Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 7/12/2002 5:22:32 AM EST
If you look at a book of gun laws for Calf. It will take an hour or so to read and almost never to comprehend. Now look at Vermonts gun laws, it will take 3-4 minutes and you can understand it. So what I can't fiquire out is why we ain't reading in the newspapers everyday about chaios in Vermont, but in Calf. Geez what the heck. Maybe an armed society is a polite society.
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 5:34:06 AM EST
Ok, we allow everyone to carry guns, concealed or whatever, after awhile all the shit heads kill each other off, sure there may be a few innocents lost, but no plan if perfect. After awhile most of the dirt bags are gone and only good folk around, a kind of thinning of the heard thing, has some merit, but will never happen. A good the big picture concept idea though.
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 5:39:14 AM EST
Originally Posted By cyanide: Maybe an armed society is a polite society.
View Quote
ya think?!? [;)]
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 8:26:00 AM EST
Unfortunately that's just too damned simplistic a model. Violent crime tends to follow population density as much as anything else. Vermont has a small population widely spread out. Burlington, the largest city in the state, is quite small and mostly oriented around a concentration of colleges in the area and an IBM facility. Otherwise Vermont is largely a rural state. It is quickly converting from a conservative state to a highly liberal one. I would expect gun control laws to start piling up there before too long, just because it's "The right thing to do" among the liberal crowd taking over. Whenever you stack people up in close proximity, especially when those people are poor and un-educated, you get violence. This is proven throughout history, time and again. Population pressure causes war. So New York, LA, Chicago, Baltimore, etc. are extremely predisposed toward violent crime simply because they have large populations crammed into tight quarters. Now if you can find an example of a state with a high urban population and similar demographics to DC, New York, etc. that have few gun laws and low crime, then you have a good comparison.
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 8:35:47 AM EST
We are all armed. Are we polite? Vermont: Home of good maple suryp and sensable gun laws.
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 8:37:39 AM EST
Ice man? Are you saying that we should have no guns in the big cities?
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 8:53:15 AM EST
Originally Posted By tulsacmpshooter: Ice man? Are you saying that we should have no guns in the big cities?
View Quote
Nope, just that basing an argument for relaxed gun laws everywhere upon the experience of Vermont is a broken argument. It is comparaing apples and oranges in terms of the on the ground conditions found in Vermont versus those found in down-state New York, DC, LA, Chicago, etc. To make a good argument you need to present a case in which similar communities with similar problems and demographics, confronting the situation in different ways (one different variable) produce different conclusions. For example...lower-middle class community A in Gunhatingville, New Jersey has a crime rate of 25% vs. a rate of 10% in a lower-middle-class community in Gunlovingville, Nevada. Population demographics are the same in both towns with similar income, and lifestyle, the only thing different is more widespread gun ownership in Nevada. Now that would be a compelling argument because it compares apples to apples and comes up with different results thanks to gun ownership. Simplistic arguments don't serve us here. We need to present bomb-proof arguments based on irrefutable facts and with an absolute minimum of optimistic projection added in. Anything that the other side can use to invalidate your argument or simply to cast doubt on it's credibility hurts us. Much of this is pure Sophistry of course. Gun ownership should be liberalized simply because that's the way the Constitution says it should be...all free men (and women by modern extension) should be free to own and bear arms of whatever sort they deem reasonable including military arms. But we don't live in a society that accepts that argument any longer so we must resort to sophistry to defend our rights.
Link Posted: 7/12/2002 10:44:46 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/12/2002 10:47:06 AM EST by bountyhunter]
Simplistic arguments don't serve us here. We need to present bomb-proof arguments based on irrefutable facts and with an absolute minimum of optimistic projection added in. /////// If I have ever learned anything it's that nothing is absolute, impossible, not subject to argument, tell 100 people to stand in line there getting 1000.00 dollars and some will complain that they have to stand in line.
Top Top