Texas wife indicted after lover killed

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I said, I'm for "control" as opposed to "ban".

control is just a step towards a ban. ever heard of a slippery slope?

Arguably. There are controls on the consumption of alcohol but you don't see that being banned in the near future.

we've seen alcohol banned in the past. however, the difference is people can make alcohol a lot easier than they can guns/ammo, plus using a gun is a lot louder than having a drink.

Sure - but they are both control by laws that stipulate "who, what, where, when" no?

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

As I said, I'm for "control" as opposed to "ban".

control is just a step towards a ban. ever heard of a slippery slope?

Arguably. There are controls on the consumption of alcohol but you don't see that being banned in the near future.

we've seen alcohol banned in the past. however, the difference is people can make alcohol a lot easier than they can guns/ammo, plus using a gun is a lot louder than having a drink.

Sure - but they are both control by laws that stipulate "who, what, where, when" no?

i was addressing your comment out them being banned - alsohol has been banned in the past and it didn't work due to people being able to make it, so the law was repealed. firearms on the other hand are not made as easily, plus using one makes a bit more racket than having a drink in your home.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

As I said, I'm for "control" as opposed to "ban".

control is just a step towards a ban. ever heard of a slippery slope?

Arguably. There are controls on the consumption of alcohol but you don't see that being banned in the near future.

The last time alcohol was banned organized crime flourished. Just like modern drug prohibition and the many crime organizations profiting from it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I said, I'm for "control" as opposed to "ban".

control is just a step towards a ban. ever heard of a slippery slope?

Arguably. There are controls on the consumption of alcohol but you don't see that being banned in the near future.

we've seen alcohol banned in the past. however, the difference is people can make alcohol a lot easier than they can guns/ammo, plus using a gun is a lot louder than having a drink.

Sure - but they are both control by laws that stipulate "who, what, where, when" no?

i was addressing your comment out them being banned - alsohol has been banned in the past and it didn't work due to people being able to make it, so the law was repealed. firearms on the other hand are not made as easily, plus using one makes a bit more racket than having a drink in your home.

Agreed - but these are all things that are managed and governed by laws (same with cigarettes, which is another example). I'm for increasing certain legal controls on firearms (concealed carry permits). In UK we had some fairly stringent laws on the ownership and availability of firearms BEFORE the 1995 Dunblane massacre. That was only allowed to happen once, in the US its happened at least half a dozen times in the last 7 years, let alone the last 12. That said, I'm willing to admit there's probably more to that phenomenon than the availability of firearms, but clearly it plays a part.

Edited April 7, 2007 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Agreed - but these are all things that are managed and governed by laws (same with cigarettes, which is another example). I'm for increasing certain legal controls on firearms (concealed carry permits). In UK we had some fairly stringent laws on the ownership and availability of firearms BEFORE the 1995 Dunblane massacre. That was only allowed to happen once, in the US its happened at least half a dozen times in the last 7 years, let alone the last 12. That said, I'm willing to admit there's probably more to that phenomenon than the availability of firearms, but clearly it plays a part.

here's some ground truth for you in regards for a kansas state cch license. many other states are quite similar:

- a concealed carry holder is fingerprinted and such records held by the kansas bureau of investigation

- legally owns the firearm they are carrying (not stolen)

- has no felony convictions, history of mental illness, or conviction of domestic violence - all proven by a background check by the state to insure he/she is legally authorized to be a cch

- attended a course of instruction that includes both state and federal laws

- certified by the course instructor, who has long laundry list of qualifications (usually the instructor is an off duty policeman)

so while you are against this sort of thing, i believe you're way out in left field on it as i've never seen one single story about a cch carrier using their firearm to rob, carjack, and so on. perhaps while you are ranting about concealed carry, you can provide some statistics that show concealed carry permit holders violate the law more than the average percentage of the usa.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Vermont carry!!

"Several states are considering adopting "Vermont-style" concealed carry legislation. Most of the Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) laws in the country require citizens to first get permits. But in a couple of states, like Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission . . . without paying a fee . . . or without going through any kind of government- imposed waiting period. "

VERMONT is ranked 48th in violent crime!!! (112.0 per 100,000 people)

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004912.html

Why not move to Washington DC where guns are virtually outlawed? I'm sure it's much safer.

DC is 1st by a 200% margin over number 2 (1,371.2 per 100,000 people)

Edited April 8, 2007 by LuckyStrike

[derekkj 0]

Yeah, my Mom lives in Vermont and I live in right outside of DC. I can tell you exactly who is in more danger walking down the street..

Speaking of concealed carry, did any of you hear about what happened in VA recently?

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/108563

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Yeah, my Mom lives in Vermont and I live in right outside of DC. I can tell you exactly who is in more danger walking down the street..

Speaking of concealed carry, did any of you hear about what happened in VA recently?

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/108563

News to me. The list shouldn't be published. It keeps the criminals guessing.

[Jenn! 918]

I'm sure that the crime rate for crimes that don't involve guns in VT is also much lower than in DC. So I don't think that statistic proves anything about the relationship between concealed carry laws and violent crime rate.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I'm sure that the crime rate for crimes that don't involve guns in VT is also much lower than in DC. So I don't think that statistic proves anything about the relationship between concealed carry laws and violent crime rate.

The murder rate (per 100,000)

Vermont 2.6

Washington DC 35.8

Assume the worst case scenario and assume all violent crimes and murders are due to guns. Or are you saying non gun crimes tip the scale that much? If guns cause crime then Vermont should be a hell hole with all those nuts with unregistered guns shooting things up.

found this:

Weapon use

In 2005, 24% of the incidents of violent crime, a weapon was present.

Offenders had or used a weapon in 48% of all robberies, compared with 22% of all aggravated assaults and 7% of all rapes/sexual assaults in 2005.

Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2005, 55% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 14% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 11% with other weapons.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#weapon

Edited April 8, 2007 by LuckyStrike

[Jenn! 918]

I'm sure that the crime rate for crimes that don't involve guns in VT is also much lower than in DC. So I don't think that statistic proves anything about the relationship between concealed carry laws and violent crime rate.

The murder rate (per 100,000)

Vermont 2.6

Washington DC 35.8

Assume the worst case scenario and assume all violent crimes and murders are due to guns. Or are you saying non gun crimes tip the scale that much? If guns cause crime then Vermont should be a hell hole with all those nuts with unregistered guns shooting things up.

No, what I'm saying is that there are surely other factors that contribute to violent crimes besides the level of gun control. You can't say state X has tougher gun control and a higher violent crime rate and state Y has looser gun control and a lower crime rate, therefore tougher gun control leads to a higher violent crime rate. I'm not saying that the two aren't correlated at all, but without taking into account all of the other variables, it's a very shaky conclusion.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No, what I'm saying is that there are surely other factors that contribute to violent crimes besides the level of gun control. You can't say state X has tougher gun control and a higher violent crime rate and state Y has looser gun control and a lower crime rate, therefore tougher gun control leads to a higher violent crime rate. I'm not saying that the two aren't correlated at all, but without taking into account all of the other variables, it's a very shaky conclusion.

Absolutely - economics would be the biggest and most obvious one. Violent crime flourishes in high poverty areas.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I'm sure that the crime rate for crimes that don't involve guns in VT is also much lower than in DC. So I don't think that statistic proves anything about the relationship between concealed carry laws and violent crime rate.

The murder rate (per 100,000)

Vermont 2.6

Washington DC 35.8

Assume the worst case scenario and assume all violent crimes and murders are due to guns. Or are you saying non gun crimes tip the scale that much? If guns cause crime then Vermont should be a hell hole with all those nuts with unregistered guns shooting things up.

No, what I'm saying is that there are surely other factors that contribute to violent crimes besides the level of gun control. You can't say state X has tougher gun control and a higher violent crime rate and state Y has looser gun control and a lower crime rate, therefore tougher gun control leads to a higher violent crime rate. I'm not saying that the two aren't correlated at all, but without taking into account all of the other variables, it's a very shaky conclusion.

Of course it's more complicated. But the lack of gun control in VT doesn't have a measurable negative affect either. So why not have more rights for all (freedom to choose to own a gun) as the common denominator? Guns can be used by criminals or law abiding residents. More laws will only restrict honest people while the criminal continues to ignore them. We have enough control already.

Why do liberals want to disarm decent folk?

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Yeah, my Mom lives in Vermont and I live in right outside of DC. I can tell you exactly who is in more danger walking down the street..

Speaking of concealed carry, did any of you hear about what happened in VA recently?

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/108563

interesting article:

------------------

The Roanoke Times will not re-post a list of gun owners on its Web site, even after being told amid continuing public furor that releasing the information does not violate state law.""

"The information released to The Roanoke Times was in total compliance with the Freedom of Information Act," Geller said. "It is up to the recipient of that information to be a responsible guardian of the information."

--------------------

and a nice dodge at being responsible for this. i hope they get sued for invasion of privacy.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

I'm sure that the crime rate for crimes that don't involve guns in VT is also much lower than in DC. So I don't think that statistic proves anything about the relationship between concealed carry laws and violent crime rate.

The murder rate (per 100,000)

Vermont 2.6

Washington DC 35.8

Assume the worst case scenario and assume all violent crimes and murders are due to guns. Or are you saying non gun crimes tip the scale that much? If guns cause crime then Vermont should be a hell hole with all those nuts with unregistered guns shooting things up.

No, what I'm saying is that there are surely other factors that contribute to violent crimes besides the level of gun control. You can't say state X has tougher gun control and a higher violent crime rate and state Y has looser gun control and a lower crime rate, therefore tougher gun control leads to a higher violent crime rate. I'm not saying that the two aren't correlated at all, but without taking into account all of the other variables, it's a very shaky conclusion.

or just maybe, your world can't admit such a correlation, eh?