I've changed my mind : I'm for carrying guns...

[CougTek]

...So I can shoot all the motherfockers on our roads.

All those who don't know how to use they rear-view mirrors and cut my way when they drive 30 miles per hour slower ; all those bastards who don't care crossing full lines instead of waiting for hatched lines ; all those imbeciles who drives only during week-ends and who shouldn't be allowed to drive any day of the week anyway ; all the idiots who let ten cars space between them and the next in front of them, on the left way, during heavy traffic ; all the retards who follow you for a while, only to try to overtake you when you approach a slower vehicule and forcing you to shut off your cruise control ; all the sons-of-a-bitch who push in your ass and put pressure to overtake you, only to drive 2 miles/h slower than you do once they have passed, also forcing you to disengage your cruise control or to constantly play cats and dogs with them ; all the morons who slow down to [look for an accident on the other track/search in their purse/admire the landscape] and create a slowdown despite a low traffic volume ; all the tourists who don't realize that the left way is for those who want to drive faster than the middle/right way...and who stubbornly stay there no matter what you do to signal them that they have nothing to do on the left way.

To all of the above, I wish you only two things, coming together side by side from a trunked double-barel gun.

GET THE HELL OUT OF MY WAY AND LEARN HOW TO DRIVE YOUR F*CKING CAR BEFORE YOU COME BACK ON THE FREAKING ROADS AGAIN!!!

I won't be going to the grave without bringing some of those half-asses with me on the other side. If I'm going to Chicago next year, I swear I'm gonna help America by cleaning some those wastes off the road on the way back, once I'll have spent a bunch of $$$ at a weapon depot somewhere in the States.

 

[Mercutio]

1. What's in Chicago?
2. There really isn't a happy medium. You're either the guy who wants to go too fast or the guy who needs to get out of the way. Add to that the construction nightmare that starts in March and ends in October or November, and frankly I'm amazed we haven't added turrets to our vehicles already.

 

[CougTek]

1. What's in Chicago?

Should have said "Chicago area". If we ever do a kind of "Great Lakes area" meeting, I might come.

I'm not saying that people should all drive to the same speed, but people should behave according to the speed they want to drive. When I feel relax and I plan to drive around the speed limit, I keep the right and I look in my mirrors before changing lines. I'm also one of the chosen few who knows how to use the flashers on my car. I always try to be respectful towards people who are on a hurry. So when I need (or simply want) to drive faster, I expect the same from others. There are always morons (I remember eight this afternoon) who aren't very cooperative.

And autoban in North America (autoban is the name of highways deprived of speed limits in Germany) would be impossible because of the lack of discipline and basic driving know-how of the majority of our drivers. It infuriates me to see all those folks having driving licences.

 

[Santilli]

CT:
You may find that actually carrying a firearm adds a different perspective to driving, and life. Being able to follow through makes one more tolerant.
s

 

[Handruin]

I'll listen to hip hop sometimes, and I know it won't cure your thirst for a double barrel shot gun, but this song helps me out when I encounter those extremely frustating drivers:

Ludacris: Move Bitch

 

[sechs]

As a self-professed poor driver, I see people who are worse drivers than me. I find that very worrying.

Unfortunately, statistics have shown that if you bring a weapon into a situation, its just about as likely to be used against you as by you. And even more likely to be involved in some kind of accidental death or injury.

In the future, just take the train (or whatever mass transit fits you).

 

[Pradeep]

As a self-professed poor driver, I see people who are worse drivers than me. I find that very worrying.

Unfortunately, statistics have shown that if you bring a weapon into a situation, its just about as likely to be used against you as by you. And even more likely to be involved in some kind of accidental death or injury.

In the future, just take the train (or whatever mass transit fits you).

Actually I believe the stats show that states that have introduced concealed carry have shown a marked drop in violent crime. More guns, less crime. You are more likely to die in a violent confrontation if you rent a house rather than the mere presence of a gun in there. Is there a risk? Sure. But there are also benefits.

That said, I definitely don't think Coug should carry caoncealed

 

[Fushigi]

Illinois actually passed a law that went into effect Jan 1 of this year. It states essentially that you can be pulled over for hovering in the left lane and keeping others from passing -- even if they're speeding. There are lots of conditions under which the law doesn't apply, though. Still, I've yet to see anyone obey it or see it enforced.

CougTek, if you ever make it to Chicagoland, let Merc or me know; we can get together for lunch or something. I'll drive. :lol: Growing up near the Indy Speedway, I drive like I lived at the track. That is, fast but safe. I use turn signals, yield to others when they want to pass, etc.

BTW, yielding to those who want to pass is only smart thinking. I mean, if there's a state trooper around the next curve, let him have the guy who wants to pass you so you can cruise on by...

 

[mubs]

You're my kinda guy, Fushigi. I drive like that too; fast, but safe. Many people don't seem to understand that at all, seeing it as a contradiction. When we got married and she started riding with me a lot, my wife used to stress out totally when I drove. Now she's relaxes completely, and nods off as well on longer drives.

There are too many people that drive slower than me but are magnitudes times more dangerous to themselves and others than I am. S. CA is pretty horrible when it comes to drivers; the test is a real farce. Buck wouldn't know; he seems lucky to be able to stay put in his idyllic little heaven. For most of my time here is S. CA, I've driven between 25k and 35k miles a year.

 

[time]

Actually I believe the stats show that states that have introduced concealed carry have shown a marked drop in violent crime. More guns, less crime. You are more likely to die in a violent confrontation if you rent a house rather than the mere presence of a gun in there.

John Allen Paulos[/url]]After all, more consumption of hot chocolate is also associated with less crime and both are brought about by cold weather.

 

[Buck]

Buck wouldn't know; he seems lucky to be able to stay put in his idyllic little heaven.

Alas Mr. Mubs, not all of my customers visit the house. At times, I too must venture outside and hit the pavement; although I only put on about 15,000 miles a year.

I must also confirm that a good portion of drivers on the road should be prevented from driving. The lack of signaling a lane change, taking to long to make it through our desperately short green lights, chatting on the phone and not paying attention to your driving, along with a host of other driving woes drive me crazy. I have found that listening to soothing music, such as classical makes the experience less stressful. Whereas something more aggressive like Classic Rock just causes more plaque to flow through my veins.

 

[sechs]

Actually I believe the stats show that states that have introduced concealed carry have shown a marked drop in violent crime. More guns, less crime. You are more likely to die in a violent confrontation if you rent a house rather than the mere presence of a gun in there. Is there a risk? Sure. But there are also benefits.

To my knowledge, guns don't have a real bearing on the actual amount of crime, just what occurs. In some places where gun carrying has been introduced, people have been lulled into a false sense of safety -- and entered into more dangerous situations -- where they or someone else was inevitably killed or injured.

Canada has more guns than people, but has a lower violent crime rate. The United Kingdom has virtually no guns and has a lower crime rate.

 

[Santilli]

Hmmm. My understanding in Florida was that as soon as right to carry was passed, violent crime decreased. I believe it's the same with any other state, as well.

I also think it increases crime in states without right to carry laws.
I once did a study of violent crime liklyhood in different areas, using the FBI violent crime figures, and dividing by number of people in the area.

Oakland was a 1 in 14 chance every year, of violent crime. SF 1 in 17.
LA 1 in 19. SD 1 in 22.

Another trickle down effect is the more states with concealed carry, the more criminals flock to areas they are not likely to get shot in. Kalifornia comes to mind.

England's gun crime has been rising, since the laws stop the law abiding criminals from getting guns, not the criminals.

Put simply, that's the problem with most gun laws.

More focus should be placed on catching criminals using guns, and not depriving law abiding citizens of their right to protect themselves.

By the way, just because you carry a gun, it doesn't mean you are immune from being stupid, and getting yourself into a dangerous situation you can't get out of. It does, however, reduce the number of situations that become dangerous, if you know what you are doing.

s

 

[sechs]

Great news. Most people are stupid and don't know what they're doing.

Is it better to protect people from the millions of stupid people, or protect people from the thousands of criminals?

 

[ddrueding]

I drove about 42k in the last 12 months, and about the same in the years before that. I used to be one of the faster cars on the road, all with complete safety and consideration. This includes signalling, waiting for cars to get out of the way without tailgaiting, and passing on the right only when they are being an absolute ass.

I have stepped back my driving habits lately, as my licence needs to lose about 10-15 points or so...

I recently was behind a car in the fast lane doing the speed limit on an otherwise empty road when I noticied a sticker on his bumper:

"Highway Pace Car" :evil:

This is my nemesis, those that go out of their way to enforce stupid laws on others simply for the sake of being an ass. I saw the opportunity and had to reason myself out of killing him at an oncoming guardrail.

I think the song that I most associate with road rage would be "Bad Habit" by Offspring

Hey man you know, i'm really ok
The gun in my hand will tell you the same
But when I'm in my car
Don't give me no crap
Cause the slightest thing and I just might snap

 

[mubs]

ddrueding, IIRC you're the guy that raced (going triple digits) a cute chick in a Mercedes on an interstate Fwy?

 

[Santilli]

Sechs:
The great thing about living now is we have tried the liberal, against the 2nd amendment crap, in many states, and it just hasn't worked. Crime has gone up.

Carry states, crime goes down. It's funny but if you really research accidential, or stupid shootings, the numbers are incredibly small.
For some reason, when people realize that a life is at risk with a gun, and they are accountable, 99.999% become very careful.

As much as our media trys to blow a few accidents out of proportion, they just aren't there. Firearms prevent, or minimize, potential crime, also.
I can think of 3 incidents in the last 10 years where I know the presence of a gun stopped a violent crime. I can also think of another that almost cost me my life, since I was unable to defend myself, as a guy, for no reason that related to me, pulled a Walther PPK/s and hit me over the head with it.

Try having your life at the whim of 3 drunk, cracked out assholes, mad at someone else, and mistakenly thinking you are the asshole's friend, and they want to take it out on you.

If you want to be helpless, and trust to their mercy, go right ahead.
s

 

[Santilli]

A conservative is a liberal that gets robbed.

 

[ddrueding]

ddrueding, IIRC you're the guy that raced (going triple digits) a cute chick in a Mercedes on an interstate Fwy?

Yup. Hwy 101 between San Francisco and Monterey; about 95 miles.

 

[Pradeep]

To my knowledge, guns don't have a real bearing on the actual amount of crime, just what occurs. In some places where gun carrying has been introduced, people have been lulled into a false sense of safety -- and entered into more dangerous situations -- where they or someone else was inevitably killed or injured.

Canada has more guns than people, but has a lower violent crime rate. The United Kingdom has virtually no guns and has a lower crime rate.

I don't know about Canada, but at least in the UK the rate of violent crime (non gun-related) is actually higher than the US. The rates for home invasions, assault etc is higher there, in the safe "gun-free" utopia many would try and advocate for the US. Cartridge-firing handguns have been banned there for years now, yet gun crime is at an all time high. The criminals have reign over the streets, and houses, of innocent and now unarmed UK'ians.

Plus if you happen to hurt one of the poor, defenseless criminals that might happen to accidentally break into your house in the middle of the night, chances are you would be going to jail, and the criminal would get a slap on the wrist and walk free. Same in Aus. At least in most of the US, the rights of the home-dweller are far more clear.

 

[time]

Bullshit. Even with the drop in US violent crime over the last three decades, rates are still 2.5 times higher than the UK. I checked.

The UK handgun ban came about because people were alarmed at the growing popularity. This is blamed on modern cultural influences, i.e. American, that glamorize guns and desensitize people about using them. The ban was an attempt to limit the supply; the five-year mandatory jail term for carrying is a rather crude attempt to limit the demand.

Gun laws have no hope in the US because:

a) there are already more than anyone could possibly want
b) they are only on a state by state basis. This is a joke.

The US already has nearly one in every 40 citizens in prison, so it's kinda tough to crack down even harder. :roll:

 

[sechs]

Unfortunately, we live in the United States of America, not the United People of America.

 

[Pradeep]

Bullshit. Even with the drop in US violent crime over the last three decades, rates are still 2.5 times higher than the UK. I checked.

The UK handgun ban came about because people were alarmed at the growing popularity. This is blamed on modern cultural influences, i.e. American, that glamorize guns and desensitize people about using them. The ban was an attempt to limit the supply; the five-year mandatory jail term for carrying is a rather crude attempt to limit the demand.

Gun laws have no hope in the US because:

a) there are already more than anyone could possibly want
b) they are only on a state by state basis. This is a joke.

The US already has nearly one in every 40 citizens in prison, so it's kinda tough to crack down even harder. :roll:

John Lott's work has held up fantastically well compared to the fraud that has been exposed from the like of "Dr" Kellerman etc. If you believe there can be no causal link between more guns and less crime, then you can't have it both ways and then argue that there is a link between less guns and less crime. Look, Australia had had a bunch of gun bannings in recent years. Yet the rate of violent crime continues to rise. Sure you are slightly less likely to be shot to death, but hey, guess what, now you are more likely to be stabbed/beaten etc. Yay. What a great win for a "safer Australia". When you start passing laws based on emotions and forget about any scientific basis/reasoning, then the country has lost out big time.

Actually the UK handgun ban was a knee-jerk reaction to the Dunblane massacre, in which a nutcase with a pistol permit killed I think 16 children and their teacher. Now that is a horrific thing, made even sadder by the fact the authorities had been repeatedly warned that the guy was unstable. They did nothing, and a massacre ensued. The same knee-jerk reaction that happened after Port Arthur when pretty much all semi rifles and shotguns were banned, and then again at Monash when two people were killed by a licensed pistol owner (how this guy who apparently couldn't speak a word of English passed the mandatory safety courses and became a member of a pistol club has still not been answered by Victoria Police). See in the UK and Australia the actions of one single person can affect the lives of millions of people. In the US there is a far greater onus on personal responsibility. If one person does something wrong, by all means prosecute him to the full extent of the law. But they don't penalise millions of law-abiding citizens at the same time.

I am glad that I now live in a country where States rights are not held up to financial blackmail as Little Johnnie Howard does all the freaking time to the states of Australia. "Do what I say or I'll be cutting your funding". Why bother having state governments at all if the PM can just run amok, willy nilly? Otherwise the people of Tas etc just get what is best for the people of Mel, Syd, and Brisbane, where most of the votes are. King John of Kirribili. *shivers* And don't get me started on the poor bastards in the Territories, how about the Feds overriding the people of the Northern Territory who decided to allow voluntary euthanasia.

There's a lot I love about Aus. The people, the beer, the controlled cost of prescriptions and Medicare (free healthcare for all). But I'm glad I left the growing socialism that pervades the governments.[/b]

 

[time]

John Lott's work has held up fantastically well compared to the fraud that has been exposed from the like of "Dr" Kellerman etc.

Sorry, I don't read this stuff. I'm guessing you read my earlier link where a professor of mathematics reviews Lott?

Sure you are slightly less likely to be shot to death, but hey, guess what, now you are more likely to be stabbed/beaten etc.

Fine by me. I definitely prefer my chances of survival after being beaten rather than shot.

Actually the UK handgun ban was a knee-jerk reaction to the Dunblane massacre, in which a nutcase with a pistol permit killed I think 16 children and their teacher.

Yes and no. The increase in gun crime had been worrying the populace for years, but governments always seize a moment in the public eye to act - same with Howard.

I am glad that I now live in a country where States rights are not held up to financial blackmail as Little Johnnie Howard does all the freaking time to the states of Australia. "Do what I say or I'll be cutting your funding". Why bother having state governments at all if the PM can just run amok, willy nilly? Otherwise the people of Tas etc just get what is best for the people of Mel, Syd, and Brisbane, where most of the votes are. King John of Kirribili. *shivers* And don't get me started on the poor bastards in the Territories, how about the Feds overriding the people of the Northern Territory who decided to allow voluntary euthanasia.

The Australian Commonwealth Government doesn't have the same power over states that the US Federal Government does. That's why they frequently resort to financial blackmail instead of just passing their own legislation. Of course, many people argue that State Governments in Australia should just be abolished, but like you, I fear the monolithic beaucracy that would ensue.

There's a lot I love about Aus. The people, the beer, the controlled cost of prescriptions and Medicare (free healthcare for all). But I'm glad I left the growing socialism that pervades the governments.[/b]

Well, you must have been living elsewhere for longer than I thought if you think there is free healthcare for all. And although I agree in principle with you, I'm far more concerned with the intrusive government of the States than the Feds - believe it or not. Look at the actions of Bob Carr and his cohorts, for example.

 

[Pradeep]

Well, you must have been living elsewhere for longer than I thought if you think there is free healthcare for all. And although I agree in principle with you, I'm far more concerned with the intrusive government of the States than the Feds - believe it or not. Look at the actions of Bob Carr and his cohorts, for example.

Well having seen the price of medical insurance in the US, Australia is definitely free by comparison. If my wife didn't get most of it paid by her employer, coverage for a family of four would cost us over US$600 per month. A reasonable morgage payment. That's still with a co-pay on prescriptions that could be up to $40 bucks for a 30 day supply. And $20 each time you see the doc.

I agree that the rise in gun crime was worrying the population, but taking guns out of the hands of the law-abiding who didn't commit crimes with them in the first place was a pure publicity stunt. Have you seen the organised crime shootings in Sydney recently? They are mowing each other down in the street in broad daylight! What will happen after all guns are banned from law-abiding citizens? What will be the next step? I know there are people that want to ban knives. God forbid you would want a knife in the kitchen or something. Think of the battered wives who would be saved if their drunken abusive husbands couldn't reach out to the knife on the kitchen counter. Anyway you get my point. To me a gun is a tool, just like a knife or a car or a golf club. It can be used for good or bad. Ban stupid people, not the tool.

The fact is you are far more likely to be injured/killed in a car crash than being the victim of a gun crime. Cars are designed to transport people, and yet they cause far more death and carnage than legally held guns, whose only purpose some would argue is to kill things. Anyway, here's to the Aussie Olympic shooting team, hope they have a good one in Athens this year

 

[sechs]

If you believe there can be no causal link between more guns and less crime, then you can't have it both ways and then argue that there is a link between less guns and less crime.

Actually, yes you can. Guns don't cause crime, but people without guns are less likely to commit a crime. Therefore, fewer guns leads to fewer crimes.

 

[Pradeep]

Criminals commit crimes, whether they have a gun or not. I've never opened up a gun case and suddenly the gun whispered to me *hey man, wanna rob a bank today*. There are people out there who can/do kill with their bare hands. The most dangerous weapon of all is the human mind. Would fewer guns in criminal hands reduce the number of criminal shootings? No doubt. Now common sense would seem to say that yes, less guns, no matter who owned them previously, would reduce gun crime. But as criminals don't follow laws in the first place, more draconian gun laws will not affect the number of criminals with guns, and gun crime. It's been shown in the UK, and in Australia. Real life results. Crime rate has far more to do with societal factors such as unemployment rate etc, than the number of guns in circulation.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[sechs]

Is it easier to kill with your bear hands or a gun?

Guns can empower people to commit crimes that they otherwise would not.

 

[Santilli]

You really don't get it. The laws DO NOT AFFECT THE AVALIABILITY OF GUNS TO CRIMINALS.

THE LAWS SIMPLY LIMIT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS FROM HAVING GUNS.

S

 

[Mercutio]

I would contend that there are very few legitimate reasons for ANYONE to have a gun (unlike, say, a joint. Or a hooker). Having a gun == criminal?

Fine by me.

 

[sechs]

You really don't get it. The laws DO NOT AFFECT THE AVALIABILITY OF GUNS TO CRIMINALS.

THE LAWS SIMPLY LIMIT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS FROM HAVING GUNS.

S

I get it. In fact, I have it. I get it all of the time. You clearly do not know what "it" is.

If there are fewer guns to be had, then fewer guns are in the hands of criminals. Furthurmore, it's pretty obvious that, if a law-abiding citizen cannot have a gun of some type, and someone has such a gun, the someone is a criminal.

Also, what does a law-abiding citizen need (not want) a gun for?

 

[Pradeep]

[If there are fewer guns to be had, then fewer guns are in the hands of criminals. Furthurmore, it's pretty obvious that, if a law-abiding citizen cannot have a gun of some type, and someone has such a gun, the someone is a criminal.

Also, what does a law-abiding citizen need (not want) a gun for?

OK, let us assume that in Australia, there were for example 5 million gun owners. There were also 500,000 criminals who possesed guns (whether stolen, manufactured in a workshop, etc). The government then banned all guns from private ownership. 5 million law-abiding citizens handed their guns in for destruction (let us forget that somehow some of these guns that were handed in to police were later found in circulation on the street). It seems to me that there are still 500,000 criminals with guns walking around? I guess I must be missing something.

In the US (and other countries) criminals who want guns already have them. If we were at the Big Bang stage and no matter existed, perhaps we could have banned guns back then, and then you could be in a gun-free nirvana. But we aren't back there, and so we aren't gun-free.

Fortunately the Constitution doesn't require us to need a reason to possess a gun. Just the same as you don't have to show a need for free speech. They are both rights. Keep in mind that driving a car is a privilege. Do you really need a car? Can't take a bus? Think of the children....

 

[Pradeep]

Guns can empower people to commit crimes that they otherwise would not.

Guns can also empower potential victims to defend themselves when previously they would have been at the mercy of criminals.

 

[Santilli]

If there are fewer guns to be had, then fewer guns are in the hands of criminals. Furthurmore, it's pretty obvious that, if a law-abiding citizen cannot have a gun of some type, and someone has such a gun, the someone is a criminal.

There is this thing callled Mexico to our south. It also has no gun laws. Like America, only the police, and the criminals have guns. The criminals
help supply some of the biggest gangs that have existed in the United States with guns, and drugs. One gang, I think it's the 13's or something like that, has over 5 million members, in 13 states.
They supply both guns, and drugs, to those 5 million members. We can see how successful we have been at banning liquor, drugs, and guns.
Only the law abiding people don't have em.

These gangs are not going to go away, as long as incredible money is going to be made selling drugs, and now guns. You see if you ban guns, then they become a more valuable commodity, and you just make sure they will be imported from Mexico, or other locations.
There are well over 20 huge gangs, based in Mexico, that supply guns, drugs, people, prostitutes, anything you want.

We can't stop PEOPLE from illegally entering the country. What in the world makes you think we can stop PEOPLE with guns, or drugs? Guns are much smaller, lighter, and easier to conceall. Likewise drugs.
s

 

[Santilli]

OH yes.
Did I mention that if we catch these guys for drug, or gun violations we put them in Federal pens, or Pelican Bay.
Pelican Bay was designed to try and stop one of the heads of a giant Mexican gang, from running his operations from inside the prisons. It didn't work. His death was the only thing that stopped it.
All you end up with is the gangs being run from prisons, and, since most of the time our prosecutors fear for their lifes, and don't want to try the gang guys for the death penalty, the gang guys end up in prison, rich, and running the drug trade from their cells, with all their buddies, and the prisons along with it.

Did I mention that the gangs well out number our police? That the gang members will kill you, your family, the prosecutor, the judge,any police officers that testify, and their families, and as many jurors as neccessary to get off?

When you see a slashing, horrible murder, you can pretty much count on a Mexican mob trying to send a message to a competitor, purchaser that didn't pay, etc.

s

 

[Howell]

Is it easier to kill with your bear hands or a gun?

Guns can empower people to commit crimes that they otherwise would not.

You imply that moral people choose to commit crimes upon coming under the "empowering" influence of a firearm. This assigns way too much mystical power to the firearm. This is not "The One Ring" we are talking about.

The average criminal performs a basic risk assesment of a situation. If neither the criminal nor the victim has a firearm they are on equal footing. If either the criminal or the victim has a firearm the risk to the possessor goes down. If they both have firearms they are once again on equal footing.

Criminals still have criminal tendencies whether or not they decide it is in their best interests to at on them.

 

[sechs]

True. But there are non-criminals who have criminal tendencies, but never act on them. Guns clearly can be an enabler in these cases.

 

[Handruin]

True. But there are non-criminals who have criminal tendencies, but never act on them. Guns clearly can be an enabler in these cases.

Yes, but so can a bat, or a crow bar.

 

[ddrueding]

True. But there are non-criminals who have criminal tendencies, but never act on them. Guns clearly can be an enabler in these cases.

Yes, but so can a bat, or a crow bar.

...unless you are in a state where your victim may be carrying

"Never bring a knife to a gun fight."

Unless you can convince the criminals to stop using guns, my application for a concealed weapon continues.

 

[Howell]

True. But there are non-criminals who have criminal tendencies, but never act on them. Guns clearly can be an enabler in these cases.

I submit that they are only still non-criminals because they have not yet commited a criminal act, by definition. And they have not commited a criminal act yet because the risk/reward ratio was not enough in their favor. The criminal tendency remains.