hfdff422

Actually Asys- The "old west" was comparitively crime free in comparison to just about any major city. Yes there were bad people who did bad things and there were good people who were wrongly convicted (at a very high rate), but studies have shown that the entire Western half of the North American continent from 1860 to 1870 (these years are an estimate but close to what the study stated- it was a 10 year period post gold rush) had a lower crime rate per capita and total crimes reported than New York City in 1989. While there are a huge amount of variables, this is a comparison of a time when the citizens policed themselves to a time when guns were all but outright banned in a modern major metropolitan city.

Michael- Great article! As someone who will absolutely defend an individuals right to protect themselves as they see fit, including owning and carrying a firearm, I also will defend an individual institutions right to administate itself by establishing whatever environment they see fit. It does scare me to see that these institutions are basically the barrel to put the fish in, and the State should not infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens, but I also think that colleges should set rules that meets their ends. No one could forecast the evil that would be brought upon these unfortunate people, and so I feel there is little fault on the part of the University on the end of the gun free campus issue. There are plenty of other issues that seem to be coming to light where it could be in quite a bit of trouble though, but that is for a lter time.

Asys- I never have viewed as some nut trying to take my gun away. But the scenario you gave does not necessarily lend itself to a peaceful outcome. You described someone who is unable to make rational decisions and could act violently to any activity. Retreat would not necessarily appease this person as it would likely appease a true criminal. And you did not tell me where my kids were in relation to him and me. There are too many variables to determine what the best course of action is. If I were armed and in that situation, I would have drawn a weapon and been prepared to defend myself, regardless of the cause of his violent actions. Just because he is suffering from a medical issue does not mean it is Ok for others to be injured or die. He loaded the weapon by not taking care of his medical needs. As for the term "lay"- there are far more cops that should not have guns than "ordinary" citizens. There are generally two types of people that become cops- the type that are the very "make my day", power trip people who would make you indignant and the type who want to help people. The power trippers are going to create just as many problems as billy-bob and his gun that cost more than he has ever spent on oral hygene and the ones who want to help people are going to find it difficult to react to the stress of a potentially deadly encounter and if they do shoot someone they may need years of counseling. These trends are going to be the same as any other citizen. The true problem though, is simply the fundamental issue that I have discussed in that government should not be the ones to decide if I should be allowed to carry a firearm if I have never demonstrated cause to prevent me from it. (which those laws are already on the books). Look at all the stupidity that oozes from government on a daily basis and tell me that some beareucracy that has overgrown its constitutional design is better at determining how to run my life than I am.

I have always been interested in the argument against guns by those who drive cars. I don't care what kind of gun you own, even the smallest car is far more deadly. A person who drives drunk should be considered guilty of the very same crime as a person who recklessly discharges a firearm. A person who drives drunk who kills or injures someone should be convicted under the same statutes as anyone who kills or injures someone with a firearm intentionally. You know the potential consequences, yet you get behind the wheel, just as with a gun you know the potential consequences when you put your finger on the trigger.

Why should you retreat? Someone is endagering the lives of others through an act of criminality. In Indiana, that constitutes the use of deadly force or at the very least, the threat of. 35-41-3-2 Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person: (1) is justified in using deadly force; and (2) does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary. ( A person: (1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and (2) does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle. "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who remain neutral in time of great moral crisis." — Dante Alighieri

nbsp- Please read the entire posts before you use them against me, as I was illustrating the mindset of the sheep, not providing evidence in favor of gun laws. Either side could illustrate their ideals with such anecdotes. I also stated that statistics were not an effective way to debate a philosophical issue.

Asys- Unfortunately, what you say is true as often as not. But rather than continuing to dumb down and destroy the American that once was, it would serve us better to re-establish the idealism and thoughfulness that I believe most Americans are capable of. To further impose the big brother state on our law abiding citizens is what creates the dependance of our common man, and makes each man more common. The gun debate is only a small part of the greater issue of creating a largely less independant society. There was a recent situation where a shoplifter was confronted by security and the shoplifter went on the offensive with a knife, got an employee on the floor and was about to stab the employee when a woman who was in line stepped out of line, produced a legally possessed gun, held it to the assailants head and in turn subdued the assailant. He was taken into custody and everyone survived. The press interviewed another woman who witnessed the events, and her comment was (paraphrased)"I can't believe they let someone carry a gun around like that". The mentality that we have bred in this country is anecdotally represented in that statement: There was no relief in the saving of a life by a law abiding citizen with a gun, there was simply concern as to why big brother allowed her to carry a gun. Not everyone should carry a gun, but infringing on the liberties extended by the constitution should not be done on the basis of the unfortunate fact that some people are not instilled with the responsibility to brush their teeth daily much less own a firearm. There is no forced sterilization, yet far more damage is done to society by morons breeding than owning guns.

Rid- No, I don't believe there should be any financial benefit from marriage. I do agree there should be an age limit, but there are laws on the books that should be enforced regarding statutory rape and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. As for marital tax breaks, the government takes too much money from us in taxes to support such things as abortion clinics and art that desecrates images of Mary and Jesus, yet the government is the one who should step in and tell us what is right and wrong? Government has continued to micro-manage society to its detriment, not its improvement. I do tend to agree that someone should step in and say that is wrong, but it should not be a bloated bereaucracy that doesn't know right from wrong itself. I don't believe that consenting adults should be punished for their pursuit of a relationship that suits them, and I don't see that as wrong. I do believe that a family starts with a man and a woman, but that has more to do with evolution than religion.

Scaramedics post on page one of the thread- I agree whole heartedly with. Have whatever kind of relatioship you want. Marry whoever you want. As long as everyone one in a relatioship consents to the boundaries and terms and they are adults, they can do whatever the hell they want. To every guy that says that homosexual men are disgusting then goes home and watches girl on girl porn- you are a hypocrit. To anyone who bashes religion and yet supports intolerant groups such as NOW, PETA or the NGLT- you are also a hypocrit. tolerance does not go one way, it goes in every direction or it is not truly tolerance. As for gay marriage- the government should not be involved in the first place, it is a religious union to be married. Government is sticking its nose in personal lives and legitimizing a social ideal and religious standard. If a person wants to be married to another of the same sex, then so be it. It is not Washington D.C.'s or any states business.

Sorry, I thought he was referring to bushy Asys- I reread the entire thread and found I missed your response to my poke at your stats (which I had a grammatical error in). To your response, I have this to say: I base my belief on the philosophy that I stated on page three of this thread. I could continue to expound on it, but you get the idea, I am sure. My subsequent posts are not to make any argument other than the fact that stats are an idiotic way to fight a philosophical battle. You made the best argument in your take on page 3. Since then, you have simply argued aimlessly with "facts" that are just as debateable as the "facts" that are presented by the pro-CCW side. We can trade stats all day long that support our beliefs, but the truth is simply what we make it. You are not going to change anybodies mind with statistical data, you have to change the heart to change the mind. Using rational, thoughtful ideological debate is the only way to sway someones view on such an embedded issue. Continuing to challenge peoples belief in self-sufficiency and self-preservation is one of the most futile endeavors you can ever attempt. Kudos to you for trying, but not if the end is the further immasculation of America. We are now a country of soft, mindless sheep that are willing to spend more time watching American Idol than educating ourselves in the operation, debate and decision making of our own country. Farenheit 451 is so close to the truth these days that I will not be shocked when they start banning the books. It is the incremental degradation of our rights in the interest of protecting us from ourselves that will ultimately finish off the liberty Americans once enjoyed. Cast your vote on American Idol and enjoy, because that is the society you are creating.

:roll: :roll: While some people make good points, they tend to hurt the cause by not using the spell check or the proper forms of a word. Icelandic?????

So you must actually kill the criminal to avoid charges? Even if they surrender? Nice logic!

The problem with fighting to keep it volunteer is that at some point down the road you will look around and realize you cannot keep up (due to any of the 100 issues related to 100% volunteer organizations) regardless of professionalism or good intentions. That day will come and you will be too far behind to catch up before the public is hurt by it.

Hey Asys, why don't you look at those numbers you posted again- they are actually quite telling. While the US has an exponentially higher homicide rate, the rate of gun related homicides is only a few percent less than the other nations. Thank you for making the point for us.

If you are EMS and you are treating the patient, then how could you step on their toes? Don't go grab a handline and there won't be a problem.