ive heard the same thing.

4/20/2007 3:14:36 PM

from what I've seen


crystal meth production is higher than it's ever been


the war on drugs is half the reason there is so much gun crime today

4/20/2007 3:23:00 PM

heres an article about it:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9193186

4/20/2007 3:25:09 PM

^^

Agreed



I always wonder why people are so afraid of removing black markets for criminals. Is it b/c it may actually work? Would that be too much of a shock to emotion-driven members of our society?

[Edited on April 20, 2007 at 3:26 PM. Reason : ^^]

4/20/2007 3:26:25 PM

anything that puts the BATF out of work is fine by me


but seriously, prohibition doesn't work, it never has


and when you add in black market costs... someone is gonna bring a gun into the mix

4/20/2007 3:29:26 PM

not finding meth labs != no domestic meth labs

but even if they had limited domestic production, they're still bringing it in from mexico...so domestic production doesnt really matter...if its out there and available, why does it matter where its made

and if you do think it matters, just change the drug in question to crack cocaine...its illegal...and yes theres still plenty of domestic production

4/20/2007 3:30:53 PM

all im saying is that i heard domestic production is down.

4/20/2007 3:32:17 PM

Quote :

"It's all coming from mexico now, and the cartels down there are robbing pharma plants to get the pseudoephedrine"

The point is that all the law has done is effectively force the production to be outsourced.

You may not have as many trailer park meth labs as you used to, but the demand hasn't changed. All we've done is force the supply chain to shift. Market forces work the same whether you're talking about gasoline or crystal meth, and they adapt to changes in supply and demand, whether those changes are organic or artificial



[Edited on April 20, 2007 at 3:36 PM. Reason : there's no freer market than the black market]

4/20/2007 3:33:25 PM

yup

4/20/2007 3:34:05 PM

^^well, now that we're totally off topic, it's really not that the law has effectively outsourced production.

The outlawing of ephedrine as a supplement in the US and the restriction on sales of pseudoephredrine has reduced demand for those Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients; it has reduced the supply. There are only 4 plants in the world still manufacturing them. One of them is, unfortunately, located in Mexico and has been robbed, since it's getting so tough to get the Meth ingredients on the street.

(That said, I just bring it up because I'm in the (legal) drug industry and know about the demise of those two compounds... and because we're getting ready to start production on an oxycodone drug, and the same shit happens with rednecks jonesing for the Oxycontin)

4/20/2007 4:01:42 PM

I wish people here would write more wiki articles. UNC totally pwnts us on Wikipedia

4/20/2007 4:08:21 PM

That's because we're busy creating things like wikis so that UNC grads will have something to do.

4/20/2007 4:11:12 PM

Quote :

"If people can go "mental" anytime then it doesn't matter what restrictions you put in place."

no shit....

4/20/2007 4:22:47 PM

So explain to me what gun control did to prevent this kid from trying to kill people? Looks to me that when his first tools was not easy to obtain (or as easy as he would like) he switched to a different tool, and still tried to kill people. So it sounds like gun control didn't stop him.

4/20/2007 4:27:45 PM

Quote :

"why do you not believe him"

because he, unlike you, has never seen my handiwork with a firearm.

Quote :

""noone can say with certainty how the outcome would have been different or the situation prevented"

well no shit.

i can't say with certainty that the girl from the bar has the clap, but i still wrap it up.

i can't say with certainty that i'll live through a car crash if i wear a seatbelt, but i don't ride around unbuckled.

it's like most everything else--it's a calculated risk either way (in terms of continuing to ban or beginning to allow legally concealed weapons on campuses)...but my position is one derived from evidence. Yours is one of blind faith.

Quote :

"as long as handguns are legal, concelaed weapons provisions are fine by me. BUT i think that we should phase out handguns anyway."

as much as i like to shoot, i'd be first to say "go for it" if we could wave the magic wand and make all handguns disappear. It wouldn't solve the violence problem, but it would be a net gain.

However, I don't think it's a realistic proposition. I'm all ears if you have some genious idea.

Quote :

"I would like to see a sensical approach to this, like aknowledging that if a citizen is OK (background check wise) to purchase a firearm, he should have little, if any regulation beyond that. However, what is the harm in extending at least some of the care we take in issueing CCP's to the purchase of these weapons in the first place?"

Yeah, i've given some casual thought to that before...make the CCP obsolete, by effectively making everyone who wants to buy a handgun qualified by the CCP standards...then treat them just like we treat our current CCP holders. I've never thought of or heard a counterargument to this, but it seems smart to me. I wonder if lobbyists from gun manufacturers are one of the bigger obstacles.

Quote :

"The point is that all the law has done is effectively force the production to be outsourced. You may not have as many trailer park meth labs as you used to, but the demand hasn't changed. All we've done is force the supply chain to shift. Market forces work the same whether you're talking about gasoline or crystal meth, and they adapt to changes in supply and demand, whether those changes are organic or artificial"

exactly

Quote :

"So explain to me what gun control did to prevent this kid from trying to kill people?"

obviously nothing.

i'm all for being more inclusive on the background checks for buying firearms to include provisions for being more restrictive of those who've been declared mentally ill. I'm not saying that because you took antidepressants years ago, you shouldn't be able to buy any firearm now...but this kid should not have been allowed to purchase a handgun. It's a small crack in the system that we (understandably) haven't really paid much of a price for now...but now that it's known, we should go ahead and fix it.



I'm really not opposed to sensible gun regulation--things that actually make a positive difference without being unduly restrictive against the law abiding masses. it's just that most regulation beyond what we already have (and a few small aspects of what's already in place) is idiotic, and generally ineffective and overly burdensome.

[Edited on April 20, 2007 at 5:26 PM. Reason : asdasdf]

4/20/2007 5:26:08 PM

4/20/2007 8:28:54 PM

Guarantee a lot more random asians would have been shot if everyone had a gun.

4/20/2007 8:40:51 PM

I'm not against gun ownership. I don't think outlawing guns would be effective or realistic.

FYI, I'm a left wing liberal. And I support Second Amendment rights.

I could see allowing limited concealed carry permit holders to carry weapons on a particular campus, but thered have to be WAY more oversight.

otherwise, i see problems with some dumbass leaving his gun in his coat pocket or somethign, and someone else, roomate or stranger, gets a hold of it.

im thinking like a special certification that requires you to go through some more intensive weapon handling classes, taught by local/county/state law enforcement.

and that when a concealed carrier is carrying on campus, they be held accountable to some law enforcement authority and ultimately an elected official (sherriffs office, city mayor/chief of police, etc), with increased penalties for improper behavior related to the weapon. also that the information on who has such certification be accessible to the campus community in general.

and that the local law enforcement know exactly who everyone is that is certified to carry on the campus, and there'd have to be some sort of ongoing communication between the carriers and the department maintaining jurisdiction. like maybe just stopping by every month to renew their certification. and continuing weapons safety/qualifications once or twice a year.

now before you complain about gun owners rights to privacy and not being regulated by the government, Im only saying this for people who want to carry on a school campus. it should be more difficult to get and keep such a certification. there should be a way higher standard for allowing someone to carry on a school campus surrounded by 17-23 year olds, some of whom may have emotional issues or poor judgement.

If you dont want to submit to that extra scrutiny, then your concealed carry permit is not valid on campus.

[/words]

4/20/2007 10:36:19 PM

Quote :

"im thinking like a special certification that requires you to go through some more intensive weapon handling classes, taught by local/county/state law enforcement"

I agree with this, the more you learn the better you will handle a firearm... these classes should be encouraged and ongoing...firearms safety should be taught long before college IMO

Quote :

"and that when a concealed carrier is carrying on campus, they be held accountable to some law enforcement authority and ultimately an elected official (sherriffs office, city mayor/chief of police, etc), with increased penalties for improper behavior related to the weapon."

Quote :

"...and that the local law enforcement know exactly who everyone is that is certified to carry on the campus, and there'd have to be some sort of ongoing communication between the carriers and the department maintaining jurisdiction. like maybe just stopping by every month to renew their certification. and continuing weapons safety/qualifications once or twice a year. "

this is fine by me also, in spite of my beliefs about freedom, I don't think it's a bad thing if the school LEO community and administration know that there is potentially a weapon on you or in your vehicle. BTW, law enforcement can run your name and know if you're a CCW holder already. Having this permit is rarely seen is a black mark by the law enforcement community, it's usually encouraged, because many LEOs know a CCW holder could be their best friend in a bad situation.
Any crimes committed in possession of a firearm should be dealth with harshly once guilt is established.

Quote :

"...also that the information on who has such certification be accessible to the campus community in general."

this is the only thing I have a problem with, i think the information should be kept accessible only to LEOs and school administration. Who wants a crazy psycho or thug stalking a known gun owner and stealing his/her gun, or worse yet, assaulting he or she to steal the gun. I also don't want professors imparting their political views via grading on people that are in class to learn.

Quote :

"now before you complain about gun owners rights to privacy and not being regulated by the government, Im only saying this for people who want to carry on a school campus. it should be more difficult to get and keep such a certification. there should be a way higher standard for allowing someone to carry on a school campus surrounded by 17-23 year olds, some of whom may have emotional issues or poor judgement."

I'm not really complaining at all... I just don't think EVERY person should know who carries, it could lead to false charges(most people carrying don't show anyone, you see these people everyday). It could also lead to robberies as stated above. By making that info accessible, you effectively cause everyone that doesn't carry to become potential victims, just with some easy research... which is what you're trying to avoid in the first place

I have no problem with more firearm education and certifications... it could serve to help promote more awareness about firearms education and would reduce accidents

firearms safety education should be required education at an early age

4/20/2007 11:02:25 PM

good points. and yeah, i agree with you. that part about making the info available to public wasn't well thought out.

Quote :

"and that when a concealed carrier is carrying on campus, they be held accountable to some law enforcement authority and ultimately an elected official (sherriffs office, city mayor/chief of police, etc), with increased penalties for improper behavior related to the weapon. also that the information on who has such certification be accessible to the campus community in general."

there. fixed it.

4/20/2007 11:09:21 PM

one thing i'd like to mention is that there are already much harsher penalties for any sort of misconduct related to the weapon if you have a CCP.

4/20/2007 11:17:22 PM

^true, true.


The one thought I have is this... most all the places in the Middle East where the US is in combat operations now possession of a weapon is normal. Hell, some places you can get an AK-47 for cheaper than a chicken or another small animal. Point being, do people in those societies decide to go on a homicidal rampage? Hell no - because everyone ELSE has guns too, and they can keep them in check. (Forget about suicide bombers, duh)

What if it was more common for Americans to carry weapons? Hell, they don't even have to be concealed! Even if only 1% of the campus population carried, chances are between those two classrooms either theDuke866 or I or someone else who can shoot worth half a damn woulda stood up and shot that guy, 2 in the chest, 1 in the head. I guarantee you, the prospect of walking into any given classroom and having someone shoot BACK at you would be a serious deterrent to this kind of incident.

(Hell, even without a CCP you could fold up an M4 and stuff it in a backpack but that's a little excessive... still, in the hands of an able user I bet the death count would have been MUCH closer to zero!)

[Edited on April 20, 2007 at 11:41 PM. Reason : .]

4/20/2007 11:40:00 PM

^ Yes. This is the premise of the book More Guns Less Crime by John Lott.

4/21/2007 12:05:03 AM

Quote :

"The one thought I have is this... most all the places in the Middle East where the US is in combat operations now possession of a weapon is normal. Hell, some places you can get an AK-47 for cheaper than a chicken or another small animal. Point being, do people in those societies decide to go on a homicidal rampage? Hell no - because everyone ELSE has guns too, and they can keep them in check"

um.. you should not point to Iraq as an example of why universal gun ownership is a good idea.

it kind of undercuts your case.

4/21/2007 12:31:17 AM

Quote :

"I guarantee you, the prospect of walking into any given classroom and having someone shoot BACK at you would be a serious deterrent to this kind of incident."

Really? Cho was obviously willing to die, as were Eric and Dylan. Do you really think the threat of getting shot would stop someone like that?

4/21/2007 12:39:35 AM

you can't make much of a statement by walking in a room, shooting a guy or two, then getting shot and killed yourself... besides - it takes a LOT more balls to start shooting at people who may shoot back than lots of innocent civilians!

^^how?

4/21/2007 12:51:23 AM

Quote :

"besides - it takes a LOT more balls to start shooting at people who may shoot back than lots of innocent civilians!"

Even when you plan on shooting yourself in the head anyway? I'm not so sure. George Hennard ended up exchanging fire with police after killing twenty three people. He didn't let them kill him, though. After they wounded him, he finished himself off.

4/21/2007 12:57:21 AM

They should try again with UNC, the Thomas the tank engine idea wasn't bad in theory and neither is the moral of the story!

4/21/2007 12:57:27 AM

Quote :

"Do you really think the threat of getting shot would stop someone"

maybe not, but getting shot sure as fuck would.

i agree, theres no easy answer.

but im pretty sure that more gun control isnt the answer. we have this pesky little thing called the Second Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights.

its kind of serious. in a sense, a lot like the First Amendment.

the question is not about more restrictive gun control, or banning weapons.

the real question is two-fold:

(1) why was this lunatic, who had so many red flags on him over such a long period of time, including an involuntary commitment to a psych ward for evaluation, including reports of being suicidal and stalking women, for taking under-the-desk photographs of female students in class, for being perceived as threatening and intimidating by his professors and classmates to the point that some of his classes were disrupted....

why was this fucking nutjob allowed to remain on campus, completely unmonitored.

(2) why was a record of mental instability not enough to throw a red flag in the already-existing background checks before he bought his weapons.

4/21/2007 1:34:30 AM

Quote :

"Really? Cho was obviously willing to die, as were Eric and Dylan. Do you really think the threat of getting shot would stop someone like that? [emphasis added]"

GoldenViper

Maybe not, but multiple rounds fired center mass with a few head shots thrown in for good measure sure as hell would stop an attacker.

4/21/2007 1:40:08 AM

^ pete and repete were on a boat.

one fell off. who was left?

4/21/2007 1:45:44 AM

^^^ nailed it.

4/21/2007 1:21:49 PM