Topic RSS | Reply to topic
Author Post

Anonymous


Unregistered

Posted Fri Apr 11th, 2008 11:47pm Post subject: ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!!?
X-D X-D thank you toby!

(i edited the rest of this out because i talk to much.)
(i've made 2021 posts? why?)

Back to top

Fryphile


Member *

Posted Sat Apr 12th, 2008 3:36am Post subject: ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!!?
Guns don't kill people. That's what Chuck Norris is for.

I think of myself as someone who is filled with love, whose only purpose in life was to achieve love. - Stephen Fry

Back to top

Anonymous


Unregistered

Posted Sat Apr 12th, 2008 6:02am Post subject: ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!!?
hahahaha!!!

in those action jeans made of spandex.

Back to top

Britannicus


Member

Posted Sat Apr 12th, 2008 9:39pm Post subject: ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!!?
X-D X-D thank you toby!

(i edited the rest of this out because i talk to much.)
(i've made 2021 posts? why?)

X-D X-D I think we all enjoy what you have to say, so talk away!

"Your room...it's CLEAN!!!"
"I prayed to God...and...it happened...but...where's my million dollars and horse!? Damn it!"

Back to top

Bishop of Attleborough


Member

Posted Sat Apr 12th, 2008 10:07pm Post subject: ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!!?
I'm not sure you even need a study to suspect that particular statistic. It seems fairly evident that access to guns at the workplace increases (at the very least) the likelihood of a shooting at that workplace as opposed to one that does not allow firearms on the property.That doesn't strike me as evident at all. Workplace shootings tend to be premeditated affairs (in that the shooter brings a firearm to the workplace for the express purpose of killing someone), and a disgruntled (ex-)employee who is already intending to commit one or violations of the laws against aggravated assault and homicide isn't going to be deterred by a company policy against firearms in the workplace, especially when he (usually a he) is about to be, or already has been, dismissed, which is the severest penalty the company could possibly impose on him for violating their policy on firearms.

Perhaps you could twiddle the statistics to "prove" that incidents of workplace homicide using firearms occur more often in workplaces where firearms are not prohibited than in ones that do, if you count incidents without regard to the body count produced by each incident (so that two single homicides are counted as more severe than one triple homicide). But what do the shootings at the post office in Edmond, OK (20-Aug-1986; 14 dead not including the shooter, 6 wounded), Westside Middle School near Jonesboro, AR (24-Mar-1998; 5 dead, 10 wounded), Columbine High School (20-Apr-1999; 13 dead not including the shooters, 23 wounded), Red Lake High School in Red Lake, MN (21-Mar-2005; 9 dead not including the shooter, 15 wounded), West Nickel Mines School in Lancaster County, PA (02-Oct-2006; 5 dead not inluding the shooter, 5 wounded), Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City, UT (5 dead not including the shooter, 4 wounded), Virginia Tech (16-Apr-2007; 32 dead not including the shooter, 17 wounded by gunfire), Westroads Square Mall in Omaha, NE (05-Dec-2007; 8 dead not including the shooter, 4 wounded) and Northern Illinois University at DeKalb, IL (14-Feb-2008; 5 dead not including the shooter, 18 wounded) have in common?

They all took place in locations where private citizens were prohibited from possessing firearms, either by statute or by institutional/corporate policy. To that list, we can arguably add the shooting at Luby's Restaurant in Killeen, TX (16-Oct-1991; 23 dead not including the shooter, 20 wounded), since the shooter used handguns in violation of a Texas law prohibiting private citizens from carrying handguns "on or about their person" except on their own property, a law which dates back to the 1870s (incredible as that may sound, but then, originally, it was primarily intended to disarm blacks).

So it's notable how a lot of the headline-grabbing shootings took place in spite of bans on firearms in the locations where they occurred, and in particular the ones with the higher casualty figures, like Columbine and Virginia Tech. Of course, you could sidestep that by defining only employees of the facility as victims of "workplace violence," which would mean that dead students, shoppers and diners in "gun-free zones" don't count as victims. But since the Reuters article doesn't actually cite any of the studies, I can't check the methodology.

One thing I can note is that in Lethal Violence: A Sourcebook on Fatal Domestic, Acquaintance and Stranger Aggression (Harold V. Hall, CRC Press, 1999), the author notes that:In over 71% of cases [of workplace violence], factors external to the workplace contributed to the violent acts (disgruntled customers/clients, personal/domestic disputes, mentally ill, and criminals).(P. 326; you can find it on Google Books)
In other words, in over 2/3 of cases of violence in the workplace, the perpetrator isn't an employee (and can therefore not be threatened with dismissal for violating workplace policy on firearms). Hall also notes that:[...] the data indicated that criminals engaged in robbery attempts are responsible for the largest number (27.38%) of workplace violence acts [...]Now, if you were a robber, armed or otherwise, wouldn't you rather rob a store that you know prohibits its employees from carrying firearms than one that doesn't?
(Geez, there's a thought: what if these uncited studies don't distinguish between justifiable and non-justifiable homicides? It would figure that there'd be more shootings in self-defense in workplaces that allowed employees to carry than in ones that didn't.)

I get that it's the law and I do genuinely believe hunters and such have a right to their weapons (I'm less convinced about handguns, personally) [...]Actually, I don't believe there is a codified right to possess firearms that are primarily suited for hunting or sporting purposes; there's not much use for over-under shotguns or .22 LR biathlon rifles in militia service (whereas armed forces most assuredly do use handguns).

"Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He’d been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a post-graduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me." - Terry Pratchett, Jingo

Back to top

Bishop of Attleborough


Member

Posted Sat Apr 12th, 2008 10:07pm Post subject: ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!!?
Anyway, there was a lot of argument about it when the laws were going through, and you'd be amazed how many people talked about their 'right to bear arms'. Daft, but I was talking to a copper friend, and she said when questioning some idiots, theyd refuse to speak, saying 'I'll take the 5th'. Honestly, some folks must think we're a state of the US!!! Too much telly probably.I don't know how else one would colloquially express one's desire to exercise one's right against self-incrimination, since there is no such right in Australia; formally being allowed to refuse to incriminate oneself is a privilege in Australia, not a right. Now that's scary.

However, there is a general acknowledgement on the part of the Australian judiciary that there exists a "right to remain silent," derived from Common Law; this is, however, a non-statutory "right" and has been established through jurisprudence. Now, that raises an interesting point, which is that evidently, you can possess certain rights even absent formal codification. Do you think your rights to freedom of speech and religion would cease to exist if you were to say foot on, say, Saudi Arabian soil? Or would you prefer to say that, while you'd consider it prudent not to fully exercise those rights, you still had them and never mind what the Saudi government thinks?

So maybe the fact that there's no formally codified right to keep and bear arms in Australia doesn't make it "daft" to claim that such a right does exist.
To add insult to injury, if you DO get shot there, and let's face it, you've more chance of it happening there than in the rest of the western world, there's no national health service to look after you, so if you're uninsured that's a doubly whammy.I don't know what kind of weird notions you have about the American medical system, but if you come into a hospital Emergency Room with a gunshot wound, you will get treatment, regardless of your ability to pay.

And while you do, statistically speaking, run a higher risk of being shot in the US than elsewhere in the "western world" (whatever that means), your chances of being beaten, stabbed, or otherwise assaulted by means other than a firearm are unremarkable. In fact, they're a good deal lower than in most north-western European countries.

"Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He’d been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a post-graduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me." - Terry Pratchett, Jingo

Back to top

Anonymous


Unregistered

Posted Sat Apr 12th, 2008 10:39pm Post subject: ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!!?

I get that it's the law and I do genuinely believe hunters and such have a right to their weapons (I'm less convinced about handguns, personally) [...]Actually, I don't believe there is a codified right to possess firearms that are primarily suited for hunting or sporting purposes; there's not much use for over-under shotguns or .22 LR biathlon rifles in militia service (whereas armed forces most assuredly do use handguns).

Quite simply I question the good sense of anyone who would join a militia. For me, personally, it simply does not compute. Hunting, I guess, sport shooting, sure, but militias...no. Doesn't work for me. *shrug*

Back to top

Bishop of Attleborough


Member

Posted Sun Apr 13th, 2008 2:23am Post subject: ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!!?
Quite simply I question the good sense of anyone who would join a militia. For me, personally, it simply does not compute. Hunting, I guess, sport shooting, sure, but militias...no. Doesn't work for me. *shrug*
To clarify, I'm not talking about "militias" in sense of Christian Identity/Posse Comitatus/Aryan Nation/Freemen-type whackjobs. I'm talking about militias in the sense of citizens called to armed government service in times of crisis, as in the Militia Acts of 1792 and 1903, or the "cadre-militia" model of conscript armies that most European countries had until recently.

"Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He’d been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a post-graduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me." - Terry Pratchett, Jingo

Back to top

Anonymous


Unregistered

Posted Sun Apr 13th, 2008 3:15am Post subject: ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!!?
Quite simply I question the good sense of anyone who would join a militia. For me, personally, it simply does not compute. Hunting, I guess, sport shooting, sure, but militias...no. Doesn't work for me. *shrug*
To clarify, I'm not talking about "militias" in sense of Christian Identity/Posse Comitatus/Aryan Nation/Freemen-type whackjobs. I'm talking about militias in the sense of citizens called to armed government service in times of crisis, as in the Militia Acts of 1792 and 1903, or the "cadre-militia" model of conscript armies that most European countries had until recently.

I know. I still don't get it. It just comes up as a just '???' when I think about it. 'Must be the way vegetarians feel about people who eat meat. Just an overwhelming "WHY"? (or at least that's how I feel about vegetarians!)

Back to top

Bishop of Attleborough


Member

Posted Mon Apr 14th, 2008 9:37am Post subject: ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!!?
Very frequently, the answer is "because the law requires you to." As an able-bodied 37 year-old male with US citizenship, I am in the militia (albeit the "unorganized militia"), per USC Section 10.311. Since I retained my Dutch citizenship, I'm also in the Dutch militia (that is to say, the inactive reserve of the Royal Netherlands Army), and could theoretically be mobilized in the event of an attack upon a NATO member state.

So there you are, I'm in no fewer than two militias, and the reason why is in both cases because I am legally obliged to be.

"Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He’d been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a post-graduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me." - Terry Pratchett, Jingo

Back to top