Actually, there's some evidence to show that traffic control devices make people pay attention LESS. If all you do is look at the lights to tell you when to move, you'll never be looking out for other drivers. If you took away stop signs, people slow down anyway because they don't want to DIE.

Someone is/was trying out these concepts in a small town somewhere in Europe. I'll see if I can find the link again.

I won't argue the direct analogy there, and I have heard of that before (I believe right here on the forums in a traffic law discussion, actually).

However, I would like to say that the phenomenon might suggest that when people operate under the illusion that their environment is under control by some outside power ( like say, law and traffic control devices) they pay less attention and end up being more at risk (why be wary of the criminal or stupid element when you're sure that stop sign has the intersection on lockdown?) and for that matter, the criminal element may recognize this illusion of control and take advantage by say, running the sign because they think everyone else will stop. If you make individuals take responsibility for their own safety, this defensive attitude may help prevent incidents.

I hope you see the parallel, I'd discuss in more detail but this iPod typing is about to drive me insane.

Edit: I will however add that I fully recognize the limitations of this philosophy. You wouldn't want to eliminate all law and all traffic control devices everywhere. It'd be a disaster if not in damage, in efficiency.

Not exactly. They have to have a permit unless they're hunting. The CAN transport them anywhere, but the ammunition must be separated from the rifle, and i think not in a magazine.

However, I don't think that's really a medium. That's my personal ideal. The sig you mentioned decidedly falls into your category of 'people hunter'. Having more guns, or less guns everywhere isn't going to solve anything. Violent shootings are the symptom of a deeper sickness. And that sickness is not the presence of weapons. It's the sickness of an uneducated populace. And every country has that sickness manifested in a different way, such that the same controls and safeguards will not have the same effect everywhere.

I agree.

I think Dave Grossman argued fairly convincingly that some of our natural mental safeguards against violence have been eroded by modern media.

WHUT.

Wow.

Jon agreeing with.. anyone about anything at all.. is a huge freaking deal.

*Draws attention to Jon*

Everyone look! Everyone look there! Look at what just happened! Look! Everybody!

And for the record. I disagree.

This is a gross over simplification. Stoplights take advantage of the fact that turning vehicles are slow. By massing vehicles and making them take the turn all at once, they increase the throughput of the intersection.

I think you're overextending the analogy. Anyway, the point wasn't the details of traffic control, like I said, I'm not going to argue the specifics of that analogy. The point was that he stated some "ifs" that are significant enough to call into question the usefulness and validity of his "thens".

Care to be more specific?

Not really, he does it all the time, even if it's not so explicit.

Pending a decision in McDonald v. Chicago (probably sometime in the next two or three weeks), the 2nd Amendment is not enforceable against the states.



Um. No. Incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states is selective, not total. Furthermore, California's interpretation finds support in circuit court decisions. Try not making absolute statements about a Constitution you don't understand.

I tried to tell him that already; it didn't work.

I'd wager that he said he disagreed as a humorous attempt to counteract Jon's agreement with someone.

A little o' both.


*disagrees*

I didn't catch that until after I posted. But hey, if he wants to pretend that "legally" has some meaning independent of the actual law, there's not really that much we can do for him.

I disagree.

Oh, I forgot, you're a... nihilist or something. I can't figure it out. Something about the fundamental evil of people or some people that causes them to do bad things?

Right.

Also, I have always been confused by the judicial interpratation of many of the constitutional rights.

If the supreme law of the United States doesn't apply to all of the states, well...

I just guess I would have included provisions to ensure that these 'fundamenta' rights could be enforced as that. But I think my understanding of my country is still immature.

My understanding of your country is apparently immature as well.

What arguments are there for carrying guns with you, apart from a random text in a random amendment?

First, let's be clear that when we talk about "California's interpretation" we're really talking about the socialists in charge of California's "interpretation". Second, the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights is just another example of how lawyers can screw everything up for us all. I would argue that the constitution makes it clear that the things it lays out are universal to all citizens and that the thing it does not are reserved to the states or the people. But you are correct that idiotic court decisions perpetuate this sort of travesty.

The primary argument would be that it lowers the crime rate.

Wow... but when it comes to medical marijuana the feds don't really care about the state & local laws.

Wow, very concise and cool reply. All it is missing is evidence.

You asked what arguments there are disregarding the obvious constitutional ones. I gave you the primary one disregarding the constitutional ones. Now you want me to argue it for you, too? If you are interested you could google "mandatory gun ownership crime rates" and "open carry crime rates". You might find that the evidence is not missing.

First - legislation that sucks should be prone to change. Constitution my ass. It's just a document, subject to reasonable scrutiny. Let's not assign it any romantic feelings to it, shall we?

Second - I DID look it up and I DID find the evidence is missing. Did you?

-From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15128143: The effect of nondiscretionary concealed weapon carrying laws on homicide.

RESULTS: No statistically significant association exists between changes in concealed weapon laws and state homicide rates. This finding is consistent across all models. CONCLUSIONS: The current findings are consistent with those of other published studies indicating that nondiscretionary concealed weapon laws are not associated with significant increases or decreases in homicide.

-From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17070975: State-level homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003.

RESULTS: Multivariate analyses found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates of men, women and children.
(is this really a surprise to anyone??)

-From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15805435: An evaluation of state firearm regulations and homicide and suicide death rates.

RESULTS: When a "shall issue" law was present, the rate of firearm homicides was greater, RR 1.11 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.24), than when the law was not present, as was the rate of all homicides, RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.17), although this was not statistically significant. No law was associated with a statistically significant decrease in the rates of firearm homicides or total homicides. No law was associated with a statistically significant change in firearm suicide rates. CONCLUSION: A "shall issue" law that eliminates most restrictions on carrying a concealed weapon may be associated with increased firearm homicide rates. No law was associated with a statistically significant reduction in firearm homicide or suicide rates.

-From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11130511: Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high-income countries.

RESULTS: In simple regressions (no control variables) across 26 high-income nations, there is a strong and statistically significant association between gun availability and homicide rates. CONCLUSION: Across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides.

I could go on.. I really, really could.

I'm not even interested in debating, because I don't know enough about the subject.

WE COLLECTIVELY SUFFER FROM A MENTAL DISEASE – THE SOLUTION IS NOT MORE GUNS.

So...ban guns is the answer?

glad to see 'ass' isn't censored anymore.

Tenshu, you're misunderstanding. You asked for someone to explain what the argument was, and Wookie obliged. He's, apparently, not interested in arguing with you, he merely answered your question.

Further, your "evidence," which you so mightily copied and pasted, proves exactly what gun proponents argue - gun laws don't change ****. More guns, less guns, it doesn't matter, crap still happens. Why ban guns for good people when it doesn't change anything? It's just picking on people who like firearms.

All of my "hunting rifles" were made with the aim of hunting people.

Except for the .22s

What little move did you do there, putting the word evidence between parentheses?

Let's read what he said: 'The primary argument would be that it lowers the crime rate.'

I searched and haven't found evidence for this.

What has been demonstrated time and time again is strong correlation between gun ownership and firearm accidental and violent death, (as well as suicides.)

I'm not into this to debate this - it apparently ticks me off smart people can hide behind 'the constitution' to forego reasoning.

So what you're saying is that if people can own firearms they might get hurt with them?

HOLY ****ING **** STOP THE PRESSES

exactly

Despite you kicking some ass there Tenshu, I have to point out that it does indeed look like Wookie wasn't even making the argument, he was just providing a common one as requested. Now yes, you can easily argue that the most common argument is wrong, but arguing that with Wookie is pointless on two levels, one of them being he wasn't making the argument himself.

You must realize that a great number of U.S. citizens see the Constitution like they see their bible. Trying to convince them that the founders weren't prophets is like trying to convince a fundamentalist Christian that dinosaurs & humans didn't co-exist or that they (dinosaurs) weren't planted here to confuse us. It's just not going to ****ing happen. Spare yourself the heartache.

Oh good, a genetic fallacy.



The incorporation of the Bill of Rights is just another example of something you don't understand.



You'd be wrong. Wrong on the text. Wrong on the history. The first eight amendments were not written to apply to the states on their own, and this was well-understood from the start, long before those pesky lawyers got involved. It's only thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment, and -- surprise! -- a series of relatively recent court decisions based on it, that any of them can be enforced against the states today.

Britain, for instance, has pretty outrageous violent crime rates. Most of that's happy slapping though. Lots of robberies by sharpened screwdriver.
If we lived in a magical land where everybody was forced to carry a pistol, we'd have criminals using rifles and kevlar.
If everybody drove around in tanks, we'd have criminals laying minefields and calling in air strikes.

Criminals are desperate, not retarded. If you change the situation they'll adapt.

Fewer guns in total would mean fewer accidental deaths, for one thing. I suppose it would also mean fewer crimes of passion, because there's a huge psychological barrier between shooting someone and killing someone with your hands.

I don't think it really matters, though. I don't believe any civilian who carries a concealed weapon is a good person. I think they're all paranoid-delusional narcissistic cowards who can't cope with the fact that bad **** might happen.

I think it would at least lower the amount of accidental deaths of children (which is a big issue w/ a lot of people). A child is less likely to accidentally cut his friends head off than to blow it off w/ daddy's shotgun.

Sorry, Tenshu, I wasn't trying to turn this into some UN debate and you have shown how I innaccurately answered your initial question. I will correct the quote bellow so it more accurately depicts my answer to your querry as originally intended.



Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I think this is the most legitimate argument you've ever made on the subject.



And I think this is the most important argument you've made in terms of your own views. I'd like to ask you what exactly makes a "civilian" who carries a weapon a bad person and a police officer (for example) a good person? I'd also argue that many of the people who carry guns are the ones who ARE coping with the fact that bad **** might happen, while many of those who do not carry guns are the ones who ignore that fact.

Content?

Firearm ownership rates also have strong non-causal correlations with a large suite of political persuasions and socioeconomic conditions. There's too much selection bias to demonstrate a direct causal relationship between firearm ownership and homicide rates.

Also, none of your links work.

I think in principal, it's best to punish irresponsibility than try to prevent problem through blanket bans, unless we're talking about something absurdly dangerous. Accidental deaths from firearms are very few. We could probably prevent deaths by banning motor cycles and jet skis, but I think that in the end I don't think the marginal safety is worth allowing our lives to be so miserably regulated. It's stupid to try to create a world in which our safety is guaranteed. We should be allowed to decide for our selves what risks are worth taking and punish those whose actions endanger others.