-mongering what would happen if any of their 'reasonable' (read: asstasctically draconian) gun-control proposals were overturned/not implemented, the truth? None of it has happened The reason? Criminal and irresponsible owners, whose guns contribute so much to society's ills, are already carrying weapons whenever they want to, thus allowing responsible, law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons does not cause further problems, because the people that cause those problems are going to do it whether its legal to or not (hence the terms 'criminal' and 'reckless').

[Sithdarth]

Corrupt=/=Crazy, btw. In as much as some people in our government might just be plain insane, the decision to activate and drop a nuke, especially on one's own nation, would have to go through so much processing, and I can only imagine along the way that it would somehow be stopped by someone.

Maybe even a scruffy, unknown Corporal who just got the balls to shoot the crazy corrupt general in the head and save America! Classic movie, right there!

A few things:

1) I threw it in as an absolute worse case scenario and I didn't precisely mean an actual tactical nuke. It is quite possible to create a nuclear device that would take out an area of less than a few city blocks and wouldn't throw radiation that far. The military toyed with the idea as a bunker buster. It'd be a pretty attractive option if some rebel militia holed up deep in the Rockies or something.

2) It is the least of our worries if the government gets that corrupt. Between the replacement to the M16, Humvees (and 747s) with lasers, highly impact resistant ceramic armor, tanks, planes, ships, helicopters, artillery, and the about 30 billion other gadgets the US military plays with today no force comprised of citizens is going to stand a chance. If we managed to get like more than 50% of the military to mutiny it might happen but not without a lot of fighting. Strictly put the spirit of the second amendment, ie regular citizens rising up to stop governmental corruption, died with modern warfare.

[Mannix]

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

regular citizens rising up to stop governmental corruption, died with modern warfare.

Not really though. Like I said in that post that was linked, the military is comprised of human beings that have to eat and sleep. They aren't invincible, and some guns/IED's and you can make procurement of resources, and eventually victory, impossible for a sustained war effort. Look at what the VC did/the Iraqis are doing now. Now, would the militia casualties be astronomical? Absolutely. But Freedom is one of those things people seem willing to lay down their lives for.

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

...Of course so's Habeas Corpus and Congress / the President chucked that out on its ear easily enough last year

Yeah they did, and look at all the good its done us.

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

Looking at a list of per-capita data I just want to say, DC I was expecting but hey Alaska, WTF?

That's because Alaska has the highest man to woman ratio in the US. If we see gunplay as being a metaphor for sexual activity, it's little wonder.


And am I the only one here with an actual CWP? The first couple of times I went out of house with a .45 under my arm were surreal, until a friend of mine reminded me that the piece of metal under my arm was my Right, where the piece of metal I was driving around is legally considered a privilege. Both are as deadly as they are useful, so why should I feel strange about one and not the other? On that note I think the WA State laws are sufficient; Federal background check and the applicant's fingerprints are added to the FBI database. A nice bonus of having a CWP in WA is that the 5 day waiting period for handguns is waived for you.

The gun laws here in Korea I'm a little fuzzy on, but as far as I know people are allowed to own guns but they have to be stored at the police station and you have to sign them out and in whenever you want to use them. Other than that I have no clue.

[Loyal]

Originally Posted by Skyshot

In particular, I've doubled up a ten-foot chain twice into a flail-ish thing and tied off the end into something that, with a handle, could make an interesting improvised weapon particularly good for attackers that are either unarmed or armed with close-range weapons (i.e. knives). I'm thinking if I got them across bare skin, particularly the face, it might hurt bad enough and draw enough blood to scare 'em off. If it doesn't, I'm in trouble, because the chain isn't heavy enough to cause serious injury. (Maybe if I got a really heavy handle...) Does that sort of thing legally qualify as a "weapon?"

I'm pretty sure weapons like those (bows, swords, chains, etc) are illegal to carry around in virtually all circumstances. Y'know, unusual weapons (by today's standards). You might want to look it up anyway... I'm not having too much luck on the subject (All the laws in question I'm finding deal with firearms).

[Meister]

Originally Posted by Sesshoumaru

Well Nique, you'[ve basically parroted what anti-gun groups like the Brady Campaign (formally Handgun Control Inc., until they decided that it sounded 'too radical' or something) have fear-mongering what would happen if any of their 'reasonable' (read: asstasctically draconian) gun-control proposals were overturned/not implemented

Please show a little more respect towards other people's viewpoints, no matter how much they differ from yours. The exchange of different points of view is what this entire forum is for.