That does not explain why a known crazy lady knowingly had a gun.

Sure, she could of also put their feet in concrete and thrown them off a bridge. Or tied them to a traintrack and waited for a train. But shooting them with a gun would be much easier and quicker. And that's what she did.

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 12:50 PM. Reason : ]

2/27/2013 12:49:43 PM

^obviously the people that had access to same gun did not think she would do that

2/27/2013 12:55:28 PM

Well yeah, obviously. Did she have a permit for the gun? If so, why?

2/27/2013 1:50:42 PM

Because erring on the side of what people 250 years ago thought about firearm ownership is better than erring on the side of preventing crazy people from killing children, that's why.

2/27/2013 1:54:48 PM

Quote :

"By the way, Defense Distributed does not do any favors to the gun-rights movement IMHO. All that posturing will lead to another set of regulations, this time about what can or cannot be printed."

they've made it very clear that they don't give a fuck and aren't interested in having any sort of discussion on gun rights

2/27/2013 5:40:51 PM

they are SO TUFF

On a related note, I am going to a 3D printing seminar tomorrow. I wonder if guns are on the agenda

2/27/2013 5:43:55 PM

Quote :

"Because erring on the side of what people 250 years ago thought about firearm ownership is better than erring on the side of preventing crazy people from killing children, that's why."

Does creating a "gun free zone" keep crazy people from killing children? Wait, massacres are actually more common in those zones? But, somehow, when we create a "gun free country", the policy will actually work? We just have to take your word for it though, of course.

It's always assumed that gun control laws will work, yet the areas with the tightest gun control laws have the highest rates of crime. Gang members and criminals simply don't give a fuck about your idealistic, progressive vision for a gun free America.

But yes, this technology puts any gun grabbing, authoritarian notions directly in the dumpster where they belong. Don't act like it's about "gun control". It's about disarmament. No one is talking about reducing the number of guns and weapons owned and controlled by the police and military. I find this suggestion that the government is more trustworthy than private citizens very concerning but not too surprising.

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 5:54 PM. Reason : ]

2/27/2013 5:48:06 PM

the problem with gun free zones is that they aren't big enough


is the easy response to a simple person's argument

2/27/2013 6:24:03 PM

Quote :

"Does creating a "gun free zone" keep crazy people from killing children? Wait, massacres are actually more common in those zones?"

This suggests otherwise:

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.full

2/27/2013 6:35:11 PM

^what was Australia's massacre rate previous to 1996? If you actually look at their statistics there was very little change overall in their homicide rate (~10% iirc on a rate that was already declining).

2/27/2013 6:40:10 PM

Quote :

"It's always assumed that gun control laws will work, yet the areas with the tightest gun control laws have the highest rates of crime."

prove that

and not by pointing to a single city

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 6:41 PM. Reason : ^not true, i covered it]

2/27/2013 6:40:56 PM

^^

Quote :

" In the 18 years up to and including 1996, the year of the massacre at Port Arthur, Australia experienced 13 mass shootings. In these events alone, 112 people were shot dead and at least another 52 wounded (table 1).8 In the 10.5 years since Port Arthur and the revised gun laws, no mass shootings have occurred in Australia. "

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 6:49 PM. Reason : .]

2/27/2013 6:42:34 PM

Quote :

"Does creating a "gun free zone" keep crazy people from killing children?"

I'm not sure what creating "gun free zones" has to do with keeping crazy people from getting guns, but hey, whatever talking point supports your "the-state-is-the-worst-thing-in-the-history-of-the-world" narrative.

2/27/2013 6:49:12 PM

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

dunno if anyone will actually read it

2/27/2013 6:53:20 PM

you'll get more people to read if you include an abstract or summary and how its relevant to the argument, so here is the start of the intro and conclusion

Quote :

"International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof ofthe mantra that more guns mean moredeaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths.1 Unfortunately, such discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative. It may be useful to begin with a few examples. There is a com- pound assertion that(a) guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement (b)is,infact,false andstatement(a)is substantially so. Since at least 1965, the false assertion that the United States has the industrialized world’s highestmurderrate has been anartifact of politically motivated Soviet minimization designed to hide the true homicide rates.2 Since well before that date, the Soviet Union [...]"

Quote :

"CONCLUSION This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the bur- den of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, espe- cially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world. Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the Uni- versity ofWashingtonundertook anextensive, statistically sophis- ticated study comparing areas in the United States and Canada to determine whether Canada’s more restrictive policies had better contained criminal violence. When he published his results it was withthe admonition: If you are surprised by [our] finding[s], so [are we]. [We] did not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” hand- guns, but there itis—a negative finding, to be sure, but a nega- tive finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us wherenottoaimpublichealthresources."

2/27/2013 7:14:48 PM

where was this published, was it peer reviewed?

theres no way this was peer reviewed, this is terribly written. they have all kinds of logical problems even a basic peer review would catch, no one would publish this.

i've got a couple notes so far, i'll finish and reply later

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 7:39 PM. Reason : .]

2/27/2013 7:25:57 PM

Published by Thomson Gale in 2007.

As search for "banning firearms" on http://www.gale.cengage.com/ reveals no results so who the hell knows about peer review.

2/27/2013 7:41:44 PM

http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1413/

Here is a source, seems to be a year older, to help you in your investigations (Berkeley Electronic Press).

And you're asking if a Harvard journal is peer-reviewed?

Here is an excerpt from the earlier version as well:

Quote :

"We gratefully acknowledge the generous contributions of: Professor Thomas B. Cole (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Social Medicine and Epidemiology); Chief Superintendent Colin Greenwood (West Yorkshire Constabulary, ret.); C.B. Kates; Abigail Kohn (University of Sydney, Law); David B. Kopel (Independence Institute); Prof. Timothy D. Lytton (Albany Law School): Prof. William Alex Pridemore (University of Oklahoma, Sociology); Prof. Randolph Roth (Ohio State University, History), Prof. Thomas Velk (McGill University, Economics and Chairman of the North American Studies Program); Robert Weisberg (Edwin E. Huddleson, Jr. Professor of Law - Stanford University), and John Whitley (University of Adelaide, Economics). Any merits this paper has reflect their advice and contributions, but for errors the responsibility are ours alone. "

http://www.garymauser.net/

You might check some of the other work from this fellow out on his website (under papers).

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 7:49 PM. Reason : -]

2/27/2013 7:47:09 PM

Yeah, the Thomson Gale was just a repub for amazon.com, but that excerpt doesn't mean that it was peer-reviewed by any stretch of the imagination. It looks like they're citing their sources and giving thanks.

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 7:51 PM. Reason : .]

2/27/2013 7:48:41 PM

Oh I agree.

The point I was making was that those are some pretty heavy-hitting contributors.

Furthermore, its the damn Harvard Law Review... They dont exactly just let anything in.

Abstract from the earlier paper (I believe) currently hosted at law.bepress.com:

Quote :

"The world abounds in instruments with which people can kill each other. Is the widespread availability of one of these instruments, firearms, a crucial determinant of the incidence of murder? Or do patterns of murder and/or violent crime reflect basic socio-economic and/or cultural factors to which the mere availability of one particular form of weaponry is irrelevant? This article examines a broad range of international data that bear on two distinct but interrelated questions: first, whether widespread firearm access is an important contributing factor in murder and/or suicide, and second, whether the introduction of laws that restrict general access to firearms has been successful in reducing violent crime, homicide or suicide. Our conclusion from the available data is that suicide, murder and violent crime rates are determined by basic social, economic and/or cultural factors with the availability of any particular one of the world’s myriad deadly instrument being irrelevant."

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 8:06 PM. Reason : -]

2/27/2013 8:01:36 PM

The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy does not require peer review, and I don't see anything else indicating this was peer reviewed

which shouldn't surprise anyone who reads it, its pretty bad. i'm taking notes.

Quote :

"Furthermore, its the damn Harvard Law Review"

hah, no its not. the journal of law is just another conservative topics publication, it doesn't have nearly the same reputation.

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 8:05 PM. Reason : haha at law review = jlpp]

Quote :

"The point I was making was that those are some pretty heavy-hitting contributors"

with no credentials in statistics making arguments based on statistical analysis with analysis that's not very good.

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 8:11 PM. Reason : .]

2/27/2013 8:02:51 PM

You have but a short window to edit that post before I'm afraid your reputation on this board will be forever shit.

2/27/2013 8:10:34 PM

http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/
vs.
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/index.php

where was it published? maybe i misunderstood you

2/27/2013 8:12:52 PM

Oh its law and public policy alright.

Your edit window is down to 12 minutes or so.

2/27/2013 8:14:16 PM

before you said:

Quote :

"Furthermore, its the damn Harvard Law Review."

which one is it, Journal of Law and Public Policy?

one was founded in 1887, the other in 1978

was it published in this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Journal_of_Law_and_Public_Policy

or this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Law_Review

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 8:18 PM. Reason : you've said 2 different things]

2/27/2013 8:15:32 PM

Ah yes, I admit I misspoke there.

Before that I simply said "You're asking if a Harvard journal is peer-reviewed?"

Then you said "The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy does not require peer review, and I don't see anything else indicating this was peer reviewed."

JLPP is only at the top of every page in the damn paper (which you're supposedly reading).

You have less than 10 minutes to retract your critique of JLPP.

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 8:19 PM. Reason : -]

2/27/2013 8:18:40 PM

JLPP does not require peer review from anything I see (which is not abnormal for law reviews), is different from the Law Review, and is a conservative publication that does not have the same reputation as the Harvard Law Review. What did I say that you have a problem with?

2/27/2013 8:21:43 PM

Lol.

Do I respond or do I let you keep researching and hang yourself?

I think ill just savor it a little longer.

Anyone want to jump in and help? disco_stu? Anyone?

I can't really imagine a single user I enjoy this happening to more than dtownral.

You should have attacked content rather than source.

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 8:28 PM. Reason : -]

2/27/2013 8:26:31 PM

http://www.wral.com/bill-would-allow-guns-in-private-religious-schools-/12161116/

Quote :

"Bill would allow guns in private, religious schools State Sen. Stan Bingham, R-Davidson, has filed a proposal to allow private and church-affiliated schools to have armed employees or volunteers on site. The measure, Senate Bill 146, is the latest in a series of bills that would allow guns on school property in North Carolina."

Quote :

"Senate Bill 146 would also allow concealed-carry permit holders to carry a gun on church-affiliated school grounds if he or she is attending, coming to or leaving a religious service or event."

2/27/2013 8:39:24 PM

Dude that guy just don't know when to stop does he? He's like my 2-year-old: probing how much he can get away with. Put his ass in time-out, now.

referring to State Sen. Stan Bingham

Ok, I made an edit to the phrasing to make more sense about who I was comparing that dullard to.

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 8:53 PM. Reason : .]

2/27/2013 8:41:36 PM

Like who?

I agree it's getting more than a little annoying though.

Me too.

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 8:47 PM. Reason : -]

2/27/2013 8:44:18 PM

Why is it crazy to allow guns at a place people voluntarily choose to send their children? We have armed resource officers and public schools, should private citizens not be allowed to chose to send their children to a private school with armed employees?

hey yowilly can i still edit?

2/27/2013 9:02:15 PM

The bill in question doesnt require said employee to be trained and certified by the N.C. Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission.

They just have a CCP and are truly just an armed volunteer.

And no, you cant edit away the fact that you think that's not a peer-reviewed journal. It is forever etched in the stone that is TSB.

But if you promise to quit being such an assclown I forgive you. The same thing happened to Bullet a while back (well not exactly), and now I actually enjoy most of his posts.

We can live in harmony.

2/27/2013 9:16:09 PM

Quote :

"The bill in question doesnt require said employee to be trained and certified by the N.C. Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission. They just have a CCP and are truly just an armed volunteer."

And how is this different than allowing teachers to carry guys to school? (which many people in this thread have agreed with)

2/27/2013 9:19:08 PM

Quote :

"The bill in question doesnt require said employee to be trained and certified by the N.C. Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission. They just have a CCP and are truly just an armed volunteer"

and the difference is that these are private schools people voluntarily choose, so they can choose one that doesn't allow guns. i suspect there is a gun nut market for a school that does allow it.

(and that was not a peer reviewed article, and you thought it was the harvard law review)

2/27/2013 9:36:00 PM

I dont want to go digging through 46 pages looking for who advocates that.

But I can't think of many teachers I've had in the past that I would trust with a gun in the classroom.



Okay dtownral, if you really want to go there. That was a peer-reviewed article and you're absolutely the biggest fucking idiot on this board to suggest it's not.

I did misspeak sure, after I didn't misspeak the first time, and after you supposedly read the article and "took notes." Well your notes must be absolute shit (or non-existent) again, because it said JLPP at the top of every fucking page.

At least this confirms for me that you're either currently in school in a shit major, or fresh out of school with a shit major, that didn't require research at any scholarly level.

At least I can appreciate that (it really explains a lot). Again, anyone else want to help this fucking clown out? There are a few users I would like to see fall this hard.

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 9:40 PM. Reason : -]

2/27/2013 9:37:13 PM

Quote :

"I dont want to go digging through 46 pages looking for who advocates that. But I can't think of many teachers I've had in the past that I would trust with a gun in the classroom."

Then why do you trust the general population?

2/27/2013 9:42:54 PM

I don't want the general population in classrooms with guns either.

2/27/2013 9:44:24 PM

But everywhere else is okay? Restaurants? Malls? Amusement parks?

2/27/2013 9:47:05 PM

Can you already carry at an amusement park? I'm going to guess no, and I'm going to say I personally wouldn't be okay with it because of issues with securing the gun.

Upside down on rollercoasters, etc.

Maybe one of the actual CCW folks ITT could comment on this? I do not and probably will not ever have mine. Can't really discuss it intelligently.

2/27/2013 9:55:35 PM

They're going to say it's fine, because if some malevolent person turned up with a gun, others could take him out first.

2/27/2013 9:56:47 PM

From my CC friends they say any place that charges admission you are not allowed to conceal carry. At least for NC.

2/27/2013 10:00:31 PM

Why don't more people open-carry? That's not illegal is it?

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 10:10 PM. Reason : ]

2/27/2013 10:10:15 PM

someone paranoid/scared enough of the world to feel they need to carry at all times is not generally going to be a person that is confident enough to open carry

2/27/2013 10:18:00 PM

I do open carry a lot of the time. Most people don't want to deal with the possible hassle of the police showing up because someone called, and they had to come.

2/27/2013 10:26:12 PM

I prefer to conceal carry. In part because it gives me the element of surprise should I need to defend myself, and also because it allows me to walk from the gas station to my car without having to talk to 3 cops.

2/28/2013 12:43:41 AM

Quote :

"Okay dtownral, if you really want to go there. That was a peer-reviewed article"

prove it

2/28/2013 7:01:51 AM

Quote :

"someone paranoid/scared enough of the world to feel they need to carry at all times is not generally going to be a person that is confident enough to open carry"

WRONG-O

2/28/2013 8:38:54 AM

I open carry a decent amount, its usually non-eventful because i make sure to look decent and i think people assume i'm a cop or something. occasionally though it's a huge pain, it's definitely not something i would want to do often.

Quote :

"But I can't think of many teachers I've had in the past that I would trust with a gun in the classroom."

well the good thing about private schools is you don't need to, you could just take your business elsewhere. the bill is about private schools, not public ones.

2/28/2013 10:30:50 AM

Oh my God, you know...

I fucking sit down at my desk after enjoying a nice lunch, I bring up this bullshit, and I've still got this MOTHERFUCKING MORON asking me to prove that a GOD DAMN ARTICLE FROM A HARVARD LAW JOURNAL is peer-reviewed.

dtownral if you really had an inkling of support don't you think the rest of these cunts you typically agree with would jump to your aid? If I was really wrong about this they would be down my throat INSTANTLY. Don't you agree that they revel in the chance to make a conservative look like a moron? Don't you think if this was one of those chances they would have taken it?

Now in my defense I have no clue why the educated conservatives on this board haven't leaped in to ridicule you either. Maybe they actually are the mouth-breathers you all think they are and LIKE YOU are also unfamiliar with what constitutes scholarly or peer-reviewed.

That being said, please check the following MOTHERFUCKING LINKS:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/current/orgs/journals/index.html

Quote :

"Students at Harvard Law School produce scholarly journals devoted to specific substantive areas of the law and to various approaches to examining legal developments. These peer reviewed publications offer invaluable practical experience in legal writing, editing, and scholarship."

http://www.csa.com/factsheets/supplements/paispeer.php

Oh look?! What do we fucking have here?! PAIS agrees with me?! WELL WHAT THE FUCK DO THEY KNOW.

Quote :

"Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. (0193-4872) http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/"

http://www.highbeam.com/publications/law-journals-2039

Why don't you just admit that you hate the article because of what it implies? Why don't you admit you're only trying to discredit this journal because of its sister organization the Federalist Society? Why don't you admit that you're SO GOD DAMN STUPID because you're blinded by your hatred of Scalia (for example), who has contributed to the journal before?

The only instances you'll find of people agreeing with you are blog posts (which are not peer-reviewed by the way), by people like you that assume their idiot sensibilities are always correct.

Now let's see you try to prove that it isn't peer-reviewed. In the meantime I'll email every lawyer / law student I know and ask them for more crushing evidence. I'll see what information the school itself is willing to provide, and hopefully provide it to you this evening.

2/28/2013 12:13:38 PM