|
Mr.Bob posted:It Is called brandishing and is quite illegal. I love how the ihop example is being flung around, even though crimes committed by lawful ccw is just about nonexistant statistically.
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 11:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 15:17 |
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:I love how the ihop example is being flung around, even though crimes committed by lawful ccw is just about nonexistant statistically. it's an example of a dipshit who shouldn't be allowed around grownup scissors let alone a handgun, the question is how do you construct a system around that guy without reducing all of society to the lowest common denominator
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 12:02
|
|
|
The moron is going to jail & nobody got hurt - sounds like the systems works.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
like we could talk about the recurring phenomenon of dudes shooting someone when they're 'just cleaning their gun and it went off' but pancake warrior is funnier this isn't an idiot disaster on the level of text-driving but it's still worth considering solutions for that aren't 'toddler-proof the entire country'
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 12:24
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:like we could talk about the recurring phenomenon of dudes shooting someone when they're 'just cleaning their gun and it went off' but pancake warrior is funnier We should talk about how guns keep mysteriously firing themselves while in the holsters of cops. "Glock Leg" is a serious problem in police forces but not with anybody else who regularly carries pistols. It always makes me chuckle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 13:33
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:In addition to criminalizing brandishing let's also criminalize carrying a firearm for no reason, the prerequisite of brandishing. Sounds pretty useless. On the one side 'to protect myself and my family' is a reason and on the flip side 'to act in defense of my criminal enterprise' is a reason, and so is the cop justification 'to extra-judicially executed handcuffed minorities' so I'm not sure what the point would be? LeJackal fucked around with this message at 14:33 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
can we amend the bill of rights somehow to take Oleg Volk's cameras away
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:In addition to criminalizing brandishing let's also criminalize carrying a firearm for no reason, the prerequisite of brandishing. Shucks it turns out everybody has a reason! The reason is "they can."
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
That is illegal as all hell, on federal level at a minimum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:update on the ihop gunpointer Yea, most certainly fake. If that had actually happened he would be denied bail. Still funny though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:I love how the ihop example is being flung around, even though crimes committed by lawful ccw is just about nonexistant statistically. It's also 100% apocryphal. I doubt it happened, and if some shred of it is actually true, it certainly happened in a much different way then the original account.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
Thread is now correctly rated 'crap'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
tumblr.txt posted:If you're going to take that approach, why not do it for the other amendments? I'm going to cut off your string of nonsense right here. The courts have generally ruled that the government cannot restrict one of your constitutional rights to the extent that it is de facto impossible to exercise it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Repeal 2. 4 is no issue. If the fact that the rich can get around the law is a violation of 14 then it clearly has no power or relevance in general and is thus no specific argument here. You don't even have to repeal the Second Amendment, you just have to reinterpret like the conservative justices did in Heller.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:I'm going to cut off your string of nonsense right here. The courts have generally ruled that the government cannot restrict one of your constitutional rights to the extent that it is de facto impossible to exercise it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:You don't even have to repeal the Second Amendment, you just have to reinterpret like the conservative justices did in Heller. Now you've done it. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:You don't even have to repeal the Second Amendment, you just have to reinterpret like the conservative justices did in Heller. How do you mean? Please present your analysis of the Heller decision, we're all very curious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
I don't care about guns but could someone explain to me why the people who love the military and police the most are always, always people that love to talk about how they'd overthrow the government (i.e., murder military and police) if necessary? But they never talk about ever actually having to kill pigs?A Wizard of Goatse posted:it's an example of a dipshit who shouldn't be allowed around grownup scissors let alone a handgun, the question is how do you construct a system around that guy without reducing all of society to the lowest common denominator I'd say the real question is why we absolutely do structure society around the LCD on many issues, but not around guns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I don't care about guns but could someone explain to me why the people who love the military and police the most are always, always people that love to talk about how they'd overthrow the government (i.e., murder military and police) if necessary? But they never talk about ever actually having to kill pigs? You need to hang around some more terrible gun people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I don't care about guns but could someone explain to me why the people who love the military and police the most are always, always people that love to talk about how they'd overthrow the government (i.e., murder military and police) if necessary? But they never talk about ever actually having to kill pigs? I think those dudes get oversold relative to how many of them actually exist but guys who turn all mawkish about The Troops or squirt off a bunch of Glenn Beck tears over the flag and then talk about prepping for The Purge/insurgency against the new world order/race war mostly seem to have a very different idea of what 'the army' or 'America' means than a mentally normal person who doesn't see UFOs out every window would take as given. Like, go read some Council of Conservative Citizens propaganda and it quickly becomes very apparent they don't exist in the same world as the rest of us. Those guys do talk about killing cops a lot, but it's always speculative future gestapo videogame villain feds not the guys strangling black dudes on the street corner. Who, for the race warriors, are presumably on the side of the angels anyway. I guess it's not a million miles off from how some goons can postpostpost in the cophate threads and then turn around and want to restore a sort of feudal vassal/serf sort of power arrangement re: government enforcers and civilians without that striking them as insane, in one of these tracks seems like we're planning real-world policy for fantasy police that can never and will never exist outside some nerd's impotent power fantasies. As to the latter, depends on what you're counting. Quick fixes and snake oil solutions that can be reduced to a catchphrase have a strong appeal in politics, but ones that run directly counter to the bill of rights are a little bit harder to actually get through before the problems start becoming apparent. IMO this is a case for significantly expanding the enumerated rights. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:I love how the ihop example is being flung around, even though crimes committed by lawful ccw is just about nonexistant statistically. Do you have any stats to back this up? Seems tautological, 'If only look at CCW who are lawful none of them have committed crimes' etc. I know three dudes who carry and two of them have committed crimes related to their gun, which is most likely self-selecting, as I tend to hang out with non-gun owners so those I do know are probably pretty dumb guys.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I don't care about guns but could someone explain to me why the people who love the military and police the most are always, always people that love to talk about how they'd overthrow the government (i.e., murder military and police) if necessary? But they never talk about ever actually having to kill pigs? I suspect that like most generalizations this is not really a thing. I don't think the gung-ho gun nuts are also the ones who are lusting for more cops. For example, look at New York City where people who matter Love the Police and don't think guns should be allowed, but also talk about how they want to secede from the rest of the state.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I don't care about guns but could someone explain to me why the people who love the military and police the most are always, always people that love to talk about how they'd overthrow the government (i.e., murder military and police) if necessary? But they never talk about ever actually having to kill pigs? in the american context there's a strong individualist and anti-authoritarian streak that is celebrated as an indicator of rugged masculinity, which causes dissonance when you are personally a representative of the government as well as a psychological authoritarian. one way to deal with this cognitive pressure is to kick it upwards, i.e. i'm not the man and my buddies are not the man, the looming governmental thunderstorm that hangs over all our heads is The Man and i will shoot it with my gun if it ever tries to stop giving me a paycheck or whatever that and what do middle class white male cops have power fantasies about anyway? they can already kick the poo poo out of anyone they want, so they have to deflect upwards to imagine an even bigger, even badder cop who could kick their rear end
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Do you have any stats to back this up? Seems tautological, 'If only look at CCW who are lawful none of them have committed crimes' etc. I know three dudes who carry and two of them have committed crimes related to their gun, which is most likely self-selecting, as I tend to hang out with non-gun owners so those I do know are probably pretty dumb guys. Do you have data showing that they are not?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Do you have data showing that they are not? generally the person asserting the claim is required to substantiate the claim, lejackal. the burden is not on others to disprove your statements, only your evidence for example, can you show us documents proving that you are not a paranoid schizophrenic with hepatitis? i doubt you can, therefore you must be a paranoid schizophrenic with hepatitis and that is why you have a diseased brain and make horrible posts
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I don't care about guns but could someone explain to me why the people who love the military and police the most are always, always people that love to talk about how they'd overthrow the government (i.e., murder military and police) if necessary? But they never talk about ever actually having to kill pigs? They think the military and police will join them in their revolution against the Muslim Usurper from Kenya. And those that don't are pussy liberals who's limp wrists could never hold a gun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Do you have any stats to back this up? Seems tautological, 'If only look at CCW who are lawful none of them have committed crimes' etc. I know three dudes who carry and two of them have committed crimes related to their gun, which is most likely self-selecting, as I tend to hang out with non-gun owners so those I do know are probably pretty dumb guys. It's generally based on long term examinations of rates of license revocations in Florida prior to 2011 (when they changed their reporting structure) and comparisons of the conviction rates of Texan CCW holders with the general (Texan) population for various types of crime (violent and otherwise). Both states have long running CCW programs, and the pertinent data is easily available onlline. Both indicate very, very low crime rates among licensed CCW holders, though I don't believe most of these comparisons are demographically adjusted so it's entirely possible the numbers would look relatively less favorable when that is taken into account. Regardless, pretty much all available evidence points to licensed CCW holders being a very low risk group relative to the population at large.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:generally the person asserting the claim is required to substantiate the claim, lejackal. the burden is not on others to disprove your statements, only your evidence I went back and read the poster you asked about, and he does make a claim that CCWs are statically less likely to commit crimes, so you are right. I was mistaken in thinking you were putting forth a claim. Apologies. Now, even though it isn't my claim, here is at least one sources I found. "An Analysis Of The Arrest Rate Of Texas Concealed Handgun License Holders posted:On January 1, 1996, the Texas Concealed Handgun Law went into effect. This law states that the Popular Thug Drink posted:i doubt you can, therefore you must be a paranoid schizophrenic with hepatitis and that is why you have a diseased brain and make horrible posts We can't all use your excuse, come on now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
In shocking news people who have passed a test that requires you to not have a criminal record are less likely to perform crimes in future than the general population
Irony Be My Shield fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:In shocking news people who have passed a test that requires you to not have a criminal record are less likely to perform crimes in future than the general population I don't think that finding would be particularly novel to anyone except the people genuinely convinced that gun owners are all paranoid fantasists who are looking for the first excuse to whip out a weapon and start gunning people down. A viewpoint so divorced from reality one might wonder if there is some level of projection going on there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
LGD posted:I don't think that finding would be particularly novel to anyone except the people genuinely convinced that gun owners are all paranoid fantasists who are looking for the first excuse to whip out a weapon and start gunning people down. while not all gun carriers are paranoid fantasists, and some non-gun owners are paranoid fantasists, i think it is natural to be more concerned with the paranoid fantasists who choose to arm themselves for protection from their fears rather than those who do not there is a tendency though for people to cite a desire to shoot others, even if that desire is framed is protecting one's self from the unlikely event of being victimized. more worrying are those who intend to protect others from being victimized, which is a bit of a cowboy fantasy that relies on an accurate split second threat assessment and judgement that we have difficulty trusting professionals to perform, let alone amateurs
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Why are you worried about it if statistics indicate it's not a significant problem?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Why are you worried about it if statistics indicate it's not a significant problem? i think we should be worried about people who walk around armed with a weapon pretending that they're batman ready to intervene in other people's situations like i said i had a roomate who was walking around one night, saw a man and woman he didn't know arguing, decided that he needed to step in to protect her, and ended up in a fistfight with the guy. it's good that he didn't draw his pistol and shoot the guy, but he still had the mentality that he had a responsibility to protect others and that + gun ownership is a bad combination
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:while not all gun carriers are paranoid fantasists, and some non-gun owners are paranoid fantasists, i think it is natural to be more concerned with the paranoid fantasists who choose to arm themselves for protection from their fears rather than those who do not Dead Reckoning posted:Why are you worried about it if statistics indicate it's not a significant problem? Also: why are you recasting people's actual articulated desires as mere "framing" for what you deem to be the real underlying desire to shoot people? It seems far more likely that those are the genuine desires, and any fantasized/hypothesized shooting scenario they're articulating would be expressions of a pro-social wish to be free of victimization and help see others free of it as well rather than an expression of any sort of anti-social desire to kill people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
LGD posted:I don't think that finding would be particularly novel to anyone except the people genuinely convinced that gun owners are all paranoid fantasists who are looking for the first excuse to whip out a weapon and start gunning people down. When you put it that way, it really does bear a lot of similarity to people who insist atheism is dangerous because without Jesus we would just run around raping and murdering. Maybe it's projecting and maybe it isn't, but it's certainly good for an eyeroll.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
LGD posted:Also: why are you recasting people's actual articulated desires as mere "framing" for what you deem to be the real underlying desire to shoot people? It seems far more likely that those are the genuine desires, and any fantasized/hypothesized shooting scenario they're articulating would be expressions of a pro-social wish to be free of victimization and help see others free of it as well rather than an expression of any sort of anti-social desire to kill people. to take one example, you can look at george zimmerman, who stated a desire to keep his neighborhood of criminals, except he ended up playing vigilante and stalking a black teenager until he ended up murdering him likewise my admittedly anecdotal roommate, who comitted two crimes while armed and prevented zero. another person i know specifically owns weapons because of a fear of vicitimization, though he himself is more likely to be the aggressor than the victim and i'm pretty sure he has confronted unarmed people with his shotgun over the thinnest of pretexts some people are honestly interested in protecting the community, and others are secretly looking for a way to legally murder someone in some sort of revenge/power fantasy. please don't interpret this statement as some sort of slander against all gun owners, i think i've made myself clear boner confessor fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:to take one example, you can look at george zimmerman, who stated a desire to keep his neighborhood of criminals, except he ended up playing vigilante and stalking a black teenager until he ended up murdering him I'm not- obviously there are bad actors and complete loving idiots. I just happen to think they're a much smaller portion of the population than they're typically made out to be in these sorts of conversations, because its rhetorically convenient to cast everyone who disagrees with you as having psychological issues. And while you can point to George Zimmerman as a high profile case where alleged protective instincts got away from someone (along with a well-demonstrated lack of conflict resolution skills), it's also very easy to point to numerous cases (both high profile and not) where failure of bystanders to intervene and take any responsibility led to severe victimization that didn't need to happen. We obviously don't want crazy vigilantes running wild, but I also don't think it's healthy to think other people shouldn't feel they have some responsibility for their fellow man, and that we need to double down on the bystander effect by stigmatizing those with an impulse to help others and removing a tool that allows effective intervention in the worst circumstances. Especially when all the available evidence points to it not being misused the vast, vast majority of the time. LGD fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
things would definitely be much safer if everyone had guns and there was no stigma about using them whenever you feel like it's justified
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Guns must not be necessary in America otherwise it would be a near total majority owning them, instead of minority that's far from touching 50%.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 15:17 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i think we should be worried about people who walk around armed with a weapon pretending that they're batman ready to intervene in other people's situations Right, but even assuming these people exist, why are you worried about it if statistics indicate it's not a significant problem?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 19:54
|
|